Moneyball and the Retirement of Jeremy Brown
Baseball February 20th. 2008, 3:33pm
Jeremy Brown of the Oakland A’s retired last week. He was a prominent figure in the delicious baseball tome, Moneyball, which, depending on whom you speak with, was either baseball’s new bible, or the first sign of the apocalypse.
If you are a firm believer in Moneyball, then we recommend the book Black Swan. A snippet: “I call this overload of examples naive empiricism – successions of anecdotes selected to fit a story do not constitute evidence. Anyone looking for confirmation will find enough of it to deceive himself – and no doubt his peers. The Black Swan idea is based on the structure of randomness in empirical reality.”
Any Moneyball believers in the house?
38 Responses to “Moneyball and the Retirement of Jeremy Brown”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
That was a great book…but did any of the guys mentioned within actually make anything of themselves?
February 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Does Nick Swisher count?
February 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
nick swisher…thats about it i guess
I liked the book but if it had really been the new bible you would have figured that the A’s would have gone to or possibly won a World Series
February 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
kevin youkilis is a solid major leaguer, nothing spectacular but gets the job done. he was jerk off material to obp guys in college. he had an obp of .500 or something his senior year.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Swisher, Youk, and Joe Blanton were all mentioned along with submariner Chad Bradford. None of them have been superstars or anything though.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
As an O’s fan I can say that Chad Bradford is awful.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
cbh, as a red sox fan, i concur
February 20th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
From the 2002 MLB Draft, the following players have made it to the majors:
Nick Swisher
Joe Blanton
Jeremy Brown
Mark Teahen
Bill Murphy
Jared Burton
Shane Komine
Players drafted but not signed by Oakland included JR Towles, Jonathan Papelbon and Ty Taubenheim.
The 2002 Oakland draft was above average in terms of quantity, but if you consider the fact that Oakland had multiple 1st round and supplemental picks, it was about average. Blanton is a solid and cheap starting pitcher, Swisher is an above average offensive player and Teahen was used to acquire Octavio Dotel (as part of the Carlos Beltran trade). The “new-fangled” approach the As used proved to be no better than the traditional scouting methods, but in fact, it spurred a great many teams to blindly draft college players. In fact, Moneyball the book was about a team trying to find the players that were under-valued and therefore cheap.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I thought it was a great book and as a fan of another small market team, it really helped me understand what they were doing. I really liked the part when they were discussing the draft process.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
any believers of evolution in the house?
Moneyball was a good book but people who phrase it as a moneyball or sabremetrics vs scouting zero sum game are missing the point. advanced metrics and skill quantification can only help an organization. no one is saying we need to fire all the scouts and replace them computers. i dont really think the black swan example really applies, at least not in the bigger picture of how front offices are conducting business anyway.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Oaklands recipe for success wasn’t Beane and moneyball, it was obviously steroid abuse.
( on a side note, I am actually a big BB fan )
February 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
@TBL-you should of added this to ridiculous theories in the west of yesterdays basketball posts
February 20th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I think the biggest mistake a lot of people make about “Moneyball” is thinking that it’s some kind of how-to book. It’s just a story about one guy trying to build a winning team on a (relative) shoestring budget.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
My only problem with Moneyball is the absolute statisticians that it has created…people are using arguments of stats to justify Hall of Fame careers or whether and existing Hall of Famer deserves the honor. If you were a strict “Moneyball” guy then players like Jose Reyes and Jimmy Rollins would be deemed not as good as players whop have a high on-base percentage and even though those guys tend to be more patient as hitters they do not necessarily create runs which is what the point of baseball is all about. As KenDynamo points out, what the A’s have done is mix the philosophy with scouting and then it creates good results.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Anybody here play WhatIfSports baseball?
