-
Not Super, But Pretty Good
June 18, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Player of the Week
June 12, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Bart Brightman vs. The 50 Ft. Democrats
June 5, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Time for Gawker to Put Up or Shut Up
May 29, 2013 | 27 comments
-
Anyone Still Believe Me?
May 21, 2013 | 38 comments
Sports Arena
Why Moneyball Is Off Base
If you know anything about baseball — or statistics — Moneyball is an aggravating moviegoing experience.
I knew I was going to have a problem with Moneyball even before I went to see it this past weekend. Now don’t get me wrong. It’s an entertaining movie. Nevertheless I had a problem with the movie and the reason I had a problem with the movie is because I have a problem with the book on which the movie is based.
Moneyball was written by Michael Lewis, a former bond trader who became a literary sensation in 1989 with Liar’s Poker, an account of his time on Wall Street. In Moneyball, Lewis turns his attention to the economics of Major League Baseball. At the time of its release in 2003, the Oakland Athletics were in the midst of reaching the postseason for the fourth consecutive year despite having a payroll of less than $40 million. The New York Yankees by comparison had a payroll three times that size. Lewis spent the 2002 season following the innerworkings of the Athletics organization and in particular their general manager Billy Beane.
Now when I think about the 2000-2003 Oakland Athletics three names spring to mind — Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito. This triumvirate was the mainstay of arguably the most talented starting rotation in all of MLB. While they alone were not responsible for the success of the Athletics during that period they deserve a great deal of the credit. In 2001, the Athletics won 102 games. Hudson, Mulder and Zito won 56 of those games. The following season, despite losing Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isiringhausen to free agency, Oakland won 102 games with Hudson, Mulder and Zito winning 57 of those games. Yet they were scarcely mentioned in the book.
I brought this up with Lewis when he made an appearance in Cambridge at the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square to give a talk about Moneyball shortly after its release. “Talking about the Oakland Athletics without discussing Hudson, Mulder and Zito is like talking about the Atlanta Braves without discussing Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz,” I said. Needless to say, Lewis seemed rather annoyed with my observation and yet could not come up with any adequate explanation as to why he devoted so little attention to this trio. Well, they get even less attention in the movie. In fact, aside from stock footage of Hudson getting hit hard by the Kansas City Royals in pursuit of their MLB record 20th consecutive win late in the 2002 season, there is no acknowledgment of them at all.
If you watched Moneyball this weekend, you might be under the impression that the A’s won the American League West in 2002 on the strength of Scott Hatteberg’s ability to get on base. Hatteberg had been a backup catcher with the Boston Red Sox but could not throw the ball after sustaining nerve damage in his elbow. Following the 2001 season, the Red Sox traded Hatteberg to the Colorado Rockies for infielder Pokey Reese. But less than 48 hours later, the Rockies granted Hatteberg free agency when he rejected a 50 percent pay cut. Hatteberg’s baseball career appeared to be over. What team would want a catcher who couldn’t throw? Well, it turned out the Athletics were very interested in Hatteberg. Not as a catcher but as a first baseman — even though Hatteberg had never played the position. The Athletics weren’t interested in Hatteberg’s defensive skills at first base (he had none) but rather his ability to get on base.
You see, unlike every other organization in MLB at the time, Billy Beane and the front office staff in Oakland embraced the ideas espoused by Bill James, a onetime night watchman at the Stokely Van Camp pork & beans factory in Lawrence, Kansas whose interpretation of baseball statistics became known as “sabermetrics” in honor of the Society of American Baseball Research (SABR). In various editions of the The Bill James Baseball Abstract which he first released in mimeograph form in 1977, James argued that offensive statistics like on-base percentage and slugging percentage were undervalued while offensive statistics like batting average and stolen bases were overvalued. Well, James’ work begat a generation of “sabermetrician” organizations like Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Think Factory and The Hardball Times.
On base percentage (OBP) statistics are to sabermetricians what images of 38 DDs are to adolescent boys. As it was put in the movie by Peter Brand (a fictional character based on then Athletics assistant general manager Paul DePodesta, played by Jonah Hill), “Your goal shouldn’t be to buy players. Your goal should be to buy wins. In order buy wins, you need to buy runs.” OBP was the currency the Athletics used to pay for runs.
Yet just because you can get on base doesn’t mean you are going to score runs. In 2002, Hatteberg had the 14th best OBP in the AL at .374. He finished one percentage point ahead of Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter. Yet Jeter scored more than twice as many runs as Hatteberg (124 to 58) that year. Now an argument can be made that Jeter had more opportunities to score runs because he played in 21 more games and had 162 more plate appearances than Hatteberg. Indeed, Jeter reached base nearly sixty more times than did Hatteberg (271 to 212). But if you divide the number of times each player reached base (hits, walks and hit by pitch) by the number of runs they scored then you find that Jeter scored nearly half the time he was on base while Hatteberg scored just a little over one quarter of his time on base. Translated into a percentage (runs scored percentage or RSP), Jeter had a RSP in ‘02 of .458 compared to .274 for Hatteberg. So what good is OBP if you can’t score runs? It is but one of many reasons why I find Moneyball to be off base.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (154) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From Sports Arena
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/27/why-moneyball-is-off-base
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Doctor Right| 9.27.11 @ 6:46AM
...Lemme' guess...you're a Yankees fan?
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 8:22AM
It reads, "Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts." I'll leave it to you to guess my team.
Doctor Right| 9.27.11 @ 8:35AM
Yes, well I live in New Jersey and work in New York...
...Does that make me a METS or YANKEES fan??
No, actually. Besides, your BIO says you're from Canada.
Yankees, Red Sox...whatever. Both teams are cheered-on by the most self-important fans in sports.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.27.11 @ 8:57AM
Amen brother. Go Braves!
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 9:38AM
So which team gets your cheers?
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 10:45AM
The Cubs. I'm a True Conservative, and know that life is a vale of tears and toil.
daboss| 9.27.11 @ 11:12AM
tears and toil ... try rooting for the indians ... or any other cleveland sports team.
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 3:21PM
daboss---The Ceveland Indians have won many more World Series games than the Cubs in the last 100 years. The Cubs have not WON a World Series since 1908, and were last in the World Series in 1945. In my lifetime (b. 1962), The Sox have won one World Series Championship, the Bears one SuperBowl (and one championship in 1963), the Cubs have won NOTHING except a pathetically small number of Division Titles. Only the Hawks and the Bulls have done reasonably well.
On the other hand, the Tribe has done this:
1920 • 1948
AL Pennants (5) 1920 • 1948 • 1954 • 1995 • 1997
Central Division titles (7) [1] 1995 • 1996 • 1997 • 1998 • 1999
2001 • 2007.
Much, much better than the Cubs. Thank you.
Doctor Right| 9.27.11 @ 11:01AM
My hometown Baltimore ORIOLES.
I'm a glutton for punishment...But at least they can be called a "once proud" franchise...
W| 9.27.11 @ 7:19PM
Amateurs. The Pirates have had twenty consecutive losing seasons.
Doctor Right| 9.27.11 @ 10:25PM
Yeah...But they beat the O's in the Series twice in 9 seasons...'71 and '79.
W| 9.28.11 @ 7:15AM
I went to all the 79 games at Pgh. The 71 series was better with Clemente and Frank Robinson.
W| 9.28.11 @ 8:08AM
Pirates had a great franchise from 1960 to about 1992. Always competitive. We had a problem in the mid 80's with drugs but then rebounded with a great team of Andy VanSlyke, Barry pre-steroids Bonds, Bobby Bonilla, Jose Lind, Sid Bream, and others. The new owners in1993, McClatchy Newspaper, got rid of all the good players, coaches, managers, and ruined the franchise.
astorian| 9.27.11 @ 7:04AM
I have never been a hardcore sabremetrician (I don't have te time or interest to delve too deep into stats), but I take OBP and other newfangled stats more seriously than you do.
Even so, you're absolutely right about the flaws in "Moneyball" (both the book and the movie).
Consider this scene from the movie:
http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com.....pena-right
In this scene, Brad Pitt is shown as a a smart, no-nonsense guy and manager Art Howe is shown as an ignorant ex-jock who just doesn't appreciate the numbers, and prefers to rely on his gut.
