Interesting Article about "Moneyball"

As an "amen" to the Dartmouth article, Mr. Beane's devotee in Los Angeles has the Dodgers sinking fast. The A's have become one of the worst in baseball, dumping much of their starting pitching staff and now looking to move Chavez.

Smoke, mirrors and stats can only do so much and last just so long. At some point the analysis of scouts and baseball "minds" need to be considered. Computers can't do it alone. They don't measure heart and other intangibles which are what often make a player what they are and that is a major component where the "moneyball" approach fails.

quote:

Originally posted by HeyBatter:
As an "amen" to the Dartmouth article, Mr. Beane's devotee in Los Angeles has the Dodgers sinking fast.

As if they were ever "up".

As if "moneyball" minded people get a very short time (one season) to show success where the "scout" minded people can fail forever and still pass your test.

What you "scout" minded people always seem to leave out is the budget.

Remember the name of the book. That is where you'll find it's significance.

Nice article.

I only read excerpts from "Moneyball"...and that was enough for me.

Computers can't hit baseballs.

Paragraph #2 of the article is completely false.

Then he goes about proving paragraph #2.

Very poor journalism. Very biased reporting.

The things he uses as proof are so ridiculous that it deems the entire article worthless and appears written by someone with little knowledge of baseball.

Anyone who expected the A's to compete this year after dumping the salaries of Mulder and Hudson wasn't thinking straight. I doubt very much that Beane expected them to be competitive. The jury is still out on their draft selections as detailed in moneyball.

The Dodgers overachieved in 2004 given the talent they had before DePodesta got there. He can neither take blame nor can he take credit for 2004. This year they seem to have made a smart move so far given Beltre's results in Seattle although he would probably be doing a bit better in Los Angeles. Given the talent they had going in and the limited spending by McCourt the Dodger are right about where you would expect them to be despite the fact that DePodesta acquisitions Phillips and Choi are having good years.

The anti-moneyball team in the area is the Angels and they have not done all that well considering their payroll and the stars that they have. They're hitting about .250 as a team with that payroll. Not too impressive.

So have the few games played so far this year proved anything one way or the other about the moneyball approach? No. Have they proved anything one way or the other about traditional scouting approaches? No.

Eventually teams will combine the use of statistics and traditional scouting to get the job done. The mix will vary from team to team but they'll all use statistics and they'll all use scouts. Some teams will build around pitching, some around free swinging hitters and some around patient hitters and the winners will be determined over many seasons, not just a small portion of one season.

I like this draft pick of the A's, kid named Jason Windsor you might remember him.
Jason Windsor: Individual Stats (Pitching)

Stockton 04/07 05/31 W2 L2 ERA 3.74 G10 GS10 CG0 SHO 0 SV 0
IP 55.1 H 52 R 28 ER 23 HR 5 BB8 SO 64
8 to 1 Strikeout to walk ratio, nice.
Just got sent to AA Midland

Teacherman- as to your comments re: my post, I think the Dodgers were "up" last season and heading in the right direction and then LoDuca, Lima and Mota gone. Then Green gone and Beltre gone and Cora gone.

The team is NOW a joke, going nowhere, with no direction going in the tank in possibly the worst division in MLB. These are all supposedly "stat" (moneyball) motivated analysis moves and it won't take years to see if they were right or wrong. The people brought in will never last such years. Kent is near the end of his career, Drew is one of the worst signings ever. Even the Cubs gave up on Choi (of course they also traded Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio ). The Dodgers have had 8 thirdbaseman in the first 2 mos of the season and a disaster of a pitching staff. They won't pull the trigger on any trade to help themselves.

As far as the "money" part, IMO the Dodgers have plenty of same. Besides, those who profess the "stat" only approach don't completely tie this to a budget issue. to this end, the term "moneyball" is really a misnomer. It should be called "statball"; and, Yes, Beane has a limited budget (the Dodgers should not with a 100+ million budget). Beane and his devotees, regardless of the money issue, apparently feel stats are the way, apparently the only way to evaluate players. My impression of the book is that Beane would do away with his entire scouting department and all "baseball people" if he could and just rely on his laptop. This is the direction the Dodgers are headed, reducing their scouting deparment and their influence on the club.

