Originally Posted by Reality
The concept of "moneyball" would be more compelling if it actually produced real tangible results such as World Series wins. It seems like every year a small market teams does well most of the season only to fade when it matters. I guess if you're a small market team and looking for a way to at least keep fans coming to the games, moneyball is a good system to follow.
It did produce tangible results and did win a World Series with the Red Sox who used SABERmetrics and even hired Bill James to work as a consultant for the team.
And it produced tangible results for the A's as if you look at the typical records for such low payroll teams in baseball...it ain't pretty. And it's revolutionized how teams look at players in MLB.
Because the players the A's valued they avoid now because the rest of the league no longer undervalues these players.
The problem with 'Moneyball' is outside of Billy Beane it seems like so few understand the true principles.
Moneyball comes from something called 'SABERmetrics.' But, there's a difference between Moneyball and SABERmetrics. Moneyball is about finding undervalued players so a smaller payroll team can sign them and make a playoff contender out of them.
It's not completely about OPS, OBP, WHIP, etc. It's about finding undervalued players.
What so much of baseball didn't/doesn't understand is that most great players in baseball have the same metrics that Moneyball favors. Look at somebody like Ted Williams or Willie Myas and their metrics would rank as a HoF'er every time.
The bigger market teams don't have to worry about finding undervalued players because they can afford good, but overvalued players anyway.
Now the A's go after Cuban players and players out of high school, something they used to avoid.
Because those players are now undervalued by teams.
That's what it's really about.