Great scene in Hollywood terms, only... whether you use old numbers (like homers and RBIs) or new numbers (like OPS+), one fact remains clear: Carlos Pena has had a MUCH better career than Scott Hatteberg!
In other words, the brilliant, stat-oriented Billy Beane was wrong and his "dumb" manager Art Howe was absolutely right! Not the lesson Michael Lewis or Aaron Sorkin wanted us to draw from this scene!
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 8:20AM
This is one area where the movie departs from the book. Howe was told he was implementing Beane's agenda and went along with the program. So Beane and Howe really didn't have a philosophical disagreement with each other. It is true that Howe was dissatisfied with his contract (as managers often are) and the Athletics released him from his contract following the '02 season to manage the New York Mets. Unfortunately for Howe he lasted less than two seasons at the helm of the Mets.
John - TMF| 9.27.11 @ 8:23AM
When sports/games are boring, statistics become a preoccupation. To most of America, baseball is boring. To everybody but accountants, statistics are boring. Unless you are betting on them, I suppose - which in thinking about it is probably a major motivator in most sports.
The only statistics that count are the number of W's vs the number of L's as opposed to all of the other teams. That's the end.. period.
Nobody much, except baseball drones, even pays attention to baseball before September, anyway. By then nobody much cares about the stats; and they care even less about batting averages, on base percentage, ERA, number of strikes when a fly is buzzing around your head... Though a third base coach being impaled on a broken bat single... might get some July/August note.
The first week of August is for the Hall of Fame inductions, and first week of preseason for America's favorite sport.
At least the baseball pennant race and playoffs are for real, which is why they are exciting. They actually reflect the results of those W's and L's.
"Moneyball" proposes an alternate way of looking at evaluating players, talent, and team assembly. The very fact that it is "alternative" is what wraps baseball purists around the backstop support. I suspect that it has also put a serious dent in their betting sheets as well. The old stuff is easier to understand, and the bookie's odds are better understood.
And I am a Yankee fan... -The only Yankees this Southerner can tolerate... ;-)
Regards, John - TMF (the only formula that counts in any sport - W/GP)
Bob K.| 9.27.11 @ 8:45AM
That has to be the best explanation ever of the difference between a Baseball Fan and a Yankee Fan!
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 10:21AM
"To most of America, baseball is boring...The first week of August is for the Hall of Fame inductions, and first week of preseason for America's favorite sport."
Just shows how boredom is in the eye (or attention span) of the beholder. American football is utterly boring to most of the world, which prefers the much faster and far more continuous action of the sport's ancestor, rugby. By coincidence, rugby is currently holding a very successful world cup, capturing the attention of hundreds of millions around the world.
The ancestor sport offers all the head-banging violence of American football (with no pads!) but in a much quicker, livelier, more open format. That's why the gridiron game has never been able to expand beyond North America.
Of course, the most popular sport by far in the world is association football, which is utterly boring to me. And to a lot of other Americans.
Cliche time: no accounting for tastes.
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 10:47AM
Rugby is football for poofters. Considerably less violence than FuBall!
My credentials to speak on this: former New Zealand Permanent Resident.
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 11:13AM
Actually, for almost all the time in an American football game, there's zero violence. There's zero anything. The ball just sits there while the commercials and replays and cheerleaders grind away.
I really like the cheerleaders, by the way. One of the All Blacks, after seeing his first American football game, commented that the only thing he liked about the sport was all those Sheilas waving their arms around.
Anyway, that slow pace - except for the Sheilas - explains why gridiron football has not been able to compete with rugby anywhere in the world except North America.
Also, isn't it a capital offense for a New Zealander (or even a resident) to say anything bad about rugby? I understand that the punishment is shooting at dawn by the All Blacks. (Just kidding, sort of.)
While we're on the subject of world sports, might as well mention the baseball-ization of the ancient and distant cousin, cricket. The other bat-and-ball sport has enjoyed a resurgence lately with the baseball-sized Twenty20 form of the game. (It has nothing to do with eyesight, but I can't explain here.) I've watched a number of T20 games on various pirate sites and really enjoyed the shortest form of the sport.
Of course, the cricket purists are aghast at this abomination destroying test cricket. But again, no accounting for tastes.
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 11:54AM
To blather even more about the ancient and distant cousin, the New Zealand cricket team showed up in Florida last year to play a few T20 exhibitions against the Sri Lanka team. No lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....SA_in_2010
The exhibitions were (by cricket standards) low-scoring duds due to a dead track. But Daniel Vettori, then the NZ captain, did comment that he's into fantasy baseball. He also showed up at that abomination of a stadium where the Florida Marlins play, though not for much longer.
http://tvnz.co.nz/cricket-blac.....ts-3546601
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 3:23PM
Yes, but I left with animus.
You are correct about Rugby madness among the Kiwis ( The real Kiwi is a flightless bird that abandons its children---the two share much)---which is why their defeat in the Rugby World Cup by the FRENCH was so....amusing.
Clint| 9.27.11 @ 6:38PM
I've played both American Football & Rugby.
Both sports are demanding and rugged.
I've seen severe career ending injuries, in both sports.
Teddy Roosevelt,
" It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 7:05PM
More in football, as an MD. Collisions are much higher speed and many more head injuries---when you don't have helmets, you don't stick your head in.
Clint| 9.27.11 @ 7:17PM
I've seen broken necks & concussions in both sports.
Clint| 9.27.11 @ 7:33PM
Presentation and mechanisms of concussion in professional Rugby League Football.
Hinton-Bayre AD, Geffen G, Friis P.
Source
Cognitive Psychophysiology Laboratory, The University of Queensland, Australia.
The present study prospectively recorded the circumstances, incidence, mechanisms, injury detection and presentation of concussion in Rugby League. Forty-three "consecutive" concussions were recorded over three competitive seasons in 175 professional Rugby League players.
Data showed (i) the incidence of concussion ranged from 5.9 to 9.8 injuries/1000 player hours across grades - except when age-group players were mismatched (18.4): (ii) 'head-high tackles' accounted for a significant number of concussions; (iii) concussion rarely involved a loss of consciousness with the most common indicators of concussion being amnesia, headache and unsteadiness, with the mechanism of injury often missed: and (iv) concussion often occurs concurrently with other injuries. Concussion (including repeated episodes) is a common injury in Rugby League. Systematic mental status questioning is warranted whenever concussion is suspected. Coaches, trainers and players need more education in the recognition and management of concussion. Stricter penalties for illegal 'head-high' tackling are strongly recommended.
cuban pete| 9.27.11 @ 7:49PM
The culprit is the face mask. It encourages you to put your head where it doesn't belong.
George Connor, Notre Dame All American put forth this theory years ago.
OT I truly enjoy your posts. Have a blessed Rosh Hashanah.
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 10:45AM
You know, I thought whoever had Pujols was going to be in contention...
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 11:18AM
Well, there's this team that does have Pujols, and they're one game out right now...
Though Berkman has been almost as valuable to that team. At least if you're pro-WAR.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.27.11 @ 8:55AM
But Mr. Goldstein, you are also forgetting that Hatteberg didn't have 8 other all-star bats in the batting rotation with him. I think its pretty clear why Jeter scored so much more often.
In fact, what exactly can a base-runner provide, once on base, that allows him to score twice as many runs as someone else? Speed? I don't think that accounts for twice as much. The only answer is the other bats in the lineup.
If sabremetrics didn't work, the Redsox would still be in a near 100 year absence from the world series, nor would ANY team in baseball use it. Problem is, almost EVERY team uses it.
I'm not sure what your point is with this article other than to highlight what you beleive to be your grand observation that he didn't mention the pitching staff of those A's teams.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.27.11 @ 8:59AM
In fact, wasn't it the red sox that first began implementing sabremetrics?
