I've watched with great interest, from a distance, how various baseball experts have taken up arms either "for" or "against" the theory of "Moneyball," itself based off of a book of the same title, written by Michael Lewis and based on his take on how the Oakland A's sought to utilize statistical analysis to discover new ways of vetting "prospects" from "suspects" in the drafting of amateur players. The "architects" of what became known as "Moneyball," including Sandy Alderson, Paul DePodetsta and Billy Beane have all gone on record stating that the statistical analysis referenced in Lewis' book was only a portion of what they concentrated on, and that no one ever denounced the need for great talent scouts. Within every argument, it's easy to find a "fringe element" who will completely denounce one way over another; yet, in this debate, I've still yet to find anyone who would suggest that it's not in any way important to actually observe a potential draft pick in person, should the situation present itself. Yet, there are those who would suggest that anyone who even understands what "WHIP" is, or can speak eloquently about on-base percentage, must know nothing about the game of baseball. It reminds me of people who will never listen to a CD or, heaven-forbid, an IPOD, as in their eyes, vinyl is the only way to hear music. (Full confession- I have always preferred vinyl, and am somewhat of an audiophile. However, living in 2010, I'd also never conceive of being away from my Ipod for more then a few hours, so there you go!)
I've read with great interest a number of writer's columns who have almost taken joy in bashing the theories they ascribed to "Moneyball," except they usually get the entire argument wrong. It reminds me of something my father once told me; "if you want to take sides in an argument, make sure you are intimately aware of both sides' point of view." Well, having read just about everything that baseball blogger Murray Chass has written over the past 20 years or so, from his days as a writer with the New York Times up through his most recent piece on Pat Gillick's entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame, I'd have to say that Mr. Chass is guilty of hearing neither side of the argument- he hears only what he perceives the theories of "Moneyball" to be without actually understanding exactly what the intent was/is behind the need for new statistical analysis.
I'm not here to bash Chass; I used to enjoy his Times' columns. Others have taken him to task, and it would seem, rightly so. Instead, I'm actually asking Chass (although he'll probably never read this) to simply understand that NO ONE is attempting to do away with actual human scouting. Instead, like any other industry (and make no mistake about it, baseball as a game is one of the biggest industries there is), progress has made its way into player evaluation, in the form of new statistical benchmarks that help further determine where - and with whom - a team should invest their player development dollars into. Unfortunately, it would seem that, rather then attempting to understand what things like "PECOTA," "OPS" and "Runs Created" are, he simply wants things to stay the same as they've always been. By that rationale, we would never have had free agency or watched the color line smashed. Baseball may be slow to change (probably the biggest under-statement I've ever made), but change it has, and will continue, and, thanks to the great work of men like Bill James and organizations like SABR (Society for American Baseball Research), the game has come kicking and screaming into the 21st Century- at least in how we evaluate players.
It's true that statistics won't - and can't - determine a player's heart, how well they deal with adversity, whether or not they run hard when grounding out to the pitcher; it's also true that there will never be stats that can quantify things like this. What people like James' have done is offer additional guidelines, or benchmarks, if you will, to look at so that, when the ever-increasingly important decision on whom to draft comes up, a better-educated decision can be made. Of course, Sabermetricians have utilized these new statistical categories to further arguments such as "who was the better centerfielder, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle," or "which outfielder contributed the most to their team's offense in 2006." These same Sabermetricians would also tell you that in-person scouting is still important to the entire puzzle; however, if you simply built a team around "potential" based off of what a scout saw, you're liable to have a team made up completely of Milton Bradley's!! (Now that might be THE most interesting team to cover, but I'm betting their games would resemble hockey more then baseball games!)
Finally, extremes in any direction tend to exclude other arguments, and if we stuck to our guns, we'd all think the world was still flat. Today, via his blog (and yes, Murray, you are a blogger- you aren't paid by a newspaper, you use a website as your means of communication, and you are able to plead your case without fear of offending your editors - you, sir, are a blogger, guilty of being that which you've often condemned), Chass became effusive in his praise for former GM Pat Gillick, just announced by the Veteran's Committee as a member of the Hall of Fame's 2011 class. From Chass:
Special Note: I recently had the opportunity to read the shooting version of the screenplay to "Moneyball" and I have to say, as baseball movies go, it should be very interesting and a lot of fun. I certainly wouldn't call it "true to life" but again, it read very well and at worst will make for great debate amongst bloggers for months, and years, to come. Are you listening, Murray???
I've read with great interest a number of writer's columns who have almost taken joy in bashing the theories they ascribed to "Moneyball," except they usually get the entire argument wrong. It reminds me of something my father once told me; "if you want to take sides in an argument, make sure you are intimately aware of both sides' point of view." Well, having read just about everything that baseball blogger Murray Chass has written over the past 20 years or so, from his days as a writer with the New York Times up through his most recent piece on Pat Gillick's entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame, I'd have to say that Mr. Chass is guilty of hearing neither side of the argument- he hears only what he perceives the theories of "Moneyball" to be without actually understanding exactly what the intent was/is behind the need for new statistical analysis.
