4 ms·

I don't think this is the central thesis of Moneyball. I'm a huge baseball nerd, including on-field and statistical side. The idea behind the WAR (Wins Above

I don't think this is the central thesis of Moneyball. I'm a huge baseball nerd, including on-field and statistical side. The idea behind the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) stat is that you should adjust for context, then evaluate players in that vacuum. Moneyball was about identifying and exploiting market inefficiencies. It actually rejects the team level optimization ("he's a team player" is explicitly rejected as a valuation of a player). Instead, Billy Beane identified what components led to team success, then found which of those the market doesn't pay for. Then he got those guys. Used to be thought that a good baseball team had a speedy leadoff hitter. Teams would play objectively worse players because they thought their style better "fit" their role. Moneyball was the start of the revolution that you just want to get the best players. Then accept that playoffs don't really mean anything other than randomness with small sample sizes.

rsync 9y ago
"Instead, Billy Beane identified what components led to team success, then found which of those the market doesn't pay for. Then he got those guys." Let me ask you - as I am not a baseball nerd - if there is any counter-argument to the BillyBeane/Moneyball/WAR movement ? I don't mean knee-jerk, irrational objections - but real, reasoned counter-hypotheses ?
- ghaff 9y ago
  I'm not sure real counter-hypotheses so much as data only takes you so far. - You can't always predict the future about a given player's performance. - We're still arguing about what the right measures actually are (although there's more data all the time) - There clearly are sometimes cases where personalities and attitude mean some player needs to leave even if his historical stats were good.
- kmonsen 9y ago
  Yeah, the counter argument is that you mess up the team chemistry. This is extremely hard to define and measure so can sort of always be used. Billy Beane is constantly attacked for destroying the looker room chemistry in the local press.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    >>you mess up the team chemistry. True, only if you have a great team already and you don't desire messing it up. If that is the case, you wouldn't need that method at the first place. On the other hand, teams are pretty dynamic these days given the interfaces and responsibilities are well defined. Or at least are largely defined well. So replacing team members is never really a problem.
ghaff 9y ago
Agreed. It's also worth observing for those who might not really be baseball fans that baseball is really less of a team sport than most major sports. Yes, team dynamics can reach toxic levels and sometimes teams seem to outperform their individual roster members. But other than some degree of matching players with positions (pitchers in particular), you mostly want players who would be best/best value on key stats under any coach or any team.
- conjecTech 9y ago
  The entire offensive side of the game pretty clearly violates the notion of independence. In particular, the value of a batter with particular stats is dependent on the batters that come before and after him. This is the reasoning behind stacking people with high on base percentages in front of sluggers. If it were not a team sport, you'd see no clear patterns in line-up. This applies at the team selection level as well. For instance, a player who can draw a lot of walks is worth different amounts to different teams depending on their ability to convert those into runs. The fact that saving a run is nearly equivalent to scoring a run means it bleeds over into the defensive side as well. A phenomenal batter with a high error rate may be of enormous value to one team since their pitching staff strikes out more batters than average while being a terrible addition to another team. If you're still unconvinced, I could throw together some simulations later that might make this clearer.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    That's fair enough. Although I'd argue that it's more a case of assembling an appropriate portfolio than it is a "team" in the way that people normally use that term. (I'd also argue that overall offensive ability trumps a lot of optimization around base stealing or the type of hits.) ADDED: i.e. I'd argue that if populating a roster with about a half dozen All Star sluggers were financially viable, I'd argue that would probably be a pretty effective team however unbalanced.
    - caseysoftware 9y ago
      As covered in Moneyball (the book), the "sluggers" tend to swing at more. So although they may hit home runs, they also tend to strike out a lot too. The actual approach was to get a bunch of people who worked to extend the inning by not getting out.. aka getting on base safely. You don't need many big hits when you can get singles and doubles consistently. A couple years ago, I met a small scale angel investment group that complained "we haven't had a unicorn" but when we chatted more, I found out 60% of their investments were acquired in under five years with them making ~5x each time. Not as sexy but sounds like a good strategy to me.

rsync 9y ago

"Instead, Billy Beane identified what components led to team success, then found which of those the market doesn't pay for. Then he got those guys." Let me ask you - as I am not a baseball nerd - if there is any counter-argument to the BillyBeane/Moneyball/WAR movement ? I don't mean knee-jerk, irrational objections - but real, reasoned counter-hypotheses ?

ghaff 9y ago
I'm not sure real counter-hypotheses so much as data only takes you so far. - You can't always predict the future about a given player's performance. - We're still arguing about what the right measures actually are (although there's more data all the time) - There clearly are sometimes cases where personalities and attitude mean some player needs to leave even if his historical stats were good.
kmonsen 9y ago
Yeah, the counter argument is that you mess up the team chemistry. This is extremely hard to define and measure so can sort of always be used. Billy Beane is constantly attacked for destroying the looker room chemistry in the local press.
- kamaal 9y ago
  >>you mess up the team chemistry. True, only if you have a great team already and you don't desire messing it up. If that is the case, you wouldn't need that method at the first place. On the other hand, teams are pretty dynamic these days given the interfaces and responsibilities are well defined. Or at least are largely defined well. So replacing team members is never really a problem.

ghaff 9y ago

Agreed. It's also worth observing for those who might not really be baseball fans that baseball is really less of a team sport than most major sports. Yes, team dynamics can reach toxic levels and sometimes teams seem to outperform their individual roster members. But other than some degree of matching players with positions (pitchers in particular), you mostly want players who would be best/best value on key stats under any coach or any team.

conjecTech 9y ago
The entire offensive side of the game pretty clearly violates the notion of independence. In particular, the value of a batter with particular stats is dependent on the batters that come before and after him. This is the reasoning behind stacking people with high on base percentages in front of sluggers. If it were not a team sport, you'd see no clear patterns in line-up. This applies at the team selection level as well. For instance, a player who can draw a lot of walks is worth different amounts to different teams depending on their ability to convert those into runs. The fact that saving a run is nearly equivalent to scoring a run means it bleeds over into the defensive side as well. A phenomenal batter with a high error rate may be of enormous value to one team since their pitching staff strikes out more batters than average while being a terrible addition to another team. If you're still unconvinced, I could throw together some simulations later that might make this clearer.
- ghaff 9y ago
  That's fair enough. Although I'd argue that it's more a case of assembling an appropriate portfolio than it is a "team" in the way that people normally use that term. (I'd also argue that overall offensive ability trumps a lot of optimization around base stealing or the type of hits.) ADDED: i.e. I'd argue that if populating a roster with about a half dozen All Star sluggers were financially viable, I'd argue that would probably be a pretty effective team however unbalanced.
  - caseysoftware 9y ago
    As covered in Moneyball (the book), the "sluggers" tend to swing at more. So although they may hit home runs, they also tend to strike out a lot too. The actual approach was to get a bunch of people who worked to extend the inning by not getting out.. aka getting on base safely. You don't need many big hits when you can get singles and doubles consistently. A couple years ago, I met a small scale angel investment group that complained "we haven't had a unicorn" but when we chatted more, I found out 60% of their investments were acquired in under five years with them making ~5x each time. Not as sexy but sounds like a good strategy to me.