Even More Reations to Richard's Moneyball Analysis
by Richard Van Zandt, BaseballEvolution.com
January, 2007

More reactions to Richard's Moneyball analysis:

 Richard,
   
   I just read your Moneyball article on
 baseballevolution.  In that article you analyzed the
 success rate of players drafted based on their
 current, eventual, or one-time presence in the big
 show.  I get that and it is definitely interesting
 to read.
   
   The huge hole in your analysis is where a
 financial analysis needs to be.  Beane was able to
 gain a success rate (based on your analysis) that
 exceeded that of the league and he was able to do it
 with much less payroll than the average team.  So
 your "inevitable conclusion" seems to defy one of
 the major themes of Lewis' work; essentially,
 Beane's ability to build a consistently successful
 club for a fraction of the cost.  
   
   I liked the fact that you did a bit of a reunion
 for the draft.  Hindsight does provide clarity.
 Regardless, I think the major fault is that it is
 disingenuous.  Rather than carrying a tone that is
 critical and downplays Beane's work, I'm thinking
 your work would have more integrity had you
 approached the themes of Moneyball objectively.  I
 realize that you may get more people to read your
 work if you take a contrary stance (that's certainly
 the fashionable thing to do in the case of
 Moneyball).  Nonetheless, your critique is
 absolutely weak because you've stripped the context
 from Beane's draft.   That context is why Moneyball
 is titled what it is; Lewis wrote a book about
 baseball economics.  The success of players draft is
 certainly a big factor in that; however, you ignore
 the aspect of Beane's work that makes what he did
 and does truly revolutionary - money.
   
   I can continue but I know your a smart man and
 probably understand my point by now.  I'm simply
 compelled to provide a bit of feedback because I
 recognize the effort in your article. 
 

  Regards,
 Daren Krause
   Austin, TX
 

Hey Daren, thanks so much for reading my piece and for
taking the time to write to me about it. 

Your critique is typical of the responses that I get
and I understand it but the thing that people seem to
miss is not that I am judging the draft on it's own
merits, but rather that I am simply judging the list
that Michael Lewis claimed was Beane's ideal list.
The list of “twenty players they’d draft in a perfect
world.  That is if money were no object and
twenty-nine other teams were not also vying to draft
the best amateur players in the country.”

That key line suggests that even if Beane had Yankee
money, that those would be the players he would choose
if he had his choice of anyone at all. 

And indeed, if Beane had "Yankee money" and he would
still choose John McCurdy over Matt Cain, then my
criticism is justified.  Would he have if he actually
did have "Yankee money?"  I doubt it.  But that's the
premise of the book and I had a problem with it.

I appreciate your reading very much.  Thanks again!

Rich
 

Richard,
 
You're right; that key line does essentially negate the A's financial constraints and the bulk of my feedback.
 
It would be interesting to know Beane's ideal draft cohorts since the Moneyball draft and go through the same analysis in your article.  I'd also be interested to know if Beane, with hindsight, has adjusted his criteria.
 
Thanks for the clarification.
 
Daren
 

Richard-

My name is Adam and I just finished Michael Lewis' Moneyball and I had a comment about your article that you wrote.  You mentioned that Billy Beane had average results with the 2002 draft class.  However, from the book it tells us that the A's had only 9.4 million dollars to sign all of the draftees.  Beane finds the undervalued players and signs them for what they are worth in the market.  He may take them early, but this is to reassure that he can draft them and be able to sign them.  I enjoyed the article.  Please email me back with comments. Thanks.

 

Adam, thanks a lot for both reading my piece and for taking the time to write to me about it.  I really appreciate it and I'm glad you enjoyed it.
 
As for the piece, the thing is that Michael Lewis tells us that the list of players I examined were the "twenty players they’d draft in a perfect world.  That is, if money were no object and twenty-nine other teams were not also vying to draft the best amateur players in the country." 
 
The context in which I examined the list therefore was just that.  If Beane had had his choice of anyone at all, with money being no issue, and he chose those players then how well would he have done?  After all, Guthrie - while on the list - was not selected by Beane because he would've cost too much to sign nor was he the only player on the list that Beane did not draft. 
 
So you see my examination of that list need not have anything to do with money. 
 
Now it’s possible - maybe even probable - that Lewis embellished a bit and that list was not really Beane's ideal list (it may even be possible that Beane simply allowed Lewis to assume it was).  However, that’s what the book states and that’s what I took issue with.  I mean, if Beane honestly would have taken John McCurdy over Matt Cain in a perfect world, then he obviously missed the mark badly on that one.
 
Again though, thanks for reading and writing to me.  If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
 
Rich Van Zandt

 

 




Disagree with something? Got something to add? Wanna bring up something totally new? Richard resides in San Francisco, California and can be reached at richard@baseballevolution.com.