Another aspect of "moneyball", which again makes the name of the book a misnomer is that a part of the philosophy of it is the approach to the game. The Beane devotees, including Depodesta, place huge importance on on base percentage over batting average, for example. A walk is as good as a hit is very important to their approach. this runs into trouble sometimes, with someone like Choi, who Deposdesta went after because of his walks and OBP. But the Dodger "baseball people" want him to be agressive and not walk so much and so here the philosophies clash, with the player in the middle. By way of another example, the moneyballers don't beleive in the sacrifice, because they never want to give up an out. It goes on and on. Moneyball is about many things, not just money, its as much, if not more about how you evaulate players, with stats, staying away from "subjective" scouting and how you play the game, which is a reflection of the stats they look for and prize. Money is the least of "moneyball".

Further to the Dodgers, unfortunately, while helpful the(ir) reliance on stats doesn't measure the heart of Paul LoDuca, the spirit of a Jose Lima or the intangibles that a Beltre brings to the table having been with the Dodgers since he was 15.

A computer also doesn't tell you about the destructive mean spirit of a Jeff Kent or the "all about me" attitude of a J.D. Drew.

A little scouting and baseball "minds" and experience are needed. Frank McCourt and Depodesta have none of such knowledge and experience. If it ain't in the computer and can't be "crunched" into stats, these two clowns don't know about it. IMO it takes a balance between the "scout" approach and the "stat" approach.

Hey Batter,
I think you had a balance between the "stat" approach and the "scout" approach in Oakland when both Beane and Depodesta were there. Depodesta crunched the numbers and made recommendations but Beane was the one who made and probably more importantly, implemented the decisions and trades. Beane is able to wheel and deal and I don't think Depodesta is in the same class in that arena.

I apologize to bbscout in advance for calling Beane/Depodesta balanced. Hopefully he's too busy with the draft to read this.

As Teacherman noted, much of the article was incorrect, but then again, much of the book Moneyball was incorrect too.Stats have been used by scouts for as long as I can remember. When I go to a college game, they have up to date stats on every player on both teams that we look over before every game.I agree that the article was biased, but then again, so was the book. Unless a person has sat through draft meetings and seen thousands of reports on players, what they read in the book or the article is just fun reading and nothing else.

Years ago, Bill James came to the conclusion in one of his books that stats in the minor leagues would carry over to the big leagues. The problem was that he only used stats from "AA" and "AAA" because when he went back to "A" ball and the short season leagues, the stats did not pan out.Now, "A" ball and the Rookie leagues are way ahead of college ball and light years ahead of high school ball, so naturally he never tried to compare the stats of the amateur kids to how they would be as big leaguers. Drafting players based on their high school or college stats is something that has been going on for about 15 years, and it is one of the reasons that there is so much failure in the 1st round.
If anyone is interested, I will give my opinion why.

High School and College (Metal bats). A big difference in the levels of competition in HS. Stats at the HS and College levels in my opinion are useless in making a decision on wether to draft a kid and where to draft him.

quote:

If anyone is interested, I will give my opinion why.

Yes, please. Your opinion in this thread is based upon experience...
and it is appreciated.

R.

Ross, I will give an example of scouting hitters. Last year, I scouted a couple of Sophs who were very good.....Jed Lowrie and John Mayberry at Stanford. They both had better years as Sophs than they did as Juniors. One of the reasons is that they had a better team and lineup last year than they did this year and as a result got better pitches to hit. This year I saw their first 3 game series. They both did very well, with Lowrie hitting 4 homers. I keep track of how many fastballs the young hitters get in the strike zone that can be hit well. In the first 3 game series, Lowrie got 14 fastballs that he could do something with and he did. Later in the year as his numbers were sliding a little, I saw another 3 game series and he saw 3 fastballs in the zone. He only got 3 hits in the series and none for extra bases.

