AA Book Club: Moneyball, Chapter 1
by James Kannengieser on Nov 17, 2010 9:48 PM EST
Email
PrintWould you rather discuss:
- The meatbag manager who will piss us off with his bunting and terrible bullpen usage in 2011; or
- A book with a catchy title about several members of the Mets' new front office?
The choice is clear. Tonight's discussion of Moneyball will cover the Preface and Chapter One: The Curse Of Talent.
Moneyball author Michael Lewis tells the reader his goal right in the opening paragraph:
I wrote this book because I fell in love with a story. The story concerned a small group of undervalued professional baseball players and executives, many of whom had been rejected as unfit for the big leagues, who had turned themselves into one of the most successful franchises in Major League Baseball.
Whoomp, there it is. Undervalued commodities and the search for them in professional ball. I'm a proponent, but not always a follower, of conveying the thesis of a piece of writing as early as possible. It makes for clearer, more targeted discussion of a work. Lewis does it in the Preface, expanding upon his opening sentences with specifics about the Oakland Athletics and their seemingly supernatural ability to win a ton of baseball games with meager resources. The A's won 296 games from 2000-2002, boasting the best dollar-per-win ratio in MLB. How did they do it? The short answer -- A's GM Billy Beane, the centerpiece of Chapter One.
"Billy had the Good Face", Lewis writes. Good Face is capitalized to demonstrate the importance many baseball scouts place(d) not only on the five tools, but also the structure of a prospect's face. Billy Beane was a high school boy in 1980, and a coveted potential first round draft pick. Billy was faster than Darnell Coles, who had signed to play wide receiver at UCLA. Billy hit .500 his junior year in high school. And Billy possessed "the Good Face":
Beneath an unruly mop of dark brown hair the boy had the sharp features the scouts loved.
Apparently he really was a stud (pause), as it is later mentioned in Chapter One that Billy was dating all the prettiest girls. Scouts adored him, especially the Mets' head scout, Roger Jongewaard. This is particularly relevant because the Mets held three first round picks in the 1980 MLB Draft, including #1 overall. Jongewaard wanted to take Billy #1 -- others in the organization preferred another phenom out of Crenshaw High in Los Angeles named Darryl Strawberry. The others won out; Darryl was selected #1. But Billy slid to the Mets at #23, due to signability questions (many teams felt he would head to Stanford to play ball). And the Mets had their planned outfield of the future.
Someone with no knowledge of how Billy Beane's major league career played out would nonetheless have an educated guess based on the hints Lewis drops. Billy struggled to deal with adversity, often destroying items in the dugout after his failures, much like the great baseball warrior Paul O'Neill. He also waffled on playing pro ball out of high school. His fate as a pro player -- which would shape his post-playing career as an executive -- is covered in Chapter Three. For now, a list of Mets-related namedrops and then some discussion questions.
Mets-centric appearances/mentions in the Preface and Chapter One:
- Billy Beane, first round draft pick of the Mets (#23 overall) in 1980
- J.P. Ricciardi, current Mets Special Assistant to the GM
- Roger Jongewaard, former Mets head scout
- Darryl Strawberry, first round draft pick of the Mets (#1 overall) in 1980
- Frank Cashen, former Mets GM
- Lee Mazzilli, Mookie Wilson, Wally Backman, 1986 World Series Champions
- Joe Torre, former Mets manager
Discussion questions:
1. Does Michael Lewis seem overly enamored of Billy Beane? (this and questions #2 and #3 are general questions to consider while reading the entire text)
2. If the answer to question #1 is yes, is this a bad thing? Would you prefer a more objective, textbook style look at the A's, instead of a passionate, perhaps biased look at the A's?
3. Did Billy Beane make a mistake allowing a writer such intimate access to the inner workings of his front office?
4. How much attention should be paid by talent evaluators to a prospect's "intangibles"? Which intangibles are most crucial for a prospect (dealing with adversity, family issues, loquaciousness, legal issues, grades, etc.)?
5. Was early 1980s Billy Beane really as handsome as the scouts declared? How would he stack up vs. other 1986 Mets in that department? As a GM, would you rather sign a lothario or a mature, married player (like Ollie)?
