it just doesn’t work as advertised.

Mike Honcho on June 16, 2012 at 4:47 PM

It’s obvious that you don’t understand what Moneyball is and what it isn’t.

Here’s what it all boils down to:

- The Oakland A’s had spectacular drafts in the late 90’s and early 00’s.
- They used the talent they stockpiled in those drafts to build a highly talented and competitive team.
- They managed to pry open a window of contention from 2002 to 2006.
- Following 2006, their window of contention closed and they became a struggling, subpar franchise.

Now my question to you is what exactly makes the Oakland A’s unique? How exactly do they differ from countless other teams in the pre-”Moneyball” era who built through the draft, achieved considerable success and ultimately entered a period of decline?

Nothing really, other than the notion that statistical analysis somehow gives them a competitive advantage when it comes to talent evaluation and payroll. These claims are laughable given that the Oakland A’s have not been able to rebuild via the draft and free agency or be competitive with other small market teams (let alone larger market teams). The A’s are on pace this year to finish below .500. If they do, it will be the sixth consecutive year in which they have failed to finish with a winning record.

As for the argument that other teams have copied their methods and this is blunting their success, well not all teams have copied their methods. Furthermore this might impact free agency, but the A’s would still be in a good position to rebuild via the draft since draft positioning is determined by a team’s won/loss record, and the A’s haven’t been winning much lately. Their statistical analysis should be able to identify enough quality picks for the team to rebuild but they haven’t been able to. So I’m not buying that one either.

“Moneyball” is the baseball equivalent of alchemy. I can understand its appeal to baseball execs seeking to change base payrolls into World Series gold, but the reality is that it just doesn’t work as advertised. You’ve gotta spend money to win.

The whole concept of Moneyball is a crock. How many championships have the Oakland A’s won under Billy Beane again?

Mike Honcho on June 15, 2012 at 8:58 PM

It’s not a crock, but the principles of Moneyball is simply to generate wins over a large sample size (an entire season). Unfortunately, this doesn’t offer much of an advantage over superior teams (which are represented in playoffs) in small sample sizes (the playoffs are only handful of games).

It’s like card counting in blackjack. It’s going to give you a slight advantage over the house, but it doesn’t give you much of an advantage in any given hand. This is why card counters need to be able to absorb extensive losses initially.

Now, the best combination is to use Moneyball in conjunction with a big budget!

Lastly, the Oakland A’s haven’t finished above .500 in five years. Something that shouldn’t happen if the statistical, highly scientific methods of baseball analysis were as foolproof as their advocates claim.

Have a nice day.

Mike Honcho on June 16, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Well, that’s mostly because the 29 other teams are now starting to judge talent in the same way the A’s did in the late 90s/early 2000s. It shows up in the draft and free agent signings, and coupled with other teams’ ability to spend more money, it blunts Beane’s impact in Oakland.

Moneyball changed the game, but it only gave Oakland the advantage for a short time before everyone else caught up with it.

Red Cloud on June 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Yep, it’s as if Branch Rickey and Earl Weaver never existed. I especially found Joe Morgan’s frothing at the mouth about the book amusing, since Cincinnati’s acquisition of Morgan from the Astros was a classic Moneyball-type trade, i.e. get a player who’s undervalued due to extraneous playing conditions (i,e, the Astrodome depressing his BA) and put him in an environment where his skills shine. The jackasses who said that Jackie Robinson would never be acquired by Beane evinced an utter lack of understanding of the system.

Lastly, the Oakland A’s haven’t finished above .500 in five years. Something that shouldn’t happen if the statistical, highly scientific methods of baseball analysis were as foolproof as their advocates claim.

Have a nice day.

Mike Honcho on June 16, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Well, that’s mostly because the 29 other teams are now starting to judge talent in the same way the A’s did in the late 90s/early 2000s. It shows up in the draft and free agent signings, and coupled with other teams’ ability to spend more money, it blunts Beane’s impact in Oakland.

Moneyball changed the game, but it only gave Oakland the advantage for a short time before everyone else caught up with it.

