Money
Talks, Bullshit Walks
Last
weekend, the long anticipated baseball movie “Moneyball” made its national
debut. The producers did a good job having Brad Pitt star as the main role in
an attempt to please bored wives/girlfriends/dates as they were dragged to the
theaters by their significant other (I knew better to bring my girlfriend to
this movie and have to explain Scott Hatteberg to her for two hours.) The movie
has allowed sports fans to revisit the 2003 best-selling book of the same name,
written by Michael Lewis, and the entire concept of “Moneyball”.
I
will try to keep this concept very basic and not nerd it up: The Oakland A’s
(along with a few other teams) determined in the early 2000s that the
statistics and strategies most of baseball used to develop their baseball teams
were flawed. For example, stolen bases and runs batted in (RBIs). A guy with
100 RBIs, they argued, wasn’t necessarily a good player, just an average player
fortunate to have the opportunity to hit with runners on. The A’s and their
general manager, Billy Beane, focused on on-base percentage and slugging
percentage, a foreign concept at the time. They knew with their limited
payroll, they had to draft and sign misfits who would be overlooked by most
teams due to their evident deficiencies but got on base and/or can hit with
power regularly. Richer teams, like the Yankees, could afford to sign players
to rich contracts and not have it work out. The A’s had to be smart with their
money and couldn’t afford any mistakes. Baseball scouts weren’t that important
in this concept, statistics were. They refused to draft high schoolers because
they typically flamed out as opposed to more established college players. They
also drafted players earlier than expected since they fit into their system and
would accept cheaper contracts.
The
A’s had a seven year run from 2000-2006 where they were a playoff contender
annually. They made the playoffs five years, and advanced to one championship
series. Since 2006, they have struggled to be .500 team. Some of the players
chronicled in the book have enjoyed success in baseball. Others have not. You
would have thought Jeremy Brown (or Fat Jeremy Brown as the author referred to
him as) would have been the second coming of Jesus if you read the book. He
enjoyed a few call-ups in the majors before retiring.
My
main complaint about the “Moneyball” concept is I don’t believe it’s even a
revolutionary concept. While the idea has the potential to neutralize the
playing field, it never really has. The A’s enjoyed some success, but lost most
of their playoff games. Sure, they were competitive against the richer teams
(Yankees and Red Sox) in their playoff matchups, but could never beat them.
Eventually, the misfits became too valuable for their contracts and moved on to
more lucrative contracts elsewhere. If the A’s would have won a World Series,
I’d understand the hoopla about “Moneyball”. Instead, the A’s slightly
overachieved and never won anything meaningful.
More
teams are incorporating on-base percentage and slugging into their strategies,
but haven’t abandoned the old way completely. I applaud Billy Beane for his
innovating thinking, but I’m not ready to label him a genius. Ideas can only be
great if they get results. Unfortunately, this idea came up short on results.
It allowed them to compete, but they still never ended up with a ring. I’m
sorry Brad Pitt, you will not be getting my $25. It will go towards the Rocky
VII fund.
-Written by Marcus Boyd
No comments:
Post a Comment