6. Butterfly effect question -- how would the world be different if Joe Torre managed the Mets to the 1986 World Series Championship?
These questions are just conversation starters. Discuss anything from the Preface and Chapter One.
This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.
58 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Your only serious question:
“How much attention should be paid by talent evaluators to a prospect’s “intangibles”? Which intangibles are most crucial for a prospect (dealing with adversity, family issues, loquaciousness, legal issues, grades, etc.)?"
A lot. Listen, statistics are great. And at a certain level, intangibles are overrated. If a player hits like Manny Ramirez, IT SHOULDN"T MATTER IF HE WHINES A LOT. HE"S REALLY REALLY GOOD!
But when we’re talking prospects, who are far away from the majors (especially HS kids), intangibles such as character, family issues, legal issues, and grades can let you know how likely a guy is to be committed to improving and truely reaching his potential. Statistics can’t show that.
(Example: Tremendous baseball talent, but has clear academic issues. Upon speaking to people, you find out that this is caused not by a lack of smarts necessarily, but by a lack of motivation. This is important. Is it important enough to knock a guy down a spot in the draft? Depends upon the talent level. But it could be.)
Really good point here...
Some high school guys are physically gifted or love baseball and practice all the time, but eventually it’s going to be a job, and in the lower levels a hard one at that. It may be a matter of semantics, but I would consider things like motivation to not be pretty tangible when evaluating a prospect. Everyone is going to hit a bump or two on the road, and the ability to overcome and adapt is both very important and highly dependent on mental fortitude.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 17, 2010 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
Oops...
“to be pretty tangible” NOT “to not be pretty tangible”
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 17, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
Beane was tangibly pretty
"..."
by Thaddeus Ballpheasant on Nov 18, 2010 9:51 PM EST up reply actions
+1
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 18, 2010 11:12 PM EST up reply actions
+1
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 18, 2010 11:12 PM EST up reply actions
yes
Sort of the ‘draft hard throwers because you can teach finesse’. Well, that’s true, but some people, many people, blow out their arms throwing hard, and others just aren’t good learners. Look at Oliver Perez. There is a lot of intangible stuff involved with making it to the major leagues, and not all teenagers are capable of it.
-Ceetar, the Optimistic Mets Fan
Although Oliver Perez apparently had the intangibles necessary to making it to the major leagues,
and was able to get back on the horse after two disastrous seasons in the mid-2000s. Makes me wonder what’s missing this time around. Does it really come down to just four mph on his fastball?
Just 4 mph?
The guy threw 99 when he was a stud with the pirates. That dropped down to 94 with the mets, and he can’t break glass now.
Just 4 mph.
At his best and general worst with the Mets (I’m not talking about his absolute worst when he was just coming back) it was the difference between 91 and 87 mph. At 91 he was still a serviceable starter, something he was never able to pull off at 87 mph.
That’s not uncommon. Most pitchers can’t make the adjustment such that, when they lose some heat, they’re done. It’s a fine line, and Ollie, who always had control issues, even in 2007 when he was pretty good, was very close to that line in his best years with the Mets. A bunch of guys can get by on 4 walks a game. There aren’t many at all who can get by on 5 per nine. Once you lose the heat you have to nibble, and if control is already an issue, it’s time to add up your IRAs.
Fyi, 94 was generally what he could dial it up to on occasion in his 2007 and 2008 starts,
but he wasn’t sitting on 94 mph throughout his starts. As for his maximum velocity with the Pirates, that probably doesn’t have a lot to do with how he was on the Mets. Joel Zumaya’s about the only guy who sits on a 99 mph fastball. Randy Johnson, too, in his absolute best years.
Agreed
The example is a really good one and I think looking at relevant intangible qualities in a prospect is important.
Also, I think it’s a big reason why a lot of people (myself included) get annoyed at the over-emphasis of a player’s intangibles at the MLB level. To have made it that far, it’s likely that the player is motivated, can play well under pressure, etc. By that point, a player’s production can speak for itself, as all those intangibles played a role in that production. The guys who flame out, like *SPOILER ALERT* Billy Beane, might lack one or more of those crucial qualities.
by James Kannengieser on Nov 17, 2010 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
Indeed.
