So I finished reading Michael Lewis' Moneyball, about the Oakland A's and their GM Billy Beane's unorthodox approach to talent evaluating. It was actually recommended to me in 2009 and since the film is coming out I decided I wanted to read the book first (a rarity). I"m not going to write a review of the book and I'm undecided on whether to see the film or not.
Billy Beane was a former "can't miss" baseball prospect in the late 70's. Suffice to say, his playing career never panned out. He would eventually become a scout for the A's, the last team he played for, and work his way to General Manager of the team ins 1998.
The Oakland A's were a powerhouse in the late 80's & early 90's. They went to 3 consecutive World Series but only managed to win 1. Their Series losses in 1988 & 1990 (Dodgers & Reds) were to teams that didn't have the talent the A's did. After the A's lost to the Blue Jays in the 1992 ALCS, the team pretty much fell apart and they won just 68 games in 1993 and wouldn't post another winning season until 1999. Ownership change after the 1995 season forced the A's into becoming a cost conscious organization. Sandy Alderson, Beane's predecessor, then set out to find talented players that the team could afford by using sabermetrics. Long story short, sabermetrics is a more an empirical approach to evaluating baseball talent. It wasn't new but it was seldom (if at all) used. Using this system of talent evaluation along with some great young pitching & some wheeling & dealing, the A's put together a nice run from 2000-2006 (5 playoff appearances & 4 Division titles).By the way, the A's lost in the ALDS 4 years in a row, including the classic series with the Yankees in 2001 (that's the series that Jeter cut off a bad throw from the outfield by running from his shortstop position to the 1st base line in order to grab the ball & throw out Jeremy Giambi at the plate. Easily the most heads up play, probably ever) that saw the Yankees come back from a 2-0 deficit to win the series 3 games to 2.
I applaud the way Oakland went about putting together a winning team with a small budget. They used a different system that went against the time honored baseball tradition of talent evaluation and did well for themselves (although the team hasn't has a winning season since 2006). There have been a lot of critics of Beane & the A's, more so now with the movie coming out. Michael Lewis went out to acknowledge some of the ridiculous criticism in the post script (I read a Kindle edition). It seems to me that a majority of the criticism came from guys who read excerpts from the book but not the entire book (it's not just politicians who jump to conclusions before getting all the facts...it's all of us).
The book kind of comes across as Beane being the smartest guy in baseball but it never states that he invented sabermetrics as critics suggest. He also comes across almost as if he's some sort of Jedi using the jedi mind trick to take advantage of weak minded GMs. Beane is also not a big believer in the importance of managers either. Art Howe, the manager of the A's from 1996-2002, comes off as lackey who's there only as a calming influence on the players. Draw your own conclusions but Oakland continued to win under Howe's replacement, Ken Macha, while Howe went on to manage the Mets to a 137-186 record in 2003 & 2004. The Mets had a much larger payroll than the A's and had talent but they were lousy.
I've been listening to Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on the SIRIUS and he's been going off on it. He correctly points out that a big (perhaps even huge) factor in the A's success from 2000-2006 was because of a great, young pitching staff that consisted of Barry Zito, Mark Mulder & Tim Hudson. You can check out their stats on www.baseball-reference.com. Russo pointed out that 2 of the A's big sluggers, Jason Giambi & Miguel Tejada, during their run were "juicing (as was Russo's favortie SF Giant Barry Bonds)." Russo had on Larry Bowa, a former player & manager who's been in baseball since 1970 (he's old guard), who went so far to say that Beane & the likes of the sabermeticians are "ruining the game." I think that's a bit much.
The battle rages on between the small market (A's, Brewers & Royals) v. big market teams (Yankees, Red Sox & Phillies). The book brings up a chart that showed how the A's (lowest payroll) were in 1st place of the AL West while the Rangers (biggest payroll in the division) were in last place. There's a lot that could go wrong with sabermetrics (as well as the traditional methods) but things fell into place during that time and that shouldn't be overlooked. I've always felt that it's not how much a team spends it's who they spend it on. For years George Steinbrenner paid fortunes to big hitters but couldn't win. When the Yankees put that money into pitching then their fortunes changed (1996-2001, 4 World Series Championships, WS appearances in 2001 & 2003). Of course they gave AJ Burnett $85 million and he may not make the post season roster for the 2nd year in a row. In 1999, Peter Angelos (owner of the Baltimore Orioles) signed slugger Albert Belle to huge contract ( 5 years $60+million - big back then especially). Well Belle played only 2 years and the O's were saddled with a massive contract & the team threw it in the tank (of which they are still in).
All in all, it's a crap shoot. Beane, despite the teams lack of success over the last 5 seasons continues to stick to his guns (although there have been a few changes) on his "scientific approach" to evaluating talent. In 2009 he stated, "It's all about evaluating skills and putting a price on them. Thirty years ago, stockbrokers used to buy stock strictly by feel. Let's put it this way: Anyone in the game with a 401(k) has a choice. They can choose a fund manager who manages their retirement by gut instinct, or one who chooses by research and analysis. I know which way I'd choose."
