Moneyball the Art of Winning an Unfair Game Review

Some books are like a lot of magazine articles and newspaper stories. They are then rooted in a present moment that, in the long run, they don't stand up. Circumstances shift; suppositions are exploded.

Michael Lewis's Moneyball, published in 2003, is one of those books.

Information technology's an interesting historical certificate, one that not only recorded a moment in the development of major league baseball merely likewise helped nudge that development forward.

Twelve years later on the publication of Moneyball, it'south impossible to read about baseball or watch coverage on television or the Internet without being aware of the numbers revolution that has occurred. On-base percentage, WHIP (walks and hits per inning), State of war (wins above replacement) and dozens of other arcane but useful statistics are gathered and discussed today with a religious fervor.

Moneyball helped make that occur.

When published, the book was a sort of manifesto for an analytical approach to the game, and, like all manifestos, information technology over-stated its case.

Billy Beane

Moneyball tells the story of the Oakland A's and their general manager Billy Beane, a can't-miss prospect who could and did miss and and so, at the captain of one of the poorest franchises in the majors, found amazing success.

No question that Beane is brilliant and successful — just not every bit bright and not as successful as Lewis makes him out to be.

Drafting by the numbers

A good hunk of the book is spent in describing Oakland'south moves in the 2002 draft of apprentice players for which the team had an unprecedented vii picks in the first round. Much is made in the book about how Beane used analytical tools to select players, most of whom were perceived by the rest of major league baseball game as having trivial or no value.

There'due south a swashbuckling verve to Beane'south approach to that draft, mirrored in Lewis's prose. Notwithstanding, equally delighted as the general director is with his picks in the draft and as excited as Lewis is to tell about the procedure, the results turned out to be pretty mediocre.

An ESPN.com story prepared in 2011 — simply as the movie version of Moneyball (with Brad Pitt starring every bit Beane) was about to hitting the theaters — showed that iii of the seven showtime-round typhoon picks never saw a day in the majors. A fourth — Jeremy Brownish, a slow but expert-hitting catcher, highly touted by Beane to the amusement of the residuum of baseball  — only got 11 plate appearances.

One of the seven, Mark Teahan, had a seven-twelvemonth career equally a utility histrion, recording a WAR of 2.iv (pregnant that, for the sum of his career, his play had given his teams a total gain of a little more than two runs over what they would have gotten from an average player in Teahan'south position).

The first two of the A'due south picks — both of which were widely sought by other teams and both of whom are all the same playing — have fared much better in the majors. Pitcher Joe Blanton, the team's second option, has a War of 9.7, while the State of war for outfielder Nick Swisher, Oakland's kickoff selection, is 22.iii.

Those are decent numbers, only nowhere near star levels. I thousand major leaguers have had WARs of more than than 26.0. (Longtime Los Angeles Angels managing director, Mike Scioscia, a former catcher, had a 26.0 WAR and is tied for 998th place with 2 others.)

Jerry Crasnick, who wrote the ESPN story, noted, "The mixed pocketbook of results is more a attestation to the draft than Oakland's approach." Trying to evaluate amateur talent in high school and college is a dicey proposition.

The bottom line, though, is that the Oakland approach was no parting of the seas. Like other teams, the A'south had hits and misses, even with their analytical arroyo.

Lewis writes that Beane and his aides were "reinventing" baseball in the 2002 draft by ignoring the organisation's scouts and drafting based solely on the numbers. That, however, has changed, as Crasnick wrote: "The franchise's evaluation pendulum has shifted back toward scouts and placed a little less emphasis on the stat-heavy approach in contempo years."

Hubris

Throughout Moneyball, there are disconcertingly emotional assertions from Lewis and those he quotes that Beane and other sabermetricians like him are brilliant and everyone else in baseball is stupid.

Undoubtedly, as Lewis shows, baseball executives were very slow to come to the analytical approach. Very slow. Okay, that bred a lot of frustration in people similar Pecker James, the foremost vocalisation in the belittling field, and others like him.

