Jeremy "Money Ball " Brown Retires

I read the story. Chass never understood what Moneyball was about. He thinks it's some anti-scout diatribe. The truth is the book is about finding skill sets/statistical data that are undervalued by the marketplace so a club can survive while spending far less than many opponents.

Chass also gets the reasons for Jocketty's dismissal incorrect. It wasn't about differences in scouting philosophy. It was about a lack of respect for the people who subscribe to statistical analysis. Long story short: Jocketty didn't play well with others -- namely Jeff Luhnow. Jocketty showed the kind of smug attitude Chass accuses stat geeks of often displaying.

 

Not that you come to this with any bias, jag.

How's your VORP today?

 

Sorry for going off topic... even though I was not a part of the last one, I would be very interested in a new one.

 

I found that to be a rather condescending piece by Chass. Or at least his tone. He didn't much hide his disdain for Beane (and his theories).

 

Hey Hockeybleet the point of thread is show others who may not have caught it an interesting article by Murray Chass on Moneyball and also generate further discussion on merits of Moneyball theories.

You may recall that when debated Moneyball generated a lot of interesting discussion around here.

Many felt that one of flaws of book was proclaiming Beene a genious without really seeing the results of his draft theories. The talent of current "A's team at that time had all been drafted by scouting dept and not Beene.

It was agreed at time that to really see if Beene theory was correct you would need to look at how draft shaped up 5 years later. Well here we are.

 

Not that Chass ever does. And Boom, Tim thanks you.

 

I would like to submit - just as food for thought - that while Beane did use his approach to the 2002 draft as an example of his "college guys are safer than high school" approach, he picked a hell of a bad year to do it.

Fielder...Cain...Hamels...Upton...Kazmir...Francoer...you have to consider that an astonishingly good crop of high school talent. Many years, it doesn't work out that way. And very often, those prep prospects - especially pitchers - do fizzle (I'm a lifelong Royals fan. Trust me. I know this.)

I'm not sold on Beane's zeal for stats, but I do think that on the whole, you can't go wrong aiming for college talent. 2002 was a weird year, in a way. But I think a lot of GM's would rather go for a Andrew Miller, David Price or (this year) Pedro Alvarez if one is available.

 

Hockeybleet? Clever.

If you're going to judge Beane's draft then you have to compare it to the other MLB teams in that year.

Allow me to make this crystal clear: I'm not anti-Moneyball and I'm not anti-scout. I think there has to be a happy medium.

 

What else would you compare it to - the NFL draft perhaps?

Chass does a good job of that in column by mentioning a few of the other players that the A's did not draft.

 

The book clearly accelerated the use of advanced metrics in clubs' appraisal and investment of players. It also confused the shit out of a lot of people who didn't fully understand (or didn't want to understand) the book, which for all of the detailed strategy and theory was simply about the use of metrics to first determine then invest in the most undervalued assets. I wish I had a dollar for everyone who thought the book was about the discovery of on-base percentage.

 

What Chass doesn't point out is that Fielder, Upton, Kazmir and Loewen were all off the board before the A's picked Swisher, and Hamels, Loney and Francouer were all gone before they drafted Blanton, with Cain being taken the pick after Blanton and the pick before McCurdy.

Saying Beane didn't take these players, while ignoring the fact that they weren't there to be taken, is pretty disingenuous.

Here's the draft list from the first round.

http://mlb.mlb.com/components/draftday/mlb_draft_search_round_1_1.html

 

Beane wanted Swisher all the way regardless of who else was available.