Beane states in the book (as well as the movie) that the team is counting cards and trying to level the field as they say. So sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. The A's and other teams like them are trying to do what they can. Good luck.
Billy Beane was a former "can't miss" baseball prospect in the late 70's. Suffice to say, his playing career never panned out. He would eventually become a scout for the A's, the last team he played for, and work his way to General Manager of the team ins 1998.
The Oakland A's were a powerhouse in the late 80's & early 90's. They went to 3 consecutive World Series but only managed to win 1. Their Series losses in 1988 & 1990 (Dodgers & Reds) were to teams that didn't have the talent the A's did. After the A's lost to the Blue Jays in the 1992 ALCS, the team pretty much fell apart and they won just 68 games in 1993 and wouldn't post another winning season until 1999. Ownership change after the 1995 season forced the A's into becoming a cost conscious organization. Sandy Alderson, Beane's predecessor, then set out to find talented players that the team could afford by using sabermetrics. Long story short, sabermetrics is a more an empirical approach to evaluating baseball talent. It wasn't new but it was seldom (if at all) used. Using this system of talent evaluation along with some great young pitching & some wheeling & dealing, the A's put together a nice run from 2000-2006 (5 playoff appearances & 4 Division titles).By the way, the A's lost in the ALDS 4 years in a row, including the classic series with the Yankees in 2001 (that's the series that Jeter cut off a bad throw from the outfield by running from his shortstop position to the 1st base line in order to grab the ball & throw out Jeremy Giambi at the plate. Easily the most heads up play, probably ever) that saw the Yankees come back from a 2-0 deficit to win the series 3 games to 2.
I applaud the way Oakland went about putting together a winning team with a small budget. They used a different system that went against the time honored baseball tradition of talent evaluation and did well for themselves (although the team hasn't has a winning season since 2006). There have been a lot of critics of Beane & the A's, more so now with the movie coming out. Michael Lewis went out to acknowledge some of the ridiculous criticism in the post script (I read a Kindle edition). It seems to me that a majority of the criticism came from guys who read excerpts from the book but not the entire book (it's not just politicians who jump to conclusions before getting all the facts...it's all of us).
The book kind of comes across as Beane being the smartest guy in baseball but it never states that he invented sabermetrics as critics suggest. He also comes across almost as if he's some sort of Jedi using the jedi mind trick to take advantage of weak minded GMs. Beane is also not a big believer in the importance of managers either. Art Howe, the manager of the A's from 1996-2002, comes off as lackey who's there only as a calming influence on the players. Draw your own conclusions but Oakland continued to win under Howe's replacement, Ken Macha, while Howe went on to manage the Mets to a 137-186 record in 2003 & 2004. The Mets had a much larger payroll than the A's and had talent but they were lousy.
I've been listening to Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on the SIRIUS and he's been going off on it. He correctly points out that a big (perhaps even huge) factor in the A's success from 2000-2006 was because of a great, young pitching staff that consisted of Barry Zito, Mark Mulder & Tim Hudson. You can check out their stats on www.baseball-reference.com. Russo pointed out that 2 of the A's big sluggers, Jason Giambi & Miguel Tejada, during their run were "juicing (as was Russo's favortie SF Giant Barry Bonds)." Russo had on Larry Bowa, a former player & manager who's been in baseball since 1970 (he's old guard), who went so far to say that Beane & the likes of the sabermeticians are "ruining the game." I think that's a bit much.
The battle rages on between the small market (A's, Brewers & Royals) v. big market teams (Yankees, Red Sox & Phillies). The book brings up a chart that showed how the A's (lowest payroll) were in 1st place of the AL West while the Rangers (biggest payroll in the division) were in last place. There's a lot that could go wrong with sabermetrics (as well as the traditional methods) but things fell into place during that time and that shouldn't be overlooked. I've always felt that it's not how much a team spends it's who they spend it on. For years George Steinbrenner paid fortunes to big hitters but couldn't win. When the Yankees put that money into pitching then their fortunes changed (1996-2001, 4 World Series Championships, WS appearances in 2001 & 2003). Of course they gave AJ Burnett $85 million and he may not make the post season roster for the 2nd year in a row. In 1999, Peter Angelos (owner of the Baltimore Orioles) signed slugger Albert Belle to huge contract ( 5 years $60+million - big back then especially). Well Belle played only 2 years and the O's were saddled with a massive contract & the team threw it in the tank (of which they are still in).
All in all, it's a crap shoot. Beane, despite the teams lack of success over the last 5 seasons continues to stick to his guns (although there have been a few changes) on his "scientific approach" to evaluating talent. In 2009 he stated, "It's all about evaluating skills and putting a price on them. Thirty years ago, stockbrokers used to buy stock strictly by feel. Let's put it this way: Anyone in the game with a 401(k) has a choice. They can choose a fund manager who manages their retirement by gut instinct, or one who chooses by research and analysis. I know which way I'd choose."
Beane states in the book (as well as the movie) that the team is counting cards and trying to level the field as they say. So sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. The A's and other teams like them are trying to do what they can. Good luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment