10
2012
Should The Mets Retire The Moneyball Project?
An article by 
The Mets currently have a front office in place that has earned them the nickname the “Moneyball Mets.” Mets G.M. Sandy Alderson was once Billy Beane’s mentor, and the Mets have also added a couple of other front office executives that once worked with Beane. As the Brady Bunch theme song goes – everyone sing along – that’s the way we became the Moneyball Mets.
Does that mean the Mets are on pace to have the success the A’s had ten years ago that was chronicled in the book and movie Moneyball? Not likely.
For those of you who haven’t read the book (or watched the movie), Moneyball is based on a form of analysis called sabermetrics. Simply stated, moneyball theorizes that in order to win games, a team has to score more runs than their opponent by getting on base more frequently. It goes further to analyze which players actually help you score more runs using a series of mathematical equations called sabermetrics. This is obviously a very rudimentary explanation of moneyball, but it inevitably goes against everything the traditional scouts have been saying for over 100 years. Scouts search far and wide for the coveted five tool players which are as rare as unicorns and leprechauns. The search takes them around the globe with one goal in mind: to build the best teams they can by seeking out the best talent.
Sabermetrics allowed Beane to take advantage of players often ignored by other teams in order to build his historic 2002 team. They were ignored since teams didn’t understand their true value. This misunderstanding was due to not using sabermetrics to evaluate players. At least that is what we are led to believe. We will return to this later.
The movie alludes to the idea that Beane was looking for a way to analyze talent that was different from the traditional scouts. This was supposedly due to the fact that he was once considered a “can’t miss” five tool player. He was selected in the first round of the 1980 MLB draft (by the Mets coincidentally), but never lived up to expectations. The Mets had three first round picks that year, and held the number one pick. They used that number one pick on Daryl Strawberry after Beane signed on to play football and baseball with Stanford, even though scouts thought Beane was as close to a “sure thing” as you can get from a prospect. No teams wanted to risk a first round pick on a kid that was going to be John Elway’s heir at Stanford. The only team who could afford to take that risk was the New York Mets since they had two other first round picks.
To this day, scouts say Beane was the most gifted athlete in the 1980 draft class. But if Beane learned anything from his playing career, it’s that there is no such thing as a “sure thing.” This has him at odds with scouts who wanted to try and put the best overall players on the field, the way big market teams do.
Back to Beane’s 2002 Oakland Athletics team which was the basis of the book and movie Moneyball. First, let me say that the movie was entertaining. Unfortunately, it paints a picture of Beane building the entire 2002 A’s from a bunch of players that no other team wanted. It reminded me of the scene in the movie Major League when they are trying to build a team bad enough that will help the Indians move out of Cleveland. Nobody was previously playing in the California Penal League, and the team was actually stacked before Beane added the final few pieces of the puzzle using sabermetrics.
The movie fails to mention the fact that the pitching staff consisted of Barry Zito (2002 Cy Young Winner), Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson who were affectionately known as the “Big 3.” Let’s put it this way, if Beane didn’t win the division with those three guys he should’ve lost his job. By the way, the closer was Billy Koch, and it gets even better. The A’s had Miguel Tejada (2002 AL MVP), Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, Ray Durham, and David Justice all in their lineup. So was the success of the A’s due to sabermetrics being used to add a few players that nobody even remembers from the team, or the fact that everything came together for the A’s due to great player development? And if you thought the 2002 pitching staff was scary, the 2003 & 2004 A’s added a young Rich Harden to the mix. How did the Athletics manage to never win a World Series with those guys on their pitching staff?
Now let’s get back to the Mets. I think everyone will agree the Mets don’t have the talent the A’s had in the early 2000s. Not only that, but the A’s are a small market team, so they had to come up with creative ways to compete with big market teams. Look at it this way - when a person with a lower income goes to buy a car, they look for different attributes in that car than a person with a higher income would. The person with lower income goes to buy a Honda. It will get you back and forth to work, it’s reliable and good on gas, but you aren’t winning any races. The person with higher income goes to buy a Corvette, and the license plate reads “eat my dust.”
The Mets are a large market team. They shouldn’t be shopping for Hondas. Their license plate should read “eat my dust.” It doesn’t make sense for them to use the strategies of the small market teams. Their strategy should be to use their revenue stream to crush their opponents. The Mets can certainly learn a thing or two about player development from the Athletics of the early 2000s, but I’m still not sold on the fact that sabermetrics had anything to do with the success of those teams after looking at the players on that roster.
Can the Mets build a winning team using sabermetrics and moneyball? I know one thing for certain – no small market teams have won the World Series using sabermetrics alone in the past ten years. So if the Mets want to start winning again, they better start taking the money out of Moneyball, and start spending it.
About the Author: Mitch Petanick
Mitch is currently an Editor and Minor League Analyst for Mets Merized Online. His baseball experience includes being a former All-Conference collegiate baseball player who had numerous professional tryouts, and he is currently a hitting instructor. He has been involved with the game of baseball for over 30 years now as a player, coach, and consultant. Mitch is also a former Featured Columnist on Bleacher Report. You can follow him on Twitter @FirstPitchMitch.
115 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- Metsie: on Sandy Disappointed With Some Of His Moves And The Team’s Performance: Sorry Connor they weren't mistakes made by...
- Vinny B: on Mets Need More Time To Get Better Understanding Of Ike Davis?: Also, one could make the argument that...
- Jimmy J: on Mets Need More Time To Get Better Understanding Of Ike Davis?: Send him down for 2 weeks. He's...
- FalseHustle: on Mets Need More Time To Get Better Understanding Of Ike Davis?: Why are the dumbest ones always the...
- Vinny B: on Mets Need More Time To Get Better Understanding Of Ike Davis?: Okay, so explain how Crawfrod was not...
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5387 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
UH OH????? You might get a lot of heat from the saber guys… they do not like their method to be criticized or to put on display…
Sabermetrics has its place, but it’s not what made the A’s teams so good…it was a lot of timing and good luck that all those prospects gelled at the same time.
by the way, you were dead on on this article, great job… Tony larussa touch on the same thing, he said it was a slap in the face to those 3 great young pitchers and some of those players who were there…
And remember, Tejada and Giambi were juiced out of their mind.
