catching up with Moneyball

[pravata]

From the NY Times

It has been three years since the publication of "Moneyball," and it is worth assessing other matters the book discusses.

Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.
In limited playing time with Boston the past two seasons, Youkilis has compiled a .376 on-base percentage but has yet to show the Red Sox he is ready to help them on a daily basis. They are planning to try Youkilis, a converted third baseman, as a platooned first baseman this year.

Jeremy Brown, an overweight college catcher but a high Oakland draft choice in 2002 because of his high on-base percentage, was viewed as a Beane type of pick. But he is still working his way through the minor leagues at 26, having spent the past three seasons at Midland, Tex., in the Class AA Texas League.

Scott Hatteberg was another on-base guy Beane found attractive. But after four seasons and last year's Oakland-low .334 on-base percentage by Hatteberg, Beane cut him loose as a free agent.

Two Beane disciples became general managers with other teams, Paul DePodesta with the Dodgers and J. P. Ricciardi with the Toronto Blue Jays.

... DePodesta (was) fired...two years into a five-year contract ....

..."You are spending too much money," Ricciardi reportedly told (Blue Jays president) Paul Godfrey. "I can make you cheaper and better. It'll take a couple of months to make you cheaper and a couple of years to make you better. But you'll be a lot better."

Godfrey liked what he heard, but four years later, the Blue Jays achieved the same 80-82 record they had the year before Ricciardi arrived, and that performance followed a far worse season (67-94).

As for cheaper, the Blue Jays' payroll last season was $46 million, down from $65 million the year before Ricciardi took over. But this year, Ricciardi is operating on a budget $25 million higher, which means the Blue Jays won't be cheaper than they were when he interviewed with Godfrey.

The Link

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.

OK, I'm guessing the author of this piece didn't actually read the book.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.

OK, I'm guessing the author of this piece didn't actually read the book.

Is Youkilis not mentioned in the book?

[David in Jackson]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.

OK, I'm guessing the author of this piece didn't actually read the book.

Is Youkilis not mentioned in the book?

He is.

One point to keep in mind regarding how these prospects do.  First, most draft choices don't pan out.  Second, the A's set about conducting their draft with the plan of finding players who would be under-valued (based on traditional statistics and other forms of evaluation like body type, speed, etc.) and drafted them because they could sign them with little money.  These players weren't held up to be BETTER than other first round picks, they were chosen because they were values that a low-budget team like Oakland could sign.  This is by its very nature risky but it is a risk a team like Oakland chose to take since it couldn't compete with bonuses offered by other teams.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

While I don't recall Youkilis mentioned in Moneyball, I think the notion that Beane espoused some foreign or revolutionary appreciation for OBP is what may indicate the writer missed the boat on "Moneyball".  I'm not absolutely certain but I recall Beane describing an approach of identifying undervalued offensive attributes (such as OBP and avg pitches per plate appearance) where, as a result, players who possessed these skills or attributes were less expensive when not accompanied by the highly sought after "slugging" ability. The sole purpose being to maximize his teams performance within his payroll budget.  Basically, he saw a market anomaly that players who took walks and were generally more patient and disciplined at the plate while lacking power were less expensive than players with power but K at a higher rate and don't earn many walks.  And, all things being equal, he could find these guys with sufficient defensive skills or put them in the lineup where defensive deficiencies would be minimized.  

I fail to see how that's revolutionary but these major media guys seem to miss that.  Beane also never denied the value of defense, only that it's not quite as easy to quantify defensive skills as it is offensive skill.  Therefore, it was more difficult to spot comparable anomalies on the defense side of the game (I may have read that in a more recent article).  That seems to be the most common misperception of "Moneyball", that Beane was some roto-stat-head.  His approach has proven to be a pretty solid one based on results.  But I don't think he's doing anything most teams with a limited budget aren't attempting on their own.

Edited to add:
plus what David in Jackson said!  For some reason, Beane was super pissed when Alderson, IIRC, drafted Jeramy Bonderman.  There were a variety of reasons he was displeased, one of which falls in line with your point about signability and bonus money, while another part involved the probability that the likelihood of a flame throwing highschool (or one that had a Major League pitcher's body) succeeding in the majors was not as high as it was for college pitchers who didn't have the heat (or ideal physique) but had a better idea of how to pitch.  

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.

OK, I'm guessing the author of this piece didn't actually read the book.

Is Youkilis not mentioned in the book?

OF course he is.  OBP is never held up to be the "gold standard".

I know I'm a broken record when it comes to this book, but the central thesis was that the A's were looking for undervalued things - like OBP, nontraditional body types, and college statistics - not that there was any single magic bullet.

When I see a writer boil it down to "Moneyball=OBP", it's a good bet in my mind that they (a) did not read it or (b) have a reading comprehension issue.

[David in Jackson]

2002 Draft results:
The Link

[MusicMan]

1.  I don't think Astros fans want to remember the 2002 draft.

2.  What the heck kind of scouting is this?
 

Quote:
Can spank left field gap

[JaneDoe]

Quote:
1.  I don't think Astros fans want to remember the 2002 draft.

Why?  I don't follow the draft as much as most of you.  Just the dissapointment of Burke at SS?  Or was there more?

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
1.  I don't think Astros fans want to remember the 2002 draft.

You have to go straight to the silver lining.  There are a few arms there that may yet have an impact at the big league level.  McLemore may end up being the best major leaguer of that bunch.

[HurricaneDavid]

It's been a couple years since I read it, but I thought  Nick Swisher was the one he was most infatuated with.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:
1.  I don't think Astros fans want to remember the 2002 draft.

Why?  I don't follow the draft as much as most of you.  Just the dissapointment of Burke at SS?  Or was there more?

That wasn't the Burke draft (2001).  In 02 the Astros took Grigsby in the 1st round.  Grigsby is no longer in baseball.  Names from that draft: Talbot, McLemore, Shortell, Douglass, McKeller, Gothreaux (if he can come back from surgery ok), Robinson (maybe), Freeman (maybe, maybe).

[Froback]

Quote:

Quote:
1.  I don't think Astros fans want to remember the 2002 draft.

Why?  I don't follow the draft as much as most of you.  Just the dissapointment of Burke at SS?  Or was there more?

Well for one, Burke was not drafted in 2002.  Second, look at who is still in the org and where after 3+ years.

3 of the top 12 picks are still considered "prospect possible".

But none seem to be "can't miss" types.  Chance Douglass and Mitch Talbot look like the best options, with Mark McLemore looking like a decent lefty, but is being passed by Patton... and there really isn't much lefty pitching that is there to challenge them.

It was one of our worst, if not THE worst draft we have had in the past 15 years, IMO.

[pravata]

What interested me about the article, which seen as a whole is motivated by an attempted vindication of Art Howe, is not that it is an analysis of the book Moneyball, but that someone has gone back and made an attempt to list the players who were featured in that book and where they are now.

The NY Times article is not an adequate description of the theories detailed in Moneyball.

As was aptly pointed out, other teams draft methods, such as the Astros, aren't any better.  But, what hasn't been revisited is whether the theories described in Moneyball are a "better" approach and not just an expedient predicated on cost; to be abandoned when more money is available. Or, is player evaluation, for the A's as it is for everyone else, pretty much a crap shoot.

[Foghorn]

Quote:
 But, what hasn't been revisited is whether the theories described in Moneyball are a "better" approach and not just an expedient predicated on cost; to be abandoned when more money is available. Or, is player evaluation, for the A's as it is for everyone else, pretty much a crap shoot.

For all the emphasis on MOneyball, what got the A's the success they enjoyed was a wealth of talent that had yet to hit Year 7 of major league service time.  Giambi, tejada, Chavez, Hudson, Zito, Mulder, Foulke, Koch, Haren, Harden....

Squeezing out an extra win here or there through identifying undervalued resources is great, but theres your foundation.

[David in Jackson]

Quote:
What interested me about the article, which seen as a whole is motivated by an attempted vindication of Art Howe, is not that it is an analysis of the book Moneyball, but that someone has gone back and made an attempt to list the players who were featured in that book and where they are now.

The NY Times article is not an adequate description of the theories detailed in Moneyball.

As was aptly pointed out, other teams draft methods, such as the Astros, aren't any better.  But, what hasn't been revisited is whether the theories described in Moneyball are a "better" approach and not just an expedient predicated on cost; to be abandoned when more money is available. Or, is player evaluation, for the A's as it is for everyone else, pretty much a crap shoot.

I agree - I'd like to see a more detailed analysis of the A's drafts and how they've fared.  If a person wasn't familar with the MLB draft (and I bet Chass isn't - I've always thought he was weak as water) it would appear that Beane was an idiot because the players mentioned in the article aren't stars now (Swisher, who was the key player in the book is doing pretty well).  Look at any team's draft and you'll see what a crap shoot it is, as you point out.  Most players don't make it. Is the A's record better than most?  I don;t know, but even if it's the same it's still cheaper (more efficient).

