Moneyball

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Whether you have or haven't read the book, you have doubtless heard about it from commentators or columnists. I'd like to know what your thoughts are on Moneyball, the so-called Moneyball philosophy, or statheads in general. What are your thoughts, opinions, or feelings (positive or negative). Hopefully I can help dispel some of the myths.

[razazteca 0]

I know nothing about it but have heard the term used on tv so I am guessing it has something to do with the A's pitchers?

[Brett Favre 0]

I'm not 100% sure what Moneyball is, but it doesn't seem to work in the playoffs.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well, all I can tell you about Moneyball is Oakland A's Billy Beane Makes Sabermetric Revolution For Small-Market Spending Doesn't Measure Heart In the Playoffs.

 

 

In other words I have no clue what Moneyball is.

[MrRant 0]

I thought Moneyball was a form of state sponsored gambling.

[Bored 0]

The sequel to Moneyball should be about Bill Bavasi running the Mariners.

[razazteca 0]

The sequel to Moneyball should be about Bill Bavasi running the Mariners.

Or Dan Synder running the Washington Redskins.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Moneyball itself details the Oakland A's and their strategy for winning on a small budget, through smart player acquisition and efficient on-field strategy.

 

The Moneyball strategy has been used to label the A's and their strategy, as well as the Blue Jays, and to a lesser extent the Red Sox and the Dodgers. It involves an abhorance of the sacrifice bunt, limited use of the stolen base, and a general avoidance of "small ball" strategies.

[MrRant 0]

The sequel to Moneyball should be about Bill Bavasi running the Mariners.

Fuck you man.

[Bored 0]

To add to that Moneyball is acquring what is undervalued by the market and getting the maximum out of your investment.

Fuck you man.

Rant you know I'm kidding. Well sorta. Your telling me you wouldn't want to read Bavasi talking about Rich Aurillia's veteran presence and how Carlos Guillen was bad for team chemistry?

[treble 0]

I was more a fan of Moneyball last year than I am this year, not that this horrible season has really been any fault of J.P. Ricciardi.

 

As for the actual book, I'll probably be getting for my birthday next week and if not, I'll just pick it up sometime after that.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I was more a fan of Moneyball last year than I am this year, not that this horrible season has really been any fault of J.P. Ricciardi.

 

Of any losing team, the Blue Jays could be the most promising in the future. They have several young players on the rise, and it'll be interesting to see what J.P. does with Carlos Delgado's money this offseason.

[treble 0]

Oh, I know, but this season has been so fucking horrible that it's clouding my vision.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Still, I'd rather have a losing team with a plan than the nonsense I'm currently being subjected to.

[Bored 0]

Another thing to say is what Moneyball is though of now will change as the years go by. As more teams adopt the A's strategy the less effective the strategy actually works when you have more and more teams doing the exact same thing (emphasizing on base percentage, not using "small ball"). Think of Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense in football. It became so synonymous with the 49ers during the 80's. By the early 90's it seemed most of the NFL was running their own West Coast Offense and those teams didn't exactly all produce the results of the 80's 49ers.

 

In the end Moneyball is more about buying low and selling high than it is about on base percentage.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Another thing to say is what Moneyball is though of now will change as the years go by. As more teams adopt the A's strategy the less effective the strategy actually works when you have more and more teams doing the exact same thing (emphazing on base percentage, not using "small ball"). Think of Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense in football. It became so synonymous with the 49ers during the 80's. By the early 90's it seemed most of the NFL was running their own West Coast Offense and those teams didn't exactly all produce the results of the 80's 49ers.

 

In the end Moneyball is more about buying low and selling high than it is about on base percentage.

Perhaps, but the On Base Percentage emphasis will remain because its the most efficient method of producing runs, and there is 125 years of data to back that up. The methods of reaching base, however, could very well change, and smart teams will always look for the undervalued methods.

[Guest Rrrsh]

I think it hasn;t won shit yet. Oakland hasn't won a bloody playoff series yet, and another Moneyball product is in Toronto and failing misrable.

