Moneyball

[MikeVic]

I finished reading this today, and was wondering what happened to some of the players mentioned in the book. Jeremy Brown looks like he hasn't really done anything in the majors yet, and no one from that 2002 draft class actually. Other than Nick Swisher.

The book also mentioned the Jays as kind using the same market inefficiency strategy, but I don't really get that impression from them. And do you think the Red Sox winning a World Series has anything to do with adopting this philosophy?

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I finished reading this today, and was wondering what happened to some of the players mentioned in the book. Jeremy Brown looks like he hasn't really done anything in the majors yet, and no one from that 2002 draft class actually. Other than Nick Swisher.

The book also mentioned the Jays as kind using the same market inefficiency strategy, but I don't really get that impression from them. And do you think the Red Sox winning a World Series has anything to do with adopting this philosophy?

Joe Blanton was a 1st round pick of theirs, he has been effective, and is in the Phillies rotation now.

Mark Teahan is a solid OF'er for the Royals. Should be a solid starter with some pop in his bat.

Not sure of the others. Brown is still around there like you said.

The Jays were going to try doing what Bean did, except Riccardi has been able to spend money, and he has done it horribly ineffectivley. I don't know how he has a gig still.

Boston was always doing this with Epstein, just different circumstances because they could spend, and Oakland couldn't. Put two and two together and you have the great teams you've seen lately.

[MikeVic]

I looked up Chad Bradford when his name came up in one of the last chapters. He seems to still have a nice career.

[molson]

The original "moneyball" theory is kind of out of date now because everyone cares about OPS and pays a premium for it.

What's the new moneyball - maybe defense?

[Young Drachma]

Fire JP

[PineTar]

You can track the 2002 A's draft here...
2002 Oakland Athletics Draft Picks - The Baseball Cube

FYI... Jeremy Brown retired in February

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

The original "moneyball" theory is kind of out of date now because everyone cares about OPS and pays a premium for it.

What's the new moneyball - maybe defense?

Moneyball is a concept, not walks or OPS - its basically the idea of figuring the cheapest available commodity towards a certain run differential (the best predictor of success).

Defense is definitely up there now.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I finished reading this today, and was wondering what happened to some of the players mentioned in the book. Jeremy Brown looks like he hasn't really done anything in the majors yet, and no one from that 2002 draft class actually. Other than Nick Swisher.

The book also mentioned the Jays as kind using the same market inefficiency strategy, but I don't really get that impression from them. And do you think the Red Sox winning a World Series has anything to do with adopting this philosophy?

The first time I ever heard of Kevin Youkilis was also in Moneyball, and he has had quite a decent start to his career too.

[MikeVic]

Aww, Jeremy Brown is gone. I wanted to see him succeed.

You're right Alan T, Youkilis is also mentioned as the Greek God of Walks.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

You're right Alan T, Youkilis is also mentioned as the Greek God of Walks.

Youk also has a crazy-sexy lady! Wayyyy too sexy for his bald-headed rotund self.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Moneyball is a concept, not walks or OPS - its basically the idea of figuring the cheapest available commodity towards a certain run differential (the best predictor of success).

I know that - My question is - what's the NEW "moneyball".

I really think the anti-money ball is closers. In that area, you can take advantage of an over-inflated cost. Take a cheap middle reliever, get him 35 easy saves, trade him as a "star closer" (or let him leave via free agency and get the draft picks). A save is poison for payrolls, teams should go out of their way to avoid relievers accumulating them.

Maybe defense. I know the Red Sox have gone that way, emphasizing that area.

[DaddyTorgo]

you're both saying the same thing - you're just having a semantical argument. One that Crappy wins molson.

Moneyball = the concept of exploiting the inefficiency of the market (really not all that revolutionary a concept -- revolutionary in it's application to baseball though I suppose).

When the book was written, OPS was the area that was being exploited. Now OPS is highly valued by most teams, so the question is, where is the market inefficiency?

I agree with you about closers - I've always thought that way - in any baseball games I'll play I will always save $$ there.

As far as what the new area is: I guess defense, maybe speed? Seems like with the fast young players the pendulum is swinging back towards speed.

Although to be honest, I think that with the possible exception of closers as we mentioned, and perhaps a slight overvaluation of "#1 starters", baseball is rapidly approaching an "efficient market."

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

you're both saying the same thing - you're just having a semantical argument. One that Crappy wins molson.