You make a good point about how much to rely on so-called Moneyball evaluation techniques.  I think anyone who's reasonable would say it's a balancing act between traditional methods and new stat-based methods and each team wrestlee with what that balance should be.  The fun of Moneyball to some degree is that the A's were forced into doing something pretty radical (largely jettisoning traditional evaluation and chosing players other teams scorned or significantly under-valued) because their economics forced them to.  This has led some people to say that Moneyball, Beane, A's, etc think all traditional methods are stupid.  They aren't, but the A's realized they couldn't compete playing the same game as everyone else and so decided to do something different.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:

Quote:
 But, what hasn't been revisited is whether the theories described in Moneyball are a "better" approach and not just an expedient predicated on cost; to be abandoned when more money is available. Or, is player evaluation, for the A's as it is for everyone else, pretty much a crap shoot.

For all the emphasis on MOneyball, what got the A's the success they enjoyed was a wealth of talent that had yet to hit Year 7 of major league service time.  Giambi, tejada, Chavez, Hudson, Zito, Mulder, Foulke, Koch, Haren, Harden....

Squeezing out an extra win here or there through identifying undervalued resources is great, but theres your foundation.

I'll go you one point further Foggy and say that the A's success can be attributed to having pitchers like Zito, Hudson and Mulder all come of age in the majors at relatively the same time and still be under club control.  Pitching!  Wow, now there is a concept that is tried and true, but heck, why talk about anchoring your team's success on pitching (and defense) when it's more sexy to talk about offense in this day and age of fantasy baseball.

Why indeed.

[Foghorn]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
 But, what hasn't been revisited is whether the theories described in Moneyball are a "better" approach and not just an expedient predicated on cost; to be abandoned when more money is available. Or, is player evaluation, for the A's as it is for everyone else, pretty much a crap shoot.

For all the emphasis on MOneyball, what got the A's the success they enjoyed was a wealth of talent that had yet to hit Year 7 of major league service time.  Giambi, tejada, Chavez, Hudson, Zito, Mulder, Foulke, Koch, Haren, Harden....

Squeezing out an extra win here or there through identifying undervalued resources is great, but theres your foundation.

I'll go you one point further Foggy and say that the A's success can be attributed to having pitchers like Zito, Hudson and Mulder all come of age in the majors at relatively the same time and still be under club control.  Pitching!  Wow, now there is a concept that is tried and true, but heck, why talk about anchoring your team's success on pitching (and defense) when it's more sexy to talk about offense in this day and age of fantasy baseball.

Why indeed.

Under club control.  There is no better recipe for success than having talent under club control.

[Arky Vaughan]

Another thing to consider is that once the market becomes aware of a strategy to identify "undervalued" assets, those assets quickly cease to be undervalued if everyone in the market starts looking for them too.

And such a strategy does not necessarily mean that other strategies are stupid.  The Astros have historically been willing to draft smaller pitchers than other organizations have.  This is not because the Astros think drafting bigger pitchers is a stupid strategy.  It's because they know that the bias against smaller pitchers leaves some talent in the pool that might be overlooked by the competition, so that's a place to zero in.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I'll go you one point further Foggy and say that the A's success can be attributed to having pitchers like Zito, Hudson and Mulder all come of age in the majors at relatively the same time and still be under club control.  Pitching!  Wow, now there is a concept that is tried and true, but heck, why talk about anchoring your team's success on pitching (and defense) when it's more sexy to talk about offense in this day and age of fantasy baseball.

Why indeed.

The A's teams that made the postseason four straight times from 2000 to 2003 were 3rd, 2nd, 1st and 1st in the league in ERA but were also 2nd, 4th, 8th and 9th in runs per game.  So while the latter two seasons they relied more heavily on their pitching, the first two seasons they excelled in both areas.  Of course, their ballpark was also friendlier to pitchers than hitters, so that tended to overstate the quality of their pitching and understate the quality of their hitting.

By the way, most fantasy baseball leagues that I've seen give credit for pitching stats, too.  I don't know why people think of fantasy baseball as a pursuit solely or primarily based on following the offensive side of the game -- but I do understand the point you're making about yackball.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
This has led some people to say that Moneyball, Beane, A's, etc think all traditional methods are stupid.  They aren't, but the A's realized they couldn't compete playing the same game as everyone else and so decided to do something different.

To be fair, the first few chapters of the book do try to paint the picture that Beane feels he was deluded by baseball because he was drafted based on his physical gifts and tools rather than on other, less-traditional predictors of performance.  But I'm not sure how much of this is Beane and how much of it is Lewis' take on Beane.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
Under club control.  There is no better recipe for success than having talent under club control.

"Control, control... you must learn control!"

- from the Star Wars list of double entendres.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
 But, what hasn't been revisited is whether the theories described in Moneyball are a "better" approach and not just an expedient predicated on cost; to be abandoned when more money is available. Or, is player evaluation, for the A's as it is for everyone else, pretty much a crap shoot.

For all the emphasis on MOneyball, what got the A's the success they enjoyed was a wealth of talent that had yet to hit Year 7 of major league service time.  Giambi, tejada, Chavez, Hudson, Zito, Mulder, Foulke, Koch, Haren, Harden....

Squeezing out an extra win here or there through identifying undervalued resources is great, but theres your foundation.

I'll go you one point further Foggy and say that the A's success can be attributed to having pitchers like Zito, Hudson and Mulder all come of age in the majors at relatively the same time and still be under club control.  Pitching!  Wow, now there is a concept that is tried and true, but heck, why talk about anchoring your team's success on pitching (and defense) when it's more sexy to talk about offense in this day and age of fantasy baseball.

Why indeed.

What I recall as the most interesting episode in moneyball was Beane's use of the younger Giambi in left field--kinda taking Voros McCracken to the limit--and how it failed.  Beane reckoned that (1) anyone could play left and (2) Giambi's offensive contribution would more than make up for his small defensive liability.  Giambi failed because he simply could not, under any circumstances, play left, and he was shortly thereafter traded.  I liked the section, both because it showed how willing Beane was to try something, and how quick he was to abandon it if it didn't work.  It also showed how at some point defense matters (though not where the point lay).

The other part I recall with some interest was Beane's willingness to trade off closers because he thought them over-valued.  As I recall post-MoneyBall, the strategy finally bit Beane in the butt, but it sure seemed to work well for awhile.  At least as the book presents him, it's more the incorrect valuation of players that intrigues Beane as particular methods of valuation.

[Gulf Coast Playboy]

Good stuff regarding the Chass article from one of my favorite blogs:

The Link

[pravata]

Quote:
Good stuff regarding the Chass article from one of my favorite blogs:

The Link

The thing is, the point about "Moneyball", which Beane quickly disavowed and is more about a certain type of baseball observer than the A's or Beane, is that what matters is measureable results.  Is it wrong to bring up the fact that the results haven't been any better than anyone, (ie the goofballs who don't VORP) elses?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
The thing is, the point about "Moneyball", which Beane quickly disavowed and is more about a certain type of baseball observer than the A's or Beane, is that what matters is measureable results.  Is it wrong to bring up the fact that the results haven't been any better than anyone, (ie the goofballs who don't VORP) elses?

Seems fair to me. But if those results are going to be evaluated, I'm not sure Murray Chass has demostrated himself particular adept in that role.

Take what he writes about Youkilis, for example:

"Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.

"In limited playing time with Boston the past two seasons, Youkilis has compiled a .376 on-base percentage but has yet to show the Red Sox he is ready to help them on a daily basis. They are planning to try Youkilis, a converted third baseman, as a platooned first baseman this year."

On the one hand, Youkilis has done precisely what the A's might have expected, compiled a high OBP (his career OBP is 111 points above his batting average). On the other hand, the Sox haven't seen fit to give him a starting job.  Whether this is because Youkilis hasn't shown the Sox enough or because the Sox have other considerations is not analyzed. Rather, Chass assumes Youkilis has been a failure because the Sox haven't played him regularly, which seems to me to be begging the question.

Or Hatteberg:

"Scott Hatteberg was another on-base guy Beane found attractive. But after four seasons and last year's Oakland-low .334 on-base percentage by Hatteberg, Beane cut him loose as a free agent."

Hatteberg didn't turn out to be the player Beane was looking for, so he got cut. I'm not sure that says much about whether drafting players based on OBP is a bad strategy per se, as much as it says that the A's were apparently wrong about whether Hatteberg was the kind of player who would have a respectable OBP in the majors.

"Jeremy Brown, an overweight college catcher but a high Oakland draft choice in 2002 because of his high on-base percentage, was viewed as a Beane type of pick. But he is still working his way through the minor leagues at 26, having spent the past three seasons at Midland, Tex., in the Class AA Texas League."

Jeremy Brown is still on the A's 40-man roster, I think. His minor-league OBP is 110 points over his batting average. Whether that's enough to get him out of AA remains to be seen. Brown was the 35th pick in the draft that included Prince Fielder and Jeff Francoeur. I would think it would take a little while longer to determine whether he'll contribute anything in the majors.

I think you can draw a couple of conclusions from Chass' column. One of them is that getting results in the majors probably isn't as cut and dried as relying on OBP as your gold standard. Another is that it takes more than three or four years to evaluate the results.

I'm glad we've gone through this whole exercise to establish those two rather obvious notions.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
The thing is, the point about "Moneyball", which Beane quickly disavowed and is more about a certain type of baseball observer than the A's or Beane, is that what matters is measureable results.  Is it wrong to bring up the fact that the results haven't been any better than anyone, (ie the goofballs who don't VORP) elses?