 

The best strategy is build a young rotation who wont break down in the post-season, a quick team who can hit and run along with a heart who can hit the ball out of the park.

[Bored 0]

No I wasn't saying OBP was going to lose it's value as more teams try to acquire players with good plate patience but to just use it as an example of it being so engrained into people's minds on how the A's run things. Some people think Moneyball is just about acquiring guys who walk a lot and can't run.

[treble 0]

The best strategy is build a young rotation who wont break down in the post-season, a quick team who can hit and run along with a heart who can hit the ball out of the park.

You're going to have a heart bat clean-up? Does it have arms?

[Bored 0]

Barry Bonds hits all those homeruns because his heart is just really, really big. All these years I kept hearing he had no heart!

[razazteca 0]

It's abnormally large due to the use of certain BALCO products.

[Guest MRK]

Moneyball is a joke. The A's are like 0-9 when it comes to close out games in the playoffs. They win during the regular season because of Hudson, Mulder and Zito. It's easy to rack up wins playing average teams in the regular season but it's tougher playing against the other elite teams in the post season.

 

Art Howe is not a good manager with his laid back attitude, look at how the Mets are doing right now. Rick Peterson is no genius with his scientific pitching methods. He may claim it did wonders in Oakland but it hasn't done jack for the Mets. If Howe and Peterson are so great why is it that Leiter, Franco and Glavine practically run the team.

 

When Mike & the Mad Dog had the author on their show, he sounded like such a fool and a shill for Billy Beane.

[Guest GreatOne]

how Carlos Guillen was bad for team chemistry?

 

That's turned out to be a mistake, no question. Then again Jose Lopez is up playing some decent ball at short now. The alternative was playing Guillen at third, we've seen over the last five years that third base for the M's has replaced left field as its' black hole (at least in the field): see Davis, Russ; Bell, David; Cirillo, Jeff; Spiezio, Scott; Leone, Justin (since he's on the shelf now).

 

As far as the M's are concerned: Ryan Anderson, Chris Snelling, Michael Garciaparra; what happened? might be a better book.

[strummer 0]

I heard that interview on M + MD, and the author did not come off well. He kept saying the playoffs allow for random occurences and you can't control or predict them. Francessa said that you can control them, if you have a dominant bullpen like the Yankees do. Francessa's basic answer to Moneyball is Marianno Rivera. The A's never win in the playoffs because their bullpen has always performed poorly,basically they don't have a Rivera. I agree with most of the Moneyball philosophy, but the author did not have a response to that, he said "Yes, Rivera is a great relief pitcher". He did not come off well in defending the A's lack of post season success.

[NoCalMike 0]

The one weakness on the A's has been their revolving door at the Closer position. It really has nothing to do with "see Moneyball sucks"

[Guest Olympic Slam]

The book is awesome. I finally read through it a couple of months ago. It actually inspired me to think in a completely different way about using statistics not just for baseball and sports, but for just about anything. Its cool in a geeky kind of way.

[Vern Gagne 0]

The A's haven't had a healthy Big 3 during any of their playoff appearances.

 

Moneyball is fine. Many of the ideas are essential in winning baseball games. However, i've never liked the idea of complety ignoring the "smallball" aspects of the game. Most teams throughout baseball, have done a combination of both and it's worked out.

[Cartman 0]

OBP is wonderful and all, but what good is getting tons of guys on base when nobody can actually knock them in afterwards?

 

Just look at Boston, lead the league in OBP, and runs overall of course, yet also lead in runners left on base. It's a great idea, but you need more than just a bunch of guys who walk alot.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

From MRK.....

 

Art Howe is not a good manager with his laid back attitude, look at how the Mets are doing right now. Rick Peterson is no genius with his scientific pitching methods. He may claim it did wonders in Oakland but it hasn't done jack for the Mets. If Howe and Peterson are so great why is it that Leiter, Franco and Glavine practically run the team.

 

Moneyball barely mentioned Rick Peterson, and had little to say about Art Howe. Those guys were not part of the Moneyball strategists.

 

From Strummer.....

