Okay, I firmly believe that while Moneyball was on the right track, there are still a ton of holes in the theory. I'm looking for a couple of co-collaborators to come up with the IDEAL barometer of a player's value.

 

For example, Moneyball addresses the steal in a vacuum and suggests that stealing is counter productive. What is not addressed, however, is how a good base stealer can change the entire dynamic of a close game by simply being on base.

 

If you are responsible for building a new team from scratch, how do you evaluate your players?

Thats why scouting is so important many attributes cannot be measured with stats. A players desire to win cannot be measured on a 1-5 scale.

I never read the book but I've heard Billy Bean on interviews and from listening to him I think his philosophy is to go after players or types of players whose abilities are undervalued in the current market. I think that's a winning philosophy.

 

So for example if players with high OBP were undervalued in the market and he could get them on the cheap then he would go after them but if players with high OBP were overvalued in the market and he had to overpay to get them then he wouldn't go after them.

Okay, I firmly believe that while Moneyball was on the right track, there are still a ton of holes in the theory. I'm looking for a couple of co-collaborators to come up with the IDEAL barometer of a player's value.

 

For example, Moneyball addresses the steal in a vacuum and suggests that stealing is counter productive. What is not addressed, however, is how a good base stealer can change the entire dynamic of a close game by simply being on base.

 

If you are responsible for building a new team from scratch, how do you evaluate your players?

 

I hate it when people ignore the part of the book that acknowledges stolen bases as being useful... if you're interested, pg 129... (Yes, I've had to bookmark it) "... an attempted steal had to succeed about 70% of the time before it contributed positively to run totals."

 

In terms of what you're arguing, you're not arguing Moneyball itself, because Moneyball is the concept of getting players by buying low on undervalued skills, for everything it's worth, teams usually dramatically overpay for the stolen base vs on base percentage... see: Juan Pierre.

Okay, I firmly believe that while Moneyball was on the right track, there are still a ton of holes in the theory. I'm looking for a couple of co-collaborators to come up with the IDEAL barometer of a player's value.

 

For example, Moneyball addresses the steal in a vacuum and suggests that stealing is counter productive. What is not addressed, however, is how a good base stealer can change the entire dynamic of a close game by simply being on base.

 

If you are responsible for building a new team from scratch, how do you evaluate your players?

 

I hate it when people ignore the part of the book that acknowledges stolen bases as being useful... if you're interested, pg 129... (Yes, I've had to bookmark it) "... an attempted steal had to succeed about 70% of the time before it contributed positively to run totals."

exactly, I've got issues with some of the stuff in Moneyball, but their views on the stolen base are not some of those issues.

I still have relatively little issue with the typical moneyball stuff outside of the fact that I think OBP is undervalued and OPS overvalued in their OPS formula.

 

Stealing, to me, is still the most incredibly overrated aspect of baseball. It's far more of a liability than an asset.

People never seem to get that the basis and summary of Moneyball is the A's success with a low payroll in the early 2000's was based on developing their own pitching and finding everyday players with undervalued skills that they could afford. One of the undervalued skills in baseball, according to the book, is a big slow guy who get on base a ton (aka Beane's man crush on Youkilis) and an overvalued commodity in baseball is speed, and it's hard to argue either point. I firmly believe if the A's had a guy like Carlos Beltran in his prime who could go 40 for 45 in steals, they'd let him run at will since he basically never gets caught and would create better scoring chances. But the A's would never sign a guy like that on the FA market due to the price, and they haven't developed a guy like that, so they don't really steal much, and why would you steal if you are going to get caught a lot? It will only cost you offense. Billy Beane is a bit of an arrogrant prick, but his basic ideas in the book are very smart.

Yeah...as many people have said, SB is a valueable aspect by the moneyball philosophy.

 

I still have relatively little issue with the typical moneyball stuff outside of the fact that I think OBP is undervalued and OPS overvalued in their OPS formula.

 

Stealing, to me, is still the most incredibly overrated aspect of baseball. It's far more of a liability than an asset.

 

I agree completely. OPS is a very good "quicky" stat that a lot of people understand, easy to quickly quote, but nothing to put that much stock into.