Seems fair to me. But if those results are going to be evaluated, I'm not sure Murray Chass has demostrated himself particular adept in that role.

Take what he writes about Youkilis, for example:

"Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.

"In limited playing time with Boston the past two seasons, Youkilis has compiled a .376 on-base percentage but has yet to show the Red Sox he is ready to help them on a daily basis. They are planning to try Youkilis, a converted third baseman, as a platooned first baseman this year."

On the one hand, Youkilis has done precisely what the A's might have expected, compiled a high OBP (his career OBP is 111 points above his batting average). On the other hand, the Sox haven't seen fit to give him a starting job.  Whether this is because Youkilis hasn't shown the Sox enough or because the Sox have other considerations is not analyzed. Rather, Chass assumes Youkilis has been a failure because the Sox haven't played him regularly, which seems to me to be begging the question.

Or Hatteberg:

"Scott Hatteberg was another on-base guy Beane found attractive. But after four seasons and last year's Oakland-low .334 on-base percentage by Hatteberg, Beane cut him loose as a free agent."

Hatteberg didn't turn out to be the player Beane was looking for, so he got cut. I'm not sure that says much about whether drafting players based on OBP is a bad strategy per se, as much as it says that the A's were apparently wrong about whether Hatteberg was the kind of player who would have a respectable OBP in the majors.

"Jeremy Brown, an overweight college catcher but a high Oakland draft choice in 2002 because of his high on-base percentage, was viewed as a Beane type of pick. But he is still working his way through the minor leagues at 26, having spent the past three seasons at Midland, Tex., in the Class AA Texas League."

Jeremy Brown is still on the A's 40-man roster, I think. His minor-league OBP is 110 points over his batting average. Whether that's enough to get him out of AA remains to be seen. Brown was the 35th pick in the draft that included Prince Fielder and Jeff Francoeur. I would think it would take a little while longer to determine whether he'll contribute anything in the majors.

I think you can draw a couple of conclusions from Chass' column. One of them is that getting results in the majors probably isn't as cut and dried as relying on OBP as your gold standard. Another is that it takes more than three or four years to evaluate the results.

I'm glad we've gone through this whole exercise to establish those two rather obvious notions.

I'm not going to be put in the position of defending the NY Times article. Red herring, although I've seen no one else willing to examine the issue. However, as I said, given the hoopla, it does seem fair to note that drafts based on "Moneyball" produces major league players at no better rate than other, less trumpeted, methods. Not even to mention the relative successes of teams alleged (not particularly by the people in charge of those teams) to use these methods.  Teams not having having Zito, Mulder, and Hudson that is.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I'm not going to be put in the position of defending the NY Times article. Red herring, although I've seen no one else willing to examine the issue. However, as I said, given the hoopla, it does seem fair to note that drafts based on "Moneyball" produces major league players at no better rate than other, less trumpeted, methods. Not even to mention the relative successes of teams alleged (not particularly by the people in charge of those teams) to use these methods.  Teams not having having Zito, Mulder, and Hudson that is.

I'm not sure how many teams are following the "Moneyball" philosophy anyway.  As you pointed out, Beane himself wasn't interested in promoting a baseball-team-running ideology.  He was interested in building a winning team while trying to live on a shoestring budget.

I think Chass is as guilty as the people he's responding to (not even sure if he's got someone specific in mind) of making this an ideological argument.

[Arky Vaughan]

In any event, even if someone were running an experiment, the results wouldn't necessarily manifest themselves in only a few seasons.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not going to be put in the position of defending the NY Times article. Red herring, although I've seen no one else willing to examine the issue. However, as I said, given the hoopla, it does seem fair to note that drafts based on "Moneyball" produces major league players at no better rate than other, less trumpeted, methods. Not even to mention the relative successes of teams alleged (not particularly by the people in charge of those teams) to use these methods.  Teams not having having Zito, Mulder, and Hudson that is.

I'm not sure how many teams are following the "Moneyball" philosophy anyway.  As you pointed out, Beane himself wasn't interested in promoting a baseball-team-running ideology.  He was interested in building a winning team while trying to live on a shoestring budget.

I think Chass is as guilty as the people he's responding to (not even sure if he's got someone specific in mind) of making this an ideological argument.

I think he was primarily tweaking Beane about firing Howe.  He could mention the Mets while he's at it.  The other stuff got thrown in as piling on.

[David in Jackson]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
The thing is, the point about "Moneyball", which Beane quickly disavowed and is more about a certain type of baseball observer than the A's or Beane, is that what matters is measureable results.  Is it wrong to bring up the fact that the results haven't been any better than anyone, (ie the goofballs who don't VORP) elses?

Seems fair to me. But if those results are going to be evaluated, I'm not sure Murray Chass has demostrated himself particular adept in that role.

Take what he writes about Youkilis, for example:

"Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.

"In limited playing time with Boston the past two seasons, Youkilis has compiled a .376 on-base percentage but has yet to show the Red Sox he is ready to help them on a daily basis. They are planning to try Youkilis, a converted third baseman, as a platooned first baseman this year."

On the one hand, Youkilis has done precisely what the A's might have expected, compiled a high OBP (his career OBP is 111 points above his batting average). On the other hand, the Sox haven't seen fit to give him a starting job.  Whether this is because Youkilis hasn't shown the Sox enough or because the Sox have other considerations is not analyzed. Rather, Chass assumes Youkilis has been a failure because the Sox haven't played him regularly, which seems to me to be begging the question.

Or Hatteberg:

"Scott Hatteberg was another on-base guy Beane found attractive. But after four seasons and last year's Oakland-low .334 on-base percentage by Hatteberg, Beane cut him loose as a free agent."

Hatteberg didn't turn out to be the player Beane was looking for, so he got cut. I'm not sure that says much about whether drafting players based on OBP is a bad strategy per se, as much as it says that the A's were apparently wrong about whether Hatteberg was the kind of player who would have a respectable OBP in the majors.

"Jeremy Brown, an overweight college catcher but a high Oakland draft choice in 2002 because of his high on-base percentage, was viewed as a Beane type of pick. But he is still working his way through the minor leagues at 26, having spent the past three seasons at Midland, Tex., in the Class AA Texas League."

Jeremy Brown is still on the A's 40-man roster, I think. His minor-league OBP is 110 points over his batting average. Whether that's enough to get him out of AA remains to be seen. Brown was the 35th pick in the draft that included Prince Fielder and Jeff Francoeur. I would think it would take a little while longer to determine whether he'll contribute anything in the majors.

I think you can draw a couple of conclusions from Chass' column. One of them is that getting results in the majors probably isn't as cut and dried as relying on OBP as your gold standard. Another is that it takes more than three or four years to evaluate the results.

I'm glad we've gone through this whole exercise to establish those two rather obvious notions.

I'm not going to be put in the position of defending the NY Times article. Red herring, although I've seen no one else willing to examine the issue. However, as I said, given the hoopla, it does seem fair to note that drafts based on "Moneyball" produces major league players at no better rate than other, less trumpeted, methods. Not even to mention the relative successes of teams alleged (not particularly by the people in charge of those teams) to use these methods.  Teams not having having Zito, Mulder, and Hudson that is.

I don't know that anyone has compiled enough information to say that the A's in the period around Moneyball did "no better than other less trumpted methods."  Have the A's drafted more successfully than the other 29 teams?  Less successfully?  How would someone figure that out?  It's possible that they HAVE drafted more successfully, Chass' comments notwithstanding.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I don't know that anyone has compiled enough information to say that the A's in the period around Moneyball did "no better than other less trumpted methods."  Have the A's drafted more successfully than the other 29 teams?  Less successfully?  How would someone figure that out?  It's possible that they HAVE drafted more successfully, Chass' comments notwithstanding.

I suppose someone could compare the success of the players drafted by Beane against the success of the players drafted by everyone else.  I'm not sure the sample size would yield meaningful results, however.  This would also ignore something important attributed to Beane's motives, which is that he had to take a different approach to drafting because the A's were unwilling to pay the bonuses other teams could afford.  In other words, he reportedly perceived other teams as having an inherent advantage financially in the draft.  Someone could compare the success of the A's drafting on a dollar basis against the drafting of other teams on a dollar basis in order to take this into account.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I think he was primarily tweaking Beane about firing Howe.  He could mention the Mets while he's at it.  The other stuff got thrown in as piling on.

Yes, he seems to have gotten derailed pretty easily.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
The thing is, the point about "Moneyball", which Beane quickly disavowed and is more about a certain type of baseball observer than the A's or Beane, is that what matters is measureable results.  Is it wrong to bring up the fact that the results haven't been any better than anyone, (ie the goofballs who don't VORP) elses?

Seems fair to me. But if those results are going to be evaluated, I'm not sure Murray Chass has demostrated himself particular adept in that role.

Take what he writes about Youkilis, for example:

"Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics' infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane's player evaluation.

"In limited playing time with Boston the past two seasons, Youkilis has compiled a .376 on-base percentage but has yet to show the Red Sox he is ready to help them on a daily basis. They are planning to try Youkilis, a converted third baseman, as a platooned first baseman this year."

