Redefining Moneyball?
by baseballgirl on Jan 15, 2010 8:00 AM PST
63 comments
Because this is an ESPN insider article, I will limit the quotes, but I thought this article from Dave Cameron was an interesting read on the changes in the organizations of the Red Sox, Mariners and A's.
The article opens with (what else?) a summary of Moneyball and the Oakland A's:
The Oakland Athletics were held up as the model organization, the team that won by ignoring the traditions of baseball and finding value in underappreciated assets -- the most prominent of those at the time being slow, unathletic, career minor leaguers who draw walks to avoid making outs.
Both of these Moneyball definitions are correct; the A's a) ignored the previous traditions of baseball and b) found value in underappreciated assets; the assets at the time happened to be players with high on-base percentages who may or may not have been able to wear designer jeans.
It was also noted that the A's were despised by those dubbed "old-school baseball", who valued speed and defense more than OBP and the like.
But now, in an attempt to chase the current undervalued assets, the tables have turned. Teams that are using the nerd-stats approach that the A's made popular have abandoned power-hitting oafs in favor of athletic defenders who can run like the wind.
Of course, the article's premise is that with the reverse-Moneyball effect, the team that has taken advantage of this shift the most is the Boston Red Sox. To sum up: The Red Sox have coined New Moneyball, which is building a team to the opposite of what was valued in the Moneyball era.
Don't get me wrong, the shift toward speed has certainly been noted on AN, especially in the second half of the 2009 season, as it felt like the A's stole more bases in three months than in the previous five seasons.
Boston is rebuilding, as well. As noted in the article, instead of looking for power (was that really a characteristic of Moneyball?), the Red Sox let Bay walk. Dave Cameron opines that the undervalued commodity this season might be defense, and that Mike Cameron and Adrian Beltre are the answer.
Neither Cameron nor Beltre can match Bay's production at the plate, but they can run circles around him in the field. Defense is where Epstein saw an opportunity to improve in the most cost-efficient way, so out went the burly slugger with bad range and in came a couple of average hitters whose stardom is measured in Web Gems.
"New Moneyball" has replaced OBP with ultimate zone ratings, and he cites the Rays, the Mariners, the Red Sox and yes, the Oakland A's as the new followers.
Beane now believes that having three center fielders tracking down every fly ball hit will make up for the fact that his three starting outfielders combined to hit 12 home runs in 2009.
[Cringe]
Of course that raises the question, "Does Beane really believe that, or is that just what he's working with in 2010?" Beane clearly picked Coco Crisp, but was there truly an overarching plan in mind?
For those of you (me) who are new to UZR:
Zone Ratings:
DG (defensive games): The number of outs made by an average fielder at his position given the exact distribution of balls in play for that player divided by the number of outs an average player at that position makes per game.
exO (expected outs): The number of outs plus reached base errors that would be made by an average fielder given the distribution of balls in play while that fielder was on the field.
RngR (range runs): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, determined by how the fielder is able to get to balls hit in his vicinity.
ErrR (error runs): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, determined by the number of errors he makes as compared to an average fielder at that position given the same distribution of balls in play.
UZR (ultimate zone rating): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs and error runs combined.
UZR/150 (ultimate zone rate per 150 games): The number of runs above or below average a fielder is, per 150 defensive games.
So New Moneyball? What do you think? And do you agree with the last line:
What was old is new again, and 2010 will be the year that the scouts and statheads finally come to an agreement on how a team should be built.