I pay strict attention to how many fastballs a kid gets, and what he does with them when he gets them. To be successful, a player has to hit the (good) fastball...88-93 range. Even big leaguers don't hit the good breaking balls.........if they did, they would hit .550.
Young players are not as experienced or patient as seasoned big leaguers, and they are trying to impress the scouts, so they swing at breaking balls in the dirt.
If a player can hit the good fastball, I will draft him. If he can't, I won't draft him no matter how many walks he gets.

One more thing.....the guy in the office checking the stats on the computer has no idea if the player he likes is hitting hanging breaking balls or if he is swinging and missing against good fastballs. When the kid gets out into pro ball, he will be facing the good fastball on a daily basis, and if he can hit it, he will succeed and if he can't, he won't.

Hey Batter

Read the book again so you can comment intelligently.

Focus on the premise that, whether you agree or not, the goal is to help small market teams compete with large market teams. Small budget teams compete against large budget teams.

Although everyone likes to win, NO WHERE did anyone say you are likely to win with this format.

Compete for a division title, yes. Make the playoffs, yes. Win a playoff series, maybe.

Win the World Series, would love to, but, probably not.

Now, compare that to their other options against large market teams.

It's all about maximizing your investment. Spending your money as wisely as possible. And, everyone makes personnel mistakes. Just don't make them so costly financially.

Nothing about any assurance of "if you use this moneyball concept, you will win".

As for your Dodgers, just what did they do for the previous decade or so before last years conversion to moneyball??????

bbscout, as you say, you are judged by how you hit the mistake fb. You are going to get a couple every game. You have to pounce on them. Period. Failure to do that will mean failure to hit at the next levels. Judging guys on duck snorts and ground ball singles that a ss with little or no range did not get to will backfire on you at the next level.

There was a player around here last year that the scouts were all very, very, very high on (all american, all that kind of accolades). I saw him play 5 times. Every hit he got was on a hanging breaking ball. He could not hit a fb above 85. I could not believe that the scouts were not seeing this. Well they must have. He did not get drafted (signability) and is sitting the bench at one of the Top d1s in the country. Had you gone by the stats, he should have been a 1st rounder and it was rumored that he turned down 2nd round money.

Doug,

Thanks for the explaination. It seems the message kids should take from this about hitting is very similar to what is frequently said on this site about pitching. Concentrate on learning to throw and locate the FB if you are a pitcher and concentrate on learning to recognize and hit a FB if you are a hitter. Seems pretty basic, but when you hear it from a scout, it really sends the message home.

Thanks again,

R.

Doug, "If a player can hit the good fastball, I will draft him."

There would seem to be a bushel of college players over the years that were able to hit the good fastball (with metal) but never really succeeded at the next level which leads me to my question.

Strictly speaking of those players that can hit the good fastball, how much emphasis do scouts put on the swing and whether they feel it will translate to wood and do organizations actually breakdown a players swing thru use of video as part of this process? Look forward to your comments. Thanks.

bbscout is right on this one. Statistics can be very useful but only if you understand the limitations inherent in your database. If you don't understand how outside factors affect the numbers then you can make very bad decisions based on statistics.

bbscout,
How about Mayberry? The one time I saw him, during his sophmore season, I was very impressed with his athleticism. He looked like a man amongst boys even though he was playing at a D1.

bbscout - thanks for your posts, I think they are interesting and helpful to this topic. There really is a lot that goes into scouting a player that most people have no idea even happens. I hope parents are reading this thread!

quote:

Originally posted by MT07LHP:
Doug, "If a player can hit the good fastball, I will draft him."

There would seem to be a bushel of college players over the years that were able to hit the good fastball (with metal) but never really succeeded at the next level which leads me to my question.

