Sports

Moneyball is not dead

It is truly amazing how many of our best and brightest baseball minds in the media still don’t understand the concept of Moneyball. For some, it’s still rigidly defined as teams that value on-base percentage above all else. For others, it simply means finding ways to earn on little money. However, the true definition is much more complex. The true meaning is still unknown and largely misunderstood.

Take, for example, New York Daily News columnist Bill Madden. On Friday, he wrote an article detailing the disappearance of Moneyball from Oakland A’s. After watching the Yankees beat the Athletics in a four-game sweep, Madden surmised that Moneyball is insufficient to defeat the mighty Yankees. Of course, this view assumes that A’s are the central characters in the “Moneyball era” that has evolved over the last decade. Now that Michael Lewis’s best-seller detailing the evolution of Moneyball is being turned into a movie, the Oakland franchise serves as a benchmark for the entire debate surrounding the concept. If Oakland wins, Moneyball is considered successful; if they lose, the entire strategy is declared dead. This thought completely loses its meaning.

The definition is pretty straightforward. Basically, Moneyball means using advanced statistical analysis to find undervalued talent. Initially, these analyzes were used by small market teams hoping to compete cheaply against larger market enemies. The Oakland Athletics served as the symbol of this, as Billy Beane was the first general manager to take these stats seriously and build a team around him. At the beginning of the decade, the new statistic was on-base percentage, which many teams simply overlooked when creating lineups. It worked for a while, but soon (and especially after the book was written) other franchises adopted the tactics Beane employed, including teams with high payrolls. In recent years, Oakland has fallen into mediocrity, leading many to dismiss the concept of Moneyball. Again, this is wrong thinking.

Now that the percentage to base is no longer undervalued, other metrics have been used to create lists and make efficient use of resources. The Tampa Bay Rays serve as the best example. Using new defensive stats, the 2008 Rays were able to go from the worst team in baseball to a runner-up in the World Series. They accomplished this feat without signing any marquee free agents, or without spending much more money. They just developed young talent and brought in players who could improve the defense as a whole. Of course, Moneyball cannot be seen in a vacuum. Using new stats alone won’t turn a sorry team into a contender. Even the Rays had good young hitters and good arms. The point, though, is that Moneyball thinking allowed the Rays to compete with financial beasts like the Yankees and Red Sox without spending anywhere near the same amount. The use of new statistics by the Tampa main office helped build a contender. This is thanks to the definition of Moneyball; the use of state-of-the-art statistics to build rival teams, while making more efficient use of money.

The Athletics may be going through an era of mediocrity, but ruling out Moneyball as a result is foolish and myopia. Teams that do not use new statistical analysis and Moneyball tactics are now a minority in Major League Baseball. There will always be a demand to find and develop undervalued commodities. Although many in the mainstream media, especially those of an older generation, dismiss the new statistics and analysis, the monster created by Moneyball is here to stay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *