Where Does Moneyball Stand Now?

by Justin Bopp on Sep 16, 2011 11:00 AM EDT in Opinion & Editorial

Michael Lewis' quintessential Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game no doubt represents the entry point into sabermetrics for many of us, and now that Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are starring in the film, maybe now would be a good time to ask if the book is still relevant?

In case you haven't read it, here's a quick synopsis: the book centers around Billy Beane, the Oakland A's, and the unorthodox approach that Beane uses to turn around the financially disadvantaged A's to compete with much higher spending clubs like the Yankees.

While most of the concepts are way past needing explanation at this point (on base percentage and slugging are better than average and RBIs?!), the important part here -- and often underplayed thesis -- is that the smaller salaried clubs should be looking for, pursuing, and signing undervalued talent. Essentially: find players with a skill set that most teams overlook and exploit the market deficiency.

Sounds easy enough, right?

Of course not. As with any well-run business model (at least the modern sort), what works is copied, and what's copied loses value (relative to scarcity). When Moneyball was released, on base percentage still wasn't that widely used to describe players conversationally, now ... I'm pretty sure most of us think about players as a triple slash. .300/.400/.500. That's a great player. But it's not just us that changed the way we think, the big money clubs took notice and changed what they valued as well. Naturally, the market on "guys that get on base" shrank and prices went up.

What remains, I believe, is a ghost of an idea victim to the teams with more money to see it through. If MoneybalI was the launching point of low salary clubs competing using under-valued skill sets, then the sabermetric revolution has been the launching point to ensure that those that have both money and brains remain at the top of the standings throughout.

I'm not sure if the book or even the concept of undervalued talent is still relevant, honestly. Don't forget the second part of that title: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. Perhaps the book leaves us and our new pitcher-dominant league looking for new market deficiencies like defense and speed (more specifically: range and SB%)?

Isn't that where we started?

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Meet the new boss...

Certainly, exploitable market inefficiencies have come and gone since Moneyball was first published. The Rays, for one, have created a team of versatile, rangy defenders while mostly sacrificing the top tier offensive production that is costly to acquire and keep. The Blue Jays seem to be targeting reclamation projects, talented players who were not compatible with their previous teams for one reason or another.

Still, there is no substitute for shrewd drafting and player development. Even the big boys need to scout and cultivate talent through the draft and international signings in order to remain competitive. Because of this, (and one really must appreciate the irony here) developing and retaining the top talent evaluators of all kinds—coaches, scouts, analysts, advisers—might just be the new exploitable market inefficiency. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…but with better stats!

by 3rdPeriodPoints on Sep 16, 2011 11:34 AM EDT reply actions

When the As started losing

I would mention this to my friends who, like me, thought of Moneyball as not a lesson about the importance of OBP, but rather how to apply business models and market ineffeciencies to the world of baseball. Does this mean Billy Bean was wrong with his approach to the draft so highlighted in the book? It would certainly seem so!

So we turned to what would the new moneyball be? As most of you know this was assumed to be defense. It seemed to me at least that the As were loading up on great defenders thinking that’s where the market would reward them. Based on them and other teams’ lack of success, I have to conclude not so much.

Since I don’t see any clear strategy at this point by small market teams, I have formed my own conclusions, which are very similar to what smart baseball teams have been doing for decades: Try to develop cheap young talent, and when it looks like it might mature all at the same time, suppliment that with key Free Agent signings and replacement level players at what positions you can’t otherwise improve upon. When this happens, you might get lucky and all the stars line up and you produce a winning product, whether you use sabermetrics or not. Kind of what the As did during those winning years.

Currently, I think that defense is overrated and hitting underrated by most of the saber community. I think the true geniuses aren’t the GMs who manage to locate talent undervalued by the market, but those GMs and owners who are able to maximize their revenue streams to go from small market to mid market, and mid to large. I think what the RedSox did with their stadium and revenues in Boston and what Philadelphia did there shows more business sense than focusing on players themselves, if that makes sense. If Moneyball were written today, I would hazard that focusing on this aspect of the team’s contribution to overall success would show it more sustainable in the long run than anything else.

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant

by NJBammer on Sep 16, 2011 12:09 PM EDT reply actions

The problem with defense and SB%...

How much can these two things actually add to a team? Are the old market inefficiencies better than the new market inefficiencies?

by subtle on Sep 19, 2011 4:16 PM EDT reply actions

ESPN will be publishing an update on the A's this week

Written by Kevin Goldstein so it should be pretty interesting. Kevin mentioned it on his most recent podcast.

by subtle on Sep 19, 2011 4:20 PM EDT reply actions

Read that.

Love how people like to quote the % of players they drafted that year that busted. Newsflash, the MLB draft is a crapshoot by nature. At worst, they had an average draft that year. Swisher, Blanton, John Baker, Teahen.

by polodude017 on Sep 30, 2011 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Although my opinion--that finding undervalued talent will ALWAYS be important--is up for debate,

I’m not sure if the book or even the concept of undervalued talent is still relevant

at least right now, there are without a doubt still a number of unexploited inefficiencies: coaching/managing, defensive alignments, player-type aging studies, pitcher development and injury studies, to name a few.

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Sep 19, 2011 6:15 PM EDT reply actions

I would advise you all to read "The Extra 2%" by Jonah Keri...

a somewhat similar story centered around the Rays recent turnaround. Looks into the financial side almost as much as the baseball side. A very good read.

by polodude017 on Sep 30, 2011 1:54 PM EDT reply actions