- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Many Problems With 'Moneyball'
Posted on 9/27/11 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 9/27/11 at 4:07 pm
I don't know shite about baseball, but I read the book several years back and really enjoyed it. Was curious what you experts thought about this:
LINK
quote:
The film Moneyball is—just like the 2003 bestseller by Michael Lewis it's based on—an idealized version of what happened with Billy Beane and the Oakland A's in the early part of the last decade. Beane is credited with adapting baseball analyst Bill James's statistical concepts into practical application. James, a lucid and witty writer with a refreshingly iconoclastic view of baseball history, had argued for years that on-base percentage (OBP, which measure a batter's ability to reach base by hit or walk) was much more significant than mere batting average (BA, which only measures hits). James also stressed the relative value of slugging average (SLG, which measures a batter's total bases per at-bat) and dismissed the more traditional baseball stats such as stolen bases and bunts.
James long ago won over the smart guys, in whose ranks this writer regards himself. The cult of professional statisticians that followed in James's wake came to be known as "sabermatricians" as nearly all of them are members of SABR, the Society for American Baseball research. But a myth has built up around Moneyball the book, a myth largely propagated by the smart guys who want to see their most cherished beliefs about baseball transformed into hard reality. The myth says Beane single-handedly changed the game by recognizing the value of sabermetrics. But the myth doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
So popular has Moneyball proved since its publication that few have bothered to notice some of its very fundamental flaws. Throughout the book, Lewis makes it clear that he doesn't understand baseball.
His first important error is his misunderstanding of the competitiveness of the sport by the end of the 20th century. In the preface to Moneyball he writes, "For more than a decade, the people who run professional baseball have argued that the game was ceasing to be an athletic competition and becoming a financial one. The gap between rich and poor in baseball was far greater than in any other professional sport and widening rapidly." Lewis is correct if he's talking about the salaries paid by the richest and poorest teams, but he's not correct if he's talking about the competition in the ballparks.
LINK
7
Posted on 9/27/11 at 4:15 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
The myth says Beane single-handedly changed the game by recognizing the value of sabermetrics. But the myth doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
IMO, that myth has been kind of a strawman put forth by critics of the book more than anything.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 4:19 pm to Tiger JJ
Not done yet, but:
quote:
The Beauty of Short Hops: How Chance and Circumstance Confound the Moneyball Approach to Baseball, Sheldon Hirsch and Alan Hirsch .
Posted on 9/27/11 at 4:21 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
Lewis is correct if he's talking about the salaries paid by the richest and poorest teams, but he's not correct if he's talking about the competition in the ballparks
There have been a FEW exceptions but for the most part teams with the higher salaries win a lot more championships and they win WAY more regular season games.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 4:33 pm to Tiger JJ
Much like the Blind Side, Moneyball should be read more for narrative than facts. It's not a tried and true biography.
As noted in the review, Lewis' gift is storytelling, thus the asides about quirky Chad Bradford and Scott Hatteburg, and his love for Jeremy Brown, who did shite nothing at the next level.
Other thoughts:
1) He's criticizing Beane via Lewis and it's stupid and unfair.
Just because Michael Lewis wrote a 40 page chapter on Scott Hatteburg doesn't mean Billy Beane thought he was better than Miguel Tejada. I don't see the point in criticizing how a book is composed and somehow turning that into a criticism of what Billy Beane (who is a CHARACTER, not an author) does as a GM.
2) This "By the way, The Beauty of Short Hops, though it punctures gaping holes in Moneyball, has all but been ignored by the baseball sports establishment, just as the truth of the numerous Bill James-derived statistics that Beane used were previously ignored by the old baseball establishment." is plainly not true.
IN fact, most every advanced stats site was all over this book with thorough reviews, many of which addressed this idiotic book and their terrible analysis.
3) "None of Beane's other 2008 draft picks panned out, either."
1st, this must be a typo, because Jeremy Brown was a 2002 draft pick and that's the class he's referencing directly before.
Second, it's also factually incorrect, because Nick Swisher, Joe Blanton, Mark Teahan and a few others have had solid to good careers. (They took Wally POntiff that year too, BTW).
Third, so what? It happens. The Yankees have bad drafts. He missed on Jeremy Brown, okay. To isolate a single season that was highlighted by a book and use that as your entire example of why something doesn't work is just shoddy thought/research/writing all around.
4) And finally, so I'm gonna write a long article to tell you why "Moneyball" (using the term loosely here) is bullshite only to tell you at the end that "Moneyball" is not, in fact, bullshite:
As noted in the review, Lewis' gift is storytelling, thus the asides about quirky Chad Bradford and Scott Hatteburg, and his love for Jeremy Brown, who did shite nothing at the next level.