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 9:59AM
No, the Athletics began implemeting sabermetrics in the late 1990s while the Sox didn't start doing it until the ownership group of John Henry and Tom Werner came in following the 2002 season when they hired Bill James.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 9:57AM
OK, so you don't like the Jeter example because he's a Yankee. So let's take someone who played on a non-contender in 2002 - Carlos Beltran. As a member of the Kansas City Royals (who lost 100 games that year), Beltran scored 114 runs with a OBP of .346 - nearly thirty points lower than Hatteberg. Beltran wasn't surrounded by All-Stars. He was the All-Star on that team.
My point is if you're going to buy runs why not buy the guys who can score runs rather than just get on base and can't advance beyond third?
The omission of Hudson, Mulder and Zito was glaring. There were other things I could have discussed which space didn't permit such as the draft. Beane complained the draft was a crapshoot. Yet Beane didn't want to draft Prince Fielder because he was too heavy. The draft will always be a crapshoot.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.27.11 @ 11:29AM
Valid point. I think everyone prefers 5-tool players. But I think the idea of the movie is that they went for someone who could get on base bc if you're not on base, you're not scoring runs. But given a much smaller budget, you can't afford a bunch of 5-tool players. They couldn't even afford to keep that pitching staff together, let alone keep a 5-tooler.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 12:08PM
But the A's had a five tool player in Carlos Pena and yet sent him on his way to Detroit so a catcher with no previous experience at first base could be in the lineup.
DRed| 9.27.11 @ 12:34PM
And it turned out he played first base (in 2002) better than Carlos Pena is. And Carlos Pena wasn't a five tool player. He never hit for average, was not fast, and nobody cares how well a first baseman throws.
DRed| 9.27.11 @ 11:32AM
You're missing the point, Aaron. Moneyball isn't about sabermetrics, or OBP or any other particular stat. Scott Hatteberg wasn't especially valuable because of his OBP. He was valuable to the As because he was a good hitter and he was available for nothing. Scott Hatteberg made $900,000 in 2002. That, more than anything, is why he was valuable to the As. Because his particular skillset was undervalued the As were able to get an average level of production on the cheap. Was Hatteberg as valuable in 2002 as Derek Jeter or Carlos Beltran? Derek Jeter made 14 million dollars in 2002, and even Beltran made 3.5 million (and unlike Scott Hatteberg, wasn't available)
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 12:07PM
Except that the Athletics had a rookie first baseman in Carlos Pena who made $202,000 in 2002. If getting Hatteberg was strictly a budgetary matter they wouldn't have paid him nearly five times as much as they were paying Pena. Lewis writes on page 170 of Moneyball:
"A knack for playing first base had little to do with the Oakland A's interest in Scott Hatteberg. It was a bonus that Hatty had made himself as good as he did but he could have played worse without wearing out his welcome. Hatty had been on a collision course with Oakland from the moment Paul DePodesta and Billy Beane had concluded that on-base percentage was three times more important than slugging percentage, and that certain secondary traits in a hitter, widely ignored by the rest of baseball, were also critically important to the success of the team."
DRed| 9.27.11 @ 12:30PM
Okay, they had a first baseman making less money than Scott Hatteberg. So what? Scott Hatteberg was better (in 2002) than Carlos Pena. Carlos Pena didn't have a good year in the big leagues until 2007. In addition, the As were able to trade Pena for Ted Lilly, who was a pretty good pitcher.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 1:08PM
Pena actually finished in the top ten in AL Rookie of the Year voting in '02 with 19 homeruns. He also hit 27 homeruns with the Tigers in '04. However, it is true that he did not cement his reputation as a bonafide star until Tampa Bay gave him a shot in '07.
Brian Garst| 9.27.11 @ 12:36PM
It amazes me that people still think like this. You are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the point, which is that what you are measuring is not the player, but the other players. You're like Joe Morgan talking about how some pitchers just know how to win. It's conventional baseball nonsense.
Congratulations, you've proven that getting on base does not have a one-to-one relationship to scoring runs. How do you consider that insightful? That does nothing to prove that OBP was not ridiculously undervalued prior to wider adoption of sabermetrics, a contention which has been thoroughly evidenced in much more robust fashion than you seem capable of acknowledging.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 1:00PM
My point is that OBP is overvalued. The Athletics wanted to buy wins and to buy wins they had to buy runs and they used OBP as their currency. Yet I have to wonder if the A's would have got more value had they used runs scored as their currency rather than OBP.
DRed| 9.27.11 @ 1:41PM
Overvalued by whom? The As won 103 games in 2002. They won more games than anyone else in baseball while spending less money than 27 other teams.
jack| 9.27.11 @ 2:25PM
OBP is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Your under/over value it at your peril.
In my opinion, Runs Scored (RS) is a much more complicated stat to understand than OBP. So many more factors contribute to RS where OBP is pretty simple to know what you have. To forecast RS from a players OBP, one must factor in base-running ability along with place in batting order/who is hitting behind him at the very least.
BD57| 9.27.11 @ 6:28PM
Aaron:
I don't speak for Beane or the author. With that said, I can envision a "justification" of sorts for not talking more about Hudson, Mulder & Zito.
While I could be wrong, to my knowledge there's nothing in Moneyball which challenges traditional baseball thinking about pitching. The focus of Moneyball is the evaluation of offensive skills - specifically, (1) Increasing the number of baserunners (OBP) increases the number of runs scored; and (2) increasing the number of runs scored increases the number of games won for every pitching staff.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 9:15PM
The Athletics projected how many runs they needed to score and how many they needed to give up to win 95 games. They would have given up a hell of a lot more runs without Hudson, Mulder and Zito. Without them, the 800 runs they did score wouldn't have been enough.
Bob K.| 9.27.11 @ 8:57AM
I used to think Bill James was on to something until he tried to explain why Joe Morgan was a greater 2nd baseman than Rogers Hornsby! It was then I realized he was an idiot savant.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 9.27.11 @ 8:59AM
Joe Morgan is a saint! Bite your tongue!
Bob K.| 9.27.11 @ 12:09PM
In these politically correct times he is a saint despite being a jealous back biter, witness his comments about Ryne Sandberg when he was voted into the HOF.
The Rajah, a southerner from Texas, wasn't much liked by his colleagues for his rather nasty disposition, but he could flat out hit! And there were rumors (gasp!) that he might have been a bigot and it has been lately discovered that he liked to eat Red Meat!! Imagine that!
He started in the deadball era and went up to the end of the 30's. In 1922 he hit .400 and had 40 home runs. Only ball player ever to do that.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 3:37PM
Matt Kemp is trying to become the first MLB player to win the Triple Crown since Yaz did it in 1967. It hasn't been done in the NL since "Ducky" Medwick did it with the Cardinals in 1937. Rogers Hornsby hit for the Triple Crown when he was with the Cardinals - twice. Need I say more?
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 3:25PM
Hornsby was weak on fly balls. But the boy hit over 300 home runs with a lifetime batting average of .358!
astorian| 9.27.11 @ 9:28AM
One other thing- look, I understand why so many people dislike Bill James. He can be both a brilliant iconoclast AND a mere stubborn contrarian. Sometimes, he's thought-provoking, while other times he's merely provocative for the hell of it. Sometimes he's annoyingly smug about being right, while other times he's obnoxious in his refusal to admit he's ridiculously wrong (he's the only man I know who'll STILL argue that the Dowd report DOESN'T prove Pete Rose was a gambler). Sometimes I buy into what he says wholeheartedly (OBP is a much better stat than batting average), while other times I find his work underwhelming (a stat like WAR would be very useful if it proved what it's supposed to... I'm just unconvinced that it does).
That said, it's both silly and a bit petty to refer to Bill James as a former night watchman at a pork & beans plant. It's like liberals referring to Ronald Reagan as a B-movie actor. It's TRUE, but utterly beside the point.
If and when you think a Bill James or a Ronald Reagan is wrong, just say so and explain why.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 10:01AM
I'm hardly the one who has made reference to Bill James' former occupation. Lewis does it himself. The reason it's mention is because the first few editions of The Baseball Abstract were written while he was doing that job. The observation is neither silly nor petty.
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 10:44AM
James is a mixed bag, to coin a cliche. A lot of times he seems to say intentionally stupid things to sell books and generate buzz. His ridiculous denigration of Hornsby is only one of many examples.
