Michael Lewis' "The No-Stats All-Star"

I can't really think of anything (new) worth saying on this piece after reading this. DD -- well said, as always.

 

I agree with the triple confederate there.
I loved "Moneyball." I just finished "Blind Side." I haven't gotten to the Battier thing yet. But I can't shake the feeling that Lewis is trying to write a "Moneyball" for every sport, and tweaking the facts to fit his template.
As it happens, I cover an NFL team, and while I enjoyed "The Blind Side," with its explanation of the development of pass rushers and the subsequent development of elite blind-side protectors, I felt he really, really got carried away.
It's ridiculous to suggest that at the pro level, left tackles are better athletes than the quarterbacks they protect, because Michael Oher once threw a bunch of balls through the uprights from a long way away.
Lewis also likes to imply/pretend that HE is the one noticing and chronicling trends that, frankly, are pretty well-discussed and chronicled. Like the development of the left tackle position into one of the best-paid in the NFL. Maybe if I'd covered baseball, I would have felt the same way about "Moneyball."
But I don't think so - I still think he really WAS onto something special and interesting in "Moneyball," and he has now decided to "franchise" the concept of the undervalued asset. I won't be at all surprised if his next book "reveals" how some scrappy third-liner is the best player in hockey because he wins faceoffs and kills penalties.
I don't mean this to sound totally damning. I've read the first two books and I'll read the Battier thing. Guy makes you think. But there's kind of a schtick element to what he does, too.

 

Agreed on all of that. I love the spirit of Moneyball, not the execution. I can't believe an Okrent didn't write something like it sooner. The book is so seminal it requires many critical readings. And the more you read it, you see how incredibly defective it is. Tom Wolfe begat Gladwell -- but these guys really are examining things that either can't or aren't being seen by the naked eye. The guts of Moneyball and other under-the-fingernails type stuff have been talked about in (tight) circles for decades. He treats OBP like the Ark of the Covenant, and James' writings the Dead Sea Scrolls. He's the child who gets lost in his father's library for an afternoon and then charms dad's golf buddies with all the "new" and "interesting" things he's discovered.

 

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. The guy has a unique angle; he is not a scientist.

 

I think it's possible to ignore everything in the piece about Battier's value and still find it worthwhile as a thought-provoker.

 

Jeez - Lewis makes Darrly Morey sound like the 2nd coming of Red Auerbach.

If Shane Battier is an All Star what does that make Kurt RAmbus or Dennis Rodman?

Got through whole article but it seems like Lewis is stating the obvious.

 

Michael Lewis and "Moneyball" are to this article as M. Night Shyamalan and "The Sixth Sense" are to "The Village."

 

ESPN is reporting that Michael Oher hasn't read that story, either.

 

Michael Oher just needs to be able to count zeros.

 

As others have mentioned, if you're going to read Lewis, read "The Blind Side." Reading "Moneyball" is sort of like reading The Communist Manifesto -- it's a good read built on a solid theory that won't ever work once actually applied to the real world.

 

Um, wasn't the Red Sox front office full of Moneyball-style guys?

 

Yeah, and a $100 million payroll.

Moneyball is great in theory. But it's best applied in combination with some old school scouting. Both have their virtues.

Plus, I'll never fully believe anything that says bunting isn't good baseball strategy.