- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 9,773
- Reaction score
- 5
I'm not much of a baseball diehard - what does "money ball" mean in terms of a team philosphy?
thanks!
thanks!
"Money ball" talk
- Thread starter maddogkf
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Posts
- 8,942
- Reaction score
- 405
maddogkf said:
Its from this book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-4264579-6426201?v=glance&s=books
Its also one of the most overrated concepts in baseball...
AZZenny
Registered User
Well, in an absolute sense, 'Moneyball' is about identifying under-valued but important, measurable talents/skills. About exploiting supply and demand using advanced baseball stats.
Power sluggers - everyone wants 'em, only so many to go around - very expensive. What used to be in rather lower demand was guys who just find a way to get on base a LOT, and not make many outs. Not glamorous, but therefore cheaper, and getting on base plus not making outs = 1) eventual runs, and 2) wears out opposing pitcher = into the bullpen sooner = tired relievers by game 2 or 3 = take the series.
So in the original sense, Moneyball is a way of managing baseball economics for poorer teams - scouting, drafting, training, signing players the big teams overlook or even dump. Relying on stable, predictable individual stats like a batter's on base percentage/ plate discipline, or for pitchers the walk-to-strikeout ratio and walks/hits per inning pitched (WHIP), to select guys, not team stats like RBIs or unreliable "he looks like a ballplayer," "He's a five-tool guy, just needs to grow up."
But not making outs is a critical issue for a lot of stat guys (and gals) way beyond 'moneyball.' A team has only 3 outs per inning and the goal is to get as many runs while 'spending' as few outs as possible in the process. Outs are the "rate-limiting-factor," while runs are the coin of the realm.
So in this model, managerial strategy changes to try to minimize tactics which produce outs - the sac bunt, sac fly, stealing, even the hit and run. The research is really very powerful that unless you have a player who is an exceptionally good bunter or stealer - better than 67% success rate - those tactics will usually cost you an out at a much greater likelihood than get you a run, to oversimplify it. (It varies according to the game situation - men on which bases, how many outs, score, etc - but the bottom line is Shea Hillenbrand should never bunt or steal !
)
Lot of people say this approach ignores defense or speed - but it's mainly that defense thus far has been hard to reliably quantify statistically, and really good defense or power or speed in a good hitter tends to get expensive because the deep-pocket teams notice. You go with what can be measured and predicted in this approach, to minimize expensive mistakes (who shall remain nameless) so on base % and power stats tend to be the focus. I mean, every team would love to have sluggers with great plate discipline and superb defense and good speed - but unless you grow your own, they're awfully pricey on the FA market. Boston is now a "moneyball" team, in terms of using a stat-oriented model, but they just traded for better infield defense over power - they can afford to do that; they have a lot of power and OBP in the lineup.
The new book The Numbers Game is a very readable look at the history and development of traditional and more advanced stats, and a glimpse at what's in the works to try to really quantify defense. Recommend it highly.
Power sluggers - everyone wants 'em, only so many to go around - very expensive. What used to be in rather lower demand was guys who just find a way to get on base a LOT, and not make many outs. Not glamorous, but therefore cheaper, and getting on base plus not making outs = 1) eventual runs, and 2) wears out opposing pitcher = into the bullpen sooner = tired relievers by game 2 or 3 = take the series.
So in the original sense, Moneyball is a way of managing baseball economics for poorer teams - scouting, drafting, training, signing players the big teams overlook or even dump. Relying on stable, predictable individual stats like a batter's on base percentage/ plate discipline, or for pitchers the walk-to-strikeout ratio and walks/hits per inning pitched (WHIP), to select guys, not team stats like RBIs or unreliable "he looks like a ballplayer," "He's a five-tool guy, just needs to grow up."
But not making outs is a critical issue for a lot of stat guys (and gals) way beyond 'moneyball.' A team has only 3 outs per inning and the goal is to get as many runs while 'spending' as few outs as possible in the process. Outs are the "rate-limiting-factor," while runs are the coin of the realm.
So in this model, managerial strategy changes to try to minimize tactics which produce outs - the sac bunt, sac fly, stealing, even the hit and run. The research is really very powerful that unless you have a player who is an exceptionally good bunter or stealer - better than 67% success rate - those tactics will usually cost you an out at a much greater likelihood than get you a run, to oversimplify it. (It varies according to the game situation - men on which bases, how many outs, score, etc - but the bottom line is Shea Hillenbrand should never bunt or steal !
)Lot of people say this approach ignores defense or speed - but it's mainly that defense thus far has been hard to reliably quantify statistically, and really good defense or power or speed in a good hitter tends to get expensive because the deep-pocket teams notice. You go with what can be measured and predicted in this approach, to minimize expensive mistakes (who shall remain nameless) so on base % and power stats tend to be the focus. I mean, every team would love to have sluggers with great plate discipline and superb defense and good speed - but unless you grow your own, they're awfully pricey on the FA market. Boston is now a "moneyball" team, in terms of using a stat-oriented model, but they just traded for better infield defense over power - they can afford to do that; they have a lot of power and OBP in the lineup.
The new book The Numbers Game is a very readable look at the history and development of traditional and more advanced stats, and a glimpse at what's in the works to try to really quantify defense. Recommend it highly.
Since the majority owners of the Dbacks are computer gazillionares... it makes sense that they would bring their computer wizrdry to this franchise and attempt to incorporate Money Ball into this.
Heck, why do you need scouts when the computers can project winners and losers? Save money in personnel, and put it into research.
Not sure if I think it's the right way to build a franchise...
Heck, why do you need scouts when the computers can project winners and losers? Save money in personnel, and put it into research.
Not sure if I think it's the right way to build a franchise...
Brandon_Webb
Registered
Have read the book 6 times *bows*
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Posts
- 8,942
- Reaction score
- 405
hafey2 said:
Which is what makes it overrated, really.
OP
OP
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 9,773
- Reaction score
- 5
thanks guys!
Similar threads
Staff online
-
dreamcastrocksChopped Liver Moderator -
Dback JonDoing it My Way