Other thoughts:
1) He's criticizing Beane via Lewis and it's stupid and unfair.
Just because Michael Lewis wrote a 40 page chapter on Scott Hatteburg doesn't mean Billy Beane thought he was better than Miguel Tejada. I don't see the point in criticizing how a book is composed and somehow turning that into a criticism of what Billy Beane (who is a CHARACTER, not an author) does as a GM.
2) This "By the way, The Beauty of Short Hops, though it punctures gaping holes in Moneyball, has all but been ignored by the baseball sports establishment, just as the truth of the numerous Bill James-derived statistics that Beane used were previously ignored by the old baseball establishment." is plainly not true.
IN fact, most every advanced stats site was all over this book with thorough reviews, many of which addressed this idiotic book and their terrible analysis.
3) "None of Beane's other 2008 draft picks panned out, either."
1st, this must be a typo, because Jeremy Brown was a 2002 draft pick and that's the class he's referencing directly before.
Second, it's also factually incorrect, because Nick Swisher, Joe Blanton, Mark Teahan and a few others have had solid to good careers. (They took Wally POntiff that year too, BTW).
Third, so what? It happens. The Yankees have bad drafts. He missed on Jeremy Brown, okay. To isolate a single season that was highlighted by a book and use that as your entire example of why something doesn't work is just shoddy thought/research/writing all around.
4) And finally, so I'm gonna write a long article to tell you why "Moneyball" (using the term loosely here) is bullshite only to tell you at the end that "Moneyball" is not, in fact, bullshite:
quote:
Perhaps the bitterest irony, one that still hasn't gotten across with most of the sports media, is who sabermetrics actually did end up helping. The subtitle of Moneyball is "The Art of Winning an Unfair Game." As a long, feel-good story in the September 26 Sports Illustrated details, the team that seems to have benefited most from the study of sabermetrics is the Boston Red Sox, who hired Bill James as an advisor in 2004. It was, of course, long overdue that major league front offices should recognize James's genius, but surely Red Sox GM Theo Epstein, a James aficionado, would have made use of his talents with or without Billy Beane's relative success in Oakland. And it certainly must be acknowledged that the Red Sox, with enormous resources at their disposal, had the money to pursue and sign high-pried free agents who the A's and other low budgets teams could not. With James on board, the Red Sox finally broke the so-called "Curse of the Bambino" and won two World Series in 2004 and 2007—though they won in 2004 in the most improbable of ways, coming back from a 0-3 deficit to the Yankees in the ALCS, just as they had lost the ALCS to the Yankees in the most improbable fashion the previous season when their ace, Pedro Martinez, melted down and lost a sizeable lead in the deciding game.
This post was edited on 9/27/11 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 9/27/11 at 4:36 pm to OBUDan
Posted on 9/27/11 at 5:00 pm to OBUDan
quote:
IN fact, most every advanced stats site was all over this book with thorough reviews, many of which addressed this idiotic book and their terrible analysis.
which books is idiotic? Moneyball or the other one?
Posted on 9/27/11 at 5:05 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
which books is idiotic? Moneyball or the other one?
Short Hops. There were a lot of reviews and I believe Fangraphs even welcomes the authors to do a Q&A to give them fair platform to answer some of the queries and they ended up looking pretty bad in it all.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 6:34 pm to Tiger JJ
After reading this article I will spend my money on a movie this weekend.
Dolphin Tale.
Dolphin Tale.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 6:44 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
The gap between rich and poor in baseball was far greater than in any other professional sport and widening rapidly."
Jersey, I am sure you will agree with me when soccer is far more influenced by the haves and the have-nots.
It was a really good back and a fun read. There was a definitely a lot of fascinating aspects of the book in terms of using James's theories. However, my favorite parts of Moneyball are that Michael Lewis spends a whole chapter on a fat kid who ends up doing nothing, but he can walk (basically, an unsuccessful Chris Iannetta). His storytelling ability is great because everyone knows that Hudson, Zito, and Mulder were studs and Tejada was fantastic as well, but why not enjoy the lesser known aspects of the Oakland A's runs as one of the best teams in baseball? I loved reading about Beane's love of Swisher (not wanted to watch him play because he knew others would like him - I think Kenny Williams called Beane out on that). The random shite like how they had to pay for the drinks from the vending machine in the clubhouse. That is why makes Moneyball great. It is an excellent and factual baseball novel with some fun stories inside.
Posted on 9/27/11 at 10:22 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
His storytelling ability is great because everyone knows that Hudson, Zito, and Mulder were studs and Tejada was fantastic as well, but why not enjoy the lesser known aspects of the Oakland A's runs as one of the best teams in baseball?
