$ball

[Reed John]

Moneyball is a very good film.
VORF = $35

If you care about baseball at all, you should read Moneyball. If you've read that, you should see this film.

If you don't care about baseball, then see this film and then you'll want to read the book. I think.

I almost wish it delved more into some of the stat stuff, but most people don't want to see that, so I understand.

Bear in mind that Jonah Hill doesn't play a real guy. He's a composite of Paul Depodesta and a few other guys that worked for the A's.

[Cal Alamein]

$ball

I've been interested in reading the book for awhile. He is generally lauded in the press as a most amazing GM yet I finally got around to looking at his record.

He's been the GM since 1998. His team has finished first for four seasons (2000, 2002, 2003, and 2006) in arguably one of the weakest of the six MLB divisions. Full credit for doing it w/ a low payroll and using players that might have been castoffs, but none of his teams have finished above .500 since 2006. Can't think of too many MLB teams these days who hold on to any manager or GM if they have a losing record for that many years.

I do not keep up w/ baseball, nor care too much about it these days. Would love to see Oakland, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and other low-salaried teams at least get in the playoffs, but a team HAS to have at least three quality starters (or in the Yankees case, have a team of sluggers and Mariano Rivera) just to be competitive.

[Reed John]

$ball

The point is that he's done very well with a tiny payroll in a game where the system heavily favors teams with big payrolls. They aren't going to do better with anyone else.

The key was that the SABRmetrics guys like him were able to see which players were undervalued and which were overvalued, but since the early 00s when the A's started operating this way, most other teams - most notably, the Red Sox, have adopted the same philosophy. Once the big market teams got into the act, the prices for players began to rationalize - if that's the word - and the A's no longer had that edge. They're back where they started, although they supposedly have a number of good prospects. So he's sort of a victim of his own success.

Also, the best this approach can do is build a playoff team, because the statistics work out over 162 games. In the playoffs, you need two, preferably three, good starters who are healthy and pitching well and you need your line-up to be at their best. There's not much the GM can do to ensure that.

Besides, the Yankees and Phillies and a few others can afford to overpay a lot and still get the best teams. And unfortunately, Billy Beane's baseball acumen hasn't gotten the A's a better stadium. That's not his job.

Besides, Moneyball is more about the philosophy, not just Beane or any particular guy. The philosophy is that one should base one's decisions on as much actual data and scientific study as possible, rather than just intuition or "experience." Baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, is shackled by conventional wisdom and ideas that have been passed down for generations without any solid evidentiary basis.

There are still aspects of the game that nobody has figured out how to accurately quantify. For example, lately, there have been a lot of advances in understanding defense. That's made the game more interesting, I think. At the time of the events in Moneyball, that area was just starting to be developed.

Of course, the ultimate challenge is understanding how to project how teenage and college players will develop and how to predict when older players will lose it. Stats can help somewhat, but some knowledge of physiology and psychology would help. As it is now, scouts use pseudoscientific jargon like "he's got a projectable body" or "plus make-up"

I wouldn't say that division is weak. The Angels and Rangers are good organizations.

[Cal Alamein]

$ball

I hear you. Trust me, I dig the moneyball philosophy. I am impressed that Beane has stuck in as GM. As he is part owner I guess he'll know when it is time to leave that job. I am an unabashed socialist, pinko, salary cap fan.

Paying gazillions for starting pitchers is such a crapshoot. A physiologist needs to be able to do a 'stress test' to see how likely a pitcher will blow out his arm.

I'd forgot about the Angels - though I remember (maybe?) that there were seasons when AL west division winning teams had worse records than some teams who did not make the wild card playoff. The NL West also usually isn't too potent.

OK, I'll get a bit more off topic and clearly state that there is only one team that will get me to pay attention to the playoffs and hopefully world series - go Brew Crew!

[Reed John]

$ball

That sometimes happens, usually because the top teams in the AL east win so many, often at the expense of the Orioles and Jays.

In 2001, when the film and book begins, the A's won 102 games, but were only a wildcard because the Mariners won 116 (but crashed in the playoffs). In 2002, when most of the film happens, they won 103, same as the Yankees, and tied for best in MLB.

It's not socialism to want a salary cap, etc. It's a recognition that baseball isn't a true free market. The Yankees and Mets have exclusive rights to a territory about 18 times as big (population) as Pittsburgh. Nothing laissez faire about that.

Watching big companies compete against small ones isn't interesting entertainment. If baseball were a true free market, it would be more like European football. There would be five or six MLB or AAA teams in New York. Not that that system is great either.