0 recs |
63 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
the actual stat du jour is arbitrary
the first quote after the jump has a good point in it. moneyball is about capitalizing on whatever quality/trait everybody else is undervaluing at the time. when moneyball was written, OPS was undervalued so that’s where beane looked for the bargains. currently, speed and defense are undervalued, so that’s where he and others are looking for an advantage. he knows he can’t outbid other teams for high OPS or high HR guys, so he’ll take what he can get in those areas and look for a trait where he can have players who perform better than those of the competition at a better price.
who knows, in 4 years the undervalued metric of the day might be OPS again, and we’ll have writers going on about how the genius of billy beane was a long-term thing. it’s annoying how writers have to dumb it down by pointing out a specific statistical measure instead of taking a step back and looking at/understanding the big picture philosophy. then again, dumbing it down always provides an opportunity for cheap journalism with a lot of exclamation points and blanket statements. c’est la vie…
BK: This guy is on fire, he is really smokin'.
KenKo: Oh yeah, Bill? What's he smokin'?
PS
a conclusion to what i said in the first post is that “New Moneyball” doesn’t actually exist. it’s still the same old Moneyball. if you think it’s different than before because speed and defense are being targeted rather than OPS, you don’t get it.
BK: This guy is on fire, he is really smokin'.
KenKo: Oh yeah, Bill? What's he smokin'?
by jlanning17 on Jan 15, 2010 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
You are exactly right.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
oui, precisement ca
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.
Exactly.
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Jan 15, 2010 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
I'm pretty sure you mean OBP, not OPS.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Beane and defense
After what Beane saw last year the value of defense went up in his mind. This is why the A’s are not actively going after Adam Kennedy who is a good bat but played horrible defense at third last year. It is also why he didn’t give Cust a raise. With Cust in the outfield he cost the A’s a few games. It is bad when a opposing TV broad caster questions why didn’t Cust catch that ball. This is something the A’s tv/radio people cover up the last few years. Almost as bad as when Jason Giambi played left when he first came up.
Cust did not cost the A's "a few games" in the outfield last year
He cost them about half a win in the time he was actually out there. Had he been out there all season, yes, it would have been a couple games.
www.zekeishungry.com
I believe there were some late inning flubs
And some early ones too, that felt like they lost the game.
Certainly not the same as a statistic, but a sense that a few specific games that we should have won, but lost due to Cust-errs. ( And I know that any replacement fielder would also make errors.)
Statistics aside...
…can anyone actually think of a game the A’s likely lost because of a Cust play in the outfield? I remember some errors, but don’t specifically remember any particular one being that costly.
Don't make me watch A's 2009 again
Mercy, please!
Better answer
Many games, Cust was taken out for defensive improvement. Then once the bullpen blew the save, we sorely missed Cust’s bat.
Just don’t make me look at the 162 from last year.
Isn't defense more valuable now that there are fewer HR hit?
Runs are more scarce, so defense is more helpful?
How many blown saves
did the A’s have last year? I thought the A’s biggest strength was the BP.
He split time at third and first in 1995
First, third, and left in 1996 and first and left in 1997.
www.zekeishungry.com
The A's have been targeting defense for a long time before last year
Going back to like 2003, I think. Certainly the post-Big Three teams were built with defense heavily in mind.
Kennedy was terrible on D, but he was a stopgap caused by the fact that the (defensively great) starter was unable to take the field. And just in general, the 2009 A’s were probably the worst defensive team fielded by the franchise since 2001 or maybe 2002.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
I wouldn't give all the credit to the Red Sox.
The Mariners did a fantastic job last year, acquiring Gutierrez and immediately giving him the starting CF job. Here’s a link to their FanGraphs page. Their defense was otherworldly last year.
by Opus Youngblood on Jan 15, 2010 8:45 AM PST reply actions
Their defense was "otherworldly" because they played the A's
nineteen times last year, IMO. Instead of HRs, the Athletics provided “fieldable BIPs”.
Awaiting the start of the 2010 season!
by One won lost won on Jan 15, 2010 1:42 PM PST up reply actions
It would be nice to have the revenue of the Redsox and other high revenue teams
when you can buy any player you want- its pretty easy to get anything you want.
Beltre, Scutaro, Cameron, Lackey…
Lance "you sunk my" Blankenship
Don't get me wrong..
