4 ms·
Moneyball has been so successful that it is now invisible. Because it is widespread knowledge, the competitive advantage has disappeared, and the teams with the
by GavinB 17y ago
Moneyball has been so successful that it is now invisible. Because it is widespread knowledge, the competitive advantage has disappeared, and the teams with the most money come out on top.
Money helps teams compete every year, but a lesser team with a good strategy can sometimes contend. 2008's World Series winner was the Phillies, 13th in payroll. They played against the American League Champions and the Rays, who were second to last in payroll.
The Rays beat the White Sox ($121M payroll) and the Red Sox ($133M payroll) with a payroll of $43M. The Yankees, with their $209M payroll, didn't even make the playoffs.
This article, in typical sports journalism fashion, is written based on current events with no historical perspective and cherry-picked data.
- tptacek 17y agoIt's not cherry-picking to note that several players whose obscurity and subsequent utilization by the A's were basically the focus of Lewis' book had unimpressive careers in the majors. Jeremy Brown had 10 MLB at-bats total; the book, IIRC, ends with him hitting a home run. And again I'll just note, the author of this article is a reporter of some real repute.
- Nwallins 17y agoI thought it was interesting that the reporter downplayed Lewis' focus on Barry Zito. That was the only real name I remember from the book, aside from Beane. IIRC, Zito got a good deal of coverage in Moneyball.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- qeorge 17y agoThat his players had unimpressive careers is to be expected. IIRC, it was recognized in the book that any player the A's could get for cheap was by definition dysfunctional. The point wasn't that these players would become great, it was that they were a little bit better in specific ways than their salaries reflected. But certainly Jeremy Brown was a bad example, and his 10 at bats say it all. He shouldn't have been held up as a successful acquisition.
- ojbyrne 17y agoKevin Youkilis was also prominent in the book ("the greek god of walks" is how he was described). Seems to be doing quite well.
- kmcgivney 17y agoYou are right. The Sabermetrics used in baseball by teams like the A's gave them an advantage over their competitors in 2000, but it would be crazy to think Theo Epstein and Brian Cashman haven't read Bill James. However, I think your example is "cherry-picked" in iteself. The Rays finished only third this year, and in their whole 12 year history finished in dead last 9 times... mainly because they did not have the money to compete.
- ojbyrne 17y agoTheo Epstein was mentioned in the book as a believer in sabermetrics. It seems dishonest to ignore him, as the original article did. Also I found that the article's point that the A's success was largely due to 3 20-game winning pitchers to be fallacious. Wins by pitchers aren't really a useful statistic. The old guard will do anything they can to discredit sabremetrics so they can go back to the old ways of folklore.
- vessenes 17y agore: It would be crazy to think Theo and Cashman haven't read Bill James... In fact, they hired him before Moneyball came out, privatized his research and are essentially the ONLY people that have been able to read him for much of the last decade. I got to go to what seemed to be a rare Q&A with him last year, and it was pretty f-ing fascinating. He talked at length about trying to statistically evaluate leadership, chemistry, fights and catching defense contribution.
- dpapathanasiou 17y agoJames works for the Red Sox as a consultant, and his principles are definitely behind decisions to trade players or let them leave via free agency once they hit a certain age (e.g. Garciaparra, Damon, et. al.). As for the Yankees, there was an article recently that said something to the effect of "it's not just the size of the payroll, but their ability to spend it wisely which scares other teams".
- vessenes 17y ago