It’s funny that people think the statistical approach says that intangibles don’t exist, and that that’s the message of this book. Because clearly in drafting, intangibles are said to exist by Beane. It’s just that certain intangibles may be greatly overrated (Guy looks like a baseball player), and others underrated.
I'm not sure if I agree here with part of this.
I see it this way. I agree that it takes a hell of a lot of motivation, work ethic, and other positive mental (and physical) attributes to make it to the majors. Because of this, I also am annoyed at folks who are short to push the “lazy” button when dealing with major league players. But there are stages of life, and in each of those stages motivation changes. For the sake of simplicity, I’m going to give the economic analysis, but I can think of similar motivational changes based on resting on laurels, getting caught up in your own hype, wanting to sit on your private beach etc. Most MLB players come from families that are not rich. Most of these guys—and to a degree particularly those from countries where economic security is less likely than here—have a huge economic incentive to make the pros. Even the MLB minimum will make a lot of them the richest person they have ever known. However, once they have a few million in the bank, which is likely after a few years as an established player (or at least after their first chance at arb), the economic incentive burner is turned down. In the context of a player who now has a nice house, a nice car, and the ability to pay bills or order out without thinking whether there is money in the bank, some people lose sight of future considerations. How many former well-paid celebrities found themselves without work one day and ended up on Skid Row? I think that there is a difference between having the fire to make it and having the fire to sustain it. While any player in the majors has proven that they have the former, there is a certain mental perspective that I think supports the latter, and perhaps this is the key to finding the guys who will not only have a great rookie season, but will continue to work to overcome the inevitable challenges that age and injury will present.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 17, 2010 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
But the point is that motivation can be seen.
Put it this way….if a player supposedly has a motivation issue, but is performing great, its not a problem.
Basically the point is that at the MLB level, players are usually not really talked about in terms of potential. They’ve made it to the show…their stats can show how they are. The room for growth is far lower. So the value of such intangibles is way lower.
I don't want to be an apologist for the "Beltran is lazy" crowd at all, as I think they have a screw loose...
But the conversation about established players is usually not based on “is he good enough?” but rather “how much will he be worth 3 years from now?” My point is not about the intangibles of a 20 year old, but of those when he turns 25, or 30, and has enough money to be ok for the next decade. When you start making fine-line distinctions about players, someone who is motivated to be better or to maintain a high level of performance, rather than content with having gotten where he did without thought towards the future, might make the difference between a Dickey and a Perez. Look at Strasburg. He clearly has the potential, but he was injured and has to work his way back from that. That takes something more than mastery of pitching and a golden arm, it takes the ability to work with a physical therapist and trainers. It takes the ability to take advice and to stick to a training regimen when we all know it’s easier to sit back, have a beer and be the most popular guy in town. It’s the difference between Kenny Powers and Pete Rose.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 17, 2010 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
The problem is that the intangibles in the big league are used as an excuse for other feelings that are irrational.
Yes, they do have some relevance. Of course they do. But the amount is clearly less. Moreover, they’re used not to talk about for future performance but to critiques a player when there’s dislike for some reason.
If a player is doing badly. SAY SO. Don’t say “he’s lazy.”
The context for the motivation changes
A 16 year old kid from the Dominican Republic might think that $400,000/year, for a few years, is enough to retire. When he is 25, he has teammates making several million, with impressive homes and expensive cars. $400,000/year is no longer what it once was.
Anyway, I believe that the motivation for the money is overrated because it is not the only thing driving players. A lot of players seem to be motivated by pride, a desire to win, to not be humiliated in the mass media, as well as other things that I can’t think of right now.
"We have gotten to the point where not only big market clubs are going over slot, but small market clubs are going over slot, and they see it as a competitive advantage. I don’t think we can be left behind in that regard. I think that we've got to be open minded about it, and we intend to be." - Sandy Alderson
Economic analysis
Just curious whether there is empirical evidence that “[m]ost MLB players come from families that are not rich.” I’ve thought about this, too.
