Why Moneyball Players Of Today Are Hard To Find
For this post, and another post next week, I'm supposed to write about "Moneyball Players Of Today." Not that I'm upset about the topic, but I didn't choose it. This is something I am doing for a couple dollars because SB Nation and the marketing team behind the soon-to-be-released movie Moneyball have realized there is a massive inefficiency in the baseball-movie-promotion market, and it's writing by dudes who spent a long time in grad school and care too much about bad baseball teams. I am the Jeremy Brown of Brad-Pitt-baseball-movie promotion!
The purpose of this post is promotional! There is a movie called Moneyball that will come out soon. I will see it. You should see it. If the book of the same name is any indication, it will be a story about a man who dared to see things differently while working in a stagnant industry. Part of it will be exaggerated, and some of it will be misleading, but much of it will be true.
It will be an historical movie. The story will have taken place in the past. There will be valuable lessons, but those lessons will not be about baseball. They will be about the importance of questioning conventional wisdom and of having the confidence to do something different. They will not, however, have many obvious, immediate applications for baseball teams, most of whom are well aware of the need to seize advantages presented by the market.
Who are the "Moneyball Players Of Today"? A decade ago, when there was a player who got stuck at Class AAA despite stellar performances, it was usually best to assume that he was there for no good reason. This was how it came to be that, for example, Matt Stairs never found a role in the majors until he got to Oakland at age 28, at which point he rewarded the A's with OPS+ figures of over 130 in each of his first three full seasons. This was how Erubiel Durazo accumulated 409 plate appearances in the minors in 1999 with an OPS of 1.192. This was how it came to be that Craig Wilson somehow tied the major-league record for pinch-hit homers in his rookie season in 2001 while his going-nowhere team started a worthless veteran at first base. These were all perfectly good, major-league-caliber players, but baseball didn't find a place for them, simply because baseball didn't question its biases then in the way it does now.
These things still happen occasionally. Good players still do occasionally get stuck on the bench, or in Class AAA. But usually, when a player puts up massive numbers in Class AAA and doesn't get a callup, or a trade, it's often best to begin with the assumption that there's a reason why.
Here's an example: Wilfredo Ledezma. Ledezma would, under some definitions, appear to be a "Moneyball" player. He has had fantastic minor-league numbers in each of the last two seasons, striking out 50 batters in 38.1 innings last year in Indianapolis and whiffing 64 in 48 innings in Las Vegas this year. Last year when the Pirates let him go, I and some other Pirates fans were confused. After all, he struck out 12 batters per nine innings, and his stuff was excellent for a lefty. (His fastball is averaging 94 MPH this year.)
He got called up to the Pirates for a while last year and struck out a lot of batters, but allowed a bunch of hits, 25 in 19.2 innings. This season, he got called up to the Blue Jays and has pitched six innings, striking out six while walking seven and giving up 11 hits.
This doesn't necessarily prove anything. Maybe there really is a good major-league reliever in there, and Ledezma just hasn't gotten enough time recently to show it. But at this point, I'm more likely to assume that major-league teams have accurately determined that he isn't that great, and that's why there hasn't been much interest in him, and why he hasn't performed well.
This isn't to say, of course, that major-league teams should be exempt from criticism. They still do things that are inexplicable sometimes. And, for whatever reason, while teams are mostly pretty good at sniffing out potentially good, undervalued players, the opposite does not hold - teams still occasionally weigh down their rosters with thoroughly pointless players like Pedro Ciriaco and Matt Pagnozzi. There are also still overvalued commodities like closers. But, by and large, the quality of major-league general managers is much higher than it was in the Moneyball years, thanks in part to Billy Beane himself, and Moneyball players are ever-harder to find.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Saw 'Moneyball' this past Wednesday
At a sneak Preview screening in the Pittsburgh Area. It was very well done. I was unsure of it only because All i could think of was like the prior baseball movies (Bull Durham, Eight men out) and I was wondering if it could draw the audience in.
For me, a movie will keep me involved and then I don’t look at my watch/or cell. In this case, I didn’t wear my watch and the movie theater would not let us bring in cell phones. However, there wasn’t a point in my viewing that I thought….is this movie done yet? or a slight lull.
They do mention OPS which seems to be their main statistic they use/mention in the movie, but gloss over other areas. However, the focus is really on the General Manager At the time of the 2002 Oakland A’s, Billy Beane.
