More Feedback on the Moneyball Draft
Edward:
I love articles like
your follow up on Moneyball.
I used to love following baseball. I used to know
almost every stat. No more. I will watch a half
inning of the Yankees once or twice a week. I know
what Albert Pujols has done. Not much else.
I did read
Moneyball. I even Googled Swisher and
Jeremy Brown last year to see how they were doing.
I read
Moneyball because I used to read the Bill
James Baseball Abstracts every year from cover to
cover. So even though I don't have much current
interest in it, I have some intellectual knowledge.
My understanding of the book is that the focus of
the book is that the A's lacked money. This lack of
money led them to act in a different manner than
everyone else. So there were 2 main constraints.
High School players are a crap shoot for
several reasons. First, there was no meaningful way
to judge any of the stats against any norm. Sure
you know that a .450 hitter is good, probably the
best on the team, but how do you measure the level
of competition against a player two counties over?
Second, high school players may be tough to sign.
They can go to college, and if they do, you lose
your rights.
Because top high school players have options, they
may command more money than they are worth.
If they don't like the offer, they will get drafted
again the next year. As you indicate, highly
drafted players get lots of second chances. So it
is not surprising that they get lots of chances.
Another reason they get lots of chances is that they
cost a lot of money. The story of Billy Beane's
career shows that good looking players with tools
that cost a lot of money in bonuses get lots of
chances.
Billy Beane's list of sought after players had to
include players he thought he could sign with a
small bonus. The story of how Jeremy Brown was
drafted and signed was instructive. They went to
him gave him a take it or leave it offer, and stated
they would not draft him so highly unless he
understood that a small bonus would be accepted.
The bonus was much smaller than a similar 1st round
draft choice received.
The point is that the Yankees can draft the best
prospects. Pay them big bonuses. If they don't pan
out, it is the cost of doing business. Big risk -
Big reward. Teams like the A's can't take any big
financial risks, nor can they sign any blue
chippers. The talent that they A's have developed
speaks for itself. The Yankees develop some very
useful players, but their farm system is not
considered to be among the best. I think it is
somewhat unfair to compare the two systems' player
development. Some start with blue chippers and get
reasonable results. Others get cheaper prospects (a
shorthand for less desirable prospects) and get
similar results. The person who does it on the
cheap deserves some credit.
One final word. Making to the majors should be one criteria, not the only one. Bad teams send more of
their top prospects to get at least a cup of coffee
in the major leagues. They can afford to. They
generally have nothing to play for from August to
the end of the season. Teams like the A's who are
always in the pennant race, and take pride in
finishing the season strong, don't get to tryout
prospects. This is the remarkable aspect about the
A's. This year may be different, however.
Enjoyed your work. Got me to think a little about baseball.
Richard:
Edward, first of all I want to thank you not only for
reading my article, but for taking the time to write
to me about it. I'm very glad you enjoyed it and that
it got you thinking more about the greatest game on
earth, baseball.
Now, I'd like to say that I actually agree with your
assessment of the focus of the book. The Athletics' lack of
money and how well they spent what they had was an
interesting read, even if I did not agree with all of
Beane's methods.
In fact, there was much in the book that I did not
agree with, but the main point of contention I had was
this statement - they had created a special list of
players. This list, though “never formally written
out,” detailed 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 parts in quotations are directly from the book and
assert directly that these were Beane's favorite 20,
regardless of money. That these would be the players
he would take if he could have his choice of 20 out of
every available player in the country.
Now this may or may not be true. It could have been
that Beane was playing Michael Lewis or that Lewis
just took a little creative license. In fact, it has
been suggested to me by a prominant major league
official that the former is quite likely.
Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the
book states that as fact, and that was the point I took
issue with. What I wondered was, that if these 20 kids
were truly Beane's top 20, then just how good an
evaluator was he?
The fact of that matter is, if those were his top 20,
then the answer is clearly, "not as brilliant as
Moneyball makes him out to be."
This is the position I took in my article. I took the
book very literally and assumed it to be fact and then
analyzed the results.
If indeed, that list is not as the book states,
Beane's preferred top 20 were money and other teams no
issue, then I have a different problem with the book.
Either way, I have issues with the book.
I think my biggest problem is that it made Beane out
to be just flat out better than his peers. It took
shots at, among others, Brian Sabean and Kenny
Williams. And the last time I looked, Williams had a
ring and Beane had not. And though Sabean does not have one,
he did, however, take a team to the World Series since
Beane's been in charge in Oakland.
I DO think that Beane is one of the better GM's in the
game. I do not think the book painted a completely
accurate portrayal and I don't actually think that
that was Beane's top 20. But the book said it was, I
analyzed it and came up with results that forged my
opinion which I will stand by regardless. That top
20 was not one I would want.
It's interesting now, because since I wrote that and
the season began, several other players from that 2002
draft have subsequently made it to the majors (James
Loney, Cole Hamels, Darrell Rasner, Drew Meyer, to name
those that come directly to my head). In fact, the
biggest Moneyballer of them all, Jeremy Brown has been
recalled twice this year, and is currently on the A's
roster. He has not, however, played an inning yet. I
am most interested to see how he pans out.
As for judging them successful or not simply by
whether or not they made it to the majors, well, I had
to choose some sort of measurement and I did not feel
that now was the time to completely assess whether or
not they were complete successes or not.
Since the point of drafting a player is to see them
eventually make it to the majors, I figure that is the
first success in their career. I figure once a player
has made it, the team has become successful. They have
developed that player into a major leaguer. The onus
then is on the player to continue that success.
But again, it's too soon yet to completely judge them,
or for that matter, it's too soon to completely judge
Beane and/or his list. Who knows, several more could
catching lightning in a bottle and get the call.
But to me, the results at this point, are not in
Beane's favor. However, my method of evaluation is an
imperfect one. But as I said, I stand by my
conclusion. He had a stated problem with high
schoolers and they have outperformed his picks and
those who haven't yet have a much higher likelihood of
doing so than those on Beane's list because they are
younger.
Even the college players Beane forsook have done
better. Ah, but I'm just restating the article now.
No need, you read it.
As you can probably guess, I'm pretty passionate about
the game and when I take a stand....
Well anyway, thanks again for reading. I'm really
glad that you enjoyed it and I'm really glad it got
you thinking more about the game.
Disagree with something? Got something to add? Wanna bring up something totally new? Richard lives in San Francisco and can be reached at richard@baseballevolution.com.