I understand you point about outspending others when you have a higher budget, but word is that Beane probably outbid the Sox for a few of these FA’s only to be turned down by the players themselves because 1) Didn’t want to play in Oakland 2) Had opportunity to win a WS 3) Wanted to cash in long term by driving up their offensive numbers at other places than Mt. Davis.
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
by ST on Jan 15, 2010 9:49 AM PST up reply actions
A naive question regarding contract negotiations
3) Wanted to cash in long term by driving up their offensive numbers at other places than Mt. Davis.
I realize that this is a real concern for players, but I’ve always wondered why this is so, at least for the typical player (e.g., a player who isn’t likely to pick up lucrative endorsement deals, or isn’t likely to break any offense-related records). I have to think that a player’s park-adjusted stats are taken into account during contract negotiations (even if the team initially tries to low-ball the player by focusing on the relatively lower absolute numbers produced by playing in a “bad” ballpark). I can see why fans might not appreciate what the player accomplished at the Coliseum or similar park, but a GM should. I’m sure I’m missing something totally obvious.
by Ray of Lite on Jan 15, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
I suspect there are a lot GMs who do care
and those that don’t care will use that in their contract leverage. If the other GMs don’t like him, why should the one’s that don’t care pay more when the supply/demand scenario doesn’t work in the player’s advantage.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
A quote on Aubrey Huff...
“The more we examined what he has done and what we need, we thought this would be a good fit,” Sabean said. “Even in a down year (in 2009, when he hit .241), he drove in 85 runs, which is something we needed.”
There are still GMs out there who just don’t get it! /facepalm
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"Any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us." - Wolff
by ST on Jan 15, 2010 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Only one of those three proposed reasons carries much weight IMO...
…that the teams in question were seen as having an “opportunity to win a WS”. And that’s another way of saying those teams spend more money, giving them better players (overall), which maximizes the chance of individual and team success (i.e., winning and earning more money in the future). For example, a team of strong hitters like the Yankees generally won’t perform as well individually if broken up and placed on teams with weaker hitters. Protection in a strong line-up boosts numbers for everyone.
I don’t think wanting (or not wanting) to play in Oakland or at the Coliseum is a significant factor in most cases when balanced against more dollars.
by andyinfremont on Jan 15, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
Defense was important to the A's during Moneyball
But it was hard to quantify accurately and thus offensive numbers, particularly OBP, where given a higher priority. Now that we be better score defensive value it makes it easier to price and shop accordingly.
The monster at the end of this blog.
That makes it sound like they were opposed to scouting altogether. Wouldn’t they pick a guy who was great defensively because someone on their staff told them so? There is no UZR for prospects and regardless, the quality of UZR is suspect at best despite Cameron’s shilling.
Hard to determine under/over valued traits with such rough information though
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Agreed
I seem to remember that even in the book itself, when talking about letting Johnny Damon walk, either Beane or someone in the A’s front office said that he saved them X runs in the field while adding Y runs with the bat (I don’t remember the exact numbers off-hand). The impression I remember from the book (don’t have my copy with me at work) is that at the time defense was relatively highly-valued in the MLB marketplace, so that Damon was going to cost too much as an FA.
Ive always thought Theo Epstien just ripped off whatever idea Beane was really hot on
If you read the Moneyball script (the Zaillian draft thats actually awesome), it ends with Beane frantically trying to grease as many wheels as he could to try and scare teams away from Youkilis, as well as trying to trade with SD for Jason Bay. Bay is whatever, but Youk was truly the original face of Moneyball, and both were in Boston. Since then both Scutaro and Beltre have turned down more money/years from Beane to go with Theo, because Theo saw what Beane was doing and cut him off at the pass.