My favorite case of Bad James was his absurdly biased coverage of the 1985 World Series in his Abstract. Of course, that series is forever remembered for Don Denkinger's infamous blown call.
Now James is a huge Royals fan and makes no bones about it. So in his account of the Series, Denkinger's blown call hardly got a mention. Why? Because James wanted to make it seem like his beloved Royals won it all on their own.
Another really silly Jamesism is that "temperature gauge" I've seen on NESN telecasts lately in the Extra Innings package. What a lame idea! Just tell us if a hitter is hot or not, without that doofus thermometer.
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 10:04AM
Aaron's criticism of Moneyball has been made by many others, and it's completely valid. How can you overlook one of the best pitching trios ever? Well, Michael Lewis managed the feat.
Another stinger is the book's treatment of Kenny Williams, the White Sox GM who's portrayed as a stumbling doofus. Williams had the last laugh when he won the Series in 2005. Billy Beane has never won the Series. He hasn't won anything for a long, long time. The A's don't even get on base much any more. This year they're 12th in the league in that beloved OBP.
And Aaron, I don't want to bring up painful memories while they're fresh. But last night must have hurt. (My evil self loved it becuase I can't abide the Red Sox.)
Funny thing, the Rays are this year's Moneyball team. Only they gladly give credit to their terrific starting rotation as the heart of their low-budget success. A great rotation covers a multitude of sins. A bad rotation (I'm looking at you, Boston) can ruin the highest-budget team.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 11:04AM
By all means, bring it up. You are right on the money and right on the ball about the Rays. Pun intended!!! I didn't think they would do much in 2011 with the loss of Garza, Pena, Bartlett, their entire bullpen and lest I forget Crawford. Well, the Rays started out at 1-9 but have they ever hung in there. Their rotation is incredible and all of them were developed by the Rays. Should the Rays pull this off it will be the third time in four years that they make the post-season. So much for the "rich teams/poor teams" thesis. In Tampa Bay, you have a Moneyball team that isn't averse to bunting and stealing bases.
You're also right about Kenny Williams. The best trade he made was prior to the 2005 season when he dealt Carlos Lee to the Brewers for Scott Podsednik. When that deal was made I knew the Chisox were going to the World Series that year. He brought much needed speed to the top of that lineup.
Dan Abrams | 9.27.11 @ 10:07AM
Your point about the three pitchers is right on target. I am not as sold on the Jeter/Hattesberg comparison. On base percentage is also important because it extends innings, tires out opposing pitchers, and allows people who are already on base to score runs. As opposed to Jeter who was an everyday guy, Hattesberg was often used as a pinch hitter, and probably got pinch-run for a lot. So comparing runs scored to limit the importance of on-base percentage does not work.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 11:07AM
Hatteberg became their everyday first baseman once Carlos Pena was dealt to the Tigers. Pinch hitting is far more commonplace in the NL than it is in the AL.
I take your point about pinch runners. But I don't know how often Hatteberg was replaced by a pinch runner if at all. I can't imagine it was so frequent as to be statistically significant.
PCC| 9.27.11 @ 10:09AM
I often disagree with Mr. Goldstein but I think he makes a good point with this article, although the bats behind a guy must be included in the equation somehow. If Murderers' Row is lined up behind you, no doubt you're going to get better pitches to hit.
Sabermetrics| 9.27.11 @ 11:29AM
So I guess the point of this article is that you don't understand Sabermetrics?
Runs — just plain runs — is a terrible statistic. There's so much statistical noise in it. Smart people (like Bill James) have worked to develop stats that remove that noise so we don't have to just guess.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 1:03PM
Bill James has made an important contribution to MLB. But I don't take his work as the gospel truth nor do I accept his conclusions at face value. Many of his devotees are as dogmatic as the people they claim know nothing about the game.
Bob K.| 9.27.11 @ 3:01PM
Excellent point. Statistics and the interpretations of them have to be viewed within the whole picture of the game.
Paul McGrath| 9.27.11 @ 11:48AM
For what it's worth, here is my review of the book that I posted on Amazon in 2004. The title of it is, "Oafishly Told and Speculative." I think events have borne me out.
The big controversy in baseball recently is the fact that there is a huge disparity in the wealth of teams. The New York Yankees, for example, can afford to spend about 140 million dollars a year to buy their players, while teams in smaller markets, such as the Oakland A's, only have about a quarter of that. Despite this, and unlike other small market teams, the A's have been consistently competitive for the last several years. This book, Money Ball, attempts to explain why.
It concentrates primarily on the A's young general manager, Billy Beane, and the new ideas he's brought to the game as they regard evaluating talent. There are a couple of good ones. He concentrates, for example, on on-base percentage as opposed to simple batting average; the theory being that the more often you get on base--in any way--the less often you're making an out. In evaluating players, he looks for those who have already accomplished something, as opposed to those who merely have potential. The author then shares with us this gem, which is almost astonishing for its blatant obviousness. "Every batter should also possess the power to hit home runs, in part because home run power forced opposing pitchers to pitch more cautiously, and led to walks, and high on-base percentages." To the extent that these are the qualities that made Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds the best players in the history of baseball, it would be kind of difficult to argue with this proposition.
In fact, except for a couple of good points here and there, the book is pretty much empty of insight, and monotonously boring as well. There is a chapter in which old time scouts discuss players they wish to draft, and how they are outfoxed by Billy and Billy's computer addicted assistant. Woo. There is a chapter having to do with the pro baseball career of Billy Beane, which mostly took place in the minor leagues, and which was about as undistinguished as it gets. There is a chapter on the men who revolutionized the way baseball statistics are kept--among them Bill James and his Baseball Abstract--in the early seventies. Now, if reading about men who compile baseball statistics sounds exciting, by all means, run out and buy this.
The writing style is pedestrian and displays zero wit. Indeed, and incredibly, the author actually uses the f-word in his narrative on occasion. He may as well hold up a sign: I'M NOT CLEVER ENOUGH TO THINK OF A BETTER WORD.
The worst aspect of the book is that the great and cunning machinations of the remarkable Billy Beane can't be judged. It's too early. The author goes into great detail about the players he selected in the 2002 draft and how he outwitted the Neanderthals in the rest of the league to get them. Beane is gleeful at its end because he was able to get most of the players on his wish list, and we are meant to be awed by his skill.
Except, as of today, nobody has ever heard of these guys. I don't believe any are in the major leagues yet, and I can only find one of them on the A's Triple-A Sacramento team: Nick Swisher, who as of today is hitting .264, with 20 home runs and 87 walks. Of course, some or all of these guys might be great some day--and Swisher certainly looks promising--but as of now, who can tell? It's like praising one's selections in a horse race before the race is over. What's the point?
Again, there are a couple of good observations here, and one can't deny that the A's have been a good team, but the case made here is not compelling enough--not yet anyway--and the prose is dreadful. Maybe, some day, the book will be worth the money. Not now.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 12:15PM
Even I disagreed with the book's emphasis, I find Lewis' writing style generally engaging. With that said, as I mentioned in an earlier comment the draft will always be a crapshoot. Yes, Swisher has turned out to be a fine major leaguer but the same cannot be said for Jeremy Brown and Brant Colamarino. As I mentioned in an earlier comment they passed over Prince Fielder entirely because of his weight. This despite drafting Brown who was nearly as heavy as Fielder.
Paul McGrath| 9.27.11 @ 2:26PM
WEll, Swisher has had an okay career. His career batting average is .253, he averages 28 homers and 90 walks a year. He was also an all-star. Once. Again, not bad, but my recollection is that the book made him sound like the second coming of Mickey Mantle.
Another prominent member of the 2002 A's draft was Joe Blanton, who is a career 73-62, 4.32. Again, not bad, but . . .
Beane is not the savior of baseball or even the savior of the A's. He is at best an above-average GM and completely undeserving of all the praise heaped on him by the sychophantic Lewis.
Jack| 9.27.11 @ 2:35PM
Don't forget by agreeing on a deal before the draft, Brown was drafted at a much higher spot than his talent deserved. Though they had so many draft picks, the A's couldn't afford to sign them at market rates.