Strictly speaking of those players that can hit the good fastball, how much emphasis do scouts put on the swing and whether they feel it will translate to wood and do organizations actually breakdown a players swing thru use of video as part of this process? Look forward to your comments. Thanks.

"A bushel"? Since the -3 bats came into play, I have not seen a lot of guys who can hit the good fastball that were not prospects. To gauge if a guy can hit the good fastball, you need to watch him play against pitchers who have good fastballs and that means seeing many games.

As far as breaking down the swing, that is something that is used by all the clubs. Who breaks it down and how well they do it is another question.

Teacherman- so I can comment "intelligently". Very nice.

why don't you save your personal insults.

I've read the book and Mr. teach, I don't need your critique of me and I'm not one of your students. fill out your report cards for someone else.

Those you can, do. those you can't, teach .

Well work on your comprehension then.

I notice you don't offer any more facts to support your opinion.

Maybe because there aren't any. And, maybe because your opinion is uninformed.

Just an emotional outburst because your Dodgers aren't doing well????

Teach- I'm not a Dodger fan. Perhaps you might want to work on YOUR comprehension. I've just used them as an example given that Depodesta, their GM, is a major devotee of Beane. And, BTW, I am not interested in your "instruction". I appreciate your presumptions that you apparently know it all. Save it for the little kids you're apparently used to pushing around.

I also note your other post that if your son is good enough to be seen "he will be seen". Yeah, you are real informed

Guess we don't need scouts and showcases and camps or this site for that matter. The world is full of talent that never gets seen. How you can possibly have ever visited this site or had any real life exposure to youth sports or most any endeavor and make the statement that "if you are good you will be seen" is beyond belief.

If I were you I wouldn't address the topic either.

teacherman

what makes you better than heybatter?

for that matter what makes you think you are better than anyone else who posts here?

How many other sites have you been thrown off because it is almost time here and trust me you will be gone one way or another--

"I hope parents are reading this thread!"

Some of us are advisor.

Interesting and intriguing, bbscout.

Thanks for taking the time.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
teacherman

what makes you better than heybatter?

...

The first reason is, when I read a book, I comprehend.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
...

How many other sites have you been thrown off because it is almost time here and trust me you will be gone one way or another--

The better question is how many sites have left me back in?

Find the reason for that and you'll improve your site.

Doug. thanks for your comments. I realize those who can hit the good fastball are propects, was referring to the those same prospects that once drafted go on to struggle with the bat at the next level. Wasn't sure if these top hitting proposects were drafted based on numbers, competition and scouts eye or whether they actually broke the swing down using video.

"As far as breaking down the swing, that is something that is used by all the clubs. Who breaks it down and how well they do it is another question" answers my question. Thanks.

Teach- oh never mind. What would be the point. Have a lovely day.

I was curious though, what sites have "left" you back in.

hey guys....grow up

Again Teacherman cant answer the question---how many sites/

I also do not what site is referring to as mine

And I thought he saw the light is a recent post-- cant change the spots of the "pizzaman"

I just finally realized--I am answering this buffoon--TR get a grip on yourselve-- talk to the people who care !!!

From here on Teacherman you talk to yourself..................

What do you mean "from here on"......

Isn't that how it's been?

Teach, you got a PM...

No I don't.

TR - Much thanks. as always, you provide a voice of reason when the nuts start to shake from the trees. It is best to disengage from such folks. Better yet, to never engage them...

Where are the Moneyball detractors now? A's doing just fine with their $55M payroll...so quick to judge, let's see how many have changed their tune? BTW Jays are competitive for the first time in years. Where are the D-Rays and their hot shot draft picks (I believe they will develop but results count).

In the first paragraph of the original article the author states, “Two years after the fact, "Moneyball" seems destined for irrelevance.” I wrote to the editor suggesting that after less than three months that sentence would be better applied to the article itself. I also asked – with Oakland now in first place - if there would be an update or follow-up story. So far no response. The article was foolishly premature. And was so clearly wrong on just about every level. The author should be forced to publicly eat crow.