Moneyball

[asif9t9]

Anyone here read Moneyball. I'm almost at the end. A couple of thoughts.

1. After the fact, Billy Beane and Oakland don't seem that big a deal. They were winning before they went all Moneyball in 2002. And they aren;t that great anymore.

2. Paul DePodesta failed in LA and got fired.

3. Some of these players they talk about in the book never panned out (Jeremy Brown). But also, some of the risky highschoolers did (Kazmir, Bonderman).

4. WRT to the Blue Jays, JP was an up and comer genius back in the day, but now we know he turned out to be nothing.

5. JP fought so hard for Russ Adams, while we could have had Kazmir or Nick Swisher, who were taken right after.

Not sure if anyone has read it or not. Great read. And I truly believe it's so much better to read it today, so long after the fact. You'll recognize the names of players and you'll know who panned out and who didn't. Youklis is a good example.

Also, it's nice to read how Oakland had a plan. It worked for a few years, and not this past year. But either way, it seems to be a plan. JP, meanwhile, doesn't seem to have a plan.

[SDM]

We could have had Kazmir? UGGGGGGGGGH.

[SmallTownJournalist303]

A couple things I'd like to say:

1. The conventional wisdom that Depodesta failed in LA is stupid. He got fired far too early, and got replaced by someone who gave Juan Pierre a huge contract. Depodesta wasn't nearly as awful as the media made him out to be.

2. Ricciardi cannot be defined as a Moneyball GM after looking at what he's done; the idea of Moneyball drafting wasn't to only draft college players, it was to exploit the less exploited market. Now that many GMs have started drafting more college players, Beane has altered is drafting accordingly by picking more high schoolers in recent years.

3. The thought that we drafted Russ Adams ahead of guys like Kazmir makes me sick to my stomach.

[Michael Bradley]

Moneyball is a business concept. Basically a way to win by taking undervalued assets in the market and exploiting its advantages. There's a misconception that Moneyball is just about drafting college players and looking at OBP, but that's not true. Those things WERE undervalued at one point, which is why Beane had so much success with it. Now they are not undervalued anymore, so GM's have to find the next direction to exploit.

Ricciardi is not a Moneyball GM. He started off as one in 2002-03, but took a turn for the worst after that. He had the right plan, but he wasn't good enough to implement it properly, and has probably set this franchise back a few years.

[asif9t9]

Have any of you read Moneyball. I ask because it's a really good read, with a lot of talk about the Blue Jays. JP was interviewed for portions of the book. And at the end, they quote Godfrey about hiring JP.

Godfrey mentions the other options at the time (John Hart, Doug Melvin). He mentions Gillick. But Godfrey said that all those guys said the same thing....give me $150M to compete with the Yankees.

Godfrey said he wanted to do things like Oakland. DePodesta said no. So, JP was next in line. Godfrey is quoted as saying that JP told him he would succeed using players we'd never heard of!!! Sound like Moneyball, anyone??

Also, the book says JP's first hire was his own Paul DePodesta....a guy named KEITH LAW!!! Law was JP's Harvard grad who never played ball. Not sure if you all know, but Keith Law is the guy who left the Jays to be an ESPN writer, and him and JP had a falling out.

This is why it's so great to read the book now...after the fact. If you read this in 2003, you'd think JP was the next Billy Beane.

As we all know, JP may have tried Moneyball at first, but he gave up a couple of years ago. He's back to drafting highschool players, and he continually cries about not being able to compete moneywise with the Yankees and Red Sox.

Honestly, read the last chapter of Moneyball just for the Blue Jay stuff. I've always heard media types say JP was supposed to be the MOneyball guy. But then JP would say, "I never said I was Moneyball". And some people on these forums will say something to that effect, too. BUt read the book and it's clear...JP came hear and was supposed to be the next Billy Beane. He's failed at Moneyball, and now he's failing as a "regular" GM. What's his next plan? Oh right, now he's on the bandwagon of adding more playoff teams (he never used to be before).

[Michael Bradley]

As we all know, JP may have tried Moneyball at first, but he gave up a couple of years ago. He's back to drafting highschool players, and he continually cries about not being able to compete moneywise with the Yankees and Red Sox.