Larry| 9.29.11 @ 8:05PM
Aaron, although I have not read the book and have not yet seen the movie, as someone who understands what baseball statistics mean (and I'm not a sabremetrician; you don't have to be one in order to understand the game), I can appreciate what you are saying. Your criticisms of the book are fair ones.
I like Bill James, and what few things of his I have read are well thought out. But as always, statistics have to be analyzed in the larger context of the game, without getting too caught up in the fine details of numbers. As Mark Twain once said: "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." The game still comes down to scoring one more run than your opponent. There are many ways of achieving that, and there are equally as many ways to fail at it. The current A's team is evidence of the latter. Not necessarily a failure of "Moneyball," but certainly a failure to assemble the right kind of talent.
Brian Garst| 9.27.11 @ 12:45PM
Nick Swisher plays for the Yankees now. He's had 8 seasons in the big leagues and was on the 2010 All-Star team...
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 12:54PM
Yes, I am quite aware that Swisher wears Yankee pinstripes. Swisher is only being mentioned because he was one of the few success stories in the A's 2002 draft.
Bob K.| 9.27.11 @ 3:15PM
The parks a ball player plays in will have an affect on his statistics. I remember that Bobby Murcer could hit home runs with some regularity in Yankee Stadium but had problems when the Yankees played in Shea Stadium for 2 years when the Stadium was undergoing repairs. I think he only hit 2 in Shea Stadium one year.
It is very difficult to factor things like this into statistics when trying to pick out ball players who will help your team.
M. Hughes| 9.27.11 @ 11:57AM
That OBP is highly correlated with runs is an established statistical fact. That it's "statistical" means it holds true in the aggregate over teams and large numbers of players. Cherry picking a couple of individual players to show a contrary point has nothing to do with statistics. No one claims that Scott Hatteberg was as good a baseball player as Derek Jeter or Carlos Beltran. The point of Moneyball is that he was extremely undervalued. In 2002, Jeter made $14.6 million dollars. Carlos Beltran made $3.5 million. Hatteberg made $900,000. Also, Hatteberg had other qualities besides OBP - the book talks quite a bit about pitches per plate appearance, which does not directly affect his production but helps his team. He was a superb bargain.
As to Carlos Pena - yes, he eventually developed into an excellent ball player. But the A's were trying to win in 2002, not rebuild for the future. In 2002 Hatteberg was a better hitter and gave the A's a better chance to win. Pena did not have a really outstanding season until 2007.
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 12:46PM
In fact, the correlation between OPS (on base percentage plus slugging average, for those not statistically inclined) and runs per game is downright scary. I mean, it's almost lockstep. You know a team's OPS, and you've got a real good shot at predicting their runs scored per game, within five or ten percent.
Okay, correlation ain't causation and all that. And the statheads have come up with other measuring sticks that correlate well with actual runs scored. But the formulas for those measurements tend to be unbelievably complex. Ever looked at the definition of wOBA?
I've noticed that OPS is getting a little more traction among regular baseball fans. Not as much as batting average, of course. But more and more fans seem to understand that a .900 OPS is really good and a .500 OPS is really bad.
Sure, the "goodness" and "badness" varies by year. In 2011 a .900 OPS is pretty spectacular. Only nineteen qualifiers (for the batting title) in all of MLB have an OPS that high. In 2000 it was still good but not sensational. Forty-eight qualifiers had an OPS that high.
And yes, there are measurements like OPS+ that take those playing-era and ballpark factors into account. Except those formulas get complicated, too.
Bottom line is that virtually all teams have access to these measurements now, and at least some understanding of them. So it becomes a question of minimizing expenses more than evaluating stats. The Rays have done that with a homegrown rotation, as Aaron (ruefully for his Sox) mentions.
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 1:19PM
By the way, as soon as I wrote that comparison between 2000 and 2011, I was sure that some readers immediately thought STEROIDS.
And yeah, steroids might have something to do with it. But what a lot of people forget is that pitchers used steroids, too. The drugs affected play both ways.
But one guy has cut only one way. It's that guy standing behind the catcher. In 2000 the strikeout -to-walk ratio was 1.72. By 2011 the ratio has zoomed to a ridiculous all-time high of 2.29.
This has little if anything to do with STEROIDS. It has everything to do with the strike zone expanding enormously.
I bashed Bill James above, but he said one thing I couldn't agree with more. An inch in the strike zone is worth ten feet in the outfield. And nowadays the pitchers are getting a lot of inches around the plate.
In fact, the Glavine strike (two or three or more inches off either corner) has become so common that baseball announcers hardly notice it...even when the laser trackers display it for all to see. The announcers might mutter something about the pitch being "too close to take."
Yeah, I know people will still think STEROIDS. But I think the zone as a lot more to do with the collapse in offense over the past several years. Cut the zone back to 2000 size, and I think you'd see offense pretty close to 2000 levels, even if nobody used STEROIDS.
Larry| 9.29.11 @ 8:11PM
Only if you were a Braves fan (and I am not) did you love the "Glavine strike zone." I am convinced to this day that the umpires are the ones who turned Tom Glavine into a Hall of Fame pitcher, he should thank them profusely when he gets there.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 12:50PM
You miss the point. A high OBP only tells you so much about a player. Alfonso Soriano led the AL in runs scored in 2002 with 128. He scored 70 more runs than Hatteberg. Yet his OBP was more than 40 points below Hatteberg (.374 to .332). BTW, Soriano made $630,000 with the Yankees that season.
The same applies to teams. In 2010, the Toronto Blue Jays finished 12th in the AL in OBP at .312. Yet the Jays finished 6th in the AL in runs scored with 755 which was above the league average of 721.
As for Pena, he did hit 27 homeruns for the Tigers in 2004. But he did regress for a time and it wasn't until he got a chance with Tampa Bay in '07 that he emerged as a marquee player.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 12:55PM
Please note that the preceding reply is to M. Hughes.
Sabermetrics| 9.27.11 @ 1:22PM
You are missing the point.
You assume that a player’s runs reflect his own skill. This is a bad way of measuring things.
Take Al Simmons, for example. In 1930, for the Athletics, he scored 152 runs in 251 times on base. Simmons’ lifetime stolen base numbers in 20 seasons were 88-for-153 (57%), or in layman’s terms, not good. Simmons has his teammates to thank for his runs total. The two men directly behind him in the order, Jimmie Foxx and Bing Miller, drove in 156 and 100 runs respectively.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 3:04PM
I would say Al Simmons was plenty skilled. In 1930, he lead the AL with a .381 batting average and collected 211 hits. Yes, Mr. Foxx and Mr. Miller drove in 156 and 100 runs, respectively. But Mr. Simmons drove in 165 runs that year. In fact, he drove himself all the way to the Hall of Fame.
Sabermetrics| 9.27.11 @ 5:20PM
I'm not saying Simmons wasn't skilled. I'm saying that his runs scored stat is a bad way of showing this.
Let's say Simmons is batting cleanup in a hypothetical team in which every other batter in the lineup is a clone of Tony Pena Jr. Do you think Simmons is going to score many runs?
Stats like OBP -- though I would prefer OPS, EqA, or WARP, or Win Shares or something -- tell you pretty accurately what you do for the team. No, they do not tell you certain things about hitting cut-off men, or taking an extra base on a single to center against Juan Pierre, or how you backed up a throw to second that prevented the winning run getting to third with one out in the ninth inning of a tie game on the road. But: they tell you a lot about how valuable you are on an everyday basis.
The craziest thing is, you aren't even arguing this with the classic "things that don't show up in the box scores" gambit. You are arguing that Runs Scored is as valuable a statistic as OBP.
Runs scored is largely a product of other people on your team. Stats like EqA, or more crudely, OPS, are individual measures of how you impact your team independent of everyone else on your team. And thus, a better way to judge a player's contributions. This is not rocket science.
BD57| 9.27.11 @ 6:35PM
OBP tells you how well a particular hitter gets on base. It doesn't tell you how well the guys behind him in the lineup get on base (which has a lot to do with how many runs he scores).
The point is higher team OBP leads to more baserunners leads to more runs leads to more wins for any pitching staff (good, bad or mediocre).
