Baseball Musings: Do the Freak

April 08, 2005

Do the Freak

Robert Saunders sends a link to a new blog by the authors of Freakonomics in support of the book. Steven Levitt has been posting about Billy Beane and Moneyball. Levitt thinks there's nothing there, and the A's are more likely to be mediocre over the next five years than very good.

Finally, convincing evidence of Billy Beane's genius

Billy Beane redux

Let's at least argue about Moneyball using data

Levitt puts out this challenge:

For all of you who disagree with me - and the betting markets - go to tradesports and bet on the A's. The market thinks they will only win 82 games. If they are as good as you believe, there is a lot of money to be made. And after you all bet and drive the odds up, I will bet the other side.

To summarize Levitt's arguments:

Moneyball says Beane won because he got good OBA players cheap.
The Athletics actually have had middle of the road OBAs.
The Athletics won due to great pitching.
Therefore, Moneyball is bogus.

I'd argue that Michael Lewis concentrated on one aspect of the Beane operation as it applied to offense. I believe Lewis intentionally left out the pitching side because it would just make the book too long. And Moneyball was concentrating on philosophy; finding value in the market.

It's a long experiment. Five years of 90 wins vindicates Beane in Levitt's view. I'm willing to wait. They only need 88 more wins this season.

Posted by David Pinto at 01:11 PM | Blogs | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Baseball is so unbalanced economically it is rediculous - i.e. The Pirates will never match the Yankees in spending on salaries. I guess the only good thing to come out of this, is sometimes when you are faced with a challenge (small market teams) you have to get creative to overcome the obsticales (Beane's statistical approach).

However, I wish every team was on equal footing financially. I guess if the Reds, for example, or Pirates had a better marketing campaign they could increase their revenue. And the Yankees deserve something for making great TV deals. But they wouldn't make any money if they didn't have other teams to beat.

I am always hopefully my Reds will win the division. And they did spend some money this off season. But it is difficult to be passionate about a game where large market teams have such a huge economic advantage.

I guess miracles can happen.

Posted by: John at April 8, 2005 02:36 PM

I don't have time to look at the Levitt thing now, but why doesn't Beane's track record up till now count? That's five years right there.

Posted by: Chris Marcil at April 8, 2005 04:34 PM

The point isn't that Beane built the best offense in the majors by acquiring high-OBP guys. It's that he built an effective offense for much less money than most other teams.

Posted by: Floyd McWilliams at April 8, 2005 04:40 PM

Moneyball wasn't about on-base percentage per se. It was about exploiting market inefficiencies and what was undervalued at the time, which was OBP. The inefficiency in the market this past off season was an overvalue of starting pitchers, hence some of the ridiculous contracts. So Beane traded away his over valued starting pitchers this offseason for prospects. Whether or not they will be as good as they say, we'll have to wait and see.

Posted by: Jon at April 8, 2005 06:28 PM

i don't think that levitt actually READ the book. i also don't think he knows real too much baseball.

and a LOT of people will NOT agree that in baseball, there most certainly IS the "luck" factor. you can pick the best guys, like prior, and they can get hurt, or a good ballplayer like josh hamilton, who turns into a drug addict. even teams will all the money like the yankees who get a team full of good/great experienced players don't always win because some other team gets on a roll... or the ump makes bad calls.....

Posted by: lisa gray at April 9, 2005 12:21 PM