Again, Moneyball is not about drafting college players. It's a business concept designed to exploit undervalued resources in the market to gain a competitive advantage. The reason Beane (and Ricciardi) went with a stubborn college philosophy was because everyone else was looking at the raw 6'8 high school pitcher who could throw 99 mph or the raw 5-tool teenager with huge upside. Beane couldn't afford the risk (or investment) of that drafting philosophy on a low payroll, so he went with system of selecting fast tracking college players who could make an impact quickly and presented less risk and better ROI. Beane also is/was brilliant at knowing when to sell and buy on players, which is another big part of his success. Ricciardi simply didn't have the skill to pull that type of plan off. He's very impatient, which causes him to sell low and buy high, and his drafting record is very suspect.

Beane and others are drafting high school players now because the market changed. Drafting college exclusive is not a prerequisite to being a "Moneyball" GM, even though that's talked about a lot in the book. The ability to adapt in a changing market is necessary, and we can at least praise JP for that (Snider in 2006, and the 2007 draft in general).

I agree that looking back is very interesting. Ricciardi comes off looking very bad in hindsight, and justifiably so.

[asif9t9]

I think you're taking the Moneyball concept a little far by making sound like economics. Yes, Beane's owner wasn't going to give him any more money, so he had to make the most of what he had. I think where "Moneyball" comes in is by using "proper" stats to build a team over using the old usual judgments by "baseball guys".

Stick enough OBP guys in your lineup, and you have less outs and more runs. The book also points out how John Henry, the owner in Boston, wanted to join the revolution, too, so he tried to hire Beane. Beane rejected, so he hired Theo Epstein (who is about to win his 2nd World Series....more of that hindsight!!!).

Don't get me wrong. Let's look at Boston. They had Manny already. Beane planned on getting rid of Varitek in the name of Moneyball. Those are two guys who have anchored the Sox, and they were not acquired due to Moneyball (Manny was just an expensive FA, and I guess Varitek was not a Moneyball type).

Epstein filled in the rest of the parts, using a LOT of money, and now will win his second World Series.

And of course Billy Beane hasn't won anything for Oakland. So, the way I see it, if Moneyball is a failure, get rid of JP, because he was the Moneyball hire. Or, if we forget about Moneyball, just look at JP's drafting.

2002
14 Russ Adams
15 Scott Kazmir
16 Nick Swisher

2005
6 Ricardo Romero
7 Troy Tulowitzki

Either way, I'm not sure why Uncle Ted is keeping JP around.

[Michael Bradley]

I think you're taking the Moneyball concept a little far by making sound like economics. Yes, Beane's owner wasn't going to give him any more money, so he had to make the most of what he had. I think where "Moneyball" comes in is by using "proper" stats to build a team over using the old usual judgments by "baseball guys".

It basically is a business/finance model put into baseball terms. Buying low/selling high, cost effectiveness, undervalued assets, thinking outside the box, etc. People seem to think Moneyball is one specific way of building a team (college drafting, OBP, play for the 3-run HR, etc), but it isn't. If everyone starts valuing OBP, then it's no longer "Moneyball" because Beane (and GM's like him) won't be able to acquire it cheaply anymore.

Look at Terry Ryan in Minnesota. No one will ever accuse him of being a Moneyball GM, even though he's had just as much success with a small budget as Oakland. There are different ways to accomplish the same goals.

Don't get me wrong. Let's look at Boston. They had Manny already. Beane planned on getting rid of Varitek in the name of Moneyball. Those are two guys who have anchored the Sox, and they were not acquired due to Moneyball (Manny was just an expensive FA, and I guess Varitek was not a Moneyball type).

Epstein filled in the rest of the parts, using a LOT of money, and now will win his second World Series.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Varitek, but he was acquired in a trade with Seattle (along with Derek Lowe) for Heathcliff Slocumb in 1997. The 2004 Red Sox team was essentially built by Dan Duquette, with Ortiz being the biggest Epstein find (Foulke and Schilling were acquired by overpaying in free agency and a one sided trade respectively as Schilling basically got to decide where he would go). The current Red Sox team has more of Epstein's fingerprints on it, but it's been built mostly through high spending.