I'm not here to bash Chass; I used to enjoy his Times' columns. Others have taken him to task, and it would seem, rightly so. Instead, I'm actually asking Chass (although he'll probably never read this) to simply understand that NO ONE is attempting to do away with actual human scouting. Instead, like any other industry (and make no mistake about it, baseball as a game is one of the biggest industries there is), progress has made its way into player evaluation, in the form of new statistical benchmarks that help further determine where - and with whom - a team should invest their player development dollars into. Unfortunately, it would seem that, rather then attempting to understand what things like "PECOTA," "OPS" and "Runs Created" are, he simply wants things to stay the same as they've always been. By that rationale, we would never have had free agency or watched the color line smashed. Baseball may be slow to change (probably the biggest under-statement I've ever made), but change it has, and will continue, and, thanks to the great work of men like Bill James and organizations like SABR (Society for American Baseball Research), the game has come kicking and screaming into the 21st Century- at least in how we evaluate players.
It's true that statistics won't - and can't - determine a player's heart, how well they deal with adversity, whether or not they run hard when grounding out to the pitcher; it's also true that there will never be stats that can quantify things like this. What people like James' have done is offer additional guidelines, or benchmarks, if you will, to look at so that, when the ever-increasingly important decision on whom to draft comes up, a better-educated decision can be made. Of course, Sabermetricians have utilized these new statistical categories to further arguments such as "who was the better centerfielder, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle," or "which outfielder contributed the most to their team's offense in 2006." These same Sabermetricians would also tell you that in-person scouting is still important to the entire puzzle; however, if you simply built a team around "potential" based off of what a scout saw, you're liable to have a team made up completely of Milton Bradley's!! (Now that might be THE most interesting team to cover, but I'm betting their games would resemble hockey more then baseball games!)
Finally, extremes in any direction tend to exclude other arguments, and if we stuck to our guns, we'd all think the world was still flat. Today, via his blog (and yes, Murray, you are a blogger- you aren't paid by a newspaper, you use a website as your means of communication, and you are able to plead your case without fear of offending your editors - you, sir, are a blogger, guilty of being that which you've often condemned), Chass became effusive in his praise for former GM Pat Gillick, just announced by the Veteran's Committee as a member of the Hall of Fame's 2011 class. From Chass:
Gillick’s words were music to my ears. Here’s a guy, remember, who built three World Series championship teams and assorted other division champions and contenders in four different organizations, and he’s reminding us that people play the game and they have to be viewed not by sets of statistics and charts and graphs alone but by what they demonstrate on the field with their arms, legs and bats and with the intangibles they display in the way they play the game.
It takes scouts to identify those intangibles. No computer program can spot them.
Look- I don't claim to be a statistical expert, and I find that I am learning more about them every day. I also know that, 15 years ago, everything I knew about my computer is different then it is today, and we've had to grow, and evolve, and I'd say, at the end of the day, these advances have made every day life easier in a myriad of ways. Why SHOULDN'T we have additional means from which to evaluate players, especially when these players are worth more and more each year to their drafting teams??
Finally, while being interviewed by a number of Met reporters recently, Met Vice-President Paul DePodesta, a major character in Lewis' book, said the following regarding "Moneyball" -
"The book itself was a bit of a caricature, not just to me, but to many of the people involved. Moneyball has taken on a lot of connotations that weren’t intended. Moneyball doesn’t have anything to do with on-base percentage or statistics. It’s a constant investigation of stagnant systems, to see if you can find value where it isn’t readily apparent. It can be anything. At the time, it happened to be using statistics to make us better decisions. That’s not always the case. There are new frontiers we need to conquer."DePodesta's explanation has become my personal favorite, as I've long thought that what Beane and company did was to simply exploit a market that was out-dated in thought in an effort to gain a competitive advantage- no different then any other business. Baseball is no longer about a bunch of middle-aged men sitting in the stands, smoking cigars, looking for the next kid from Commerce or Fargo to hang his hat on; there's still romance to be mined from those days, and I'm sure we could all listen to stories from scouts about the "one who got away" all day long...but at the end of the day, it's a combination of live scouting, statistical analysis, and gut-level decision-making that will determine which young kid will be the next shining star in your organization. It's just nice to know that, with more emphasis on statistical analysis, the chances of making a grievous error are, at the very least, diminished, while the ability to find "hidden gems" has actually grown.
Special Note: I recently had the opportunity to read the shooting version of the screenplay to "Moneyball" and I have to say, as baseball movies go, it should be very interesting and a lot of fun. I certainly wouldn't call it "true to life" but again, it read very well and at worst will make for great debate amongst bloggers for months, and years, to come. Are you listening, Murray???
No comments:
Post a Comment