 

GPA (Gross Production Average) is essentially that. It's [(OBP*1.8)+SLG]/4 (divided by 4 to give it a BAA-like number)(It's been shown that *1.8 is the closest to = runs created, CrimsonCane did the test himself awhile back), aswell as taking park factors into effect.

 

The worst part for me is people that don't understand concepts behind a stat. But that's a problem with people, not the "moneyball" philosophy.

"Prince Fielder is too fat even for the Oakland A?s."

 

Moneyball, the book, seems to prove yearly that Beane is not as great as he and the book makes him out to be. That draft (encompasses a lot of the book) where he used a lot of his philosophies in to scouting/reasoning was an absolute awful draft.

Noone will be right all the time but in his 10 years as GM the A's have averaged 90 wins with relatively low payrolls. I think that's pretty good.

 

2007 AL West 76-86 (.469)

2006 AL West 93-69 (.574)

2005 AL West 88-74 (.543)

2004 AL West 91-71 (.562)

2003 AL West 96-66 (.593)

2002 AL West 103-59 (.636)

2001 AL West 102-60 (.630)

2000 AL West 91-70 (.565)

1999 AL West 87-75 (.537)

1998 AL West 74-88 (.457)

Obviously, I'm talking about the major events discussed in the book, one of which was the draft.

The draft is such a crapshoot that basing a GM's abilities on one draft is hardly fair. The worst GM could find 5 studs in one draft if he gets lucky enough.

Noone will be right all the time but in his 10 years as GM the A's have averaged 90 wins with relatively low payrolls. I think that's pretty good.

 

2007 AL West 76-86 (.469)

2006 AL West 93-69 (.574)

2005 AL West 88-74 (.543)

2004 AL West 91-71 (.562)

2003 AL West 96-66 (.593)

2002 AL West 103-59 (.636)

2001 AL West 102-60 (.630)

2000 AL West 91-70 (.565)

1999 AL West 87-75 (.537)

1998 AL West 74-88 (.457)

Wow. Look at that near-perfect bell curve of wins.

 

It makes the OCD part of my personality very happy.

The draft is such a crapshoot that basing a GM's abilities on one draft is hardly fair. The worst GM could find 5 studs in one draft if he gets lucky enough.

Not what I'm basing it on.

 

Look at how he evaluated talent and then how he blasted certain GMs for taking certain players. His methods were terrible and he and the author made those moves out to be genius. I'm talking early rounds where the 'crapshoot' term is not really applicable.

I think the problem is he took players who would hav been safer bets to make the pros, but not safer bets to do anything once there, whereas many GMs will take the shot on the guy who may never make it but on off chance he does will be a stud. I'm not sure you can fault that method from the perspective of a small market team, as they can't afford to throw big signing bonuses at "can't miss" guys who miss 60 percent of the time.

Milwuakee is small market. Fielder was too fat even for the Oakland A's.

Milwuakee is small market. Fielder was too fat even for the Oakland A's.

 

The Athletics picked 16th in that draft. Fielder was taken 7th. They took Nick Swisher, who is a very good player.

The A's weren't going to take Fielder if he fell to them. Again, thats my point. His methods were terrible.

 

Remember his ultra intelligent, I'm smarter than every other GM in the league pick in Jeremy Brown? That worked well.

 

:|

I'm into the analysis of the theories and all that, but who has the time to get really in depth on that stuff unless you're getting paid to do so... not me.

I think the one thing overlooked from studies of Beane's draft success in the draft covered in Moneyball is the fact that Beane was also hamstrung by financial constraints when choosing players. He had a ton of 1st round picks and finite resources to get all those picks signed. He didn't necessarily set out to find the most impressive players available, but the ones who provided an adequate mix of talent (as him and DePodesta measured it) and signability. Hence, the Jeremy Brown signing. No one else wanted the kid, so he was willing to sign to a really low amount relative to his draft order. Had Beane taken a stud prospect coming out of high school, he may have chosen the player with greater potential, but at what cost to the organization. Drafts produce busts all the time. You're going to fail more often than succeed. I have to give credit to Billy Beane for making sure his failures cost his team less than any other. In other words, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs can afford to take 5-7 million dollar gambles on some hot shot out of high school. If it doesn't pan out, not too big of a deal. If Beane makes that same mistake, the consequences for the A's are far worse.

wasn't Blanton and Teahen in that 1st round too?