Sticking only with the US, most Americans are not rich, or at least, “rich” relative to one another. The question, I think, is whether most ballplayers (or if we want to get predictive, succesful or “plus ballplayers”) are measurably richer or poorer than the mean. Seaver and Piazza? Rich (Piazza) and well-off (Seaver). Wright, Halladay, Frenchy, Billy Beane — middle-class, nothing to indicate wildly different career trajectories. Even Strawberry, who grew up in South Central, was not desperately poor — he had a working mom with a good job (although he suffered from an abusive father who left when Darryl was a teenager). Actually, I think if there is any conclusion that can be drawn from economic backgrounds (at least from the US), it’s that the very poor are least likely to make it to the Majors. Beyond that, I’m not sure there is any significant correlation between family income/class and on-field performance.
Note that I’ve said “I think” way too many times; I don’t know if anyone has ever run any numbers.
"It’s not just about money, it’s how you spend it."
-- Sandy Alderson
Some of the prospects most likely to succeed come from relatively affluent backgrounds
They are sons of former (and sometimes current) MLB players. Genetics might have something to do with it, but my guess is that it has more to do with environment.
"We have gotten to the point where not only big market clubs are going over slot, but small market clubs are going over slot, and they see it as a competitive advantage. I don’t think we can be left behind in that regard. I think that we've got to be open minded about it, and we intend to be." - Sandy Alderson
Did or does Josh Hamilton have the intangibles?
Did he gain them, did he always have them and forgot? Intangibles are vastly overrated IMO.
Isn't that why they have the pshycological tests for each player?
Formerly firejerrynow
by Aidan Gibson on Nov 18, 2010 6:54 AM EST up reply actions
Just started reading last night...
1. I wouldn’t say “enamored,” necessarily. I would say that he has a very romanticized view of him. He definitely sees in him a compelling narrative, and though one certainly exists, he probably omits certain facts to make it a more convenient read. The “guy who had it all and failed and then dedicated the rest of his life to reconciling that”-story is probably too good to be true. And (2.) it certainly makes for a more entertaining and compelling story.
3. No.
4. I think a history of delinquency or psychological problems are definitely things to be considered, especially for the players’ sake. You don’t want to take advantage of some unbalanced kid by thrusting him into the spotlight. Other intangibles such as “being white” or “having a nice smile” should never, ever, ever be considered again.
5. On a scale of 1-Brad Pitt, he was probably a Josh Brolin.
6. The Cold War probably would’ve still ended at the end of the decade.
Completely agree with #1
Lewis is a storyteller, and a story is much better when everyone (writer & reader) loves the central character. He wsnt good looking, he was GREAT looking. He wasnt fast, he was the FASTEST. He wasnt smart, he was BRILLIANT. At the end of the day, these things make the story better. As DePo said, the book made caricatures of them.
"There’s talent in these here waters. Alderson just has to clear up the algae around the edges." - RJ Anderson / Fangraphs
by Dandy Salderson on Nov 17, 2010 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
I read Moneyball a while back and haven't managed to get my copy back from dad yet...
But I noticed a few things here that I really would have hoped that someone with a critical eye like JamesK would have called BS on, and that I’m amazed I didn’t notice when I last read it. The book states that Beane was athletically gifted, good looking, popular with the ladies, and strongly averse to athletic failure. Does this sound like Tri-Lam to you? IIRC Adams College is roughly based on Stanford, amalgamated with a few other schools. But c’mon, how does one get to this description of Beane living in the basement, buried in spreadsheets, and having his mom shuttle him to Mathlete events?
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
Yah but thats not the Billy Beane of Moneyball
Thats the Billy Beane of Moneyball for people who havent read the book. The Billy Beane in the book is very alpha.
DePo is the Mom’s Basement character here.
"There’s talent in these here waters. Alderson just has to clear up the algae around the edges." - RJ Anderson / Fangraphs
by Dandy Salderson on Nov 17, 2010 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
Hahahahahahah.
You got my point. Beane—and Alderson for that matter—presents a duality that most folks have a problem with. A man’s man (for lack of a better term) who is also intelligent and unabashed about that aspect of his character.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 17, 2010 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
It's funny
if you were to ask the saber community what type of person they would expect to lead the charge in getting the MSM to incorporate and respect advanced stats, the vast majority to describe someone exactly like Beane was back then; intelligent, athletic, confident, attractive, macho. Fast forward 25 or so years and he’s the guy MSM’ers point to when dismissing advanced stats (“writing” a book in glorification of himself, hissy-fit (chair) thrower, never winning a championship, ect).
Save Jenrry Mejia!
In lobby for Chip Hale as Mets 2011 Manager.
Exactly right.
And this is true in a lot of industries. Good ideas are all well and good, but charisma and social skills are a necessary component to getting your ideas heard.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 17, 2010 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
Reading it for the first time and only read chapter 1
I could be way off, but it just seems like he’s painting a picture of the model toolsy prospect in Beane just to tear the idea down later on. Maybe I’m jumping the gun on where I think the book is going just from pre conceived notions.
I think Beane putting all this out in the open just sped up the process of other teams by a year or two at most. He was going to have his guys getting poached by other orgs who would’ve spilled the beans. (pun intended!)
I think the story was out already when Lewis wrote this.
At least to those in the know.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 17, 2010 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
Well, have you ever heard of Beane's MLB career?
You probably have your answer.
(Pro tip: he’s straight.)
Did I miss something?
What does being straight have to do with anything? Do you mean that he’s not gay? If so, huh?
There was a different player named Billy Bean who is one of two MLBers who have publicly come out.
"The lesson behind Moneyball is that if you are clever in your use of resources, you can gain power beyond your station. It is not, never has been, and never will be, that 'computer models' should take over the world." - Graham
by Thomas Wachtel on Nov 21, 2010 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
Former Dodger draft pick.
Was a 1st rounder in ’88. Never panned out, and came out of the closet after he retired.
May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 22, 2010 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
I agree, Nick Evans should try his hand at 2b
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Nov 22, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
I lobby Wrightgrrrl
What's the score, boys?
What did Bugs Bunny do?
What's with the Carrot League baseball today?
I got the book
& I’m enjoying it so far. To answer your questions:
1. No, I don’t think Lewis is enamored with Beane. He painted a great picture of Beane & I never knew/realized he was so competitive.
3. It wasn’t a mistake. As a fan, it’s great to take a look & see how a smart, well-run operates up-close and personal. And on that note, I’m kinda hoping there’ll be a book about Omar’s time with the Mets.
4. I think intangibles should be looked at, but not at the expense of performance. In the book, the scout saying that he never looked at Beane’s stats was a mistake & a sign of poor judgment on his part. If a player is a bit of a dick but still performs well & can be great in the future, I’d take him.
5. He’s no Mark Sanchez.
6. The Mets would’ve won 3 titles in 4 years due to Torre's calm, winning persona.
What's that about?
Lewis Is Overly Enamored of All His Central Characters Beane Included
It is one of the things that annoys the heck out of me with Michael Lewis but the guy is a very good writer which is why I continue to read his books.
With regards to intangibles, talent is number 1 but anyone who has ever hired people knows that there are always intangibles when you are dealing with people. Clearly, dealing with adversity/mental toughness is very important as Beane’s experience shows. Also, ability to be a good teammate or at least not a problem in the clubhouse is also important. These guys spend 162 games together and one or two guys who are poison in the clubhouse can cause problems. I am not saying you can’t win with a talented, problem player(s) but it is easier on everyone if you don’t have to deal with it.
I am far less concerned about personal matters that don’t interfere with the game as long as it doesn’t impact the player on the field. What happens at home stays at home unless the person beats their spouse or is into to hard drugs. Otherwise, I don’t care.
With regards to Torre, I think everyone has their moment and team and Davey Johnson’s personality was perfect for the 1980s Mets. I just can’t imagine Torre managing that team. If the Wild Card had existed in the 1980s, the Mets would have made the playoffs every year from 1984-1990 and probably would have had at least one more championship.
I think the way the book hypes up beane is necessary to the premise of the book
It’s written like a story. Beane is a compelling character because you’re led to believe he has all the tangibles required to succeed. If I wanted to read a statistics book, i’d read one (and have on numerous occasions). Moneyball presents a character, and tells the story of that character. Is it exaggerated at times? I’d be surprised to find out it wasn’t. Does this help make the story entertaining while making it’s point? absolutely. Think of it as equal parts a fable and a biography.