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 9:50PM
OBP leads to more baserunners and more runners left on base.
Sabermetrics| 9.27.11 @ 10:11PM
Let's look at the top ten teams with the fewest average men left on base:
Angels, Indians, D-Backs, Orioles, Pirates, Twins, Mariners, Blue Jays, Padres, and the Brewers.
Now the top ten teams in OBP:
Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals, Rangers, Tigers, Mets, Rockies, Royals, Reds, and Brewers.
Notice that only one team appears on both lists?
Sabermetrics| 9.27.11 @ 10:14PM
So yes, higher OBP means more men left on. It also means you are likely to be a better team BECAUSE YOU GET MORE MEN ON BASE.
Sabermetrics| 9.27.11 @ 10:22PM
While I'm looking, here's the top ten teams in runs scored:
Red Sox, Yankees, Rangers, Tigers, Cardinals, Blue Jays, Reds, Rockies, Royals, and D-Backs.
Eight of those teams are also in the top ten for OBP.
Two of them are also in the top ten for fewest LOB.
It's almost like there's a pattern here...
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 8:15AM
Last year, the Blue Jays ranked 12th in OBP and yet ranked 6th in runs scored. You're right. Sabermetrics isn't rocket science. It isn't science period.
DRed| 9.28.11 @ 10:50AM
Cherry picking one example proves nothing, Aaron. If you don't think OBP strongly correlates to runs scored, show us the evidence.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 12:05PM
Cherry picking? As Mitt Romney would say, "Nice try."
The fact of the matter is you cannot explain why the Blue Jays are below the league average on OBP and yet above the league average in runs scored.
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 10:55AM
Of course there isn't a 1-1 correlation between OBP and runs scored. Congratulations on knocking down that strawman.
There is, however, a very strong correlation between the two.
Here's a few statistics and their correlation to runs scored
AVG: .834
OBP: .904
SLG: .926
OPS (OBP + SLG): .960
This makes it obvious that team OBP has a very strong predictive value for runs scored. When paired with SLG, it becomes even more accurate.
I don't really understand why this stuff bothers baseball 'traditionalists' so much. Teams that get on base a lot and hit for power will score more runs than those that do not far more often than not.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 12:10PM
The stats you cite are in reference to what precisely. An individual? A team? A league average. Speaking of average, an .834 average? Where are you getting your stats? The Obama White House?
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 12:48PM
In statistical terms, a correlation coefficient of 1.000 is a perfect positive linear relationship, a coefficient of 1.000 is a perfect negative linear relationship, and a coefficient of 0 means no linear relationship.
The stats I posted earlier were from 1960 to 2003. There are more updated) ones available.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsi.....nt-for-ops
Correlation with Runs Scored
Team-Level Data ('00-'09) Correlation
Strikeouts -.068
Stolen Bases +.057
Walks +.548
Home Runs +.685
Batting Avg +.779
Hits +.783
On-base pct +.859
Slug pct +.892
OPS +.947
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 12:54PM
Here's another Source, with an explanation for why OPS is such a good way estimate runs:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/m.....he-masses/
If you still disagree after reading this, please come up with a statistical argument refuting this, one that doesn't involve cherry-picking stats and inserting irrelevant comments about Obama's White House.
DRed| 9.28.11 @ 1:19PM
Picking an individual piece of data that supports your contention while ignoring all other data that supports a contrary position is literally the definition of cherry picking, Aaron.
And the average Sabermetrics is talking about is batting average.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 2:02PM
An .834 batting average?
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 2:18PM
No, an .834 correlation to runs scored. As I explained above.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 2:20PM
DRed thinks you're talking batting average as per his comment at 1:19 p.m.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 2:08PM
I see you still can't come up with an explanation as to why the Blue Jays OBP last year was below the league average while their runs scored was above the league average. I figured as much.
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 2:28PM
Probably because they led the AL with 257 HR.
I bring up OPS because its a better way of measuring success than OBP alone, by combining both OBP and SLG.
Still, as I have shown, OBP is a considerably more reliable method of predicting runs scored than Batting Average, Home Runs, Walks, Strikeouts, Stolen Bases, or Walks. It is undervalued as a statistic by moronic managers like Dusty Baker who complain that walks clog up the bases.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 3:21PM
Baker is talking about players who are on base and don't have speed. Here is what he actually said, "But the guy who walks and can't run, most of the time they're clogging up the bases for somebody who can run." It would be helpful if you didn't distort his statement.
Q: How many World Series teams have you managed?
A: One fewer than Dusty Baker.
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 3:32PM
Oh great, a kiss the rings argument.
Q: How many superbowls has Dan Marino won?
A: One fewer than Trent Dilfer
Therefore, Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than Dan Marino.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 4:01PM
It's not about kissing the ring. It's about your profound lack of respect for those who have played and coached Major League Baseball. You call Dusty Baker "a moronic manager." An easy thing to say for someone who has never been inside a big league clubhouse much less find a way to get 25 men to operate as a cohesive unit. Somehow I suspect you would have some trouble calling Dusty Baker a moron to his face.
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 4:15PM
No matter what virtures Baker may have as a manager, statements he has made about how walks 'clog the bases' represent a lack of understanding of something as important as avoiding outs and automatically disqualifies him from managing or coaching at the professional level. And I would have no problem telling him so to his face.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 4:42PM
What part of "the guy who walks and can't run" don't you get? Obviously, Baker has no trouble with a guy who walks who can also run.
But the fact that you would say that Baker should be "automatically disqualified from managing or coaching at the professional level" despite reaching the post-season in a managerial capacity with three different teams shows demonstrates not only how limited your knowledge of Major League Baseball truly is but the limited value of sabermetrics.
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 4:52PM
"Baker has no trouble with a guy who walks who can also run."
This is a stupid thing to think. Guys who walk get on base. Getting on base is a very good thing regardless of how fast you are (in fact, there's plenty of evidence that speed doesn't matter all that much in terms of how many runs a team scores). Dusty Baker and you don't seem to understand this.
I don't care if Dusty Baker reached the post season. He doesn't hit, pitch, or throw the ball. His teams made the playoffs in spite of him, not because of any special brilliance on his part. The most brilliant manager in the world would stink on a team with bad players, and an idiot on a great team could make the playoffs. Just look at Dusty Baker.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 5:08PM
Ah, let it out. It seems you have run out of arguments because you have been reduced to name calling.
As it stands, I'm in better company with Dusty Baker than with you.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 2:04PM
When did I mention OPS? I've been talking about OBP. Nice sleight of hand.
DRed| 9.28.11 @ 2:31PM
.834 is the correlation coefficient.
The blue jays were 1st in the AL in slugging. They hit the ball hard. That's probably why they scored more runs than an average team. And guess what-if they'd had more men on base they would have scored even more runs. Your cherry picked example doesn't prove a thing.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 3:22PM
It proves that sabermetrics is a pseudoscience.
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 3:34PM
"It proves that sabermetrics is a pseudoscience."
Statistics is not a pseudoscience.
DRed| 9.28.11 @ 3:53PM
Aaron, what your comment proves is that you have no idea what you're talking about. 'Sabermetrics' doesn't claim that OBP will always predict which teams will score the most.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 4:24PM
It's curious for you to say that considering that you wrote that the Athletics were not interested in Hatteberg because of his OBP. I then quoted Lewis who said in no uncertain terms that Hatteberg's OBP was precisely the reason they couldn't wait to sign him. If you have anything germane to add to the discussion I'll let you know.
DRed| 9.28.11 @ 4:53PM
The As were interested in Hatteberg for a number of factors. His OBP, the number of pitches he took per at bat, the fact that he was cheap, the fact that it would allow them to trade Carlos Pena etc. I'm not sure what was curious about my comment, but again, it's fairly obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
Look, I understand that talking with sabermetric people is annoying. They can be condescending. They sometimes misuse stats. Sometimes they speak with more certainty than they should. But the bottom line is that statistical analysis of baseball works. There's a reason why almost every team in baseball does it. If you're willing to learn more, there are a number of good books I can recommend to you. Why don't you read one or two and see if they change your mind? They'd be far better at explaining things than I am.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 8:55PM
I've forgotten more about baseball than you'll ever know.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 4:25PM
Sabermetrics doesn't equal statistics. It is merely an interpretation of statistics based on arbitrary and subjective principles.
