The Beaneballers

[arch stanton]

If you want to call trading for Mark Bellhorn and Kevin Millar to go into a lineup with Damon, Ortiz, Ramirez, and a pitching staff with Pedro and Schilling playing Moneyball. I call it supplementing a stacked and high priced roster.

[HaloMagic]

they are the only two that have been successful at it, the rest aren't really relevant to this discussion and would only prove the point.

however, right now i would probably also include the Cubs off the top of my head to a degree as trying to with their GM etc.. but if you are doing it and losing it then it isnt working so... meh.

think most small markets are trying some variation on it... do they really have a choice? Some have made better draft or gotten luckier than others, but few have actually made it work outside Oak and TB.

So Oakland, TB, and the Cubs? What exactly do you perceive moneyball to be? Is it something that can only exist with a small payroll? Is it always present with a small payroll. Can a team with a small payroll not be a moneyball team? If a small-payroll team trying to best allocate it's resources is called moneyball wouldn't a large-payroll team trying to do the same also be called that? What exactly is moneyball?

[stormngt]

If you want to call trading for Mark Bellhorn and Kevin Millar to go into a lineup with Damon, Ortiz, Ramirez, and a pitching staff with Pedro and Schilling playing Moneyball. I call it supplementing a stacked and high priced roster.

I am just quoting the movie.  Also the strategy Bean used was focusing on the value of OB%.  All those players are high OB% players and neither team liked to steal.  That is also part of money ball.

 

Personally I think the theory of money ball is highly over rated.  I hated the movie because they talked about all the nobodies he brought in but didn't talk about how the A's had the best starting threesome under club control and wasn't Tejada an All Star also under club control?  It worked for Beane but obviously if someone is going to pay the players more like Boston he can't get them cheap.  Beane has kept Oakland among the most successful teams in the Majors (7th in wins) and they don't pay for the super stars.  As a business, he should be praised as a genius.  As a fan who wants a WS title, it maybe disappointing.

[floplag]

So Oakland, TB, and the Cubs? What exactly do you perceive moneyball to be? Is it something that can only exist with a small payroll? Is it always present with a small payroll. Can a team with a small payroll not be a moneyball team? If a small-payroll team trying to best allocate it's resources is called moneyball wouldn't a large-payroll team trying to do the same also be called that? What exactly is moneyball?

 

im sorry are you trying to suggest that all teams are using moneyball?

and yes, by definition, payroll is tied to the process.. large payroll teams using stats are not bound by the same issues that small payroll teams are

that is the definition considering the subtitle of the book

[HaloMagic]

I'm not trying to suggest anything. I'm trying to understand what your definition of moneyball is. From what I can gather it's exclusive to small-payroll teams but not every small-payroll team applies. Which leads me to the question, how do you know it's not small-payroll instead of moneyball that fails in the postseason? No small-payroll team has won a World Series regardless of strategy. The one constant is the payroll, not the strategy.

[Lou]

 Which leads me to the question, how do you know it's not small-payroll instead of moneyball that fails in the postseason? No small-payroll team has won a World Series regardless of strategy. The one constant is the payroll, not the strategy.

 

incorrect.

 

the 2003 Marlins 

Edited September 27, 2014 by Lou

[Lou]

That's pretty much my point.

You can't write off any team that makes the playoffs.

 

 

except the Rangers

[Lou]

Billy Beane is the Derek Jeter of GMs.

 

without the championships.

 

and the herpes 

[Bruce Nye]

except the Rangers

 

 

They drew a bye in the first round as in "bye - bye."

[floplag]

I'm not trying to suggest anything. I'm trying to understand what your definition of moneyball is. From what I can gather it's exclusive to small-payroll teams but not every small-payroll team applies. Which leads me to the question, how do you know it's not small-payroll instead of moneyball that fails in the postseason? No small-payroll team has won a World Series regardless of strategy. The one constant is the payroll, not the strategy.

 

Well, that is the definition of moneyball.. it isnt just the payroll, its the methodology of using SABR etc.. statistical analysis, to try to compete under those constraints.   Today i think most are doing it in some fashion, large and small payrolls, but no i dont think that makes them all moneyball teams.