February 20th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
That is it. Undervalued assets.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Money Ball wasn’t about finding future hall of famers, it was about exploiting inefficiencies in the system which allow you to draft solid performers for very cheap. Beane used sabermetrics as his biggest measuring stick. And there is nothing to “believe” about sabermetrics, it is mathematical fact.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Whether the players themselves did well is really beside the point, as the whole idea behind Moneyball was about finding inefficiencies in the market for baseball players. Beane and Co. (led by James, et al) simply started evaluating players on different metrics than other teams. In doing that, they were able to field a pretty successful team for far less money. Since the book has become so popular, one could (and probably should) argue that the inefficiencies that Lewis so aptly chronicled have since been incorporated into the market. And thus if there were to be a Moneyball II, it would have to focus on a new or different manner of evaluating talent.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I just finished reading it a couple weeks ago. I echo pki’s sentiment… the draft stuff was the best part of the book.
But yeah, at the time it came out, people completely misunderstood what the book was actually about. It was just a team with more limitations than most others, trying to make the best of what they had, and how they did it. That said, I hope Joe Morgan remains PROUD of the fact that he has not read it.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Ironically, Joe Morgan was the type of player that the “Moneyball” method loves: career OBP (22 seasons) of .392, career OPS is .819. And about a 1.8 walk-to-K ratio.
But if he wants to remain proud of his ignorance and refuse to believe anything that upsets his romantic vision of reality, then hey, more power to him. Look where those attitudes got GW Bush!
February 20th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Tony Phillips was Moneyball before Moneyball was cool.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I have no problem with the book or how the A’s used the system they used to maximize their dollar…my problem I guess is the misunderstanding that has taken place because people are now overvaluing the numbers the Beane and his crew initially used to find players…the sole use of those numbers makes some players look better than others which is not the case…The strikeout is not deemed any different than a ground out or fly out in sabremetrics…while all three are outs…how often is a runner moved over on a Strikeout? It takes the little things out of the equation…which when you are looking for value is fine but now I think more teams are using those standards to build a team and in that effort the intangibles are taken away…my example the Yankees…look at the teams in the 90’s compared to the teams now…both spent a ton but if you looked at both lineup you would deem the lineup for the 2008 Yankees better then the line up for the 1998 but the 98 team is the best of all time (Record wise) and these Yankees are not. If you asked Beane now if he uses the same ways to evaluate a players value, he would say no. He is changing because a different type of player is now cheaper to get. (I saw that in an article last year if I had a link I would give maybe someone could help on that)
February 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Any time “radical” ideas confront or confound the comfortable theology (if you will) people get upset and defensive. The “Monyeball” backlash from both ends of the spectrum is just a reaction to have your core beliefs challenged. Some people go too far one way or another (don’t I know about that – geesh, you people and the Inquisitions and Crusades and everything) which creates a negative perception and entrenches the opposition.
As I understand it, the new market inefficiency is defsnse and speed – traits and skills that were downplayed previously. In reality, I doubt there are any market inefficiencies. Every team operates a statisical analysis deaprtment or contracts with analysts. The more advanced metrics may never gain a foothold in the public perception, but look at how common OPS is as a measuring device.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
@Roman: How many grounders turn into a double play? Now how many strikeouts do?
February 20th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
@Jesus: That’s correct, and Beane has structured his latest version of the A’s around defense/speed.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
@Roman: Look at the Yankees team ERA circa 1990 v. 2007. The problem has never been offense for the latest Yanks. Pitching, pitching, pitching.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Nick you beat me to the point I was going to make, but I’ll supplement it a little. Roman, the worst possible outcome of an at bat is that a player will create more than one out. A strikeout never inherently creates more outs than a ground could because a ground out, if a runner is on (which you imply by saying that a groundout can move a runner over) then a groundout can also lead to two or even three outs, depending on how many runners are on. But the point is that a strikeout is bad, but it’s not the worst possible outcome of an out bat.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Out bat? Wtf? At bat. I’m an idiot who can’t type today.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Never try to argue with people like Roman, it’s impossible. A lot of people made a big deal about Jeremy Brown retiring, pretty much being happy that he failed. However, take a look at the players drafted right around him. At least he made it to the majors.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Here’s the link:
February 20th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Murray Chass certainly likes to take his digs, doesn’t he?
Michael Lewis is a great writer, and “Moneyball” was an amazing read. Not sure if the quote taken from the Black Swan was directed at Chass, or those who followed “Moneyball” obsessively (do they still exist?).
There are plenty of smart people working in sports. Baseball in particular. I think to most of them, the concepts at work in Moneyball were well understood. It wasn’t groundbreaking information. The storytelling was the part that made the book compelling.
As for the draft? It was a pretty darn good draft. Not spectacular. But you pull two first-division regulars out of any draft, and you’ve had a good year as a Scouting Director.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Roman, you want to take Juan Pierre off the Dodgers’ hands? He does all of the “little things” well. Like lead the league in outs every year. Wait…outs are a BAD thing!?!?!
February 20th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
how many playoff series did the A’s win in the last decade? one?
ill take teams spending like crazy and winning world series thankyou very much
February 20th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
@mole: 0 playoff series…but I see you’ve missed the entire point as usual.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
moleman – Unfortunately for teams like the A’s, “spending like crazy” is not an option. You may or may not have noticed that anytime a guy like Johan Santana becomes available the teams that have a legitimate shot of taking on that kind of salary are few (i.e., Yanks, Red Sox, Mets). The rest of the GMs have to practice restraint with their free agent signings and draft more or less flawlessly.
You might also notice that the wild spending does not necessarily correlate to winning. How did that $26M the Yanks spent on Clemens work out for them? And, after the hype, what exactly did DiceK do to warrant the absurd price Boston paid for him?
If you haven’t done so, you really should read the Michael Lewis book.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:34 am
As to the book, it was a great book. Really turned me back on to baseball after years of waning interest. And, now after reading several sabermetric related books, I feel the game has a new dimension for me to watch. However, as to Jeremy Brown, I understood Beane’s obsession with Jeremy Brown, but in his zest to look for inefficiencies, he missed the basic point of draft value learned by any good real life GM (in football, basketball, baseball or hockey) or any good fantasy GM. Brown was SO undervalued by other teams that Beane didn’t have to draft him at such a high position. He could have waited a few rounds and then drafted Brown, paid the guy less due to slot, and got the same value. Since, no one else would have considered drafting Brown EVEN AT THAT point in the draft. And, at the same time, he could have drafted someone else with the spot used on Brown, which would have increased his accrued talent value acquired in the draft. If Mel Kiper covered the baseball draft, he would have gone crazy, but alas.
@ 412 and Moleman
No, of course, the As weren’t successful in the playoffs. This is largely due to a few reasons. 1) The playoffs are largely random. It’s a lot of good teams playing short series. Crazy things happen in such a short span. Just think about it this way, is there really a big difference in talent from a 95 win team and a 90 win team (especially with the unbalanced schedule taken into account)? So, if they play in a short series, randomness can take over and the 90 win team can win. Just look at the 2001 ALCS (the Mariners –116 Wins lost to a team with 20 less wins). 2) If you read the last chapter in “Baseball Between the Numbers,” it has an article on what qualities make teams successful. Although, correlation isn’t very high (indicating the early randomness argument). It was found that a high batting average (stringing hits together), high strikeout rates by your pitching staff, and good zone ratings (defense covering ground) tended to correlate the highest with playoff success. These are the exact things those As teams were not good at. Their qualities were good over the long haul (a full season), not necessarily a short series. 3) Yes, spending like crazy doesn’t buy you World Series. But, it can buy you playoff appearances. Look at the Yankees and Red Sox ability to make the playoffs in the last five years, ten years? That’s because the insane amount of talent they can pile up aides them in a whole season, effectively making it impossible for teams in the division to overcome over a 162 game season. However, this talent can once again be overcome in a short series in the playoffs, especially considering the competing teams are not that much worse than the Yanks or Sox. Ok, I’m done.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:57 am
jbriaz – Why are you addressing me with this response? If you read what I had to say you’ll find that I agree.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:10 am
I know you agreed with me. I was just directing it at you, b/c you were part of the debate. Don’t worry. I know you’re the intelligent one.