What I’m trying to say is that Theo just sits back and watches Beane, and then gets his people to try and figure out what the trend is going to be (Because Beane is the #1 trendsetter). Its at the point where Theo knows what Billy is doing while Billy is doing it. Its smart, because Theo also has the power to buy the best players available in addition to this. This new pro-defense Red Sox are going to be awesome. It just sucks what happened with Scoot&Beltre, which, by the way begs the question: what the HELL is going on here?
no hope
No hope for popularity/all-star status, no fans in attendance, cement block stadium, Oakland image of “crime riddled city”, and a team too young to compete.
It’s a rough go for the A’s brand right now, and we all know this is what’s driving the stadium development.
You’re right on PL, and Beane is probably pretty tired of the “wiz kid” stealing his hard work with a flashy sign that says “Chowdah.” For now, our only hope lies in trading for pre-star talent and hopefully locking it in…..No! You lock it up! People seem pretty positive on our past couple #1 picks so hopefully we’re set down the road. But i think the only way we grab some players is via trade.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
Hiw does epstein know what beane is up to? Does he have spies in the A's front office or something?
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
Its not spying
Its spotting trends, its having people in his front office analyzing Beane’s moves in terms of a bigger picture and whatnot. Once the code is cracked on what Beane is after (in this years case its defense and Beltre) Theo comes in and swipes up whoever he thinks Beane would go for aka undervalued. Id say it was more in draft scenarios previously, but its starting to seep over into the big leagues now.
There’s also teams like Seattle who are late to the party and just try and get as many A’s off the scrapheap as possible.
I have a hard time believing this conspiracy
from an organization that employs Bill James.
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
that guy is a hack.
siiike.
Im pretty sure many pundits have called Theo “Beane with a large budget” before. Its nothing new.
Right but I don't think he's copying beane, they're just both on the cutting edge of things.
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
by Cheezombie on Jan 16, 2010 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Mariners claimed Tommy Everidge?
I didn’t know that.
Good for him
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does.
Hm
Well, I was wrong about him clearing waivers. On the other hand, since he seems like a nice guy and it might help his career, I’m not unhappy to be wrong.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Hate to lose Everidge in the event Barton tanks again
The odds of having to call up Carter or Doolittle in 2010 just went up a bit (unless Fox/Miles are the backup plan for Barton, which could be after the Kouz/Hairston trade).
I would have rather DFA’d Eveland, who looked horrible last year. Maybe he’ll bounce back and be an OK swing man this year, but if he stinks again we have to release him anyway (no more options).
by andyinfremont on Jan 15, 2010 5:13 PM PST up reply actions
With 3B now occupied, this is a moot point
as Fox is now the clear secondary option at 1B.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
Cameron is just marketing himself and Fangraphs
He’s on a campaign to prop up Fangraphs’ WAR (which includes UZR) as some grand synthesis of stats and scouts. He’s trying to say it’s bringing old school back. There are two glaring problems with his argument.
What was old is new again, and 2010 will be the year that the scouts and statheads finally come to an agreement on how a team should be built.
First, using UZR—or whatever proprietary metric teams use—is not old school. It is, in no way, a blending of scouts and stats. Cameron and Fangraphs are saying that smart teams look at defensive metrics. He is not saying, nor has he ever said, that smart teams are relying more on their scouts for defensive analysis. It’s a complete crock for him to argue that using UZR is scout-friendly.
Scouts and stats generally agree on measuring offensive production. Yes, there are occasional differences, but everyone generally agrees on how valuable a player’s offense is. This is much less true for fielding. Scouts are much more comfortable looking at offensive stats for major leaguers than they are looking at defensive stats. By saying smart teams use defensive metrics, he’s implying that smart teams ignore their scouts when it comes to defense. This undermines his whole campaign.
Second, it’s flat dishonest to say that reliance on advanced defensive metrics is some newfangled, post-Moneyball phenomenon. Moneyball explicitly discussed the defensive metrics the A’s were using, and it sounded a helluva lot like UZR. They gave a run value for each batted ball, and assigned the fielder the credit/blame for deviating from that average run value. The A’s have been a fundamentally sound defensive team since they traded Grieve for Ellis and Damon back in 2001. There is absolutely nothing post-Moneyball about using defensive metrics.
Cameron is not arguing that Beltre is a good player because he looks good in jeans. Rather, he’s saying that Beltre is a good player because UZR and WAR say he is a good player. This is precisely the way the A’s treated defense, as described in Moneyball. No one ever said that jeans models should be ignored; rather, everyone said they shouldn’t be judged solely by how good they look in jeans.
Cameron is beating down a strawman in hopes of making himself and his web site more relevant. It’s transparent and dishonest.
by Danny on Jan 15, 2010 10:17 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
I like this post
this is a little off topic: I agree that Cameron is pushing his UZR method as the be all/end all when it is extraordinaily flawed to the point where it doesnt even include catchers. Dewans plus/minus system is better yet isnt included on fangraphs. Neither is perfect though, to attain that perfect defensive metric you would have to have all fielders make the exact same play on the exact same hitter multiple times to see how many times fielder A got to the ball better and threw out runner A than fielder B. These would have to be done in simulated real-game situations many times over. Its nearly impossible to get every player together to even do this.
That being said, I love the idea of total wins above replacement player. Wouldnt we all like to have a nice clean number that equates everything a player does?
Without having an Insider account, I can't verify this, so I have to ask the audience
but is there actually any point in this article where he says that UZR and scouting are related to one another? Certainly none of the posted quotes support that reading. BBG’s quotations simply make it sound like he’s saying that scouts and statisticians currently support the hiring of players with similar skillsets.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
by PaulThomas on Jan 15, 2010 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It's this
Basically he’s saying that Moneyball has swung back to what the “traditionalists” like, and that everyone can get along now. Well, something like that anyway
by rrryanc on Jan 15, 2010 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That's not the same as some kind of misleading assertion
that UZR and scouting are the same thing.
Two things can converge on the same result without using the same process to get there; eg birds and butterflies look similar, despite the fact that they are hundreds of millions of years apart on the evolutionary tree.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
by PaulThomas on Jan 15, 2010 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yea well
we will see what the “experts” (and by experts I mean biased reporters) over at ESPN have to say when the Sux finish in 3rd place in the AL East because Scutaro doesnt live up to his stats from last year (contract year btw) and is not, contrary to popular belief in Sux land, a good defender. When they are heavily relying on JD Drew to be their main offensive weapon, all the defense in the world wont help.
Why buy good luggage? You only use it when you travel. - Yogi Berra
Jack Z
is really really good. And what makes it impressive is that he is doing this amongst better informed GMs (Not so fast Dayton Moore…).
It’s almost impossible to say who is better (Z and Beane) with all the other factors that are involved: owner involvement, salary restrictions, to an extent injuries, etc…That said, it’s just fun to be in a division with three pretty good ones in Jon Daniels, Jack Z, and Billy Beane. And it’s also fun to know that Tony Reagins is not good, and he manages (generally) the Angels.
As an aside, I’m with Opus Youngblood in that Death-to-flying-things is really really good. And that I hope the run prevention numbers in our OF can reach those levels.
With a Crisp, Davis, Sweeney outfield, it probably will.
The offense is going to be painful...keep reminding me of the defense ;-)
"Bobby Crosby at third is a bit of an adventure. And not like, here’s some hidden treasure, what fun. More like, gah! poison ants!" --alea iacta est
by baseballgirl on Jan 15, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
Misinterpretation of Moneyball
It always angers me when I see established baseball writers like Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe misinterpret Moneyball. Moneyball is not about slow fat baseball players with high OBP. Moneyball is about the stockmarket. Its a financial book, that is why it was writtent by a writer who traditionally wrote about financial markets. Its about finding undervalued assets in the market (high OBP but below average athleticism), exploiting those assets, selling high and then moving on to another class of undervalued assets (defense, speed).
Moneyball is not George Will’s “Men at Work”, which also put the A’s in a good light.
by StewCrew on Jan 15, 2010 11:50 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Yes, this is right
I share this frustration in seeing many writer misinterpret the thesis of Moneyball. The idea is to find players with skills that are undervalued. At the time the book was researched, the undervalued skill was getting on base and slugging, Beane uses objective research (statistical analysis) to identify those players who possessed those skills.
The reason Beane uses statistics is because there is less bias – he trusts them more. Lewis did a good job of pointing out in the book that Beane prefers this approach because it’s more reliable than “old school” ways of scouting. Beane himself was a “can’t miss guy” who had all the speed, all the strength, all the tools…and he didn’t pan out as a ballplayer.
As time went on, OPS was not undervalued anymore. The new undervalued skill was the ability to prevent runs. New statistics were created to try and measure this and identify players who were the best at preventing runs.
There is no “new” Moneyball. The theory and application of the theory have not changed.
Go A's!
I would reverse the direction of the causality
in your “that is why” sentence.
The story of the A’s under Beane is not a markets story looking for a financial writer. It became a markets story because the guy who wrote it happened to be someone who is accustomed to seeing things through that particular lens.
The nature of the story was greatly influenced by the author’s chosen angle — eg, pretty much ignoring the big three pitchers.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
No harmony
Is Cameron joking? The idea of scouting is fundamentally different than advanced statistics. Scouting is invariably biased, and sometimes relies too heavily on subjective measurements. Statistics, on the other hand, attempt to find patterns of objective performance from an ocean of raw data.
As long as there are guys going to see high school players in nowhere cities, and meeting their parents, girlfriends, and talking to their coaches, there will always be players who are misvalued due to personal characteristics. That same bias, then, goes into the team construction, especially when it comes to defense. Defense just isn’t sexy to watch except in some rare cases, and even the defensive stats aren’t rock solid.
In fact, I’ll venture to say that as defensive stats increase in use and precision, the rift between scouting and stats will only get larger.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
Defensive metrics are loaded with biases
Being subjective isn’t inherently bad. The data collection that goes into things like defensive metrics are frequently subjective judgements.
I don’t follow the argument that adding data, meeting parents etc., is a negative.
I think there are a lot of people who love watching defense.
Moneyball
is getting the least valued commodity, it was OBP, now it’s defense and speed, people really never understood what Billy was doing…
The Truth Is......
now that most teams are taking the Bill James Saber-metric approach, taking advantage of undervalued assets, what is undervalued is constantly changing. I think that the rest of the league will be quick to adjust in the next year or two, and once again, the A’s and others will have to readjust to what is currently undervalued at the time.
The days of constants in valuation are over. Everything is variable and in constant flux, in accordance with supply and demand, and current valuation trends. It was OBP, now it may be UZR, and in the next year or two it will shift again. It wont take a decade for the rest of the league to adjust this time, and Im sure Billy and others are already tabulating values for the future changes that are immanent.
"I mean, come on, man. I'm a vet. Don't talk to me like that. If they do, I'll just smile." Nnamdi Asomugha
how many times have i read this in the past month?
i guess this is what they mean by “deja vu all over again”…
in another few weeks redefining moneyball will be as played out as moneyball itself.
do the kids still use the term played out?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
(basically i'm not fond of dave cameron)
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones."
-BB 07/27/05
yup. it's all true.
I ran some (rather crude) regressions and found that a team with a better UZR did indeed prevent more runs than a poorer defensive team. In fact, it turned out that one point of UZR was extremely close to one less run allowed.
But when I tested UZR to see if it had any effect on a player’s salary, the answer was no. Teams pay for the ability to play a premium defensive position, not for the ability to play it better than his peers. So there is free money (to some extent) in the ability to pick up players who’s value is tied to their defense.
Now as for who gets to be the new moneyball flagship team, I have no idea. It seemed to me that the A’s tried to use this idea as early as the middle part of the decade, they just haven’t been all that successful at winning with it.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
Related FanShots on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