On the one hand, Youkilis has done precisely what the A's might have expected, compiled a high OBP (his career OBP is 111 points above his batting average). On the other hand, the Sox haven't seen fit to give him a starting job.  Whether this is because Youkilis hasn't shown the Sox enough or because the Sox have other considerations is not analyzed. Rather, Chass assumes Youkilis has been a failure because the Sox haven't played him regularly, which seems to me to be begging the question.

Or Hatteberg:

"Scott Hatteberg was another on-base guy Beane found attractive. But after four seasons and last year's Oakland-low .334 on-base percentage by Hatteberg, Beane cut him loose as a free agent."

Hatteberg didn't turn out to be the player Beane was looking for, so he got cut. I'm not sure that says much about whether drafting players based on OBP is a bad strategy per se, as much as it says that the A's were apparently wrong about whether Hatteberg was the kind of player who would have a respectable OBP in the majors.

"Jeremy Brown, an overweight college catcher but a high Oakland draft choice in 2002 because of his high on-base percentage, was viewed as a Beane type of pick. But he is still working his way through the minor leagues at 26, having spent the past three seasons at Midland, Tex., in the Class AA Texas League."

Jeremy Brown is still on the A's 40-man roster, I think. His minor-league OBP is 110 points over his batting average. Whether that's enough to get him out of AA remains to be seen. Brown was the 35th pick in the draft that included Prince Fielder and Jeff Francoeur. I would think it would take a little while longer to determine whether he'll contribute anything in the majors.

I think you can draw a couple of conclusions from Chass' column. One of them is that getting results in the majors probably isn't as cut and dried as relying on OBP as your gold standard. Another is that it takes more than three or four years to evaluate the results.

I'm glad we've gone through this whole exercise to establish those two rather obvious notions.

I'm not going to be put in the position of defending the NY Times article. Red herring, although I've seen no one else willing to examine the issue. However, as I said, given the hoopla, it does seem fair to note that drafts based on "Moneyball" produces major league players at no better rate than other, less trumpeted, methods. Not even to mention the relative successes of teams alleged (not particularly by the people in charge of those teams) to use these methods.  Teams not having having Zito, Mulder, and Hudson that is.

I don't know that anyone has compiled enough information to say that the A's in the period around Moneyball did "no better than other less trumpted methods."  Have the A's drafted more successfully than the other 29 teams?  Less successfully?  How would someone figure that out?  It's possible that they HAVE drafted more successfully, Chass' comments notwithstanding.

Yeah, you'd think anyone who thinks this method is better would have already done that.  Especially considering the basic premise of why they think it's better.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Yeah, you'd think anyone who thinks this method is better would have already done that.  Especially considering the basic premise of why they think it's better.

"They" must be hiding something.

And Chass is just interested in Art Howe's well-being, despite having ground this axe for a couple of years now.

And we're just talking about this because of our Houston connection with Howe.

And Chass' logical leaps are OK, because we always give baseball writers a pass when they write illogical things.

If it suits us.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Yeah, you'd think anyone who thinks this method is better would have already done that.  Especially considering the basic premise of why they think it's better.

"They" must be hiding something.

And Chass is just interested in Art Howe's well-being, despite having ground this axe for a couple of years now.

And we're just talking about this because of our Houston connection with Howe.

And Chass' logical leaps are OK, because we always give baseball writers a pass when they write illogical things.

If it suits us.

I don't think so. Who's giving him a pass?  And, who said he's interested in Art Howe's well being?  His motives are immaterial.  The article, inadequate as it is, brings up the point, if the worth of the system is based on measurable results shouldnt the results be measured?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
The article, inadequate as it is, brings up the point, if the worth of the system is based on measurable results shouldnt the results be measured?

I agree with this.

[WulawHorn]

I thought money ball was one of the most interesting baseball books I have ever read.  The idiocy of the majority of the main stream media discussing it shows that they did little more than read the cliff notes- it is frustrating.

The excerpts quoted above seem to be typical of the hatchet job that gets done against beane.  I didn't see any mention of Nick Swisher, who looks like if not the best, then top 3 of the first 38 picks- do we just look at Beane's "failures?"

This seems to me to be a weak way to make a point.  Also that draft yielded Tehan- a piece that he turned into a desired closer in Dotel- so regardless of what that young man does he already played a role to the perceived betterment of the A's (though of course Dotel flamed out- but he had a lot of perceived value around baseball at that time).

Additionally, I would say that it is ridiculously early to call the fat catcher a flop- he's in double A which means he could easily be in the bigs this year- nothing wrong with that.

Finally, the idiots that try to claim Beane was only making the point that OBP='s good to the detriment of defense or anything else tire me out.  The book was about getting parts that were undervalued by the market in order to compete on a budget.  We have seen our very own Astros do this, first with the Venenzualean (sp) academy when nobody else was there, so people from this country were undervalued, and also with the aforementioned drafting of small pitchers like Roy O.  Nobody wrote a book about these two things but the astros seem to work under this concept, even if not acknowledging it explicitly.  I would think all good organizations find undervalued resources in order to obtain talent where others cannot.

[JimR]

have you seen the "fat catcher" play? if he makes the bigs, it will be solely to protect Beane's reputation as a genius.

[WulawHorn]

oh and btw, I thought bashing Depo and JP was stupid as well.  Depo's dodgers won their first playoff game since the Reagan administration, and last year they had ridiculous injuries.  This year I think he left a good enough foundation that I have the dodgers penciled in to win the division.

As to JP up n toronto he got the same results for the jays for $25 million less than they had the year he was hired, not a failure in my mind.  Now that they are spending the same amount of money as they were when he got hired I look for them to compete for the crown.  He also has his hands tied trying to get guys to come up to Canada.

[WulawHorn]

No jim- i have not.  My only point was that being in double A three years after you are drafted is too early to be deemed a failure in my mind. If you say he ain't gonna make it I will take you at your word- but a NY sports writer who I'm sure has never seen him play cannot, imo, fairly call him a failure for that rate of progress.  Plus, most clubs seem to skip guys from double A to the bigs pretty quickly if they think somebody has "it" (not saying jeremy brown does).

[JimR]

lots folks thought that he was a favored child re promotions. protect the Great Man's rep, don't ya know.

[pravata]

Quote:
oh and btw, I thought bashing Depo and JP was stupid as well.  Depo's dodgers won their first playoff game since the Reagan administration, and last year they had ridiculous injuries.  This year I think he left a good enough foundation that I have the dodgers penciled in to win the division.

As to JP up n toronto he got the same results for the jays for $25 million less than they had the year he was hired, not a failure in my mind.  Now that they are spending the same amount of money as they were when he got hired I look for them to compete for the crown.  He also has his hands tied trying to get guys to come up to Canada.

My impression about those who tout the Moneyball methods is that their opinion is that this type of analysis makes teams better than the other teams, not just treading water.  Riccardi didn't say his methods work, except in Canada.  Not a failure at all, but that much better than everyone else?  Of course it is tough being in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox. Depodesta's personality was apparently such an issue that the Dodgers decided he wasnt worth keeping around. Just one more data point that "chemistry" makes a difference.  Can't employ your philosophy if no one wants you around.

The whole point of analysis is to get players on the major league team.  You pointed out that the A's used minor leaguers to obtain major leaguers.   They did and that's a fair point, but how is Teahan different from Buck?  As for Youkilis, he can't even field a position.  That the writer didn't include Swisher does call into question (which I have repeatedly) the NY Times writers competence, but is 1 player, out of the 7 first round draft choices they had, such a rare occurance that it can be used to vindicate a philosophy of analysis?

[WulawHorn]

I don't think that's a legit point on tehan pravata- and I would certainly argue Buck is an Astros success b/c he led to Beltran and the playoff run of 04, you won't get an argument from me.  2 successes in the first round with 5 open questions doesn't seem a failure to me- certainly better than many drafts from other teams I've seen.

Also- they didn't necessarily draft the best guys, rather those they could afford bonus wise.  That makes a difference in the analysis as well.

Finally, I don't disagree at all with you that chemistry is important, rather I take the Jamesian approach that just b/c you can't measure it, to say it doesn't exist is infantile and stupid, and intellectually dishonest.  I have been on record multiple times throughout the past two years commenting that the leadership and plugging away shown by bags and biggio has set the tone for this astros team, and allowed them two historic comebacks when almost any other team in the game would have fallen short or packed it in.

Just b/c some stathead writers are obnoxious and infantile does not cheapen the success the A's have had on a shoestring budget, or say that the idea of looking for undervalued resources is not the smartest thing a team could attempt to do if they don't have $100,000,000 to devote to payroll.

[pravata]

Quote:
I don't think that's a legit point on tehan pravata- and I would certainly argue Buck is an Astros success b/c he led to Beltran and the playoff run of 04, you won't get an argument from me.  2 successes in the first round with 5 open questions doesn't seem a failure to me- certainly better than many drafts from other teams I've seen.

Also- they didn't necessarily draft the best guys, rather those they could afford bonus wise.  That makes a difference in the analysis as well.

Finally, I don't disagree at all with you that chemistry is important, rather I take the Jamesian approach that just b/c you can't measure it, to say it doesn't exist is infantile and stupid, and intellectually dishonest.  I have been on record multiple times throughout the past two years commenting that the leadership and plugging away shown by bags and biggio has set the tone for this astros team, and allowed them two historic comebacks when almost any other team in the game would have fallen short or packed it in.