I think Too many people make a big deal about what appen in a book or especially the movie. Watching the movie to understand Moneyball is lie watching Pearl Harbor to understand WWII. Things are embellished to make money.
Good point
Paul DePodesta on joining the Mets. “I’m excited to be here. Helping to build sustainable success in New York will be so much different than it was in Oakland. It will be like Moneyball with money.”
Wait, you mean Ben Affleck didn’t defeat Japan?
People think what happened in the movie Hoosiers really happened, but it’s not how the story really took place. That’s why I say to a lot of people, what was portrayed in that movie was in fact moneyball. Not many fans will try to learn what moneyball really is.
So who cares? Your post was based on the premise that the Mets are practicing it.
The masses are idiots. Always have been. If you interview 100 people and 70 of them say David Wright is the center fielder, that means you found 70 people who were wrong, not that the Mets are using him as a center fielder.
Let me know when they start playing moneyball and I will comment.
This.
October 27th 2010!
Lets hear what you got to say!
This.
LMAO!!!!!!!! Metsie, Maniac!! The CORE!
How so?
Shhh, you’ll upset some people.
The Mets are a large market team ‘shopping for Hondas’ for the simple reason that the Wilpon Mets are broke.
Until they start showing a profit, instead of squeaking by just paying the bills, I don’t expect anything to change in the way they’ve done business in the past 2 seasons.
That or the Wilpons sell, which would be my preference.
So if they weren’t broke! do you think Alderson would’ve been hired anyway, or was it predetermined that this was the direction the wanted to go with slashing payroll?
If the Madoff didn’t happen, if the Mets weren’t broke – Minaya just may have finished out his contract here but I really have no way of knowing. The Wilpons might have wanted to go in a different direction with a new GM anyway, given the fact that we had basically become a laughing stock by 2009. That Bernazard/Rubin debacle didn’t help Omar’s cause either.
If they were still operating comfortably in the red, I’m willing to bet no matter who the GM was, Reyes would still be here.
I believe SA came here as part of a packaged ‘deal’ the Wilpons made with Selig. One that included MLB giving them some time to right the ship and not have to declare bankruptcy.
Obviously that should have read: ‘comfortably in the black’.
I must be color blind – lol.
That exclamation point was a typo…shoulda been a comma
First and foremost Mitch – You should know I spoke with Joe D and had nothing but good things to say about you. We disagree (I will get to it) but you do so in a respectable manner which is very appreciated here.
Second – Throw the movie out the window. If you come up with any views of this “philosophy” based on a Brad Pitt movie, you’ve gone too far in attempts to disprove the actual philosophy. I can’t sit here and argue with anybody about the merits of actual events based on what was scripted in a movie.
So let’s try to ignore the movie and just talk in generics with your points.
“Barry Zito (2002 Cy Young Winner), Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson who were affectionately known as the “Big 3.” Let’s put it this way, if Beane didn’t win the division with those three guys he should’ve lost his job”
Zito, Mulder and Hudson were drafted by Oakland. Zito and Mulder were drafted after Beane had taken over the organization and started to change the philosophy of how they drafted players. Grady Fuson was the Scouting Director under both Alderson and Beane. So his eye for talent was based on their organizational philosophy.
The hollywood story will tell you that Fuson got fired. It didn’t happen. In fact if memory serves me right – he works with them now.
Fuson was the 3rd of the front office big 3. Alderson-Beane-Fuson. They had an organizational plan, especially with the draft.
So you can’t just negate the guys they drafted and say “well they should have been this good.” It’s not like it just happened by accident.
Your Billy Koch point I am sorry is totally ridiculous.
They traded for Koch in the winter leading up to 2002. Koch in 2001: 2-5 4.80 ERA 69G 36SV 1.47 WHIP.
“The A’s had Miguel Tejada (2002 AL MVP), Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, Ray Durham, and David Justice all in their lineup”
- Exactly, they got Tejada by being active in the international market,
- They drafted Chavez
-They traded for Ray Durham in July of that season, so I’m not really sure why he’s included in this?
-Jermaine Dye they traded Neifi Perez for. So let’s not act like that’s not impressive.
-Justice was a 36 year old coming off a .241 season. I’m not sure why we’re just acting like getting him was such a no brainer?
You’re using “sabermetrics” as a basic summary of the philosophy and ignoring the fact the philosophy was more than just 2002. It grew over time. The draft philosophy, the international free agent philosophy, the trading guys like Neifi Perez for Jermaine Dye, getting COLLEGE arms that were closer to big league ready than stud 18 year old high school kids. Changing your scouting structure, how you develop players etc.
It’s more than just a print out of OBP and go.
“And if you thought the 2002 pitching staff was scary, the 2003 & 2004 A’s added a young Rich Harden to the mix. How did the Athletics manage to never win a World Series with those guys on their pitching staff?”
- Again, they didn’t win the same way the Phillies with the greatest 4 man rotation you’ve probably ever seen didn’t win. Halladay-Lee-Hamels-Oswalt didn’t win a WS together. There’s more luck involved in winning a playoff series. Nobody here is actually going to suggest the Braves of the 90s were not dominant because they “only” won 1 WS.
Obviously winning a World Series is and should be the ultimate goal. But it’s a joke if you downplay what Oakland did from 99-06 with their team payroll compared to others. In 1,296 games they won 751 of them. That’s incredible when you compare them to other franchises. That’s 8 seasons.
To put that into context for you: When the Mets “owned NY”, from 1984-1991 had 743 wins over 8 years.
Nobody here knows the Mets financial situation. Nobody. But all signs have lead us to think they need to tread water financially for a few years. They went “go big or go home” for several years and failed. And when they failed, they failed miserably.
They made a lot of bad financial decisions and are now paying for it. You don’t fix a financial problem by spending more $. They are clearly trying to focus on the minor leagues first and foremost.
People ranted and raved about how good the farm was in April, May because guys like Kirk were hitting the ball. How’s things looking now?
The franchise needs a lot of help, and they are focused on making things better in the minor leagues. That’s not moneyball, that’s smart business right now. They don’t have the “win now” core available to go big or go home. So why go spend $ just to spend it?