As to important intangibles, its just like any other job. You get a certain sense of who a person is by interacting with them. Someone can be incredibly talented but impossible to work with, or naturally gifted but waste those gifts with discipline problems. I’d say the greatest “intangible” is the willingness to learn, and to accept that there are others around you who have knowledge you don’t (and to know when those around you just think they know better). The best are the ones who adapt and evolve in response to challenges, as opposed to those that just lean on what they already have and know. The ceiling is usually higher for the guy not afraid to change what he’s doing all other things being relatively equal.
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Nov 18, 2010 12:21 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Rec'd
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 18, 2010 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
Well, but this directly contradicts, to some extent, the picture of Beane in the book
I forget what’s in what chapter, so I’m not sure I’m on track with the story line here. But Beane was too willing to try new things, to change his approach; he examined himself right out of success. In life I think, you’re absolutely right, the greatest intangible is the willingness to learn, but Dykstra, for example, remained astoundingly hard-headed in the face of all evidence, and that’s what made him successful at baseball. (Just limited success after baseball, as the record will show.) His particular baseball ability is the ability NOT to examine the evidence in a clear-sighted way and change and adapt the way he played. “I’ll stick him.”
For me one of the most interesting elements of the book is Beane’s contention that there are certain character traits that are built for baseball. If you don’t have those traits, it doesn’t say anything definitive about you or your character or your make-up except that you don’t have the traits particular to succeeding as a player. And he proved the contention, by being a thoughtful success as a GM. His traits worked well for that. Obviously we all like to use the game as metaphor, as the absurd amount of money made by books trying to translate sports success to business illustrates, but one of the things the book illustrates so well is the specificity of the challenge. It’s not like life. It’s just baseball.
Along the same lines,
something that hurt Beane as a player was that he was too smart. I remember the passage in the book about Dykstra coming back to the bench after he’d hit a homer off Steve Carlton, and having absolutely no idea who Carlton was.
May you be locked in a battle of wits against Jerry Manuel.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 21, 2010 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
I think the point was that Beane couldn't concentrate enough to be a good player
because he was so short tempered about failure. Not necessarily because he was too smart. They even point out Hatteberg who seems like the ultimate over thinker but that he just didn’t care if he took a call strike if he knew he couldn’t do anything with it. Hatteberg more importantly could let it go as soon as he sat back down at the dugout.
Seems like Billy targeted smart guys who could rationalize failing 70% of the time or lunatics like Lenny or Swisher who had amazing powers of self delusion.
To supplement.
The contrast with Lenny is that Lenny didn’t give a flying f*** about anything but Lenny Dykstra and thus he was totally focused. Beane was a smarter guy, and smart people tend to think about all possible options, and often confuse themselves in the process. Lenny was happily oblivious of anything that didn’t involve him and a ball, whereas Beane over-thought everything. I’ve noticed that jocks who excel often have very one-track minds, and Beane clearly didn’t. Strong intelligence and self-doubt are often linked, and neither seems to be terribly beneficial for playing baseball.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Nov 22, 2010 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The question was what we thought was the most important though
not what Moneyball thought was the most important. The book does seem to contradict my point to some extent, but i think that can be chalked up to small sample size and cherry picking. If you look at guys like Pinero or our good friend Dickey, we see that players willing to change their game are capable of improving their skills,. whereas guys like Frenchy who think OBP has no place on the scoreboard and walks are false hustle don’t tend to improve. There are always outliers, and guys in the middle who adapt some things and are hard headed about others, but I think in anything, recognizing your weaknesses and finding ways to protect yourself from having them exploited is key. If anything Beane didn’t recognize that his weakness was overanalyzing and fixing things that didn’t need to be fixed. He wasn’t broken to start, and he broke himself, Dykstra also wasn’t broken to begin with, but since he never thought about it, he never changed anything and succeeded. Not every player needs to make many adjustments, but all players need to recognize when they should or shouldn’t make changes to their approach.
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Nov 21, 2010 8:51 PM EST up reply actions
Let's see
1. Enamored? No. Highly focuses, yes. Beane was the general manager, the guy in charge. Any book about the method would be focuses on the general manager. Could he have spoken more about Alderson and Depo? Probably. Was it completely necessary? No.