DRed| 9.28.11 @ 4:45PM
And you know this how? You can demonstrate, through statistics, that sabermetricians (for lack of a better word) are misusing statistics? I haven't seen you provide a shred of evidence for whatever your argument is.
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 4:46PM
Sabermetrics is both exercise in both gathering and interpreting statistics. It does both very well.
You seem completely impervious to facts and figures. I get the feeling that no matter how many times I show you that Sabermetric stats do an excellent job of predicting offensive performance you will respond with a blithering assault on logic, reason, and numbers.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.28.11 @ 5:11PM
This from someone who says he doesn't care if Dusty Baker reached the playoffs. Talk about an assault on logic, reason and numbers.
Sabermetrics| 9.28.11 @ 5:15PM
This is like arguing with a brick wall. I'm done.
If you have any desire to learn about Sabermetrics, read Baseball Between the Numbers. Perhaps its authors can explain it better to you than I can.
Randy Hill| 9.29.11 @ 7:50PM
Wow, I thought the article you wrote was sillly, but i have to give you kudos Aaron for reaching new levels of silliness in your replies to Sabermetrics here.
But let me give you help in correcting your original column. Scott Hatteberg got on base 213 times in 2002, Jeter 262 times. I think you ignored intentional walks and made an addition error. Jeter hit 18 HR which are also runs scored, and Hatteberg 15. When you deduct those you find Jeter scored 106 times after getting on base, while Hatteberg scored 43 times.
Wow, what a huge difference! Hmm, Jeter typically hit 2nd, and didn't the Yankee 3rd and 4th place spots in the lineup average hitting .310, slugging .520, with 395 hits, including 78 doubles, and 58 home runs?
Hatteberg also batted 2nd a great deal. The two spots behind him averaged hitting .280, slugging .460, with 57 doubles and 58 HR.
So obviously Jeter had the better hitters behind him (and behind them). The yankees hit in better hitters ballparks too. But it's not enough to explain the entire difference in runs scored, clearly Derek's speed (32/35 in stolen bases vs. Scott's 0 for 0) contributed substantially.
But everyone knows that, even Billy Beane. He would have gladly swapped Hatteberg for Jeter if the Yankees offered him, because Jeter is the far better player. But Jeter wasn't available, and anyone better than Hatteberg was far too expensive. Scott was a great fit at a great price and enabled the A's to score a decent (though not great) amount of runs within the payroll they had.
And the movie isn't the book and the book didn't cover the rotation because it wasn't interesting. Of course it was the strength of the team, but the team would have failed without finding position players and relievers within their limited budget who could perform close to an MLB average level.
And a few years ago the rotation was gone, and Beane built another one and made another bargain basement trip to the playoffs. He is celebrated because what he does is hard. What the Red Sox and Yankees do is far easier.
Larry| 9.29.11 @ 8:19PM
ONLY two of them are in the top ten for fewest LOB? This is further reason to not place all of one's eggs in one basket when it comes to OBP. OBP, in the case of the Reds (whom I know pretty well, being a big Reds fan), meant very little because: (1) they did a very poor job of advancing runners; (2) had way too many strikeouts; and, thus (3) they failed to drive in runs in crucial situations and left a LOT of guys on base (I don't know how we finished in terms of most runners left on, but we had to have been in the top 10 in MOST guys LOB). The result: a 79-83 record, about 15 games worse than last year.
Ability to advance runners is important; you can't just rely on the home run ball alone. Which is why I think some of the statistical analyses done are incomplete and not-so-well founded.
JimH| 9.27.11 @ 12:48PM
If you want to see success while spending little money come to Tampa Bay. Go Rays.
Jimmy Terry| 9.27.11 @ 1:13PM
Well written, and I'm in total agreement. As a stats fan (and rotisserie owner) who will see this movie, I believe in the power of past stats to determine future success.
Correct me - my recollection of the book was that it did deal with "runs you cost your team" or value as it applies to a player's defensive abilities, too, right?
But as they say "good pitching beats good OBP" anyday, and the value of those 3 pitchers cannot be overstated. Cue Phillies.
TerryO| 9.27.11 @ 1:20PM
Saw Moneyball yesterday. I agree with the argument that the pitching side of the equation was particularly ignored and cannot be when considering the overall success of a team. After all, batters must have something TO hit and that something comes from...pitchers! However, what I really took away form this film was the comment near the end about how those in charge go crazy when their power is threatened in any way...and this was particularly true as a result of Oakland's use of James' theory. Other team owners got more than a little scared when suddenly, here's a team of low-paid second-rate (for the most part) players, doing something that shouldn't have been possible to do. That same mentality (the fear factor) holds true in nearly every aspect of society, including today's political climate. By turning conventional wisdom upside down, Beane actually did create a scenario which in the long run, helped the game of baseball IMO.
Steve A| 9.27.11 @ 1:54PM
The best position players in Baseball have been, are, & will always be those that possess: A) Huge Power & B) Great Speed (baserunning savvy needed). Most all of the great players had both with exception of some who just crushed at the plate (Ruth etc).
As for pitchers, with few exceptions, its velocity, command & movement.
You can play with & talk about stats all you want, but the guys with these qualities will always produce the stats which add up to wins over the long haul.
The difficulty in scouting is measuring a guys heart. This is the trick & this is why you have guys like Eckstein & Dustin Pedroia that defy all odds & excell. This is why Mike Piazza goes in the 62 round & then goes to Cooperstown. This does not happen in other sports.
Baseball, when played properly, is still the purest, most multi faceted, unique & magnificent game ever concieved. It is played more with the spirit & soul than the other sports although all of the greats in all sports played from the heart.
The sounds of the game, the atmosphere, the dimensions of the field, the umpires & the tools of the game surely had a nudge from the divine.
Leave it alone. Do not expand the wild card to make it like the joke of a playoff structure like the NHL. Take instant replay & toss it out the freakin window. The single best moment in sports in the last several years was watching Armando Gallaraga pat Joyce on the back as Joyce wiped the tears the day after he blew the call for his perfect game.
Casey Abell| 9.27.11 @ 2:05PM
"Do not expand the wild card to make it like the joke of a playoff structure like the NHL."
You know, I've gone back and forth on this. At the start of Spetember, with the prospect of no real races at all, I was inclined to add a wild card in both leagues.
But with the season rolling down to two terrific wild card races - thanks for collapsing, Boston and Atlanta - I'm not so sure now.
Doesn't look like anything will happen next year. After that, I dunno. They're talking about moving a team to the AL and all sorts of other gizmos. Selig is pushing realignment big, but apparently he's getting some pushback.
Bud doesn't like to do anything without pretty much unanimous support from the clubs. Who knows what will happen?
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 7:30PM
That is what I thought. 3rd basemen historically have been.
Santo also was a better hitter than Robinson.
By the way, in his early days, Ruth was a god baserunner---no Mantle, but OK.
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 7:31PM
OOOPS---"good" baserunner.
Jack| 9.27.11 @ 2:08PM
Moneyball is flawed BUT it is a noteworthy piece of work because it simply exposes how most of baseball did not give sufficient weight to important player attributes that, when factored in, improves a team's chance of winning. The premise that Billy Beane was able to get more buck-bang cannot be disputed even though Hudson, Mulder, and Zito were the foundation of that team.
Finally, Goldstein picks himself off 3rd base when he attempts to besmirch the value of on-base-percentage with a seriously flawed OFAT (one factor at a time) analysis. Anyone care to compare how many runs the A's scored vs. the Yankees that year. I have not but would expect a substantial edge for the Yankees. Even if not the case, such a comparison flies in the face of statistical validity and is worthy only of mocking.
But Mr. Goldstein should take heart; he is in good company. The vaunted research papers of academia are rife with similar errors.
Billy is despised by many so expect to see many negative reviews. I wonder if he has ever listened to The Iliad?
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 2:56PM
Besmirching OBP? Hating Billy Beane? Hardly. I simply arguing that OBP is overvalued generally and was overvalued in assessing the success of the Oakland Athletics in the early 2000s. Absent Hudson, Mulder and Zito there is no way Oakland makes four straight post-season appearances.
DRed| 9.27.11 @ 3:56PM
Saying OBP is 'overvalued generally' is a pointless statement. Do you mean now? Who overvalues OBP? Can you show how OBP is overvalued?
Obviously, those As teams were doing something right-they won an awful lot of baseball games while spending no money and (according to you) somehow overvaluing OBP.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 9:53PM
Show me a high OBP and I'll show you a high number of runners left on base. Where's the efficiency in that?
DRed| 9.27.11 @ 10:09PM
Getting on base without making an out is a more efficient use of an at bat than making an out. That's basic baseball. I don't even know what you're trying to argue-that it's better to make outs? Sure, if Team A gets 200 men on base while Team B gets 100 men on base, it's more likely that Team A will leave more runners on base. But they'll also almost certainly score more runs.
Sabermetrics| 9.27.11 @ 10:18PM
Who cares about efficiency? I want runs, regardless of how they are generated.
Jack| 9.27.11 @ 4:23PM
I see it is easy to infer I accused you of being a member of the "I Despise Billy Beane Club." Please accept my apology, not for the accusation as that was not my intent, but for the inadequate writing on my part.
On the besmirching, as I see it, many who read your article will be left with a negative impression concerning OBP and an associated poor opinion of the Moneyball way. You gave little reason to appreciate this stat or the paradigm shift Moneyball speaks of.
I agree that the A's success would not have occurred without Hudson/Mulder/Zito, however another valid, more complex query that must be considered at the same time is: How much of this success is attributable to Beane's management? Or in other words: How many incremental runs was he able to squeeze out of his tiny budget?
Thanks for the feedback.
Bob K.| 9.27.11 @ 6:38PM
OBP is valuable in the 1,2 and 3 hitters if you have people in the 4, 5, and 6 position who can get them around the bases. It is also, on teams like these, good to have in the 7 and 8 position.
You still need starting pitching to stay close. The A's had it in those years.
Steve A| 9.27.11 @ 2:16PM
Yeah, I hear ya. I just like the fact that the regular season actually means something. Used to be you fought all year for the division. Now, you can fight for the division & oh well, if you miss, you can fight for the wild card. If you move it again, you will be able to fight for the 2nd wild card etc.
Occam's Tool| 9.27.11 @ 3:29PM
Hey, while I'm dealing with people who know so much more about baseball than me (NO SNARK INTENDED---this was a brilliant thread, excepting me), can you answer me a question?
Ron Santo and the Hall of Fame---was he screwed?
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 3:32PM
Santo was the best third baseman in the NL for a decade and apart from Brooks Robinson, the best in the game. He was most definitely given the shaft.
cuban pete| 9.27.11 @ 7:54PM
On the South side of Chicago Billy Pierce of the White Sox should be in the HOF.
He had a winning record against Whitey Ford.
Had he played in NYC he would have been in the hall years ago.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 8:26PM
Pierce's numbers are very comparable with those of Ford. In fact, Pierce has more strikeouts (1,999 to 1,956) and more complete games (193 to 156) than Ford. Pierce was named to seven All-Star Teams while Ford was named to eight. Ford had more wins (236 to 211) and his ERA was half a run lower (2.75 to 3.27). Both pitchers were two time 20 game winners. The difference? The World Series. Ford pitched in 11 of them while Pierce pitched in two on the losing side ('59 Chisox and '62 Giants). It is interesting to imagine what would have happened had Pierce worn pinstripes and Ford was pitching at Comiskey. Pierce was certainly deserving of greater consideration for Cooperstown.
cuban pete| 9.27.11 @ 8:50PM
Thanks for your response.
Full disclosure.
By circumstance Bill was a customer of my aunt's flower store and became a friend to her and my cousins. He was a guest at her 90th birthday celebration. He is a very modest,unpretentious guy. So, he not only was a fine pitcher but he is also a good man.
Bob K.| 9.27.11 @ 9:21PM
Or, conversely, Ford was deserving of lesser consideration.
Pierce's higher ERA is probably due in a large part to the fact that he had more CG's and he was the loser in a number of them whereas Ford only had one year where he had more CG's than wins and that year it was only one game more.
Pierce had 7 years where he had more CG's than wins.
Aaron Goldstein| 9.27.11 @ 9:52PM
Still, it's pretty hard to overlook 11 World Series appearances and a near .700 career winning percentage.
Bob K.| 9.28.11 @ 12:10AM
It helps when you are with a great team and have other people to help carry the load. You can stay loose. In those days the Yankees could do damn near anything they wanted to do. I suspect that they even arranged to have the Phillies Curt Simmons called to Active Duty at the beginning of the Korean War in order to help Brooklyn win the pennant and get him out of the World Series. He would have been real tough pitching in Yankee Stadium against left handed batters. It worked too as the Yankees won in 4 games and 3 of them were close. He spent the next year on active duty too.
I'll bet it is the first time you ever heard that speculation! But if it could be done, the Yankees could have done it! And would have done it if they could have!
Bob K.| 9.28.11 @ 12:11AM
Simmons was called up early in September of 1950.
Louis F| 9.27.11 @ 10:21PM
My beef with Beane (and Lewis) is that they make it seem like baseball never used stats until the 1990s. Almost all of the things Beane did were done my favorite manager, Earl Weaver. I just pulled out my 1984 copy of "Weaver on Strategy". Some quotes: p. 43, "I played him [Glenn Gulliver] down the stretch in 1982 because of his ability to walk. For a long time he had a batting average in the low .200s, but his on-base percentage was .430". p. 39 "Weaver's Fourth Law: Your most precious possessions on offense are your twenty-seven outs". As you might guess, Weaver wasn't a fan of the bunt or stolen base. His chapter on "Scouting" shows the meticulous detail he used to understand not only every batter and every pitcher, but how they fared against each other.
I appreciate what Beane did and Lewis documented: take statistics into the cost-benefit level of constructing a roster, but I never considered it revolutionary. Rather I view it as evolutionary and I consider Beane a one-trick pony. He pulled it off once, but without Zito, Hudson, and Mulder, has done nothing since.
Bill S| 9.27.11 @ 10:24PM
There's a direct correlation between baseball revenue and baseball wins. It would be ignorant to deny it. Yes, sometimes teams with low payrolls win but they don't do it very often. Just ask the Kansas City Royals and the Baltimore Orioles.
POST American| 9.28.11 @ 12:25AM
"---Sports for the men, drama n' soaps
for the women ---ALLLLL while the Global
EEL--eats, step by step, smasculate,
and dispossess you of all power. It's an old formula, straight from the Milner-Rhodes bunch circa 1920."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)
guthriej| 9.29.11 @ 7:39PM
Lewis&Moneyball; has generated more conversation than ANYTHING Aaron Goldstein has ever written in his entire life.
Paul S.| 9.30.11 @ 4:44AM
As an A's fan for decades, seeing how many runners we strand on base, if they don't cross the plate the rest doesn't matter. Big (expensive) bats bring runners home.
Old Backstop| 10.3.11 @ 1:20PM
This article was going great and right on track, and then you got sidetracked by the Hatteberg/Jeter issue. I was curious to see your conclusion on how the movie (and book) omitted the pitching trio that made the A's so great. A soft division didn't hurt too much either.
But the real key and evidence you should have mentioned was that once Zito, Hudson and Mulder departed, the team pretty much a .500 team going forward, despite all of Beane's efforts.
One thing that we know about baseball, which many of the old scouts also knew: Starting pitching is everything.
Mitch| 10.5.11 @ 3:42PM
Jeter would score more than Hatteberg b/c Jeter batted at the top of a powerful lineup, whereas Hatteberg batted near the bottom of a weaker one. You need hitters behind you to score runs.
Richard Hilger| 10.6.11 @ 2:09PM
An, even short, discussion 0f the evidence, (or lack thereof), would not have been out of place.
Richard Hilger| 10.6.11 @ 2:11PM
My above comment was in regards to the article on Amanda Knox. Sorry.