It's not an argument at all, I understand what moneyball is. It's not OPS, I get it. It's so common a miconception that people are all excited to correct people, but there's no need to correct me, I understand.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not an argument at all, I understand what moneyball is. It's not OPS, I get it.

okay - so argument was too strong a word. semantical circle-jerk?

anyways - idk - my personal thought is that it's: defense, not overpaying a closer, not overpaying starters, speed

(in something like that order)

Continue to look at the A's if you want: their defense is okay (taken some knocks this year though maybe?), they don't overpay for closers (let foulke walk and brought street into the role), don't overpay starters (look at the guys they have traded away in the past rather than overpay). Now you could argue that part of that is economics, but I think that is missing the point to an extent.

[MikeVic]

Is there research out there on the internets that can point to the next inefficiency?

[DaddyTorgo]

i was just thinking that MikeVic -- surely someone (i'm sure in a FO somewhere, if not they should hire me to do it) has looked at $ value of players contracts versus all sorts of statistical measurments to determine what is being overpaid for most often across MLB (even position by position).

If not that'd be great - because you could say "okay, everyone overpays for power from corner outfielders, so i'm going to get my power from a source where everyone underpays, or doesn't overpay to the same extent"

[molson]

I always thought the most biggest opportunity out there is in middle relievers. There's a lot of stud middle relievers out there that are just as good as closers, but make 75% less just because they don't have saves. If you go out and "overpay" (in today's market terms) to fill up the bullpen with premiere setup guys, you can really do well.

He'll, it'd be interesting to put together a whole 12-man pitching staff of ace setup guys and try to get through games using 4-5 guys for a couple innings each.

Using pure Bill James dynamics, it would seem like a slam-dunk idea. Relievers, of course, have lower ERAs and WHIPs than starters. So why use starters at all?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I always thought the most biggest opportunity out there is in middle relievers. There's a lot of stud middle relievers out there that are just as good as closers, but make 75% less just because they don't have saves. If you go out and "overpay" (in today's market terms) to fill up the bullpen with premiere setup guys, you can really do well.

He'll, it'd be interesting to put together a whole 12-man pitching staff of ace setup guys and try to get through games using 4-5 guys for a couple innings each.

Using pure Bill James dynamics, it would seem like a slam-dunk idea. Relievers, of course, have lower ERAs and WHIPs than starters. So why use starters at all?

I agree with this. Sometimes I fuck around with this idea in OOTP just to see how it will do. It seems to make absolutely perfect sense from a multitude of standpoints - cost effectiveness being one, another being that you'd have say 3-4 "studs" for the highest leverage situations.

I think the difficulty in implementing this IRL (versus in a game) is that you couldn't get pitchers to subsume their ego's and potential future paydays (you'd have a staff full of guys with lower win totals who wouldn't be able to go out and command premium $$ on the FA market)

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The Orioles kind of tried that last offseason (shelling out for Jamie Walker, Chad Bradford, and Danys Baez) and it was a big failure. Maybe they just got the wrong guys, but they probably could have gone cheap and unknown and gotten the same level of production but saving $40 million.

Ya, I guess some of the problem is relievers are somewhat hit-and-miss, because you're dealing with such a small sample size every season. Which goes into the whole idea of why shelling out $10 milllion for a closer that plays 50 innings for you is so ridiculous to begin with.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

I always thought the most biggest opportunity out there is in middle relievers. There's a lot of stud middle relievers out there that are just as good as closers, but make 75% less just because they don't have saves. If you go out and "overpay" (in today's market terms) to fill up the bullpen with premiere setup guys, you can really do well.

He'll, it'd be interesting to put together a whole 12-man pitching staff of ace setup guys and try to get through games using 4-5 guys for a couple innings each.

Using pure Bill James dynamics, it would seem like a slam-dunk idea. Relievers, of course, have lower ERAs and WHIPs than starters. So why use starters at all?

Relievers generally have a very large deviation in performance from year to year. There's very few middle relievers that put up good numbers consistently.

[DaddyTorgo]

yep - cheap relievers is the way to go (or like ronnie said, constantly drafting a bunch of pitchers and bringing young guys up for a year or two as relievers)

[MikeVic]

If you look at defense and bullpen, I think the Jays are doing well there. They need to find a market inefficiency in offense though.

[Young Drachma]

I like the idea of drafting young flamethrowers who over time will serve you well in a bullpen role. Signing them to deals is very hit or miss and if so, I'd prefer starters so you can at least get your money's worth.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

If you look at defense and bullpen, I think the Jays are doing well there. They need to find a market inefficiency in offense though.

They seem so close - I didn't realize how consistently "good" they've been for a while now. Between 80-88 wins in the 9 out of the last 11 seasons. How frustrating.