3. Don’t really think so, though it did highly publicise his methods.
4. What Garik16 said above is correct. If you’ve got someone who isn’t really motivated to play baseball, then you probably shouldn’t spend a high draft pick on him.
5. No comment.
6. Well, he wouldn’t have gone to the Yankees, probably. And then he wouldn’t have the ringzzz
Formerly firejerrynow
Only the Mets would have
allowed Sports Illustrated to tell them who to draft #1. Strawberry was a good call; maybe we should have them conduct all our drafts.
In regards to the intangibles question, I agree with the argument above that intangibles are extremely important when looking at prospects, but decidedly less important as that prospect advances to the Show. It’s not just about motivation. Like illustrated with Beane, the ability to bounce back from failure is crucial. Baseball players fail more often than athletes in any other sport. The 6th tool of the great baseball player is the ability to psychologically prepare himself for success in the midst of that failure. I think this strength or weakness is generally exposed during the minor league development of a player. If they are able to advance to the big leagues, they obviously have some propensity to handle failure.
I can’t remember if it was Sandy Alderson or Paul DePodesta that mentioned that evaluating and strengthening character in prospects is one of the areas currently not being fully tapped in baseball. I think this new front office recognizes the importance that intangibles play in which prospects capitalize on their innate talent. It will be fascinating to see how it plays out.
I remember reading that as well
I also dont remember if it was Alderson or Depo.
The problem is, there are thousands of amateur players to scout, and it is just not feasible to get to know each one of them in this manner.
"There’s talent in these here waters. Alderson just has to clear up the algae around the edges." - RJ Anderson / Fangraphs
by Dandy Salderson on Nov 19, 2010 7:22 AM EST up reply actions
Enough great baseball players didn't seem to enjoy playing all that much
that it does make me wonder how important motivation is. I imagine it matters more when you’re older and your body starts to quit. Then it’s the guys who are driven to play that do the work necessary to keeping going (Paul Molitor) that stick around, and the Kevin McReynoldses who are out by age 33.
I wonder when Billy Beane began to dslike playing baseball
Was it always, the 12th grade, or later?
"We have gotten to the point where not only big market clubs are going over slot, but small market clubs are going over slot, and they see it as a competitive advantage. I don’t think we can be left behind in that regard. I think that we've got to be open minded about it, and we intend to be." - Sandy Alderson
Can I join? Cistulli sent me.
1. Yes, but that would make his book more boring if he didn’t. He’s got to commit to his hero/villain, one way or the other.
2. No, the reason I didn’t read Moneyball for years was because I thought I understood sabermetrics and didn’t need a textbook on them from years earlier to learn anything. That is because I didn’t really know what Moneyball was about or how it wsa written. The fact that it’s a terrific story with character is what makes it interesting. If I want analysis and data and objectivity, I’ll read Tango’s book.
3. Yes, I think so. It’s not like the “secret” wouldn’t have gotten out, but why give opposing GMs any help they can muster? Nevermind the (over-the-top) criticism of the draft it opened up.
4. I don’t know the answer to that, and I don’t think anyone — the best GMs in baseball included — does. It’s as much as they’re worth, and that’s an unclear thing. They should be considered, they should not be everything. Vague answer.
5. I’m not touching that.
6. We wouldn’t have had the silly drama when he left after the ‘07 season. That’s it. Maybe the Yankees would have won more games.
I think one of my favorite parts of this book is reading the cameos of recognizable players.
About #3
Most GM’s refuse to admit that they don’t know something, so letting others know what he was doing, really didn’t make a difference in other front offices. (See Sabean’s gloating) Also, from what I have read, Beane is a complete Narcassist, and loved it.
To be fair
It was actually the A’s owner that gave the author permission to follow the club around. Billy and Paul were polite about it and talked to him when they felt like it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Heather Nabozny of Tigers, Nicole Sherry of Orioles: Women groundskeepers in MLB
- 10 notable team reps for MLB’s upcoming draft
- Rays’ gladiator helmets: Fernando Rodney, Joel Peralta do as Romans do (VIDEO)
- Rickie Weeks forgets number of outs, passes up chance for inning-ending double play (VIDEO)
- David Ortiz is angry that more people don’t see him as a leader of the Red Sox