When the farm system has talent in it that can play quality baseball for more than 2 months – you’ll see $ spent.
The front office of Oakland changed the game forever. It changed how scouting staffs are equipped, it changed how front offices are constructed, it changed who gets a look at GM jobs, it changed the amount of information people look at when evaluating players.
Downplaying what they did in Oakland is just ignoring the facts. The movie, even the book are over dramatized. The facts are not.
And here’s our first contestant, actually fifth. Mr. Oakland A’s himself, Jessep. Lets have a big hand for the Ultimate MMO Moneyballer
Take a bow, Jessep. You are the most qualified person on this site to discuss Oakland A’s history, even if it is revisionist history. It’s when you talk Mets I have a problem with because that’s where you are out of you element.
This begs the question, what the heck are you doing here?
Met Maniac: Do you have actual responses to the points I made or are you just looking to pick a fight?
If you want to discuss the blog posted by Mitch as I did above – Feel free to respond.
If not – I promise you, nobody wants to read what you have to say so just hit the backspace button until your comment is blank.
Hi Jessep,
The fact that those big three pitchers were all Oakland draft picks refers to how well their scouting was and nobody is disputing that. Scouting and evaluation of raw talent has nothing to do with either sabremetrics or traditional stats because those marks are meaningless due to the competition faced (Ed Kranepool broke Hank Greenberg’s home run mark at James Monroe High School – my alma mater – as an example to how meaningless those marks are). Scouts observe the minute aspects of their mechanics and ability to adjust, their physical attributes, mental approach, etc. in order to determine if they have the potential for a big league career. There is no new methodology to scouting.
And Oakland had that great pitching staff that could compensate for the loss of Giambi and Damon in the lineup – they did not need a whole lot of runs to win as proven in 2002.
The point is they had Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Chavez, and Tejada because of good scouting, good drafting, and good player development – Which has nothing to do with moneyball. They had good teams because they built the team from the ground up, not because of moneyball.
“moneyball” doesn’t work if they don’t build their team from the ground up, the traditional way
“The point is they had Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Chavez, and Tejada because of good scouting, good drafting, and good player development – Which has nothing to do with moneyball”
And my point is that you are misunderstanding what Oakland did if you think good scouting, drafting, player development had nothing to do with their team philosophy.
How exactly was their drafting and scouting of those players “moneyball”? Eric Chavez for example, was one of the top high school players in the country – That’s moneyball? Or Miguel Tejada, an IFA out of the Dominican Republic is “moneyball”? I don’t think so.
You’re using “moneyball” as a basic summary to detail how and what Oakland did with their budget. You’re ignoring that what Oakland did far exceeds “sorting by OBP” for example.
Moneyball is a term used to encapsulate what the franchise did with a limited budget. It’s not solely about a 2002 baseball team. A book or a movie intended to sell tickets etc is, but they did more than just put Scott Hatteberg at 1B.
Other teams before the 2002 A’s had limited budgets and had good scouting and drafting. So, did those other teams before them use “moneyball” too?
Maybe I’m off with my understanding of moneyball…isn’t it taking advantage of undervalued players in order to put the best team on the field possible, while spending the least amount of money possible?
I just don’t see how the players they scouted and drafted are related to “moneyball”. I always thought “moneyball” was about the A’s trying to exploit “market inefficiencies” to compensate for their limted budget.
How is drafting Eric Chavez, one of the best HS players in the country, a “market inefficiency”?
Or how is drafting one of the best college pitchers in the draft(Zito) and signing him to a 1.5M signing bonus a market “inefficiency”?
Or how is drafting one of the best players in the draft with the 2nd overall pick(Mulder) and signing him to a 3.2M signing bonus a “market inefficiency”?
It’s not.
Moneyball has a lot to do with Billy Beane’s draft strategy…I found a site that does a good job explaining moneyball http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/examination-moneyball-theory-baseball-statistical-analysis
Wow, excellent post Jessep.
heh… thanks fonzie
I see what you’re saying…but the A’s have never gotten back to that level of success, and for that reason I think timing and luck with prospects panning out for them had a lot to do with it. I will be the first to admit Sabermetrics has its place in this game and is very useful…but this article was written to discredit what some fans perceive Sabermetrics and moneyball to be which is based on that movie/book. I don’t want fans to think the mets can cut payroll and use a few equations to put a winning team out on the field based on what they saw in a movie.
Mitch:
“but the A’s have never gotten back to that level of success”
Of course not. But you’re asking them to do what almost nobody can or has done.
I mean the Yankees have spent god knows how much $, and over the last 8 years have won 20 more games than Oakland did during their 8 game stretch.
You have to know more about what is going on in Oakland. In 2002, they won 103 games and averaged less fans per game than a 66 win Padres team and a 74 win Indians team.
They have plenty of time to try things out, and you cannot sustain excellence in a terrible market with 0 support forever. E
People figured out what they were trying to do and instead of feeding into it (IE Neifi Perez for Jermaine Dye) they got smart and hired people that thought similar to them.
Some of my best friends here (sarcasm) will tell you I am more prosaber than most. It’s actually not true. I don’t write about sabr stats. I don’t look at FIP’s and DIP’s to determine how good a player is. I personally do not think a person on this site even knows or understands the level of statistics ALL of these MLB teams use.
“I don’t want fans to think the mets can cut payroll and use a few equations to put a winning team out on the field based on what they saw in a movie.”
I don’t think anybody thinks that to be honest.
I agree some fans don’t think that, but I bet if you walked up to 100 fans at a mets game and asked them to explain sabermetrics, 50 of them would describe exactly what they saw in the movie, 25 wouldn’t know what we were talking about about, and maybe 25 would be able to give an accurate description of sabermetrics.
Mitch, I’d also bet if you walked up to 100 fans at a Mets game they could tell you the Mets should go after Hideki Matsui or trade Matt Harvey. Doesn’t make them right or informed.
I’d also be willing to bet that the “majority” of people who try their best to knock the A’s philosophy when they were winning more regular season games than the greatest Mets dynasty did have never read the book.