I’d give it 4 stars out of 5. Granted I’m a baseball fan so I’m sure for the average moviegoer that’s less fanatical it might be a 3.5 or 3 stars.
Yeah, it's funny because one of the things that is mentioned in Moneyball the book is that DePodesta had found that OPS weighed SLG way too high
I mean, they probably had discovered something much more similar to wOBA to actually judge players hitting performance
How does the movie deal with the fact that the A’s suck? Do they just gloss over that?
by dirkcalloway on Sep 16, 2011 12:15 AM EDT via iPhone app reply actions
I mean, just read the article posted right here and you’ll find out why the A’s stink now — Moneyball type players aren’t cheap anymore because too many GMs try, and are successful at, finding market inefficiencies.
Thank you Ned Colletti.
thanks for your input, but i wasn’t asking WHY the A’s stink. i was asking how—or, maybe, if—the movie, of which Billy Beane is the hero, deals with the fact that the A’s aren’t any good and haven’t been any good for several years now. I was asking anyone who had seen the movie whether they simply end it with Beane being portrayed as awesome, leading non-baseball fans to believe that his team must have surely won several World Series titles by now.
by dirkcalloway on Sep 16, 2011 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Honestly
It’s really a testament to the efforts of Billy Beane to look at things a different way and see it. The fact that everyone jumped on his tactics and took away his advantage speaks to how well it worked. The fact that the A’s aren’t very good now says more about the evolution of everyone around Billy, rather than Billy himself.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Twitter: @shanecglass
ok, i understand. still, if someone is a true visionary—or at least someone worth making a movie about—one would think that he would be able to come up with some other ways to give his team an advantage. aren’t the best amongst us constantly progressing, moving forward, advancing our cause? over the last few years, beane seems to have thrown his hands up and said, ‘they got me and there’s nothing i can do about it so i’m resigned to fourth place.’ that hardly seems worthy of getting to be portrayed by brad pitt.
by dirkcalloway on Sep 16, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem is
He did it when no one else was thinking to do it. When no one else though, we should do things differently, he did, and it completely revolutionized the game. Everyone is now looking for the next “Moneyball” type player. Basically, it’s like why the A’s weren’t successful BEFORE Beane: Everyone was doing the same thing they were doing. Everyone is getting the same type players, even if that type changes frequently.
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass
the movie does deal with the fact that the A’s did suck at the beginning of the season. Until Beane did some radically strange trades to make Art Howe have to play the players that were “supposed” to be playing. But they start winning and they go through the 20 game winning streak ending with the Hatteburg, walk off Homerun in game 20. It really deals more with Billy Bean than the A’s. Though the A’s are still in the background. It ends almost after the loss to the Twins in the playoffs.
This seems like a good place to post this
I know most on here don’t read the material on Smizek’s blog because well it’s trash. I like to read it every now and then for comedic relief. When I am down on myself, I can just go read some of the things these bozos say on there. It reminds me that things can be worse. I could be an absolute idiot like my favorite poster Daquido_Bazzini. In the latest garbage written by Smizek on the overrating of Neil Huntington’s draft, Daq had a nice message for all the true Pirate fans. It is a must read for this blogger community! I must say, as a true Pirate fan I was moved so much that I went to the store and bought a pitchfork for the future storming of PNC Park. C Yinz there! Can’t Wait (Bart Scott voice)
Read Daq’s comment here: http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/sports/bob-smiziks-blog/30101-huntingtons-drafts-vastly-overrated#comments
Wow, just wow!
After reading Daquido’s tinfoil hat rant, I can’t decide if I want to change my signature here to either:
“Blogging, smogging and fogging the whole Nutting Regime agenda.”, or:
“Propaganda specialist in extreme cahoots with the Regime.”
Short of making this a poll question, any thoughts from my Fellow Travelers?
It's just my two cents. Could be worth more, could be worth nothing.
OK, I'll bite ...
must be near-terminally bored
…
Thanks.
I am 10 IQ points stupider for having read that. Brings me down to about 3.
Yeah - you can't afford to waste any more...
…don’t do that again.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 16, 2011 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Is this an internet phenomenon?
Where posters from diferent blogs consistantly make fun of and belittle posters on other forums and blogs? It must be reflective of society in general but it proliferates with such annoying frequency on the internet. I can’t see how pointing out a dumb post on another blog, the blog of which clearly is written by a more “traditional” fan/journalist, makes this site better…maybe if this crowd is as enlightened as some think, they would have the decorum to avoid such nattering.