Yeah, I mean, with all due respect to anyone's interpretation of what makes a draft good, when you have that many #1's and have a limited budget, you need to find a way to sign them all, too.

 

If we were to compare the Moneyball draft to the Beinfestball (my oft rumored satire that'll perhaps see the light of day) draft in '05, I'll take Beane's 10 times out of 10. I'd kill for a player of the quality of Nick Swisher, and most GM's would too, I'd imagine.

 

Swisher, Blanton and Teahen. That's SICK talent.

wasn't Blanton and Teahen in that 1st round too?

 

Yes. Blanton was 24th overall (from the Yankees), Teahen in the supplemental.

If they made no trades and had to field a team of only players Oakland drafted this decade, they could field this: (sure I'm missing some pitchers too)

 

C - Suzuki

1B - Johnson

2B - Mellilo

SS - Crosby

3B - Teahen

LF - Ethier

CF - Swisher

RF - Buck

 

SP - Harden

SP - Bonderman

SP - Blanton

RP - Street

RP - Cotts

RP - Braden

 

They can almost field an entire MLB level team from their drafts, that would be pretty good to boot. That is amazing. They've been able to hit on a MLB level player at every position. Just think about the Marlins (C, 2B, SS, 3B (he was an international signing), CF) during this same period. We've hit on Adrian and Beckett (note, 1st and 2nd overall picks which Oakland has not had), Hermida, Hammer, Olsen, Johnson, Tank, and a few other minor RP. Granted, Beinfest swindles trades and got the best Rule V pick of recent memory, but Oakland is king.

 

I don't know how anyone can argue moneyball/oakland's front office when you look at their division records compared to their payroll versus Seattle and Anaheim, draft results, trade domination (mulder for Dan Haren, Daric Barton, and Kiko Calero - effing wow), and low cost acquisitions that routinely pan out (Big Hurt, Stewart, Gaudin, DiNardo, all the other useful RP etc). So what that Prince is awesome, good for him. Swisher beat him to the bigs by a full season, can play 4 positions in the field which fatty can't, and is very above average by any measure of success. All those things are incredibly valuable to Oakland. Sure, I'd want Prince too, who wouldn't after this last season, but Nick Swisher is not a bum. If you can draft a Nick Swisher level player every year, you're pretty awesome as a front office.

If they made no trades and had to field a team of only players Oakland drafted this decade, they could field this: (sure I'm missing some pitchers too)

 

C - Suzuki

1B - Johnson

2B - Mellilo

SS - Crosby

3B - Teahen

LF - Ethier

CF - Swisher

RF - Buck

 

SP - Harden

SP - Bonderman

SP - Blanton

RP - Street

RP - Cotts

RP - Braden

 

They can almost field an entire MLB level team from their drafts, that would be pretty good to boot. That is amazing. They've been able to hit on a MLB level player at every position. Just think about the Marlins (C, 2B, SS, 3B (he was an international signing), CF) during this same period. We've hit on Adrian and Beckett (note, 1st and 2nd overall picks which Oakland has not had), Hermida, Hammer, Olsen, Johnson, Tank, and a few other minor RP. Granted, Beinfest swindles trades and got the best Rule V pick of recent memory, but Oakland is king.

 

I don't know how anyone can argue moneyball/oakland's front office when you look at their division records compared to their payroll versus Seattle and Anaheim, draft results, trade domination (mulder for Dan Haren, Daric Barton, and Kiko Calero - effing wow), and low cost acquisitions that routinely pan out (Big Hurt, Stewart, Gaudin, DiNardo, all the other useful RP etc). So what that Prince is awesome, good for him. Swisher beat him to the bigs by a full season, can play 4 positions in the field which fatty can't, and is very above average by any measure of success. All those things are incredibly valuable to Oakland. Sure, I'd want Prince too, who wouldn't after this last season, but Nick Swisher is not a bum. If you can draft a Nick Swisher level player every year, you're pretty awesome as a front office.

 

And Fielder was off the board before Swisher so the argument is pretty moot.