Epstein's drafting has been good, though.

And of course Billy Beane hasn't won anything for Oakland. So, the way I see it, if Moneyball is a failure, get rid of JP, because he was the Moneyball hire. Or, if we forget about Moneyball, just look at JP's drafting.

Ricciardi is a poor GM, not because of Moneyball, but because he's simply not very good.

[asif9t9]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Varitek,

In the book, we're told that Billy Beane had planned out his moves, if he went to Boston. One of his first moves would be to get rid of Jason Varitek, and replace him with some catcher I never heard of (someone who never panned out). I don't have the book in front of me now, but it seemed like if Beane had his way in Boston, they would not have won in 2004. He would not have pursued Ortiz because his plan was to make Manny a DH.

Anyways, it's interesting how you view "Moneyball". You say Moneyball is about finding a way to win which is different than everyone else. ie, if everyone is going for OBP, then you find something else which the other teams are not going for.

I see Moneyball a little differently. After years and years of research, Bill James et al determined what wins baseball games. It wasn't defense or base stealing. It it definitely was OBP and slugging. I think they determined that as a fact, and it's not going to change.

If everyone starts going for OBP and SLG guys, then the only way to win differently would be to pick the right guys based on subjective reasons (ie. just cuz a guy has good OBP, he may still be a flaky guy who'll choke under the pressure of the big leagues).

As it turns out, not all teams are playing Moneyball. Boston and Toronto are. I think one way to tell is to look at steals and bunts. Most teams are still stealing and bunting.

Geez, Matt Holliday with a 3-run jack. That's October baseball at its best!! Btw, he was taken in the 7th round in 1998.

[r_gill]

#1) Russ Adams was not a bad draft pick, you can look at it with hindsight and say yeah he was but really at the time he was highly related and he went around where he was projected to go. Big deal he busted, it happens. Only like 50% of 1st rounders pan out anyway. And looking at Kazmir is wrong because at the time we were cutting costs and no way were we shilling out what he would want for a bonus.

#2) It is too early to declare Romero a bust. Hey I didn't like the Romero pick either at #6. Not because Romero wasn't a good player, because he was the best LHP in the draft but because at #6 you take the best player available and in my opinion that was probably Maybin.

I liked our other picks in Hill, Purcey, and Snider. Even though it looks like Purcey is a bust.

[Michael Bradley]

Anyways, it's interesting how you view "Moneyball". You say Moneyball is about finding a way to win which is different than everyone else. ie, if everyone is going for OBP, then you find something else which the other teams are not going for.

I see Moneyball a little differently. After years and years of research, Bill James et al determined what wins baseball games. It wasn't defense or base stealing. It it definitely was OBP and slugging. I think they determined that as a fact, and it's not going to change.

I haven't read the book in about 4 years, so I don't remember much of the details in clarity, but the way I saw the book was essentially to "zig when everyone else zags" (as my old college professor used to say). Beane couldn't acquire players that were in high demand, so he had to find an undervalued pipeline to acquire affordable talent.

I agree that OBP (and to a lesser extent SLG) is the best stat to judge offensive contribution. That's why the Red Sox offense was so great. My point was that if a high OBP costs $10 million a year for one player, then Beane will have to find other ways to acquire affordable talent (for example). If Beane had the Red Sox payroll, his philosophy probably would have changed, or at least tweaked. The market and conditions dictate the actions.

As for Ricky Romero, the only thing on his side is age. Other than that, he has bust written on his forehead. Snider looks like an impact talent though.

[SDM]

Terry Ryan has drafted extremely well, so that contributes to a large part of his success. JP is another story; another pitiful, pitiful story.

[Bleeding Green]

Michael Bradley is spot on about Moneyball. It's just exploiting inefficiencies in the market. OBP happened to be greatly undervalued at the time, so he sought out high-OBP players like Jeremy Giambi and Scott Hatteberg. A couple years ago Beane thought defense was undervalued so he went after that. Now, I don't know what the hell he's doing (maybe he thinks LF/DH/1B players are undervalued).