 

I heard that interview on M + MD, and the author did not come off well. He kept saying the playoffs allow for random occurences and you can't control or predict them. Francessa said that you can control them, if you have a dominant bullpen like the Yankees do. Francessa's basic answer to Moneyball is Marianno Rivera. The A's never win in the playoffs because their bullpen has always performed poorly,basically they don't have a Rivera. I agree with most of the Moneyball philosophy, but the author did not have a response to that, he said "Yes, Rivera is a great relief pitcher". He did not come off well in defending the A's lack of post season success.

 

I would like to see Mike & the Mad Dog explain the last three seasons. The Yankees bullpen was slaughtered by the Anaheim Angels in 2002. Baseball itself is very much a random sport, and there is little a general manager can do about that. If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays take two of three from the Yankees, no one really notices. And considering the A's have played the Yankees twice, the Red Sox, and the Twins, its no surprise that luck hasn't shined their way.

 

And I think its worth noting that every time, the Series goes five games. If their failures were due to some failure in strategy, or a fatal error in roster construction that caused them to be unsuitable for the Playoffs, they would get blown out. That hasn't happened.

 

From NoCal Mike.....

 

The one weakness on the A's has been their revolving door at the Closer position. It really has nothing to do with "see Moneyball sucks"

 

It cost them in 2002, but otherwise I wouldn't think its a serious problem. The fans like to see a dominant closer in the 9th for piece of mind, but their effects are overstated. After all, the A's win plenty of games with the revolving door system, and they can spend the cash elsewhere.

 

From Vern Gagne....

 

Moneyball is fine. Many of the ideas are essential in winning baseball games. However, i've never liked the idea of complety ignoring the "smallball" aspects of the game. Most teams throughout baseball, have done a combination of both and it's worked out.

 

In 1996, Bill James wrote a book analyzing baseball managers. Inside, he wrote an article about the sacrifice bunt. In the article, he attacked the notion that there was never a good time for a sacrifice. James argued that the studies were flawed, and there can be times where the sacrifice is successful.

 

Sabermetricians are not set in stone. They are constantly exploring various strategies and methods. If the A's or another team find that the sacrifice can be a useful strategy, they would not be adverse to using it.

 

From Cartman....

 

OBP is wonderful and all, but what good is getting tons of guys on base when nobody can actually knock them in afterwards?

 

Just look at Boston, lead the league in OBP, and runs overall of course, yet also lead in runners left on base. It's a great idea, but you need more than just a bunch of guys who walk alot.

 

We have 125 years of league data at our fingertips. If you go through the statistics and compare each one to runs scored, you will find no statistic correlates better with runs than OBP. The benefits of OBP are not just getting a runner on base. It also avoids outs. A team which makes less outs prolongs the inning, and acquires more run scoring opportunities.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Thanks to SNKT's Invision Board swallowing our version of this thread, I'll be bringing my response over here.

 

I haven't read Moneyball, but far too many people proclaim it to be synonymous with OBP and sabermetrics, when there's some really telling stories about Beane's draft philosophy. Billy Beane's primary philosophy in player acquisition and drafting focuses on players with proven track records in college, rather than high-school phenoms that have better odds for burning out in the minors. If you don't believe this strategy has been put into action, notice this list of players (compiled by Aaron Gleeman at Hardball Times) that were drafted out of high school:

 

Barry Zito

Tim Hudson

Mark Mulder

Rich Harden

Mark Redman

Chad Bradford

Bobby Crosby

Scott Hatteberg

Eric Byrnes

Mark Kotsay

Jermaine Dye

Bobby Kielty

Damian Miller

Adam Melhuse

Mark Ellis

 

Though the A's did not draft all of these players (Kotsay was drafted by Florida, Kielty by Minnesota, etc), they've gone to great lengths to acquire players of this mold.

 

The inherent problem with this method is that is consistently provides talent that is good, but not necessarily great. Though they've came up with big hits with Hudson, Mulder, Zito, and Harden, most of those guys are scrappy veterans, their two greatest players of the last ten years - Miguel Tejada and Jason Giambi - were not of this mold at all and it could very well be argued that much of their prior success comes from these two players, along with the Big Three.