You’re right— it’s why I can never even bring myself to click on a link that goes there.
I can’t see how pointing out a dumb post on another blog, the blog of which clearly is written by a more "traditional" fan/journalist, makes this site better
It doesn’t necessarily make this site better, but it does provide fans a better understanding of good analysis vs terrible analysis. If you were to point out good analysis to someone, that person doesn’t necessarily learn how to distinguish it from bad ones, unless they have some examples of the bad analysis. Smizik’s blog is a repository of (what seems to be popularly called) terribad.
I also like how you put “traditional” in quotes because you’re right, he’s not traditional in any sense, and I appreciate that you avoided using adjectives describing the absurdity of Smizik’s writing.
by BurgherKing on Sep 16, 2011 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
well, i m still waiting for someone to post the (gist of the) comment here
by BurgherKing on Sep 16, 2011 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Keep waiting.
If some of us were brave/stupid enough to go there and risk permanent brain damage, then either you join us or miss out on the fun.
It's just my two cents. Could be worth more, could be worth nothing.
by Bishop1973 on Sep 16, 2011 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ha!
Rec.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 16, 2011 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I live in Maine . . .
. . . so I don’t really know much about the totally clueless Mr. Smizek, nor about the trolls who seem to worship at his feet. Does he have a vendetta against NH? Perhaps he was a close friend of DL? The logic, the insight, is staggering. No credit for selecting Bell – every other team had a chance to do so but they all passed. Just one of many lunacies in the blog. He might want to read Pirate Prospects to understand why Taillon did not dominate. No talented young players to take the field in September? Presley, D’Arnaud, Hughes off the top of my head. Marte, Grossman, McPherson, and Kingham are certainly players at the non AAA level that may one day make major contributions to the team.
Finally, a bit of irony. Any team can throw money at players. Not the pre NH, Nutting Bucs.
I don't know what Bobbo has against NH,
…but he sure as hell can’t spell the guy’s name right!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 16, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
there is a massive inefficiency in the baseball-movie-promotion market, and it’s writing by dudes who spent a long time in grad school and care too much about bad baseball teams
Wonderfully droll Charlie. Just wonderful.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
there is a massive inefficiency in the baseball-movie-promotion market, and it’s writing by dudes who spent a long time in grad school and care too much about bad baseball teams
HEY! I resemble that remark!
http://www.whygavs.com
http://twitter.com/whygavs
no you don't
You think you been in grad school a long time, sonny, but you ain’t.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Sep 16, 2011 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Really good piece, Charlie
Both well-written and well-said. I don’t think your fundamental insight is new, but you put it very succinctly, and I liked the way you got there.
Incidentally
They will be about the importance of questioning conventional wisdom and of having the confidence to do something different.
This has been something that I’ve been very aware of because my personal profession – architecture – got things so massively wrong in the middle of the last century, and IMO only really started getting things right in the last 10-15 years. But the nearly-universal assumptions in the profession about how people interact with buildings, how the environment interacts with buildings, and – to a lesser extent – aesthetics were horribly misguided. Pittsburgh’s full of examples, from my neighborhood of East Liberty (Penn Circle) to the North Side (Allegheny Commons), but baseball fans will of course appreciate the transition from Forbes Field to Three Rivers, including what was built in Forbes Field’s place.
Anyway, as a result, I’ve always been very aware of the possibility, even the probability, that orthodoxies are wrong, and that groupthink can take over entire fields. Doesn’t mean that the consensus is always wrong – i feel pretty comfortable that the biologists who are developing gene therapies aren’t deluded about evolution – but that we should be willing to question it more than we do. And the first question to ask is the same question that drives Bill James and all good sabermetricians: what’s the evidence?
art vandelay, I presume
Sorry, you wrote a serious post, but I can’t hear or read “architect” without thinking of Geoge Costanza. Sitting here chuckling about the time where, in his vandelay-the-architect pose, he was asked, what do you design? His response – railroads..
My favorite was always
“You told her I was a marine biologist!? Jerry, you know I always wanted to pretend to be an architect!”
"Have you designed anything we'd know?"
“The new addition to the Guggenheim; really didn’t take that long to do.”

by 



