People are frightened of things they don’t understand. Somebody can tell you the book or philosophy was only about sorting an excel spreadsheet by OBP and saying “lets get these guys.” But that’s not what happened. People who think it is, either didn’t read the book or chose to not understand it
Hi Jessep,
Oakland repeated in 2002 with such a low payroll because the core of the team was not yet eligible for free agency. Those who were left.
But they relied on their dominant pitching to win – which has little to do with on base percentage for their hitters and run production.
That is why they remained so good. In 2001, they only allowed 645 runs while scoring 884 runs – outscoring their opponents by 239 runs. In 2002 they scored 84 fewer runs (800) yet still only allowed 654 – outscoring their opponents by 146 runs – which is more than enough of a margin to assure a great won-lost record.
They also went from 11th in 2001 to 5th in 2002 in fielding – which again has little to do with on base percentage how to produce more runs.
In fact, in 2002 they were still fifth in the league in OBP while in 2001 they were third. They also went from 4th to 8th in the league in scoring – and yet still won more than 100 games. Why? That great pitching staff. The range between team batting average and OBP each of those two seasons was about 13 percentage points above the league average. That doesn’t amount to much – producing roughly one additional base runner outside of a hit every other game.
As srt would say, THIS!
13 points above league average is very good. I wouldn’t say doesn’t amount to much when you’re talking about the entire teams production.
Hi Fonzie,
Though the range was thirteen points higher than the league range (from batting average to OBP) if you do the math, it only amounts to one extra base runner every other game due to something other than a hit. Meaning Oakland wasn’t getting more runners on base by other means much more than any other team.
In 2002, they drew 86 more walks than the league average, which again amounts to an extra base runner just under every other game.
In 2002, the average OBP was 67 points higher than the median batting average. In 1969 – before the age of saber metric study and application – the OBP was 75 points higher than the media batting average. Players got on base as often other than via hits then as they do now.
The bottom line is that neither Billy Beane or Sandy Alderson discovered anything that was under-appreciated by generations before. The only revelation they might have made was to their own selves, not the baseball world.
I can also add that in 1961 the median OBP was 73 points higher than the median batting average and in 1951 it was 80 points higher than the median. In 1941 the difference was 75 points.
Again, the issue being that those who played and understood game even seventy years ago appreciated the importance of getting on base as much as their contemporaries today. If they didn’t, the difference between batting average and OBP would be noticeably less.
And, of course, as Metsie correctly points out, the walk is so much determined by so many factors that less credit should go to the hitter as it is a debit going against the pitcher. And even with the pitcher, is often unfair because often he choses to pitch more carefully to one batter than another due to the strategic implications of each specific situation. With two out and nobody on base, one might prefer walking the one who could beat him with one swing of the bat and face somebody else with a runner on.
That 13 pct pts higher than league average was worth 84 more runs than league average. Even your point that it only led to a baserunner every other game or 86 total is still ridiculous to say it doesn’t add up to much. 86 extra baserunners on average will add up to between 25-30 extra runs and thats a significant amount.
It could be the difference between playing October baseball or going home. Just ask the 2007 and 2008 Mets if they could’ve used 25-30 extra runs when they went home both years one game short.
This year Arizona is also 13 pct points above league avg and they have score 40 runs more than league avg. That’s a pretty significant amount with 1/3rd of the season left.
“The bottom line is that neither Billy Beane or Sandy Alderson discovered anything that was under-appreciated by generations before. The only revelation they might have made was to their own selves, not the baseball world”
Nobody ever claimed they did. As usual you totally miss the point. What they realized is that the most important factor in scoring runs is on base percentage. Years of research proved that. At the time players with that skill were undervalued by other teams and because of that they were able to afford those players with their limited budget.
No one ever claimed they made any revelations. Branch Rickey was the one who made this revelation back in the 1930′s when he was building the St Louis Cardinals.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FMEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=true
This was a Time Magazine article from 1954. It shows Rickey formualting his own advanced stats. It’s a great read. Very insightful. You’ll be shocked to see how much statistical analysis he relied on. Only difference from today’s statistical analysis is Rickey didn’t have a laptop in those days.
Alderson beliefs came from Branch Rickey’s theories that OB% and Slug% are far more important than batting average. I doubt too many people will question perhaps the greatest mind from an executive standpoint in baseball history.
The spread between the median OB% and BA is irrelevent. Those numbers fluctuate. That really doesn’t prove anything. Most teams have a 60-70 pt differential. Except the really bad offensive clubs. 50-60 pt differential.
Teams that get on base at a high rate are the good offensive teams and the teams that don’t are the bad offensive teams. Every once in a while a team hits a crazy amount of HR”s and scores a lot of runs anyway but for the most part If you have a poor OB% you’re gonna be a poor offense.
“And, of course, as Metsie correctly points out, the walk is so much determined by so many factors that less credit should go to the hitter as it is a debit going against the pitcher. And even with the pitcher, is often unfair because often he choses to pitch more carefully to one batter than another due to the strategic implications of each specific situation. With two out and nobody on base, one might prefer walking the one who could beat him with one swing of the bat and face somebody else with a runner on”.
There are times when pitchers have control issues, sure. but if a hitter has a tendency like a Jeff Francouer, to swing at everything, he’s not going to get anything to hit and he’s going to get himself out more than the pitcher got him out. It goes both ways.
When you focus on players for their on base ability, it’s the fact that they’re willing to take a base on balls rather than swing at pitches out of the strikezone and get themselves out. Hitters get just as much credit for working out the walk as pitchers cuasing the walk cause they can’t throw strikes.
You want your hitters to go up to the plate with a plan. Not grip and rip. You lay off bad pitches until you get one you can drive. If you don’t get a pitch to hit then you take your base. Nobody is advocating to walk instead of getting a hit. We’re advocating don’t get yourselves out. Take the walk rather than strike out on a pitch in the dirt or pop up a pitch you can’t get on top of or hit a weak ground out reaching for a ball 8 inches off the plate. Walks are good not bad.
There are no terrible hitters with high on base percentages. The hitters that have high OB% and low batting avg’s are normally power hitters with high Slug%.
People think OB% is about drawing walks it’s not. It’s about talking a walk rather than get yourself out. Making yourself a better hitter by laying off the shit pitches and driving a good pitch. It’s not about just trying to work out walks.