If Bill James wanted an apt comparison of Moneyball to politics, he should look at social media. Six years ago, the Democrats were using the evolving social media scene to re-establish themselves after getting kicked up and down the field in three straight election cycles (and four out of six). Today Republicans are starting to master the art – and it helps when your opponents are incompetent.

Myths of presidential campaign moneyball

BigSven don’t know nuttin’ about no money ball……

But, he do know that Obama is one big sticky tarball…and anyone associated with him will ‘rue the day’ they latched onto this guy.

History will not be kind to Mr. Obama, worst president ever, and all associated with him.

The guy is detestable.

But if it works to for Romney describe him as likeable, go ahead.

But it’s a bunch of crap tho.

I am wary of it…

Red herring, but thanks for playing. They DID adopt this method, and they did win the WS two years later.

Epic Fail.

The Red Sox DID outspend 28 other teams that year (2007 as well). It is hardly irrelevant to their success and if you believe otherwise then you’re literally too stupid to insult. Furthermore if wildly outspending other MLB teams constitutes a “Moneyball” strategy, then the New York Yankees constitute one hell of a “Moneyball” team.

Lastly, the Oakland A’s haven’t finished above .500 in five years. Something that shouldn’t happen if the statistical, highly scientific methods of baseball analysis were as foolproof as their advocates claim.

Have a nice day.

Aretha Franklin just left Sarah Jessica Parker’s $40,000 a-plate dinner party … after spending just 20 MINUTES INSIDE … that’s $2,000-per minute!!!!!

Aretha — who was the first to arrive to the Barack Obama fundraiser — was also the first to the leave.

On her way out, Ms. Franklin told us the food was impressive … “chicken with a mustard sauce, diced tomatoes and a lot of relishes on the side of the plate.”

She added, “Very tasty.”

Red herring, but thanks for playing. They DID adopt this method, and they did win the WS two years later.

Epic Fail.

fossten on June 15, 2012 at 11:59 PM

And the BoSox went so far as to have Bill James as an advisor. Although it is true that Billy Beane doesn’t look nearly as hot now as he did when the book came out.

Yes they did. With the third higest payroll in baseball.

Epic Fail.

Mike Honcho on June 15, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Red herring, but thanks for playing. They DID adopt this method, and they did win the WS two years later.

Epic Fail.

The Red Sox adopted his method and won the World Series two years later.

CORRECTION: The Red Sox didn’t have the third highest payroll in baseball in 2004, they actually had the second highest. That’s what I get for working from memory.

The Red Sox are hardly the definition of a small market, perpetually cash strapped “Moneyball” team. They spend big money to acquire top tier talent and that talent gives them a competitive edge. Furthermore their deep pockets allow them to retain that talent year in and year out. The Oakland A’s could only dream of having that luxury.

Those who have read or seen Moneyball know that the reason a low-budget team could compete with the big spenders was that major league baseball scouting was sytematically misjudging talent

It was about a lot more than that. The old criteria for weighting data were changed. F’instance, walks took on a much more weighted role as did strikeouts and nonproductive outs, the ability to bunt was disregarded as a plus, because it yielded an out, and extra base hits took on even more weight. It was all about having players who could extend an inning. Example: Nick Swisher, who had a great eye at the plate and drew a lot of walks. Keeping the team at bat in an inning was a major goal. High risk ventures, like hit and run, were frowned upon.

Here ya’ go: let Obama to continue to court and spark with Hollywood, homosexual activism, illegal aliens, racists and other Marxists and watch the GOP slide across home base this November.

Lourdes on June 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

…I hope the GOP goes in standing up, if they have to slide in with this goof…that’s not a good thing!

The Red Sox adopted his method and won the World Series two years later.

Yes they did. With the third higest payroll in baseball.

Epic Fail.

The whole concept of Moneyball is a crock. How many championships have the Oakland A’s won under Billy Beane again?

Mike Honcho on June 15, 2012 at 8:58 PM

The Red Sox adopted his method and won the World Series two years later.

Fail.

It is about the progressives’ attempts to delegitimize GOP victories before they are even won. It just doesn’t have a factual basis.

Facts schmacts