moneyball
I just recently finished reading moneyball (earlier today while recovering from food poisoning), and i thought it was a very interesting book!!
It gave me mixed feelings about beane. In some ways, it paints him as a trading genuis, not overly as bright as others (depo), irrational in many ways, and totally likable.
Lewis didn't seem to do a good job at explaining the 'moneyball' philosophy. He seems to convey it as the pratice of getting useful goods (OBP, P/AB, and others) for cheap because no one really knew about the importance of these stats.
what remained unscene is how much new stats/analysis the a's actually developed themselves. James seems to be the main driving force behind many of the ideas that the a's office was going after. does anyone know how successful the a's have been at creating their own devices for player evaluations?
i thought the most profound idea in the whole book is that a teams weakness can be made up by improvements in other areas. aka the way beane delt with the loss of giambi by making it up by other players, or that individual statistics are much less important than the team statistics.
by the end of the book it seemed as if there was a big dark cloud hanging over me as i thought "the A's are screwed once every team starts doing the same thing, because then they will back to square one"
does anyone have any thoughts on the evolution of the moneyball idea, and if these new approaches of "market inefficiencies" will be able to support the a's for much longer?
0 recs |
16 comments
Comments
well, I think the jury has spoken
Since then it has been 95, 91 and 88. lots of reasons for the decline, but I don't think anyone doubts that Beane and Co.s job has grown tougher as more teams catch on. the red Sox won a WS by shifting to a more Moneyball-oriented approach; Beane himself has signalled the change by abandoning the pursuit of high OBP players in favor of defense, and changing his pitching draft strategy to high schoolers.
Beane is still chasing the market inefficiencies, and doing it well-- but it stands to reason that he has a much smaller margin of error given the increased competition.
by oaktoon on Nov 14, 2005 8:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Moneyball is a General Manager's Book
The GM looks at the whole season, and tries to put the best team together who will, over the course of 162 games, win 10% more games than the average team.
Keep in mind, baseball is a game of small advantages, which lead to slight differences in overall outcome.
What Billy Beane did was figure out how to make his limited budget go farther. You sort of pooh-pooh that, but that's what he did, and what lots of people don't.
Its why he realized that he didn't need Five Tools guys, because not all tools were equal. Its why, during the time of the book, he focused on OBP and college players -- because baseball wasn't paying full value for them, so he got bargains.
Last off-season, by contrast, he saw that baseball was routinely paying too much for starting pitching, so dealt Hudson AND Muldur -- classic Moneyball move: take what the market will give you.
And, in the draft, since the pendulum had swung so much in three years towards college players, he saw an opportunity in undervalued high school kids.
I suspect he is still seeing value in a couple of other areas, some of which aren't even measured. I think there's huge benefits from what I'd call balls in play, the number of batted balls that go fair, comapred with plate appearances. I think Billy has focused on guys who, when they don't walk or get base hits, help the offense by not striking out, putting the ball in play during rallies (preferably on the ground, so players can move up) and who do not give away outs.
by dingerpower on Nov 14, 2005 9:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
don't you think
by jacobo2u on Nov 14, 2005 10:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and not GM's
by jacobo2u on Nov 14, 2005 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"Moneyball's audience..."
by bigelephant on Nov 15, 2005 8:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the audience
by dingerpower on Nov 15, 2005 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right,
Seriously though, JP Ric was on a sports talkshow in Toronto a while back and the radio guy starts talking about Moneyball while using insane absolutes and other misconceptions about Moneyball and JP shuts the dude down and said in effect "...dude, re-read Moneyball because you missed the point of the premise..." LOL!
Geesh, when you go buy the book at Chapter's where do you find it? Not in the "Sports" section beside Arnie's 10 Way's To Get Big Like Me but in the "Business" section!
by bigelephant on Nov 15, 2005 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
Are GIDPs also undervalued? :)
by OaktownTribesman on Nov 14, 2005 10:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
thank God not too many teams are buying into what we do, and prolly never will
by gWiLiKeRzZz on Nov 14, 2005 11:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
that is the whole point
by china bob on Nov 15, 2005 3:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Anyone can do what Bill James does
All one needs is the time, the data, the intuition/creativity, and the knowledge of how to use a speadsheet or SAS applications in order to mine the data and make a model...nothing special.
Because other teams have now also employed these 'statheads' - each one having their own creativity/intuition mix - it has taken some of the advatage away from GMs like Beane who operate with tight budgets. But dodn't forget, a lot of what Beane does is take calculated risks on players that, more often than not, pan out. He then uses that asset (the player) as leverage to target new opportunities and take on new calculated risks in a constant renewal process.
Want to take a stab at how many players remain on the 25-man roster that were also on the 25-man roster at the end of 2001 - just five short years ago? It's okay, you can cheat and look up the answer. And I bet you didn't even realize it. Here's another question,: if you could pay all of the players (only the active ones) from the 2001 25-man roster, how much would it cost an owner today?
by LowcountryJoe on Nov 15, 2005 1:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Only...
Also using 2005 contract dollars and excluding Chavez and Zito, the following players from 2001's roster would be (and make in millions of dollars):
Giambi (13.42)
Tejada (10.73)
Damon (8.25)
Isrinhausen (8.25)
Hudson (6.75)
Mulder (6.55)
Hernandez (4.31)
Dye (4.00)
Lidle (3.00)
Bradford (1.40)
Vizcaino (1.30)
Mecir (1.10)
That's almost the entire cost of the 2005 Athletics team with just three starters, a closer, various bullpen arms, and a defense/lineup minus the LF (too lazy to look up Byrnes), 3B, 2B (too lazy to look up Frank M.), and a DH.
by LowcountryJoe on Nov 15, 2005 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no...
by oaktoon on Nov 17, 2005 8:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but you accounted for that
by oaktoon on Nov 17, 2005 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought soemone here
by doublehustle22 on Nov 15, 2005 3:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 


















