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.

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.”

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.

Maybe it wouldn’t be so easy to group you all together!
Maybe someone could then distinguish individuals from the hive, brainwashed minds!

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.

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.

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!

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!

So if someon says this, or that, or boo yah, or whatever, why do you care?

Oar signed this 12 year old Dominican… Oh! Oh!

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!

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.