Hi Fonzie,
I gather you did research to show that those eighty-four runs above the league average were due to runners getting on base other than a hit? And how many of those eighty-four runs led to victories?
Either way, my argument is not about the pros or cons of on base percentage but rather that it was not something under appreciated or discovered to be of more significant importance due to Sandy Alderson and Billy Beane. I pointed out about Oakland producing maybe one extra base runner every other game than the league average to show that they did not have a unique mindset as many conclude. Half an extra base runner per game is quite insignificant over a 162 game season.
However, it is the actual book “money ball” and articles like the attached which give credit to where credit is undue and that is my argument. And I will explain why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball
“Rigorous statistical analysis had demonstrated that on-base percentage and slugging percentage are better indicators of offensive success, and the A’s became convinced that these qualities were cheaper to obtain on the open market than more historically valued qualities such as speed and contact. These observations often flew in the face of conventional baseball wisdom and the beliefs of many baseball scouts and executives.”.
Now, the above talks in terms of both strategy and economics so I will comment on each individually.
First – speed and contact always being seen as indicators of offensive success? Back in the fifties and early sixties the emphasis was to teach batters to uppercut their swings for power – not to swing more level. Level swings produce more contact than swinging for the fences. The emphasis was on power and less on batting average. The strike zone was enlarged in response to home run totals becoming so high and that Roger Maris, a .269 hitter, had broken Babe Ruth’s record (forget about that asterisk bit).
Take a look at how much the home run per game total jumped during that period. Also notice that in the fifities the art of the stolen base was virtually forgotten and how low it was during that same time period and that it didn’t start rising until Maury Wills broke Ty Cobb’s record in 1962.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/bat.shtml
So there goes the myth that speed and contact were always of conventional wisdom. It depended upon the era. In the seventies many contend the game came together with a combination of speed, power, batting and relief pitching all blending in with each other to produce the highest level of quality of play.
“Nevertheless, the impact of Moneyball upon major league front offices is undeniable. In its wake, teams such as the New York Mets, New York Yankees, San Diego Padres, St. Louis Cardinals, Boston Red Sox, Washington Nationals, Arizona Diamondbacks, Cleveland Indians,[1] and the Toronto Blue Jays have hired full-time sabermetric analysts.”
What was not mentioned was what appeared in an article I posted many months back when a general manager was quoted as saying that he and other GMs hired these people to understand better where other teams were headed and how to do prepare for them (i.e., intelligence gathering) and not to alter the approach taken for their own franchices.
I’ve already shown how on base percentage was actually higher in decades past. Now regarding reference made to Branch Rickey. Rickey (with the help of baseball statistician Alan Roth) in 1954 began lecturing how on base and slugging percentages were more important than other statistics. That was using stats to prove a point – not using stats to analyze and come to a conclusion. Rickey did not learn anything nor was he teaching anything to those inside baseball – he was talking to the general public. That article was written for LIFE magazine. And that is the difference – he was simply trying to prove a point to outsiders that insiders knew with the use of percentages as an explanation. He was being an educator – not an innovator.
Babe Ruth changed the style of the game long before Branch Rickey came into the question but before Ruth, the game was played on getting walks, singles, advancing runners, stealing bases – just as Rickey was alluding to.
Now, regarding the economic function of money ball. That didn’t lead to success in Oakland under Beane. The most important elements of his club were still under contract and not yet eligible for free agency. He did not need to make major changes to the club despite the loss of Giambi and Damon due to that outstanding pitching staff remaining in tact and so many other key position players coming back. But, as more of those players opted for free agency and left, the club spiraled downward. Money ball did not work because it was not a factor in the club’s success. To believe that the changes made for 2002 brought about the club’s second straight 100 game victory season ignores all that. BTW – Miguel Tejada, the league’s MVP – left after the 2003 season. Tim Hudson and Barry Zito both left as soon as they were eligible for free agency as well.
Under Sandy Alderson during the championship seasons, the Oakland payroll was above the major league average. As the payroll declined, so did the quality of the team.
Money ball can only really work with young players coming together as a team early in their development (either through the farm system, trades, rule five draft, etc) before free agency. Alderson and Beane have proved to rely on too many players who can be signed cheaply are usually done so because of their limited talent and do not turn teams from second division to competitive. One or two to fill specific roles – most definitely – but that is it.
And believe me, players never wanted to make out to avoid getting a walk – which is the same as saying “It’s about talking a walk rather than get yourself out. Making yourself a better hitter by laying off the shit pitches and driving a good pitch. It’s not about just trying to work out walks.”
Did you just try to argue a point based on a wikipedia entry?
NJ,
That was obviously used for a quick summation. For anybody to begin quoting deep exacting specifics would require writing an article much longer in length thanthe one by Branch Rickey.
LOL Mitch I have some sandbags in the Garage if you need them!
I had my own take on Moneyball and truth is I found it to be less about the Sabermetrics and all about the money.
http://metsmerizedonline.com/2011/10/r-i-p-moneyball.html
In 2002 the top OBP guys were:
Bonds
Giles
Ramirez
Thome
Giambi (who the A’s let go!)
Chipper Jones
Helton
Walker
Edmonds
Guererro
How many of them were cheap buys? How many did the A’s go after?
SO even though they may have used Sabers to target high OBP since thats what they determined was UNDERVALUED they didn’t actually go with the Sabermetrics when all was said and done! They even let go one of the guys thier Sabermetrics would have told them was a keeper (Giambi)!
My Part 2 Shows how it is almost impossible to find the undervalued stat (important in Moneyball) in this day and age because what was undervalued at the time Moneyball seemed to work was the concept that brought about the invention of Sabermetrics not the Sabermetrics themselves. They didn’t use sabermetrics and determine that OBP was undervalued it was the fact they used Sabermetrics itself that pre-determined that OBP was going to be the undevalued stat no matter what they did because at the time Sabers were mostly about proving Bill James’ concept about the importance of OBP!
http://metsmerizedonline.com/2011/10/r-i-p-moneyball-part-ii-%e2%80%93the-undervalued-stat.html
Truth here is Moneyball (as it was implemented by the A’s) did more to disprove Bill James’ concept on OBP being as important as it was thought.