Yet, it becomes unseemly at times, such as during the 2002 draft mean solar day when Lewis paraphrases Beane's thoughts:

But then no one has any idea what either the Detroit Tigers or the Milwaukee Braves, who selection seventh and eighth, intend to practice. Something not terribly bright, information technology was a fair bet, if they merely continued doing what they had done in the past.

This sort of arrogance would exist hard to breadbasket from anyone, no matter how successful. And the twelve years since Moneyball was published have shown that Beane and his A'southward oasis't been as successful as their hubris would suggest.

Beane took over the guild in 1996, and, for four years, the A's missed the postseason. Then, in 2000, around the fourth dimension he and his aides began crunching numbers in a deep mode, the team finished first and reached the playoffs — and lost in the American League Division Series (ALDS).

The same thing happened in 2001, 2002 and 2003. They finished first or second in the West — and lost in the ALDS.

They missed the playoffs in 2004 and 2005, but were again in first place at the end of the 2006 season. This fourth dimension, they won the ALDS — but lost the American League Title Series (ALCS).

Then, for five years running, they weren't good plenty to get into the postseason.

Finally, in 2012, they came in first — and lost in the ALDS. The same matter happened in 2013.

Concluding year, the A's, finishing second, got into the Wild Card game — and lost.

Sample size

What all that means is that, since 2000, Beane's squad has missed the playoffs about one-half the time (7 of 15 seasons). In its viii trips to the postseason, the squad has been ousted in the kickoff round every time, but once. That 1 ALDS victory came to naught, however, when the A's lost the championship series.

To infringe a phrase from the sabermetricians, that'southward a pretty good sample size.

It shows the A'south to be a fairly successful regular season team, especially when yous consider that Beane doesn't take a corking corporeality of money to pay players to put on the field. (He has a lot more than he used to, however, because, similar other small-marketplace teams, the A's have been beneficiaries of Major League Baseball'due south revenue-sharing program, in place in its nowadays class since 2002.)

When it comes to the playoffs, Oakland, even with Beane'due south luminescence and his belittling breakthroughs, is a bust. It has been 26 years since the squad has won a Earth Series, and 25 years since it's played in one.

In the context of Oakland's ALDS loss in 2002, Moneyball attempts to address this blueprint:

The postseason partially explained why baseball was and then uniquely resistant to the fruits of scientific research, to any purely rational idea about how to run a baseball team. Information technology wasn't merely that the game was run by old baseball men who insisted on doing things as they had always been done.

It was that the flavour ended in a giant crapshoot. The playoffs frustrate rational management because, unlike the long regular flavor, they endure from the sample-size problem.

In other words, in any five- or seven-game series, luck plays also much of a role in the outcome. In that location'south no manner, as Beane and Lewis see it, to rationalize a team's approach.

What's most efficient

Mayhap this goes to the heart of baseball and other sports. They are played past human beings. The luck that occurs on the field is created, with few exceptions, past the actions of human beings.

Human beings are besides responsible for the alluvion of money that inundates pro sports through TV revenue, paid attendance, merchandizing and everything else.

Today, through Moneyball and the weight of more than a decade of reporting, the average fan can appreciate the skill involved in working the count, the importance of cartoon a walk and the significance of WHIP.

Merely, really, they dear to meet a booming dwelling run, even by a guy with a depression on-base percentage. They dearest to see a stolen base, even if it seems, by the numbers, to exist counter-productive. They love for their team to win information technology all.

It might be argued that this is irrational. That a fan should take what's almost efficient rather than what'southward almost flashy. That a fan should be satisfied with a team that grinds out its wins in the regular season and tanks in the playoffs.

I'grand not sure about that. I am sure that I'm glad I'yard not an Oakland A'due south fan.

Patrick T. Reardon
8.ten.xv

floydvert1938.blogspot.com

Source: https://patricktreardon.com/book-review-moneyball-the-art-of-winning-an-unfair-game-by-michael-lewis/

Share this post