Moneyball and the Red Sox Options

[rossie6782]

this article on BA was very very interesting .. link

these two comments made me think back to the people calling Boston a "Moneyball" team:

GARY HUGHES: I’d kind of go both ways. It definitely had an effect. “Moneyball” has become a catchphrase now that’s being completely misused. It’s ridiculous, calling Boston a Moneyball team, with their hundred-and-something million payroll. But to ignore the success that Billy’s had, given the parameters he’s had to deal with, would be unfair too.

VOROS McCRACKEN: Certainly, we in Boston are not antagonistic to the concepts in “Moneyball” either. Obviously they hired me as a consultant. When they promoted Theo, basically the idea was he was going to try to meld the two approaches and get them to where they were not only getting along, but are complementing one another. The stats can help the scouts zero in on the guys they should be zeroing in on. And the scouts, once the stats are sorting things through, can tell you who exactly are the best guys to go after. The success of that can obviously be overblown because a World Series championship is a big thing, big news. How much it had to do with stats, how much it had to do with improved scouting . . . I think the point is that Boston has at least tried to reconcile the two positions.

Thoughts?

[BlueGibbon]

I always thought that if Oakland's payroll were to be increased by nearly a hundred million dollars, then Billy Beane would operate in much the same way as Theo Epstein does... only better.

McCracken seems to imply that the Red Sox approach is a combination of the two methods as it combines statistical analysis with old-fashioned scouting. I don't believe that the moneyball approach is any different. Oakland still employs scouts don't they? It's just that their opinions are valued less in favor of the available statistical evidence.

[ubamet2]

I always thought that if Oakland's payroll were to be increased by nearly a hundred million dollars, then Billy Beane would operate in much the same way as Theo Epstein does... only better.

McCracken seems to imply that the Red Sox approach is a combination of the two methods as it combines statistical analysis with old-fashioned scouting. I don't believe that the moneyball approach is any different. Oakland still employs scouts don't they? It's just that their opinions are valued less in favor of the available statistical evidence.
[right][snapback]104845[/snapback][/right]

McCracken is wrong. Of course all teams have traditional scouts. It's just that Boston is probably the team that uses sabermetrics the most other than Oakland.

Baseball America hates moneyball and hates the new way of thinking because of they disagree completely in many aspects. Baseball America represents the tradition, BP represents the modern.

[nypiazza31]

Was it just me, or did the two traditional scouts seem quite defensive of their methods?

[goldglv17]

I was under the impression that Moneyball doesn't focus on defense or speed. You can make the argument that the Red Sox don't make the playoffs last year if they don't pick up 2 gold glove defensive players in Cabrera and Miet, you can also argue that the Yanks polish them off in the playoffs if not for Dave Roberts as a late inning base stealer.

[rossie6782]

McCracken is wrong.  Of course all teams have traditional scouts.  It's just that Boston is probably the team that uses sabermetrics the most other than Oakland.

Baseball America hates moneyball and hates the new way of thinking because of they disagree completely in many aspects.  Baseball America represents the tradition, BP represents the modern.
[right][snapback]104848[/snapback][/right]

Yes, but the point is made that its ridiculous to consider the Red Sox a moneyball team because of there payroll; i agree 100%

[ubamet2]

I was under the impression that Moneyball doesn't focus on defense or speed. You can make the argument that the Red Sox don't make the playoffs last year if they don't pick up 2 gold glove defensive players in Cabrera and Miet, you can also argue that the Yanks polish them off in the playoffs if not for Dave Roberts as a late inning base stealer.
[right][snapback]104871[/snapback][/right]

Moneyball philosophy/sabermetric analysis is very interested in defense. So you can wipe the defense part out of your argument. Dave Roberts is more interesting. As a moneyball fan, Dave Roberts is what I find ideal. He is a great base stealer who has never been a real risk to be thrown out. As long as you have a rate like Robert's it's ok. The risk was taken at the appropriate time. And the Red Sox had the steals they needed on the cheap. They don't spend too much money on it.

[ubamet2]

Yes, but the point is made that its ridiculous to consider the Red Sox a moneyball team because of there payroll; i agree 100%
[right][snapback]104879[/snapback][/right]

They are not a moneyball team because of the payroll. Correct. However, they are a team that is very strong at sabermetrics and the statitsical philosophies discussed in moneyball. The Red Sox and A's are easily the most progressive teams when it comes to the statistical approach.

[Cactus]

I was under the impression that Moneyball doesn't focus on defense or speed. You can make the argument that the Red Sox don't make the playoffs last year if they don't pick up 2 gold glove defensive players in Cabrera and Miet, you can also argue that the Yanks polish them off in the playoffs if not for Dave Roberts as a late inning base stealer.
[right][snapback]104871[/snapback][/right]

defense is valued very highly by teams that are on the performance side of the curve, it would be a big mistake to think otherwise. speed by itself is valued less, because there isn't much evidence that speed on the bases significantly affects major league pitchers ability to get batters out, and that stolen bases are only helpful if you steal them at a high success rate (like roberts does).

the sox were able to find many incorrectly valued players to add to their team - millar (was going to be sent to japan), ortiz (non-tendered by twins), mueller (mets were only willing to go 1 year on him), etc, by using the concepts discussed in moneyball. that is where they are a moneyball team. on top of that, they were also able to have high priced stars such as pedro, schilling, foulke, and ramirez because of the market they play in.

and of course you can make that argument - there's a lot of little things that can happen that turns a series one way or another. that's why postseason success is not something you can easily predict or plan for.

[younghem]

Without Ortiz or Schilling, the Red Sox would not have won the WS. Obviously they had the other pieces in place. Schilling was a great trade and a no-brainer...kudos to them for pulling that off.

I had a feeling that Ortiz would be a stud, seeing him play a little bit with the Twins. Didn't seem like the Twins knew quite what to do with him.

The Red Sox made some great moves. Obviously the Manny Ramirez signing was pretty ballsy. Can I say that ????

Well, ALL my friends and family are Red Sox fans, so congratulations to them.

Now, LETS GO METS !!!!

[Metsfan980]

this article on BA was very very interesting .. link

these two comments made me think back to the people calling Boston a "Moneyball" team:

GARY HUGHES: I’d kind of go both ways. It definitely had an effect. “Moneyball” has become a catchphrase now that’s being completely misused. It’s ridiculous, calling Boston a Moneyball team, with their hundred-and-something million payroll. But to ignore the success that Billy’s had, given the parameters he’s had to deal with, would be unfair too.

VOROS McCRACKEN: Certainly, we in Boston are not antagonistic to the concepts in “Moneyball” either. Obviously they hired me as a consultant. When they promoted Theo, basically the idea was he was going to try to meld the two approaches and get them to where they were not only getting along, but are complementing one another. The stats can help the scouts zero in on the guys they should be zeroing in on. And the scouts, once the stats are sorting things through, can tell you who exactly are the best guys to go after. The success of that can obviously be overblown because a World Series championship is a big thing, big news. How much it had to do with stats, how much it had to do with improved scouting . . . I think the point is that Boston has at least tried to reconcile the two positions.

Thoughts?
[right][snapback]104833[/snapback][/right]

Boston might use statistical analysis, but there are in no way looking through minor leaguers hoping they found their next (fill in the position here), because they can't afford to sign the good players, they don't have to say, well this player has an amazing track record of good health and solid power numbers, but this guy won't nearly get as much, and he does walk alot. Moneyball isn't a method of evaluating which statistics are most important to win no matter what the cost, it's a method of evaluating a player by his statistics to find a cheaper solution, in case someone who hasn't read the book is reading, the A's used this method of thinking, because they could not afford to compete with the richer teams for the good players, so they looked at a new way to compete, and discovered Bill James' theories, which made sense to them, and decided that they would from that point on, worry about OBP and SO/B ratios much more than the overrated AVG,ERA,W-L,HR,RBI stats, which were getting players big money...