2002 Oakland had the 7th best OBP in the league (.339)….012 higher than Toronto, Same BA as the Blue Jays yet the Blue Jays scored more runs!
2003 after targeting OBP their OBP dropped to .327
2004 went up to .342 yet they still were only 15th in the league in OBP!
How can a team who targets OBP not get more than anyone else?
Because OBP is not an earned batter statistic. It requires help from the Pitcher when the OBP is not also BA. And what made the high OBP guys they took so cheap was that lack of BA and other qualities they ignored because they found some Holy Metric the favored instead.
Thats why they fell short. Thats why they failed.
It’s one thing to use Statistical analysis as an addition to the normal scouting that had been used up till then.
But If your going to ignore the analysis, pick one metric to look for and then ignore it based on a non-baseball metric such as cost you really just wasted your time doing the statistical analysis in the first place!
teams like the Yankees and Boston who have been claimed to be changed due to what Oakland did never abandoned or ignored what thier analysis told them.
If the guy was good at what they looked for they went after that guy regardless of his price.
And when it came time to resign players they didn’t ignore the sabers they liked based on his price tag to resign.
Which is why Oakland failed as it did to ever win a WS, Because while it had a good idea it ignored what that idea told them in favor of the MONEY!
Which is why what we are doing right now is not going to work either!
We all know that beltran was going to cost a lot in Free Agency…But what would this season have been like if we had him hitting those HRs for us and not the Cardinals?
“For those of you who haven’t read the book (or watched the movie), Moneyball is based on a form of analysis called sabermetrics.”
No it isn’t. It is a somewhat exaggerated account of how a team with a minuscule budget (due to owners who refuse to spend) managed to compete with teams like the Yankees. Sabermetrics itself was a tool they used to do so.
“Simply stated, sabermetrics theorizes that in order to win games, a team has to score more runs than their opponent by getting on base more frequently.”
No. Sabermetrics is a particular school of statistical analysis. It has nothing to do with how teams employ those stats. OBP isn’t even a sabermetric. It has been in use since Branch Rickey was GM of the Brooklyn Dodgers. What was found is that teams with higher OBP also tend to be teams that score more runs. At the time the book was taking place, OBP was perceived to be an undervalued asset. But the book also looked into the value of slugging percentage.
” This is obviously a very rudimentary explanation of sabermetrics,”
Incorrect would be a better word.
“but it inevitably goes against everything the traditional scouts have been saying for over 100 years”
Not really. The conflict between scouts and Beane’s group (who in fact had years of experience as scouts) was greatly exaggerated for the book and movie. Everyone, including Beane says so. Grady Fuson was done a huge disservice by Michael Lewis so his “villain” could have a face. Fason became the representative of the “old guard” that was trying to keep down our upstart band of misfits. The reality is he and Beane worked together just fine even with their disagreements.
In fact, the most openly hostile group towards Beane were the talking heads in the media. The guys who made their livings off making baseball seem like mysticism that only they and a select few had the wisdom of understanding. The nerds with type writers didn’t like the nerds with calculators honing in on their territory. That is how a lot of the myths and lies about “Moneyball” and sabermetrics came about.
“The movie fails to mention the fact that the pitching staff consisted of Barry Zito (2002 Cy Young Winner), Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson who were affectionately known as the “Big 3.” Let’s put it this way, if Beane didn’t win the division with those three guys he should’ve lost his job. By the way, the closer was Billy Koch, and it gets even better. The A’s had Miguel Tejada (2002 AL MVP), Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye,”
That is true. But, it doesn’t make for an interesting story to mention they already had some good talent on the team. Of course, it should also say something when those guys were already in the system.
“Ray Durham, and David Justice all in their lineup”
Actually, they were casts off the A’s got for cheap specifically for their OBP. And Koch was brought in the past winter.
“How did the Athletics manage to never win a World Series with those guys on their pitching staff?”
Bad defense, bad luck, and running into better teams. One thing learned from that experiment is that there is a difference between winning in a 162 games season and winning in a short playoff series. Well rounded teams do better than teams with 1 or 2 big strengths and 1 or 2 glaring weaknesses.
As for the rest, you get hung up on the big market vs small market thing. Also, what happened in Oakland is not necessarily applicable here.
The goal is to build a sustainable winner, right? Does it matter if the spend $50 or $150 million as long as they win? Aren’t there enough rip offs in this town?
If they get to march through the Canyon of Heroes after a season where they only spent say $90 million, will you be upset? If they go to the playoffs 7 of the next 10 years and get a couple rings, will you wish they had spent more money?
If anything, winning with a lower payroll while in the shadow of the Yankees would be even sweeter.
I actually just re-read what I wrote and went back and fixed it…I see what you were saying about the sabermetrics part being innaccurate.
I get what you were trying to say, though. the book and movie were trying to tell a story, not give us a history lesson.
This is awesome. I can just stand back and enjoy this thread knowing full well that my thoughts on this are being expertly articulated by the writer himself. Hey Mitch, THE CORE SALUTES YOU!
You’ve never expressed anything like this. While I disagree with Mitch, he isn’t repeating the same old cliches and is actually articulate.
Maniac,MITCH has this moneyballers going insane in here… Good post!
Donal I thought you were done lecturing me in the live chat lol
BAH! I’m never done lecturing!
Ask me about relief pitching sometime. I’ll have volumes.
Your explanation of Sabermetrics is off and Money Ball is slightly off.
Sabermetrics was a new way of analogizing performance and outcome biased on more than just BA, RBI and HR.
It also breaks down the odds of scoring runs biased on situation. Like, what are the odds of scoring a run with no outs and a runner on first vs the odds of scoring a run with no outs and runner on first who is going to try to steal 2nd base or bunting the runner to 2nd and now having one out and a runner at 2nd. Stuff like that. Webb also figured that the BA doesn’t matter, that over a 162 game season, the team will (almost) score the same amount of runs no matter how you create your line up. I saw a PBS special on it a few years back, it was very interesting.
Money Ball is trying to build a competitive team without the resources that large market teams have. Taking advantage of “saber stats” the other teams ignored was a big part of the strategy back in the 90′s. OBP was not appreciated back then, so you could sign good OBP players on the cheep, that’s one thing that Beane took advantage of. But you can’t do it that way now, because every team has some form of Saber department trying to find the best combination of players and the best bargain out there.