Just b/c some stathead writers are obnoxious and infantile does not cheapen the success the A's have had on a shoestring budget, or say that the idea of looking for undervalued resources is not the smartest thing a team could attempt to do if they don't have $100,000,000 to devote to payroll.

I'm not saying that the A's or even the Moneyball method is a failure.  I'm suggesting that no one has made as big a deal trying to figure whether it's that much better to justify the contention that those who don't use it are prehistoric sitting ducks.  (That doesnt even approach addressing the fact that teams do and have looked at all sources of information for a long time now.  Just they don't make a big deal of how smart they are.)  As for working within a budget, that doesnt seem to be a novel idea.  Even the Yankees, turns out, have a budget.

[Arky Vaughan]

Does anybody recall what year Beane became general manager in Oakland?

[MikeyBoy]

Quote:
Does anybody recall what year Beane became general manager in Oakland?

 In 1997, Alderson stepped down as GM and Beane replaced him.

 The Link

[WulawHorn]

Did Billy Beane have creative control on what went into the book?  Curious b/c I honestly don't know the answer to that at all.

I thought the idea of writing a paper on how the A's were successful on a shoestring budget was a good one, and I found the book to be enlightening. Is it Beane's fault that the author gave him a genius tag- this I do not know.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
In 1997, Alderson stepped down as GM and Beane replaced him.

The Link

Since then, here's what the A's have done:

Year  Payroll  Rank    W   L  Rank
----------------------------------
1998    $20.1  28th   74  88   4th
1999    $24.2  26th   87  75   2nd
2000    $32.1  25th   91  70   1st
2001    $33.8  29th  102  60   2nd
2002    $40.0  28th  103  59   1st
2003    $50.3  23rd   96  66   1st
2004    $59.4  16th   91  71   2nd
2005    $55.4  22nd   88  74   2nd

Attribute that to Moneyball, Sandy Alderson's prior drafting, Art Howe or Ken Macha, getting lucky to have Hudson, Mulder and Zito together, or any combination thereof. But the fact is that while Beane has had control of the team, it's done remarkably well on a shoestring.

[pravata]

Quote:
Did Billy Beane have creative control on what went into the book?  Curious b/c I honestly don't know the answer to that at all.

I thought the idea of writing a paper on how the A's were successful on a shoestring budget was a good one, and I found the book to be enlightening. Is it Beane's fault that the author gave him a genius tag- this I do not know.

I havent read that the author misquoted Beane in the book.  But Beane did distance himself from the idea that he's not just a genius, but so much smarter than the other GMs that they haven't a chance.  I dont think Lewis is the only one, especially noting those without a job in pro baseball, who believes the methods described in Moneyball gives the A's an advantage over other teams.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
In 1997, Alderson stepped down as GM and Beane replaced him.

The Link

Since then, here's what the A's have done:

Year  Payroll  Rank    W   L  Rank
----------------------------------
1998    $20.1  28th   74  88   4th
1999    $24.2  26th   87  75   2nd
2000    $32.1  25th   91  70   1st
2001    $33.8  29th  102  60   2nd
2002    $40.0  28th  103  59   1st
2003    $50.3  23rd   96  66   1st
2004    $59.4  16th   91  71   2nd
2005    $55.4  22nd   88  74   2nd

Attribute that to Moneyball, Sandy Alderson's prior drafting, Art Howe or Ken Macha, getting lucky to have Hudson, Mulder and Zito together, or any combination thereof. But the fact is that while Beane has had control of the team, it's done remarkably well on a shoestring.

So, is "wins per dollars" the next fad?  Can that be indexed by geographic location?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I havent read that the author misquoted Beane in the book.  But Beane did distance himself from the idea that he's not just a genius, but so much smarter than the other GMs that they haven't a chance.  I dont think Lewis is the only one, especially noting those without a job in pro baseball, who believes the methods described in Moneyball gives the A's an advantage over other teams.

Regardless of whether the guys at Baseball Prospectus have unduly deified Beane (I am just making a wild guess that they are among the unidentified "those without a job in pro baseball"), the fact remains that his teams have done quite well despite what is traditionally considered to be a disadvantage, i.e., having a relatively small payroll.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
So, is "wins per dollars" the next fad?  Can that be indexed by geographic location?

Are you asserting that payroll has no correlation with success?  Now you sound like a member of the Baseball Prospectus "team of experts."

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
I havent read that the author misquoted Beane in the book.  But Beane did distance himself from the idea that he's not just a genius, but so much smarter than the other GMs that they haven't a chance.  I dont think Lewis is the only one, especially noting those without a job in pro baseball, who believes the methods described in Moneyball gives the A's an advantage over other teams.

Regardless of whether the guys at Baseball Prospectus have unduly deified Beane (I am just making a wild guess that they are among the unidentified "those without a job in pro baseball"), the fact remains that his teams have done quite well despite what is traditionally considered to be a disadvantage, i.e., having a relatively small payroll.

No I think that is the point.  Beane acknowledged that he need another $50 million to win.  The boys over at BP, etal, criticize other teams that they think don't use their methods.  Supposedly because that type of analysis guarantees a winner.  It doesn't, it hasn't produced superior teams, and wins relative to payroll means nothing.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
So, is "wins per dollars" the next fad?  Can that be indexed by geographic location?

Are you asserting that payroll has no correlation with success?  Now you sound like a member of the Baseball Prospectus "team of experts."

What were the payrolls of the White Sox and Astros?  I'm saying that it can't be used as an excuse if the "Moneyball methods" (for lack of a more extensive description) are so superior to other teams methods.  No one has really examined if all the fan fare was warranted.  A guy over at the NY Times raises the issue.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
No I think that is the point.  Beane acknowledged that he need another $50 million to win.  The boys over at BP, etal, criticize other teams that they think don't use their methods.  Supposedly because that type of analysis guarantees a winner.  It doesn't, it hasn't produced superior teams, and wins relative to payroll means nothing.

I'm not going to deny that the BP "team of experts" are overly fanatical and aggressive in their advocacy and criticism.

But Beane, using whatever methods he thinks work for him, has managed to create a successful team without the kind of payroll enjoyed by the Yankees and Red Sox, or even the Astros, Braves and Cardinals.  The only other consistently successful team in recent times with a relatively low payroll is the Twins.

The point is to win games, cheaply or not, but having $200 million to spend sure makes it easier to buy the top-quality players that contribute to winning rather than having $50 million to spend.  Not having more money also means having to rely more carefully on identifying and evaluating cheap or less obvious talent.  Maybe it's all smoke and mirrors, but Beane appears to have done OK in that kind of environment.

[otterj]

Wins in correlation to payroll can  be a good indicator of the effectiveness of a team's management (front office and coaching). Regardless of the methods it used to get those wins.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
What were the payrolls of the White Sox and Astros?  I'm saying that it can't be used as an excuse if the "Moneyball methods" (for lack of a more extensive description) are so superior to other teams methods.  No one has really examined if all the fan fare was warranted.  A guy over at the NY Times raises the issue.

The Astros spent $76.8 million (12th) and the White Sox spent $75.2 million (13th) last season.

I'm not using money as an excuse.  I mention it because I think it's relevant.

By contrast, it's The True Believers at Baseball Prospectus who argue that money is meaningless and that following The Way will bring a team to The Promised Land regardless of dollars.  I'm not arguing on behalf of them, because I think they're wrong.  In fact, it's statistically demonstrable that payroll does correlate somewhat with winning.  It's not determinative, but it's a factor.

Beane, by whatever method (and I don't think it's solely by relying on OBP or any other metric or approach exclusively) has had success despite relatively modest payrolls.  This is more impressive, in my mind, than had he done the same with payrolls twice as gawdy.

If you're looking for someone here to defend the notion that Moneyball is absolutely, positively far and away the most successful way to run a baseball team, and nothing else compares, I suspect you won't find anyone to defend that straw man.

[WulawHorn]

Agreed with Arky, which is my problem with the anti-moneyball crowd- they have set up a strawman and a ridiculous one at that.

I don't think the point of Moneyball was that payroll didn't matter- in fact the whole point of the project imo, is that payroll is so important that it is interesting to look at someone who succeeds with a payroll disadvantage.

I would say that I've seen the same luncacy in College football regarding recruiting rankings.  Some detractor will try to make the idiotic point that recruiting doesn't matter, and bring up a high profile class or two that falls flat on its face, and a school that enjoys success without high rankings (for example lets say A&M for the former and Tech for the latter over the previous five years). This completely misses the point that most reasonable recruitnics make- which is that good recruiting classes highly correspond to good teams on the field 3 years later. It doens't mean that every 4 or 5 star pans out, but if you get enough of them enough will pan out that you'll be really good.  Similarly, a 3 star guy like Mike Huff can be a stud in college, but it is much less likely for a team full of 3 stars to beat a team full of 5 stars.