To address your question though i dont necessarily think its tied to payroll, but to me its more about the idea of snatching up players that fit that castoff mold, that have some statistical advantage under SABR, but not so much in the real world.  Filling a team with a bunch of high OBP guys most of which cant hit for example.  This is done due to their cost, which is low, and statistical value in certain weighted stats, which is high, but at the end of the day here are still reasons whose players were available to begin with.. and that to me is why it fails in the post.

Further, i would argue that one of the core reasons it fails is that SABR and others over value the previously mentioned high OBP for example.. in the post season you arent facing 4 and 5 starters, which is to say not a lot of guys that walk a lot of people or make those mistakes, which puts that stat at a much lower priority in post season play as opposed to regular season games.  In the post you need someone who can hit and do other things besides talk a walk.  Im over simplifying of course but the post season is a different animal in terms of weighted stat values.

[HaloMagic]

incorrect.

the 2003 Marlins

The ending payroll for the Marlins in 2003 pushed them to the middle of the pack. They weren't bottom third at seasons end.

[floplag]

The ending payroll for the Marlins in 2003 pushed them to the middle of the pack. They weren't bottom third at seasons end.

no, but they also made a large number of impactful acquisitions in season that pushed them from the bottom to the middle, again, not very moneyball

in fact from season start to finish it doubled, or about that

Edited September 27, 2014 by floplag

[HaloMagic]

So a small-payroll team hasn't won. To win a small-payroll team had to acquire quite a bit of payroll.

So again I ask, are we sure it's not the small-payroll instead of the moneyball that's holding these teams back?

[Lou]

The ending payroll for the Marlins in 2003 pushed them to the middle of the pack. They weren't bottom third at seasons end.

really? who did they acquire midseason that pushed their payroll to middle of the pack?

[Lou]

in 2003, the Marlins acquired Conine and Urbina in trades. The Marlins were thus responsible for a pro-rated amount of their combined $8.75M that year.

They were small-market and beat team with a payroll over $100M higher

Edited September 27, 2014 by Lou

[arch stanton]

really? who did they acquire midseason that pushed their payroll to middle of the pack?

Urbina and Conine?

[Lou]

Urbina and Conine?

they were baseball players

[ettin]

Moneyball is simply using statistically relevant data to exploit possible market inefficiencies. In the book/movie example it was Beane identifying that high OBP players were not highly valued in the baseball marketplace, at that time (today they are valued and thus not an inefficiency anymore), and subsequently they picked up and/or traded for those players saving the team substantial sums of payroll money while reconstructing a team that had lost a couple of big superstar players.

[floplag]

So a small-payroll team hasn't won. To win a small-payroll team had to acquire quite a bit of payroll.

So again I ask, are we sure it's not the small-payroll instead of the moneyball that's holding these teams back?

 

once again, as myself and others have said, the definition of moneyball is BOTH small payroll and the use or overuse in some cases of stat analysis to find diamonds in the rough so to speak.

payroll is a factor, but it is not the determining factor with the stat based process as well.

are we sure it isnt just payroll... kinda yeah i mean we have had good low payroll teams in history that drafted well and did other things well that have won, that wouldnt necessarily be considered moneyball teams.  Those teams dont tend to keep their player and have a very small window, but it has happened so i dont think payroll alone would make someone moneyball in the strictest sense.

But more directly to your point, lets be honest, payroll makes mistakes easier to hide, rosters easier to build, and yes, winning easier.   but this isnt a payroll question, its a moneyball question

 

[Lou]

they were baseball players

 

sorry, thought you responding to the previous post.

Well, the prorated amount of their contracts wasn't much at all

[Inside Pitch]

Moneyball is simply using statistically relevant data to exploit possible market inefficiencies. In the book/movie example it was Beane identifying that high OBP players were not highly valued in the baseball marketplace, at that time (today they are valued and thus not an inefficiency anymore), and subsequently they picked up and/or traded for those players saving the team substantial sums of payroll money while reconstructing a team that had lost a couple of big superstar players.

Well stated, I often wonder if people defining ever actually read the book.

[HaloMagic]

I'd figure most didn't. It seems like most people think moneybail is the same thing as going OBP heavy.