I just finished reading Moneyball...Ok Ok I know, the book is ancient. But reading it 6 years after it was written allows for a different perspective. For one, I can look back at all their decisions and obsessions over certain guys and see whether or not they paid off. Nick Swisher, Chad Bradford, Jeremy Browne and many others are plastered all over the pages of the book and no doubt a few of them are in the midst of decent Pro careers, but on the other hand...some are not.
My observation led me to conclude that there does indeed appear to be something to be said about many of the philosophies brought up by sabermetric gurus like Bill James and Paul Dipotesta, but at the same time, certain philosophies Billie Bean preaches have not (6 years later) done much in the way of handing the A's any real success since the Bash Brother years.
And how much is too much really? I mean, at what point does analyzing numbers to their most miniscule details becomes a bit reduntant. No one, not even me, a guy that for a living, analyzing market trends and goes to great lengths to understand the psychological mindframe of a shopper shopping for Granola Bars in a grocery store, want to see the game broken down to just a set of numbers.
Certain theories and rules have their place and make a lot of sence, but these things need to be directional only. It was comical reading about Bille Bean raising his arms in triumph as the Mets and Devil Rays wasted their picks taking high schoolers named Scott Kazmir and BJ Upton and the Brewers taking a guy too fat for even Oakland to consider in Prince Fielder as the A's came that much closer to claiming their prize possession in Nick Swisher. I couldn't help but laugh at the irony of reading about a no run philosophy from the team that produced Ricky Henderson and didn't understand why despite their philosphies, free swingers like Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez were leading the team in offense. I did however gain a lot of respect for Scott Hatteburg if that counts for anything.
Don't get me wrong...I am agree 100% with the importance of OBP and other stats aimed at stripping out the crap that distorts baseball statistics...it just appeared to me that most of Billie Bean's success had to do with how he interacted with other GM's and basically bullied them into getting what he wanted rather than drafting On-Base machines. When Bille Beans wants a guy it appears that he goes to great lengths including manipulation and a string of white lies to get him. If other GM's had Billie's balls, perhaps the A's would not have become so successful.
Overall, I loved the book and will try to learn from it and apply some learning to my own baseball career and approach to hitting, but it's important to keep in mind that sabmermetrics in the end, can only really be directional. There is no telling exactly what guys are going to do when they make it to the bigs and as many great picks the A's have made, there are probably more bad ones. Oh yeah and if you ever get a call from Billie Bean, just remember that it's ok to say no.
"And how much is too much really? I mean, at what point does analyzing numbers to their most miniscule details becomes a bit reduntant. No one, not even me, a guy that for a living, analyzing market trends and goes to great lengths to understand the psychological mindframe of a shopper shopping for Granola Bars in a grocery store, want to see the game broken down to just a set of numbers."
ReplyDeleteYou cannot make the comparison between analyzing product trends and baseball statistical analysis for one important reason. In baseball there has been very little change in the game over long periods of time, and you can grab enormous sample sizes. Also you ability to have data on the precise things you are measuring is much greater than when analyzing product sales. It is far easier to spot and isolate the noise in the data and to draw more precise conclusions (with the exception of fielding metrics which are still a work in progress)
Statistical analysis is hardly redundant when the majority of franchises ignore it and let Bautista hit instead of pinch hitting Snider, or leading off guys like Tavares or Gomez, or Batting Beltran 5th on the mets. Until people actually start listenning to and understanding the truths about the game that the stats are telling us, we need more of it than less. Nobody said everything Beane did was great. But the analysis and strategies gave him an advantage. That is all you can do, give yourself the best chance to win by gaining whatever advantages you can and limiting mistakes.
That is what you are missing. For every Swisher or Blanton that they picked that was only ok but Upton was a star, there are FAR MORE complete busts that they avoided. That was the strategy. to maximize the value of the pick, that doesnt have to mean getting the best player, just coming out of the draft with the best overall value and organizational depth. the less busts you have.
With more players of value you have more pieces to deal etc.
More stats, More stats, More stats I say. But first we have to have the ability to intuitively understand what they tell us, otherwise they are useless.
Annoymous, I am not saying that the stats are reduntant. I completely agree that they are telling and even said that there is something to be said for all that sabermetric guru's have developed. My point was, for even a stathead like me, I do believe there is a depth that when reached, the data becomes pretty meaningless and will not make a difference in the outcome that is worth putting in the effort. And besides, the more detailed you get, the smaller the sample size becomes.
ReplyDeleteFor example, we have people in our office looking at the shopper patterns of various consumers and attempt to understand the psychy of that shop in various scenerious. This information is no doubt valuable, put when I am making informed decisions, I will be focusing on the bigger picture.
In baseball, I am not going to sit a good hitter for a night because for some odd reason he bat's 150 points lower at night throughout his career. I'll roll the dice and hope that it is just a freakish anomoly.
I know that is not exactly what you are saying, but the bottom line is this. There are so many variables that get put into place when making up a good team, that I, as a fan of baseball, would hate it if the games was reduced to building teams on statistical reaserch. Team Makeup, clubhouse leadership, coaching, cohesion to me are as important as OBP and OPS and cannot be measured. There is a purity to the game that I believe "More Stats, More Stas, More Stats" simply takes away from.
You have to use your knowledge directionally and harness it along with other intangibles to make a successful team.
In basketball, a lay-up is a safer move on a break-away, but a ferocious dunk just get's people jacked up. So do big homers and stealing bases.
Moneyball is great. I love many of the thoughts it presents, but relying solely on the stats would be foolish which I suppose answers my question about Tejada and Chavez. I suppose some times, you just have to swing for the fences or take an Upton in the draft simply because you just have a feeling about this guy.
"In baseball, I am not going to sit a good hitter for a night because for some odd reason he bat's 150 points lower at night throughout his career. I'll roll the dice and hope that it is just a freakish anomoly. "
ReplyDeleteIF, the sample size is large enough and the comparitive batters are statistically better at night, DAMN RIGHT I sit the good hitter. Maybe not every night, but I'd definitely sit him. The view, vision and depth perception are totally different between day and night games. The "hitter's eye", the crowd, everything is different between the light of the sun and the light of the flood lights. If he's a GOOD player, yet he hits 150 points lower at night, he must be damn good during the day games. Therefore I never take him OUT during the weekend games or weekday day games, not the other way around.