[Maple Leafs]

Who was the guy that the A's drafted that had Beane throwing a chair against the wall and then immediately trading? Bonderman?

[MikeVic]

That sounds familiar Maple Leafs. A high school fireballer I think.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Who was the guy that the A's drafted that had Beane throwing a chair against the wall and then immediately trading? Bonderman?

Yup. He was dyslexic and Beane said this is why you do not draft high school kids and all that. He called him a kid "who can't read or write" and he was the pick a scout made because they were grossly unprepared.

[DeToxRox]

Dola,

Dave Dombrowski sure does follow the flamethrower angle to a T. This year 4 of 5 picks were all guys with FB's in the mid to upper 90's. It was his MO in Florida too.

[BishopMVP]

The market inefficiencies I've seen are character risks like Milton Bradley and the draft/amateur FA's. You spend $15 million in the draft/IFA's like the Red Sox do, and if you can get one Papelbon/Pedroia/Lowrie/Ellsbury out of it (legitimate starter to borderline all-star) and the cost savings over the first 6 years of one career where they're under control is close to $50m+ on the high end (Papelbon) and at least $15m on the low end.

I posted more about this in the MLB thread in early July I believe, but Beane signed Michael Inoa for the record bonus, and teams like the Royals/Giants/Padres have spent huge there this year. The main problem has always been that results won't show for 4-5 years, and most baseball GM's are unwilling to allocate a large portion of their budget more than a year down the line when they're just trying to keep their job for one more year.

[Tekneek]

Jeremy Brown retired on his own, suddenly, and Oakland says he can come back when he is ready to play baseball again.

[MikeVic]

I hope he doesn't think he doesn't belong.

[spleen1015]

WARNING OLD THREAD BUMP

I saw the trailer for the Moneyball movie on MLB Network tonight. It looks pretty good, IMO.

[Atocep]

Jonah Hill in it scares the shit out of me.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Jonah Hill in it scares the shit out of me.

Yeah, not real thrilled with that one. Screams of the director and casting agent saying "We can't have a decent looking, physically-fit guy for this role - he's a nerd! He has to look nerdy!"

I love Jonah Hill in comedies; not so sure about him in this one, unless they've somehow turned that character into comic relief.

[stevew]

I hate it when they fictionalize real people like they did with Hill's character. He's easily the 3rd best Jonah working right now, I hope that he keeps losing his heat. He's cast way too much for as poor as his talent is.

[stevew]

Dola-

He looks like a freak now that he got skinny too

[Matthean]

Moneyball Review: Cash Rules Everything Around Me | Pajiba: Reviews, News, Quotes & Cultural Commentary

Here's one positive review for it. Still a couple of weeks away from being released.

[Rizon]

The A's don't use Moneyball anymore, they use Beanheadball: sign as many utility OFs and IFs as possible (high OBP but low ability to bring bat to ball), 474,000 relievers and as many SPs made of glass as you can.

Seriously ... Beanheadball is also outdated, though it has yielded good results: as we have won one whole playoff series in the 14 years under Beanhead. Add on shitty owners and a shitty stadium ruined by the Jokeland Faders/ Satan Davis ... ughhhhhhhhhhhhghglkdsjfdsfaf3w09r83209res09fjdsofidsj.

[stevew]

I do think it's pretty bush league that the Raiders have to play on a field covered in an infield diamond. Then again....hmm. Fitting?

[RainMaker]

I don't think it's outdated. It's just that everyone has a stat guru on the payroll looking for value.

The playoff thing isn't necessarily a failure, more just bad luck. There are some statistics that show that even the worst team in baseball can win a 5 or 7 game series over the best team like 20-30% of the time. There is a lot of luck in a short playoff series.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Rizon

The A's don't use Moneyball anymore, they use Beanheadball: sign as many utility OFs and IFs as possible (high OBP but low ability to bring bat to ball), 474,000 relievers and as many SPs made of glass as you can.

Seriously ... Beanheadball is also outdated, though it has yielded good results: as we have won one whole playoff series in the 14 years under Beanhead. Add on shitty owners and a shitty stadium ruined by the Jokeland Faders/ Satan Davis ... ughhhhhhhhhhhhghglkdsjfdsfaf3w09r83209res09fjdsofidsj.

It's not outdated...it's just that everyone else is doing it now that he has no chance to compete.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Moneyball Review: Cash Rules Everything Around Me | Pajiba: Reviews, News, Quotes & Cultural Commentary

Here's one positive review for it. Still a couple of weeks away from being released.

I didn't think there was any way this was going to work as a movie but now I can't wait for it. I think it looks awesome.