Now I’m a numbers guy, so I like Sabermetrics…but it does have some flaws in it’s thinking. First, it assumes that all players are the same (because it averages out the league) and it comes to the conclusion that sacrificing and stealing bases are bad because the averages say that the odds are better if you don’t do those things.
My problem with that thinking is, not all fielders are the same, not all runners are the same, not every hitter is the same and not all pitchers and catchers are the same. Every situation is unique and should be handled that way. But having fast runners changes the way the defense plays, changes the way pitchers pitch and good hitter makes everyone else in the line up better and bad hitters make everyone eases job harder.
Exactly. The TOOL is useful, doesn’t mean everybody uses it the right way or that it’s the only tool to use.
People assume Oakland has an entire scouting staff of harvard grads who don’t even watch baseball.
They use sabr stats in conjunction with old school data and scouting views.
Because the more information you get, the better chance you have at being successful – if you use that information correctly.
Speaking of tools, Jessep isn’t the sharpest one in the shed.
again jessup trying to make like every person is like him/donal. Guess what mr persuasion, people who think, that excludes you/donal don’t assume anything. so please speak for your club of brain dead cultists of your lord the false god sandy only…..most of the world isn’;t a brain dead member of a cult.
I love how people who are smarter than you are deemed brain dead. Odds are guys like Friedman, Beane, Epstein would wipe the floor with you.
I know everyone is talking about the Oakland A’s as a reference point. But to me the Braves organization would probably be one of the examples (and other teams) of how to build a competitive team year in and year out without over spending. I can’t stand them but I do respect their scouting and views on contracts etc….
You could refer to the Rays. Although, I would like to show a little more attachment to homegrown players than they do.
I agree
wasadeyo: I think people use Oakland because its an easy exaggeration.
For me, the Angels have always seemed to be a solid blue print for NYM. They use all kinda of data, not just sabr, not juse old school. They are the 2nd team in a large market – will never be the #1 team no matter what.
They always have a solid farm, have an excellent on field manager and they develop talent and when the time is right to spend – they do so.
But you gotta get there first. Today’s Angels wouldn’t exist if they weren’t smart leading up to 2002.
That 2002 team existed because they made a tough decision and traded Edmonds, Developed Glaus, Developed Garrett Anderson and were patient with him. Developed Erstad & Salmon, grabbed Eckstein off waivers, signed Bengie Molina through IFA thus having a consistent backstop for years.
Developed Ramon Ortiz, Washburn, and Lackey. Developed a dominant closer in Percival. Grabbed Weber off waivers, and signed wisely veteran Aaron Sele and Brendan Donnelly.
That team put the franchise on the map and built them up to a point where they re-energized a fan base, consistently developed quality talent and was a player for big name free agents.
You’re spot on, the Angels to me are what we should closely resemble in the National league. It takes work and everyone throughout the system to be on the same page but even then the Angels don’t win the championship every year. S**t happens, but at least your proud of the competive and entertainment of the season striving to win. Hopefully we’re not far off.
wasadeyo: And they make tough choices too. They let KRod walk, they traded Edmonds, they let Lackey walk, they let Figgins walk. They had the $ to sign them all, but they let them go and had a plan for how to move forward.
I don’t think that just because we aren’t a small-market team we should not spend money intelligently… Almost every team is using sabermetrics right now, even the Yankees. It’s not a “small-market strategy” it’s just a smart way of doing things (along with top-notch scouting to go along with it of course).
Moneyball doesn’t mean don’t spend any money it means use right… I see no reason why the Mets should stop doing that. You want us to give the team back to Minaya?
Lastly, what you’re ignoring here is the fact that we have NO IDEA how much money the Wilpons have right now. We don’t know that “shopping for Hondas” isn’t the only thing they can afford right now.
So are he Mets spending money wisely or just not spending money? There’s a big difference between the two.
a penny saved is a penny earned?
Mitch… First of all, i told you, the moneyballers are here in full on mode.. out of 51 comments so far you can see their name a bunch of time in here, you hurt their feeling by talking about what they love the most… Moneyballin and the A’s.
good post though, the CORE salute you for your courage and slapping the sh** out of moneyball and that stupid idea!
Seems like I got myself in the middle of some sort of feud lol
Trs86 August 10, 2012 at 10:47 am
Let me know when they start playing moneyball and I will comment.
I agree 100%. I see no freakin moneyball here. What is Sandy doing? He makes one trade a year, signs a bunch of guys off the scrap heap, fakes us all out by saying he was going to make an offer to Reyes…that Jose says never came, and as Joe D has pointed out 100 times…he has never re-invested that money.
This guy is a joke, if he was so good at his job and the “moneyball” philosophy he would have able to add more than Scott Hairston as a value player in his 2 year!
What money was there to re-invest? If you go on the “team was losing money” line of thinking, reducing your financial obligations does not enable you to enter into new ones if that money isn’t there.
This.
Wonder why it’s so hard for some Met fans to understand that this team is broke.
The ‘money saved’ went right back into the coffers to pay the bills. Even then, they had to take on several minority investors to get by. You just can’t spend what you do not have.
Why do you so often say “this” whenever an RDM guy says something? Do you get paid for that or something? If so, where do I sign up?
LOL….you have the CORE, the money ballers, and their cousins the Real Dirty Sandy slurpers
Why do you care?
Why because it appears as if thier may be some concerted effort being made by posters from some other blog to raid this one whenever a thread about Moneyball or Sandy is made that is critical!
No, it is individuals who are posting rational posts here, and more often than not, taking flak for it. That they happen to post on a particular website is happenstance.
So if someon says this, or that, or boo yah, or whatever, why do you care?
There is nothing rational about making up any scenario you want to try and say a guy who has built his team to be under .500 again after two years of trying is doing a good job!
Rational would be more like, He hasn’t done a great job at all but he may not be able to do one under current conditions!
You guys have all the excuses but you never cross the line of RATIONAL where you admit the truth that Sandy has done little to nothing to make this team better so far!