This is how I veiw the payroll disparity in major league baseball.  Those trying to say it ain't important or means nothing are idiots. It is intersting, and informative, I believe though to ID programs that succeed beyond the level that we would expect them to and see what makes that so.  West Virginia in basketball is another good example. They and tech in football do something revolutionary vis a vis other programs so that they don't need a total stud to succeed, but rather can with a guy overlooked by the big dogs but who fits in a new, creative or different type system.  Beane's key 5 years ago was OBP now he has moved on to other things no doubt, as OBP now is fairly evaluated, other teams see the improtance, and are willing to pay.  There is no market inefficiency anymore, so no room to make a living at the margins.

What is interesting is apparently guys in Boston and Oakland now view defense as being underrated/valued.  And so the pendulum continues to swing...

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
What were the payrolls of the White Sox and Astros?  I'm saying that it can't be used as an excuse if the "Moneyball methods" (for lack of a more extensive description) are so superior to other teams methods.  No one has really examined if all the fan fare was warranted.  A guy over at the NY Times raises the issue.

The Astros spent $76.8 million (12th) and the White Sox spent $75.2 million (13th) last season.

I'm not using money as an excuse.  I mention it because I think it's relevant.

By contrast, it's The True Believers at Baseball Prospectus who argue that money is meaningless and that following The Way will bring a team to The Promised Land regardless of dollars.  I'm not arguing on behalf of them, because I think they're wrong.  In fact, <a href="http://www.orangewhoopass.com/bbs/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=360&an=0&page=0">it's statistically demonstrable that payroll does correlate somewhat with winning.  It's not determinative, but it's a factor.[/url]

Beane, by whatever method (and I don't think it's solely by relying on OBP or any other metric or approach exclusively) has had success despite relatively modest payrolls.  This is more impressive, in my mind, than had he done the same with payrolls twice as gawdy.

If you're looking for someone here to defend the notion that Moneyball is absolutely, positively far and away the most successful way to run a baseball team, and nothing else compares, I suspect you won't find anyone to defend that straw man.

Payroll correlates with winning?  I think I've heard that somewhere before.  But, also, there should be some accounting for GMs that complain they didnt win for lack of money.   I dont think I was looking for anyone here to defend the idea that "Moneyball" (for lack of a more extensive description) is by far the most successful way to analyze talent, and yet there seems to be some movement in that direction; I was trying to bring up the issue of whether the efficacy of a collection of methods, which can be and has been summed up in short hand as "Moneyball" (see addendum 2A(1) to section 14...may not include actual input from Billy Beane) should be held up to the same scrutiny that other methods of analysis have been.  Does it work?  Has it worked, not just relatively, but in absolute terms to warrant the acclaim it receives (naturally not in here) as a superior method?

[pravata]

Quote:
Wins in correlation to payroll can  be a good indicator of the effectiveness of a team's management (front office and coaching). Regardless of the methods it used to get those wins.

As can gate receipts and total attendance.  But, the selling point of the purveyors of these methods is that it can get wins for less.  Turning that into an excuse seems to have it both ways.  In any case Depodesta and Epstein did not have those restrictions.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
But, the selling point of the purveyors of these methods is that it can get wins for less.

Who are the purveyors?  Ricciardi, I guess.  BP?  I suppose I'd be able to address this point better if I had some more specifics.

Maybe I read Moneyball differently than they did.  I thought it was about the A's having less money and therefore having to concentrate their resources differently than richer teams in order to succeed.  It's been a couple of years since I've read it, though, so I don't recall everything Lewis wrote.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Payroll correlates with winning?  I think I've heard that somewhere before.  But, also, there should be some accounting for GMs that complain they didnt win for lack of money.

Sure.  First, the correlation isn't perfect, or anywhere near perfect, for that matter.  Second, there's no excuse for terrible moves, whether you're spending foolishly on a small budget, like Cam Bonifay, or spending foolishly on a large budget, like John Hart.  The buck stops at the GM.  But you certainly have more room for error if you've got $100 million to spend, rather than $50 million.

Quote:
I dont think I was looking for anyone here to defend the idea that "Moneyball" (for lack of a more extensive description) is by far the most successful way to analyze talent, and yet there seems to be some movement in that direction; I was trying to bring up the issue of whether the efficacy of a collection of methods, which can be and has been summed up in short hand as "Moneyball" (see addendum 2A(1) to section 14...may not include actual input from Billy Beane) should be held up to the same scrutiny that other methods of analysis have been.  Does it work?  Has it worked, not just relatively, but in absolute terms to warrant the acclaim it receives (naturally not in here) as a superior method?

Agreed, but with a few comments.  First, what scrutiny have other methods of analysis been held up to?  Indeed, what are other methods of analysis?  It's surely not just Moneyball vs. non-Moneyball.  There's all kinds of ways to go about building a baseball team, some more successful than others, some executed better than others.  The Braves have obviously been very successful, as have the Yankees.  The Astros are an example of success.  Are there specific categories of methods that these can be sorted into?

Second, to the extent Moneyball is a method for identifying otherwise ignored talent in the pool in order to overcome a payroll disparity, then the payroll is a factor in evaluation.  I suppose the response to this is if Moneyball can work for poor teams, it can work for rich teams too (perhaps even better).

As an absolute matter, the A's have been one of the most successful teams in baseball, regardless of payroll, since Beane took over.  If someone wanted to test Moneyball across the spectrum, and not just focus on the A's, he could test whether teams that have high OBPs do well, which is probably going to be the case, since OBP correlates highly with scoring runs, and scoring runs correlates highly with winning.

But then it comes down to whether that's really a method or approach.  I can say that my method or approach to building a baseball team would be to get a collection of hitters who score more runs than their opponents, and a collection of pitchers who allow fewer runs than their opponents, and if I have a team that outscores its opponents and outpitches its opponents, and I thereby win lots of games, my strategy has succeeded!

[WulawHorn]

No epstein did not have any such restrictions and the red sox have just finished up their most productive 3 year stretch since the days of Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Jimr.  Also, most think that they are poised to finish out the decade competeing every single year.
Finally, even though they spent an ass load of money they still spend 2/3 the assload of money the Yankees have spent.
The dodgers, as mentioned previously, won their first playoff game since the Hair bands and rubix cubes were in vogue.  Neither of these guys should be pointed to as failures to the "moneyball" system, whatever that is.

Arky is spot on with everything and I will not attempt to restate what he has so well re- payroll correllation.  Pravata- I think you are really smart and really respect your opinion, but I really cannot understand where you are coming from on this one.  You have read the book- correct?

[JimR]

i think a comparison of wins to budget means less than nothing. it was a waste of time to read that.

[WulawHorn]

Why is it meaningless Jim- especially if you are a team on a budget.  If doing things a certain way would yield 1 win per million dollars and doing things another way might yield 1 win per 750k spent don't you want to do the latter.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
i think a comparison of wins to budget means less than nothing. it was a waste of time to read that.

On what basis do you believe it means nothing?  Because there is no connection between payroll and success on the field, or because we as fans should not be concerned regardless of whether such a connection exists.

I really wish you would elaborate more when you dismiss other people's posts.  Your great wisdom is of no use in enlightening us when you are so terse.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Why is it meaningless Jim- especially if you are a team on a budget.  If doing things a certain way would yield 1 win per million dollars and doing things another way might yield 1 win per 750k spent don't you want to do the latter.

As a fan, if my team is winning, I'm not really concerned with how much it costs.

But if you're asking whether Beane has been successful, I think it's fair to note that his teams have prospered despite the fact that he's had to work under payroll constraints more severe than those imposed on other general managers.

This seems entirely relevant to the discussion here.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Payroll correlates with winning?  I think I've heard that somewhere before.  But, also, there should be some accounting for GMs that complain they didnt win for lack of money.

Sure.  First, the correlation isn't perfect, or anywhere near perfect, for that matter.  Second, there's no excuse for terrible moves, whether you're spending foolishly on a small budget, like Cam Bonifay, or spending foolishly on a large budget, like John Hart.  The buck stops at the GM.  But you certainly have more room for error if you've got $100 million to spend, rather than $50 million.

Quote:
I dont think I was looking for anyone here to defend the idea that "Moneyball" (for lack of a more extensive description) is by far the most successful way to analyze talent, and yet there seems to be some movement in that direction; I was trying to bring up the issue of whether the efficacy of a collection of methods, which can be and has been summed up in short hand as "Moneyball" (see addendum 2A(1) to section 14...may not include actual input from Billy Beane) should be held up to the same scrutiny that other methods of analysis have been.  Does it work?  Has it worked, not just relatively, but in absolute terms to warrant the acclaim it receives (naturally not in here) as a superior method?

Agreed, but with a few comments.  First, what scrutiny have other methods of analysis been held up to?  Indeed, what are other methods of analysis?  It's surely not just Moneyball vs. non-Moneyball.  There's all kinds of ways to go about building a baseball team, some more successful than others, some executed better than others.  The Braves have obviously been very successful, as have the Yankees.  The Astros are an example of success.  Are there specific categories of methods that these can be sorted into?

Second, to the extent Moneyball is a method for identifying otherwise ignored talent in the pool in order to overcome a payroll disparity, then the payroll is a factor in evaluation.  I suppose the response to this is if Moneyball can work for poor teams, it can work for rich teams too (perhaps even better).

