Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by muck4doo, Feb 12, 2013.
If they wrote a book about the Dodgers it would have to be called Moneywaste.
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.
The Red Sox used Moneyball religiously. They signed guys like Bill Mueller, Mark Bellhorn, and Mike Lowell because they were high OBP type of players. They initially tried to not spend money on a closer and instead rotate relief pitchers as closers...straight out of the Bill James handbook.
Their spending was often done to keep key players like Ortiz, Martinez, Garciaparra, Ramirez, Varitek, Schilling, etc...because they all fit into Moneyball favored metrics. Even Johnny Damon wasn't bad metrics wise and they could afford to overpay him.
I thought the movie was WAYYYYYY overrated. The "system" didn't have any lasting effects. And the happy ending was the Red Sox winning the world series...wth. Also thought Johah Hill was kinda bad trying to play a serious roll. He's only good in his loud goofy rolls. After it I was just bleh.
Jose Canseco is rolling over in his grave, if he could afford a grave, if he were dead.
After seeing Moneyball a second time, I realized the A's model wasn't as radical as it seemed. Basically they just went after guys that were walk machines with high OBPs. That's a pretty common practice in the MLB these days. Plus it goes along with the old baseball saying a walk is as good as a hit. Still a movie I enjoyed very much, I loved their differing presentations of the games, sometimes they'd show it on radio, then on TV, then live, etc.
I didnt care for the movie. I thought it made it look like the A's pieced things together in a genius like way and the truth is it was all about scouting their farm system was very deep. even after losing the players they lost they still had one of the best pitching staffs in baseball.
still had a very good starting 9.
on top of this, steriods was rampat in that club house
Wilfork, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Mankins, Mayo and soon to be Talib.
Uh..no. Moneyball is about the only thing he is tolerable in.
I agree. Moneyball was the one movie I actually liked him in.
You are missing the point by a mile a half. Moneyball is about placing value on player productivity that leads to better on the field outcomes -- or more simply what performance characteristics lead to more wins.
It has nothing to do with how much money you have - it has to do with how you choose to invest your money.
You are confusing this with "small budget" because it started with the A's. It only started there because the GM was in a position where he was willing to try something completely different because he kept losing his productive players.
Got got the part about getting better return right. But it has nothing to do with how much you have, only where you choose to invest it.
That's a common practice in the MLB today. Yes. But that makes it not revolutionary?
That's like saying the Beatles weren't anything special because so many bands now sound like them.
Also, you got the simplified for mass audiences version. There's a ton more that went into those decisions