The only reason these guys from other sites are coming here is because they are bored due to chasing everyone who used to post at thier chosen site away whenever thier agenda and beliefs were taken to task and now they have to come here to get thier agenda driven kicks!
So you all go to the old site and have your kumbaya moments and then come here to argue with all the peple you chased off your own site!
Because you realize that you can’t have fun at your old one now that everyone has been initiated in your agenda and only your conscripts post there anymore!
Ah, Metsie… Why say 20 words when you can say 250….
You are entitled to your deranged thought process as we are to our (obviously) deranged thought process. If you can accept that, you would save yourself about 20 of your many worded posts.
Dan there is plenty of money ball to see what your not seeing is the statistical analysis that is supposed to go with it if you moneyballin correctly
2 years and all he has done is play the guys Minaya left for him, cut Castillo and Perez and acquire Wheeler.
thumbs up on Wheeler, but he should have been able to get someone good. He traded Beltran who was having a great year at the time, and has followed up with a far better season this year
If Beltran and Reyes were on this team we probably win the NL East.
“If Beltran and Reyes were on this team we probably win the NL East.”
Because of all of those division titles they won when they were here?
Beltran was gone, I don’t even understand why people want to pretend he would have been a Met in 2012.
I was hypothetically speaking based on the collapse of Philly and Miami not living up to expectations…this year was wide open.
I don’t see the value in speaking in hypotheticals.
Hypothetically speaking Reyes and Beltran could have failed here again. Beltran was a goner, we all know it (or should know it), and Reyes’s slow start wouldn’t have done anything good for this team.
You dont see value in hypotheticals than you use a hypothetical to justify your opinion on hypotheticals. Go stand in the corner for one hour. LMAO
No because of all the league championships they went to that Sandy has not done in over a decade.
Because they would be better at their position than any player Sandy has saw fit to bring in since he got here.
Because they are good hitters who actually do everything Sandy says this team needs with the exception of a price tag just slightly lower than dirt!
that’s why.
And no they are not here and why?
BecUse they never got an offer from Sandy couldn’t even get the time of day from him!!!
Yep, no doubt.
Both or MIs are having a better year than Reyes and neither him nor Beltran pitch.
Let’s settle this once and for all in a metsmerized softball game…the “ballers” vs. the “core” …ill umpire so I don’t have to get in the middle of this feud again
As Alex said early on, Mitch had no idea what he was getting himself into lol
It hasn’t been bad at all. The only people throwing insults and trying to derail conversations are the ones who were trying to “warn” him.
The disagreements have been fairly civil otherwise.
Daryl Strawberry>Billy Beane
The one time the Mets got it right
It’s scary to think if Beane wasn’t already committed to Stanford that the Mets would have selected him #1 over Straw.
So the Wilpons are still broke. Bay, Wright,Santana, Francisco, Dickey and Niese will earn a combined 72 million in 2013. That won’t leave alot of money for Sandy to work with.
moneyball is anot about what you said it is about. it is about exploiting market inefficiencies. that could mean pitching jut as easily as it means OBP. if teams ignora players with a really good WHIP and it turns out whip really helps you win more than peple realize, then exploit that, thats moneyball.
Moneyball is taking advantage of undervalued players in order to put the best team on the field possible, while spending the least amount of money possible.
Actually you are placing to much on the cheap part. It’s about value and return. In moneyball if you can get 90% of the return in production at 10% of the cost the you are going with the cheaper player.
Example didn’t everyone get on the GM for FF and Rauch? Were they moneyball signings? As I said before what classic moneyball move have they made?
Moneyball is a fictional account based on true events. It can mean many different things to many different people and arguing over it is best left for the know-nothings. Even DePodesta called it more fiction than truth.
Agreed!
And Depodesta is one of the three big dummies, all destroying the Mets organization for papa bear fred, and the two cult followerers jessup and donal. i wonder if these two are on the psu sites joining the big football cult as well.
Wow that was appropriate to the discussion.
Not to mention the fact that everyone seems to be ignoring one of the reasons we’re in the position we’re in right now.
Three major signings to fill holes that didn’t work out. Two we had to eat the salary for their last season while cutting them. The third we’d better be cutting next season, money be damned.
That immediately puts you behind the 8 ball. Couple that with not enough developed talent ready to step in (especially batters), not enough depth (even with good pitching) to trade for the holes – and an ownership that is broke and well…..you have the situation we’re in right now.
Trying to field a competitive team with no money and not much depth to trade for the pieces you need, will result in this nickel and diming that’s going on.
Destroying the Mets organization for Fred? Please. Like we had some championship team out there in ’09 and ’10 with a boatload of talent on the farm…….
I don’t like what’s going on with this organization any more than most Met fans. But let’s not pretend we’ve been building some dynasty before this FO took over.
This! lol
This this.
Critic – Moneyball Sucks and is all about not spending money
Sandy Slurper – No Moneyball is great it changed the way the game is played!
Critic- We should stop using Moneyball
Sandy Slurper – We aren’t using Moneyball
Critic – Sandy sucks
Sandy Slurper – No Sandy is doing a good job!
Critic- But he’s not using Moneyball which changed the way the game is played So how could he be doing a good job?
Sandy Slurper – DOH!
Can we add the Omar “Ohhh”-facers to the list?
Oar signed this 12 year old Dominican… Oh! Oh!
Yeah you go right ahead an do what you guys always do run to bashing Omar whenever your Hypocracy is exposed!
Either you love Moneyball or you don’t!
Either you agree Sandy is playing Moneyball which you like and which is why you like him or you admit Sandy isn’t doing what you REALLY like (Moneyball) and therefore isn’t as good as you want to make himout to be!
You guys have pretty much backed yourself into a duality you can’t extricate yourself from right now!
It must be black or it must be Metsie, err, white. Your ability to lump people into groups based on a post is quite amazing. Someone agrees with a move a GM makes, he’s a lover. He disagrees, he’s part of the boy scouts (read: core). 2 party systems are the best!
If the 10 or so of you didn’t all post pretty much the same crap the other said or substitute it with “THIS”
Maybe it wouldn’t be so easy to group you all together!
Maybe someone could then distinguish individuals from the hive, brainwashed minds!
A one dimensional 12 year old.