As an absolute matter, the A's have been one of the most successful teams in baseball, regardless of payroll, since Beane took over.  If someone wanted to test Moneyball across the spectrum, and not just focus on the A's, he could test whether teams that have high OBPs do well, which is probably going to be the case, since OBP correlates highly with scoring runs, and scoring runs correlates highly with winning.

But then it comes down to whether that's really a method or approach.  I can say that my method or approach to building a baseball team would be to get a collection of hitters who score more runs than their opponents, and a collection of pitchers who allow fewer runs than their opponents, and if I have a team that outscores its opponents and outpitches its opponents, and I thereby win lots of games, my strategy has succeeded!

If all you're measuring is outcomes, then yes.

[pravata]

Quote:
No epstein did not have any such restrictions and the red sox have just finished up their most productive 3 year stretch since the days of Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Jimr.  Also, most think that they are poised to finish out the decade competeing every single year.
Finally, even though they spent an ass load of money they still spend 2/3 the assload of money the Yankees have spent.
The dodgers, as mentioned previously, won their first playoff game since the Hair bands and rubix cubes were in vogue.  Neither of these guys should be pointed to as failures to the "moneyball" system, whatever that is.

Arky is spot on with everything and I will not attempt to restate what he has so well re- payroll correllation.  Pravata- I think you are really smart and really respect your opinion, but I really cannot understand where you are coming from on this one.  You have read the book- correct?

Of course.  And no where have I said that any system that the Red Sox, or A's used was a failure.  But, I think it is legitimate to question whether these systems, which are held up as being better at producing major league players, really are.  Was the attention that Lewis' book produced and yes, the arrogance also, justified?  The NY Times writer at least had that valuable question as a subtext.  Or is this point irrelevant because the flaws of his information and motives?

In addition, one of the other trends this book may have highlighted is the idea of GM as star.  And the idea that their actions have the most influence on whether a team wins.  Even going so far as Beane did by directing the makeup of the day to day lineup. Hunsicker did this as well

[WulawHorn]

I think that it should be self obvious that the players are the stars of the system- without them you obviously cannot win.  Since the GM is the man in charge of providing the product he is more important imo than the manager (i.e. if you give connie mack the Royal's roster they will not win, but I could manage the Yankees to an over .500 record).

I'm ok with saying that the right GM is the single most important component of organizational success, as he has to personally put together the product on the field that will lead to wins and losses.  The buck imo stops at his desk.

That being said I think fans wrongly (and stupidly) evaluate a GM on how many moves he makes and what the sex appeal of said moves are.  Sometimes a GM earns his money by trusting his development staff and not doing something to mess up the team he has (i.e. the count with the 05 stros).  The cult of personality assigned to a guy like theo or beane is wrongheaded in my opinion.  There is no one "right" way to go about building a team, but if you don't have the budget the Yanks do then you will not succeed team building the way that they do, which is the overarching point I received from reading Lewis.

He also had an interesting read on Mike Leach at Texas Tech in the NYT's sunday magazine- did you catch that?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
But, I think it is legitimate to question whether these systems, which are held up as being better at producing major league players, really are.

I'm still trying to figure out who it is holding up Moneyball like this.  I'm not questioning whether or not they're out there, and I promise I'm not trying just to be obstinate on this point.  If there were a column as an example of this that I could read and analyze, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

[Arky Vaughan]

I should hasten to add that I don't find Chass's depiction of what constitutes Moneyball to be coherent.  I know you're not advocating what he has to say, but I'm still not sure I know exactly what the target is here.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
The cult of personality assigned to a guy like theo or beane is wrongheaded in my opinion.  There is no one "right" way to go about building a team, but if you don't have the budget the Yanks do then you will not succeed team building the way that they do, which is the overarching point I received from reading Lewis.

The Yankees have benefited from identifying great talent paired with the funding to keep it in the fold -- Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Williams, Pettitte, Soriano. They can't be outbid for their own players in the free agent market, and they can outbid other teams for their players.

[Rebel Jew]

Quote:

Quote:
But, I think it is legitimate to question whether these systems, which are held up as being better at producing major league players, really are.

I'm still trying to figure out who it is holding up Moneyball like this.  I'm not questioning whether or not they're out there, and I promise I'm not trying just to be obstinate on this point.  If there were a column as an example of this that I could read and analyze, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

Arky, here is a completely bizarre article that i read in the SF Weekly a few months ago where some guy harrasses Joe Morgan for his anti Moneyball views.  Perhaps the most interesting part is the last page of the article where the writer all but suggests that Moneyball should be the foundation for a new religion.

The Link

[pravata]

Quote:
I think that it should be self obvious that the players are the stars of the system- without them you obviously cannot win.  Since the GM is the man in charge of providing the product he is more important imo than the manager (i.e. if you give connie mack the Royal's roster they will not win, but I could manage the Yankees to an over .500 record).

I'm ok with saying that the right GM is the single most important component of organizational success, as he has to personally put together the product on the field that will lead to wins and losses.  The buck imo stops at his desk.

That being said I think fans wrongly (and stupidly) evaluate a GM on how many moves he makes and what the sex appeal of said moves are.  Sometimes a GM earns his money by trusting his development staff and not doing something to mess up the team he has (i.e. the count with the 05 stros).  The cult of personality assigned to a guy like theo or beane is wrongheaded in my opinion.  There is no one "right" way to go about building a team, but if you don't have the budget the Yanks do then you will not succeed team building the way that they do, which is the overarching point I received from reading Lewis.

He also had an interesting read on Mike Leach at Texas Tech in the NYT's sunday magazine- did you catch that?

"Cult of personality", that's the phrase I needed.  I did see the article on Leach.  Same theory, different sport.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Arky, here is a completely bizarre article that i read in the SF Weekly a few months ago where some guy harrasses Joe Morgan for his anti Moneyball views.  Perhaps the most interesting part is the last page of the article where the writer all but suggests that Moneyball should be the foundation for a new religion.

The Link

Or perhaps that it's a challenge to an existing religion.  I found this interesting:

Quote:
As a concept, Moneyball was simplified to such a degree that it's now commonly, and wrongly, understood as a playing style in which nine fat men do little but walk, rather than a kind of arbitrage (one of Beane's pet analogies and an apt one, since what sets the A's apart is not necessarily a superior philosophy, but an ability to isolate and capitalize on price discrepancies and inefficiencies). "The book was beautifully understood outside baseball, and by many baseball owners," Lewis says in an e-mail. But in some quarters, he writes, there's still "the inability, or refusal, to grasp the [book's] most basic point -- that it is about using statistical analysis to shift the odds [of winning] a bit in one's favor, not to achieve perfect certainty, which is impossible."

[pravata]

Quote:
I should hasten to add that I don't find Chass's depiction of what constitutes Moneyball to be coherent.  I know you're not advocating what he has to say, but I'm still not sure I know exactly what the target is here.

Check out the customer reviews of Moneyball on Amazon for a taste, The Link

The professional reviews are also illuminating The Link

"What these geek numbers show?no, prove?is that the traditional yardsticks of success for players and teams are fatally flawed. Even the box score misleads us by ignoring the crucial importance of the humble base-on-balls. This information has been around for years, and nobody inside Major League Baseball paid it any mind. And then came Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland Athletics."

etc.

[otterj]

Quote:

Quote:
Wins in correlation to payroll can  be a good indicator of the effectiveness of a team's management (front office and coaching). Regardless of the methods it used to get those wins.

As can gate receipts and total attendance.  But, the selling point of the purveyors of these methods is that it can get wins for less.  Turning that into an excuse seems to have it both ways.  In any case Depodesta and Epstein did not have those restrictions.

I don't buy into the "genius" of the so-called Moneyball technique, whatever the hell that really means. After reading the book, I got the impression that it mostly meant: making the most out of what you have, and being willing to use new methods to do so.

All franchises are obviously not created equal. To think that a team's ability to spend has no correlation to its success is more than idiotic. But some teams are more likely to squeeze more value out of every buck, while others are more likely to waste. It isn't the amount of total payroll, but how each dollar is spent. There's a difference there, but an increased payroll certainly makes it easier to apply a better method, and as a direct result, get more wins.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Check out the customer reviews of Moneyball on Amazon for a taste, The Link

The professional reviews are also illuminating The Link

"What these geek numbers show?no, prove?is that the traditional yardsticks of success for players and teams are fatally flawed. Even the box score misleads us by ignoring the crucial importance of the humble base-on-balls. This information has been around for years, and nobody inside Major League Baseball paid it any mind. And then came Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland Athletics."

etc.

Somebody who claims nobody in Major League Baseball before Billy Bean paid attention to walks is obviously making a severely erroneous statement.  If those are the dragons to be slain, don't let me stand in the way.

[WulawHorn]

no doubt re the leach article applying the same theory to a different sport. Similarly such a case study could be done on West Virginia basketball as I mentioned.

I wouldn't advocate the NY Yankes or Texas Longhorns adopting such an approach but there is no doubt in my mind that were I to own a team in a small market, or be a second tier university in a small talent area I would want to get such an innovator for my school/squad, as competing traditionally doesn't work with tons of inherent disadvantages.

[Arky Vaughan]

That same review included this silliness:

"Billy paid attention to those numbers ? with the second lowest payroll in baseball at his disposal he had to ? and this book records his astonishing experiment in finding and fielding a team that nobody else wanted."

