Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 28, 2010

S.I.: Andrecheck: Moneyball opened our eyes, but it wasn’t a game-changer

Us SLOBS…forgotten again.

In fact, the above chart of walks per plate appearance below doesn’t support that line of thinking. While the amount of walks has fluctuated over the past 30 years, there’s certainly no evidence that walks are overrunning the game. Walk rates peaked in 2000—three years before Moneyball hit the shelves. Last season, seven years after the book’s debut, players walked no more than they did during parts of the mid-1980’s, when nobody had ever heard of OPS and Bill James was just an egghead who couldn’t know a thing about the game because he had never played it.

...In all, the fact that teams are now using more sophisticated statistical analysis has a very small effect on the look and feel of the game. For fans uninterested in sabermetric ideas, all of that statistical inside baseball can remain, well, inside baseball. The types of players who play the game and the way they perform on the field has remained remarkably constant in the face of this new style of thinking. While teams may now better understand the true value of Franklin Gutierrez’s defense in center field or the value of Kevin Youkilis’ walks, good players continue to come in all shapes and sizes. The main difference is that rather than being undervalued, these players now earn money in proportion to the value they bring to their club.

Regardless of current statistical thinking, the variety of types of players that populate the major leagues has not and will not change significantly. The only difference is that the advanced numbers have been able to more accurately assess the value of each player. While that’s useful, it’s not going to affect the view from grandstand. Juiced balls, a changing strike zone, artificial turf, steroids and the height of the mound all changed the aesthetics of the game far more dramatically than subtle shifts in statistical analysis ever will. While Moneyball may have changed the landscape of the game inside front offices and in the media, traditionalists can breathe easy that the sabermetric revolution has not dramatically changed the on-field product, and likely never will.

Repoz Posted: January 28, 2010 at 06:23 PM | 8 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: books, history, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. AROM Posted: January 28, 2010 at 06:49 PM (#3448753)
I owe it to Sky, a very good writer, to read the whole thing and not just the intro, but I'll start with this:

League walk rates tell you nothing about how walks are valued. 30 teams could, overnight, decide that walks are the greatest and try to get as many walk-takers in the lineup as possible. And those same teams would realize that walks by the other team hurt them, so they sign guys like Joel Piniero or emphasize getting ahead in the count to the pitchers they have.
   2. salvomania Posted: January 28, 2010 at 07:28 PM (#3448791)
Yeah, it seems like yet another writer is missing the whole point of Moneyball, which is not that walks are King or that OPS is King, or that it is the first step to creating some new and different kind of approach to PLAYING the game...

The point of Moneyball is that at any given time, ASPECTS of the game will undervalued, and that if you can try to find players who are undervalued at a given time---at the time of Moneyball it was players who walked a lot---while other teams are focusing on other types of players, then in theory you can amass that asset more cheaply than other, possibly more expensive assets (like power, or speed, or groundball pitchers, etc.).

No one suggests that there aren't many types of good players, who each may have a different, equally productive (scoring or preventing runs) mix of skills, but Moneyball is about discerning within a market which of those skills can yield the most bang for the buck, and then trying to collect players with those undervalued skills.
   3. kthejoker Posted: January 28, 2010 at 08:02 PM (#3448837)
I think the theory of Moneyball that I walked away with is that clustering a certain talent on a team can lead to exponential results. Having 4 Gold Glovers is more than twice as valuable as having 2 Gold Glovers, etc.

I think that's the point that is easiest to crossover into non-sports-related fields of study.
   4. I Am Not a Number Posted: January 28, 2010 at 08:16 PM (#3448858)
After all, if every team started playing Moneyball, wouldn't the game essentially turn into a slow-pitch softball league, filled with nonathletic, one-dimensional fat guys who took pitch after pitch?

No, if everyone started playing Moneyball -- which seems, in this instance, to be a euphemism for properly valuing players with OBP skills -- then the league's existing "nonathletic, one-dimensional fat guys" would eventually be equally dispersed throughout the league rather than concentrated on one team. And then those teams, like Oakland, which were able to find an edge in one place would have to start looking for an edge in another place, perhaps the pursuit of undervalued defensive whizzes.
   5. OsunaSakata Posted: January 28, 2010 at 08:23 PM (#3448864)
Before Moneyball, the 2006 season of Jeff Francoeur, .260 BA, 26 HR might tag him as the standard low average power hitter, like Harmon Killebrew. With the knowledge of the value of walks, he is villified even by the mainstream media for his lack of walks. Then Frenchy comes up with the line about OBP not being displayed on stadium scoreboards.
   6. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 28, 2010 at 08:46 PM (#3448893)
good players continue to come in all shapes and sizes.

And thank God. This is what sets baseball apart and, in my opinion, makes it much more interesting than the other majors.
   7. Crispix Attacks Posted: January 28, 2010 at 08:56 PM (#3448906)
You must love football even more than baseball if you like a variety of shapes and sizes.
   8. Bob Tufts Posted: January 28, 2010 at 09:31 PM (#3448954)
I prefer the John Henry quote in "Moneyball" comparing fund management with baseball.

"People in both fields operate with beliefs and biases. To the extent that you can eliminate both and replace them with data, you gain a clear advantage."

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Obi One Kenobi Nil
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets.

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets.

Page rendered in 0.1584 seconds
54 querie(s) executed