Another stupid aspect of this "review."
Why waste time telling readers that Mulder/Hudson/Zito/Tejada/Chavez are good? Everyone already knew that!
Posted on 9/28/11 at 12:09 pm to OBUDan
quote:
Why waste time telling readers that Mulder/Hudson/Zito/Tejada/Chavez are good? Everyone already knew that!
I didn't. I don't follow baseball at all. I've only heard of 2 of those guys.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 12:11 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
I didn't. I don't follow baseball at all. I've only heard of 2 of those guys.
Okay, maybe I should have worded it that to write a book about, "Hey look, a guy hitting .300 with 30 homers made this team good" would make even the most novice baseball fan go, "Well, yeah?"
It's not a story or interesting, really.
I guess my main point is, of course those guys being good played into it. But that wouldn't be anything worth writing a book about.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 12:35 pm to OBUDan
quote:
But that wouldn't be anything worth writing a book about.
But if they were largely the explanation, then perhaps the book wasn't worth writing at all. I can tell you as a non-fan who is mostly ignorant of the subject matter, finding out some of this stuff really changes my opinion of the book.
ETA: It's kind of like when people would say, in support of the hire, about Curley Hallman - he beat Florida St TWICE while he was at Southern Miss. And then much later you find out Southern Miss had Brett Favre.
This post was edited on 9/28/11 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 9/28/11 at 12:48 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
But if they were largely the explanation, then perhaps the book wasn't worth writing at all. I can tell you as a non-fan who is mostly ignorant of the subject matter, finding out some of this stuff really changes my opinion of the book.
It still was a very innovative way to run a ballclub. The Oakland A's still had talented ballplayers on their club, no doubt. However, they did it with less money and they were able to utilize undervalued players very well. It is a good story. Billy Beane definitely deserves some credit for what he did. He is probably overrated because of the book and now the movie, but he definitely made a lot of intuitive moves that most clubs at the time would not have done.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 12:54 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
But if they were largely the explanation, then perhaps the book wasn't worth writing at all.
I'd say the fact that BOS/NYY.. hell, everyone, adopted a lot his principles speaks to the value of the book/Beane's knowledge/impact.
I'm not even saying Beane is the best GM in baseball, because Epstein, Cashman, Friedman even, all have stronger cases.
The Yanks and Red Sox have had good pitching and sluggers for years, so the idea of having Mulder/Zito/Hudson and a couple of bats wouldn't be anything worth adopting.
They didn't have guys like Brett Gardner and Kevin Youkilis, who don't put up traditional stat lines for their respective positions, but get on base a lot, play good defense, etc.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 12:56 pm to lsu480
quote:
There have been a FEW exceptions but for the most part teams with the higher salaries win a lot more championships and they win WAY more regular season games.
It's the same at any level of sports. Whoever invest the most money has the better chance of winning.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 1:07 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:
But if they were largely the explanation, then perhaps the book wasn't worth writing at all.
the point of the book was they looked at undervalued assets. Its been a while sicne I read it , but I seem to remember Lewis spent a good bit of time talking about James and the revolution looking at stats that he was a big part of. To me the interesting parts of the book were about stuff like that, not necessarily the A's. Just like the Blind Side, the good parts don;t have anything to do with the Oher or the Touhy's. but that type of story makes a better movie.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 1:34 pm to OBUDan
quote:
I'm not even saying Beane is the best GM in baseball, because Epstein, Cashman, Friedman even, all have stronger cases.
Friedman sure. Absolutely.
The other two are given so much more money, than the Beanes and Friedmans of the league, to work with that any comparison is apples to oranges.
Posted on 9/28/11 at 2:28 pm to Tiger JJ
The concepts that Billy Beane used to assemble the Oakland A's teams only work over the course of a 162 game schedule. Billy Beane was quoted in the book saying all he could do was put together a team to make the playoffs. Once the playoffs started it was a crap shoot.
Beane was operating at a disadvantage in the market for baseball players. He simply could not afford to pay for the players that were highly desired by his competitors. He found a way to be competitive by identifying a better metric for what wins baseball games for a team over the course of a season, and then applying that metric for determining the value of players to make up the team given the financial constraints he had to operate under. Beane was successful in meeting his objectives. Those who claim he failed are using a different standard, probably one that they think his objective should have been.
Beane was operating at a disadvantage in the market for baseball players. He simply could not afford to pay for the players that were highly desired by his competitors. He found a way to be competitive by identifying a better metric for what wins baseball games for a team over the course of a season, and then applying that metric for determining the value of players to make up the team given the financial constraints he had to operate under. Beane was successful in meeting his objectives. Those who claim he failed are using a different standard, probably one that they think his objective should have been.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News