Yeah, the entire A's team was cast-offs.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Wins in correlation to payroll can  be a good indicator of the effectiveness of a team's management (front office and coaching). Regardless of the methods it used to get those wins.

As can gate receipts and total attendance.  But, the selling point of the purveyors of these methods is that it can get wins for less.  Turning that into an excuse seems to have it both ways.  In any case Depodesta and Epstein did not have those restrictions.

I don't buy into the "genius" of the so-called Moneyball technique, whatever the hell that really means. After reading the book, I got the impression that it mostly meant: making the most out of what you have, and being willing to use new methods to do so.

All franchises are obviously not created equal. To think that a team's ability to spend has no correlation to its success is more than idiotic. But some teams are more likely to squeeze more value out of every buck, while others are more likely to waste. It isn't the amount of total payroll, but how each dollar is spent. There's a difference there, but an increased payroll certainly makes it easier to apply a better method, and as a direct result, get more wins.

If that's what Lewis was saying, then I don't think the book would have caused the reactions it did.  Do more with less, seems familar.  The net cost per win isn't a statistic that will advance a team in terms of competition with other teams.  It's something a GM can point to as a factor he thinks should be considered in his job performance, but it's meaningless when teams are compared in the standings.   I don't think many people who appreciate Moneyball would agree that the methods should be changed just because more money is involved.  A greater number of attributes per player might be within their means.  They could get a player with a high OBP AND has 2 hands.

[Lefty]

Quote:

Quote:
After reading the book, I got the impression that it mostly meant: making the most out of what you have, and being willing to use new methods to do so.

If that's what Lewis was saying, then I don't think the book would have caused the reactions it did.

From the horse's mouth:

Quote:
"the [book's] most basic point -- that it is about using statistical analysis to shift the odds [of winning] a bit in one's favor..."  

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
The net cost per win isn't a statistic that will advance a team in terms of competition with other teams.  It's something a GM can point to as a factor he thinks should be considered in his job performance, but it's meaningless when teams are compared in the standings.

I don't think anyone is arguing that net cost per win has anything to do with the standings.  But if you're evaluating whether Beane has done a good job, it's entirely relevant to that evaluation, since severe payroll constraints are a detriment Beane had to overcome in implementing his system.

Take two teams, one with a $50 million payroll and one with a $100 million payroll, and the results of the last decade suggest that more likely than not the team with the $100 million payroll has some advantage by virtue of that discrepancy.  Beane set out to narrow that advantage and even to overcome it.  He appears to have done so.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
From the horse's mouth:

"the [book's] most basic point -- that it is about using statistical analysis to shift the odds [of winning] a bit in one's favor..."

Precisely.  Add as well that it's "a kind of arbitrage (one of Beane's pet analogies and an apt one, since what sets the A's apart is not necessarily a superior philosophy, but an ability to isolate and capitalize on price discrepancies and inefficiencies).

[Lefty]

Quote:

Quote:
From the horse's mouth:

"the [book's] most basic point -- that it is about using statistical analysis to shift the odds [of winning] a bit in one's favor..."

Precisely.  Add as well that it's "a kind of arbitrage (one of Beane's pet analogies and an apt one, since what sets the A's apart is not necessarily a superior philosophy, but an ability to isolate and capitalize on price discrepancies and inefficiencies).

The thing is, I don't think either of these concepts is revolutionary in practice, just in the way they've been presented & publicized.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
From the horse's mouth:

"the [book's] most basic point -- that it is about using statistical analysis to shift the odds [of winning] a bit in one's favor..."

Precisely.  Add as well that it's "a kind of arbitrage (one of Beane's pet analogies and an apt one, since what sets the A's apart is not necessarily a superior philosophy, but an ability to isolate and capitalize on price discrepancies and inefficiencies).

Here's a quote from an interview with Lewis.  Clearly, he says that management who follow the theories described in his book are more "suited" to manage.  Is this the same as saying they are superior?  Is he not making a value judgement?

"And the idea of looking outside of the (baseball) industry for people to come in and manage?which makes an awful lot of sense?is anathema to it. It is an income- and status-preservation society. And when someone comes in with a book like this and introduces a kind of radical new idea about?it wasn?t my idea, but it was an idea that was new to them?about the evaluation of management and the people who put together teams, and it says, ?Look, by this standard a lot of you people shouldn?t even be doing this. You clearly aren?t suited to it??it?s very offensive. And they respond very conservatively; there?s a quick reaction. They are very reactionary."
The Link

(fyi, for those who are inclined, see
An Economic Evaluation of the Moneyball Hypothesis 10/2005
The Link

Click on "Go to Document Delivery" then click on "Social Science Research Network" for the text of this 20 page document.)

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
Check out the customer reviews of Moneyball on Amazon for a taste, The Link

The professional reviews are also illuminating The Link

"What these geek numbers show?no, prove?is that the traditional yardsticks of success for players and teams are fatally flawed. Even the box score misleads us by ignoring the crucial importance of the humble base-on-balls. This information has been around for years, and nobody inside Major League Baseball paid it any mind. And then came Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland Athletics."

etc.

Somebody who claims nobody in Major League Baseball before Billy Bean paid attention to walks is obviously making a severely erroneous statement.  If those are the dragons to be slain, don't let me stand in the way.

I realize you only pay attention to the reasonable people who are commenting on this book.  However, the overwhelming weight of opinion that follows this book comes from just such nutjobs.  Nutjobs who write magazine articles, nutjobs who call into radio shows, nutjobs who log on to sports bulletin boards, nutjobs who write papers on statistical analysis.  Why care? Of course, a reasonable question, however, these nutjobs think they have a voice in influencing a team's decisions.

[otterj]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
From the horse's mouth:

"the [book's] most basic point -- that it is about using statistical analysis to shift the odds [of winning] a bit in one's favor..."

Precisely.  Add as well that it's "a kind of arbitrage (one of Beane's pet analogies and an apt one, since what sets the A's apart is not necessarily a superior philosophy, but an ability to isolate and capitalize on price discrepancies and inefficiencies).

Here's a quote from an interview with Lewis.  Clearly, he says that management who follow the theories described in his book are more "suited" to manage.  Is this the same as saying they are superior?  Is he not making a value judgement?

"And the idea of looking outside of the (baseball) industry for people to come in and manage?which makes an awful lot of sense?is anathema to it. It is an income- and status-preservation society. And when someone comes in with a book like this and introduces a kind of radical new idea about?it wasn?t my idea, but it was an idea that was new to them?about the evaluation of management and the people who put together teams, and it says, ?Look, by this standard a lot of you people shouldn?t even be doing this. You clearly aren?t suited to it??it?s very offensive. And they respond very conservatively; there?s a quick reaction. They are very reactionary."
The Link

(fyi, for those who are inclined, see
An Economic Evaluation of the Moneyball Hypothesis 10/2005
The Link

Click on "Go to Document Delivery" then click on "Social Science Research Network" for the text of this 20 page document.)

For Lewis, the controversy and exaggeration is good, it helps him sell more books.

But I doubt that Beane would say that what he's been doing is all that different from what other GM's have been doing.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I realize you only pay attention to the reasonable people who are commenting on this book.  However, the overwhelming weight of opinion that follows this book comes from just such nutjobs.  Nutjobs who write magazine articles, nutjobs who call into radio shows, nutjobs who log on to sports bulletin boards, nutjobs who write papers on statistical analysis.  Why care? Of course, a reasonable question, however, these nutjobs think they have a voice in influencing a team's decisions.

I'm not sure that the overwhelming weight of opinion on Moneyball comes from the nutjobs.  It's just the nutjobs who are most vocal about it.  Virtually every team uses and used long before Moneyball some form of statistical analysis, perhaps just not to the degree the A's reportedly did.  But the bottom line is that the nutjobs are still largely on the outside looking in when it comes to the professional baseball industry.  They may be responsible for a lot of books and a lot of chatter, and that may have some peripheral impact on decision-making, but the old schoolers largely remain in the driver's seat.  I think a team is more likely to be under the influence of someone who scorns Moneyball rather than worships it.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Here's a quote from an interview with Lewis.  Clearly, he says that management who follow the theories described in his book are more "suited" to manage.  Is this the same as saying they are superior?  Is he not making a value judgement?

"And the idea of looking outside of the (baseball) industry for people to come in and manage?which makes an awful lot of sense?is anathema to it. It is an income- and status-preservation society. And when someone comes in with a book like this and introduces a kind of radical new idea about?it wasn't my idea, but it was an idea that was new to them?about the evaluation of management and the people who put together teams, and it says, "Look, by this standard a lot of you people shouldn't even be doing this. You clearly aren't suited to it"?it's very offensive. And they respond very conservatively; there's a quick reaction. They are very reactionary."
The Link

This is a value judgment, but not necessarily about the best approach to running a baseball team.  Is it not a factual matter that baseball organizations tend to recruit overwhelmingly from inside the industry and tend to be terribly reluctant to consider hiring outside the undustry?  This is not exclusive to baseball, of course, but it is an ingrained bias.  If you're not an old player, old scout or old front-office hand, you're extremely unlikely to find a position or even consideration for your ideas.