Recently a movie came out called "Moneyball" which told the story of Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane.
It tells how Beane "transformed" baseball by using advanced statistics (sabermetrics) to build a baseball team, essentially defying the norms and standards of creating a title contender.
The movie leads you to believe that Beane is a great manager who revolutionized the game and changed baseball forever. While this makes a nice movie, it's not entirely true.
Sabermetrics were around and used before Beane fully implemented them within his club.
Sabermetrics also are not the main way in which teams build a roster. They are more used by baseball experts and fantasy junkies.
Unfortunately for the writers of "Moneyball," cash still rules the league and whoever has the deepest pockets typically comes out on top.
The last ten World Series champions with their payroll rank in parenthesis:
San Fransisco Giants (9th)
New York Yankees (1st)
Philadelphia Phillies (12th)
Boston Red Sox (2nd)
St. Louis Cardinals (11th)
Chicago White Sox (13th)
Boston Red Sox (2nd)
Florida Marlins (25th)
Anaheim Angels (15th)
Arizona Diamondbacks (8th)
For the most part, you have to at least be in the top half of the league in terms of payroll to have a shot.
The one anomaly would be the 2003 Florida Marlins. The Marlins were lead by a core of players (Miguel Cabrera/Ivan Rodriguez/Dontrelle Willis/Josh Beckett) who either were traded or left via free agency because the Marlins couldn't afford them. Now the Marlins sit at the bottom of the standings because they were unable to retain star players or pay for new ones.
Teams (like the Tampa Bay Rays) can catch lighting in a bottle by building from within, but that usually has more to do with scouting/drafting than it does with finding sabermetric gems. Then they lose their core because they can't afford them (Tampa lost Garza/Jackson/Crawford/etc.).
So while sabermetrics play some role on some teams, the name of the game still continues to be money, money, and money.
The A's are a perfect example, sitting in the bottom quarter of payroll year in and year out and having made the playoffs once in the past eight years.
I guess there is a reason it's called "Moneyball."
7 years ago
B-ri,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you know (I know that I don't) - isn't there a salary cap? Is there anything being done to curb this moneyball? What can someone like a Reds fan hope for?
How do other sports measure up? I know basketball has almost half of their championships in only 2 teams...is that the same story?
i don't think you read the book. the book was about finding a market inefficiency. To win they decided that OBP (on base %) was highly under valued by the league and took advantage of that. When the rest of the league caught up Beane moved on to undervalued defensive metrics. It may not of won a championship, but the league and their drafting ways have changed tremendously. The point of the book is find and create innovations not do things the way they've always been done. And Also the movie isn't that good either.
ReplyDeleteThis is Brian. Won't let me sign in...anyways...
ReplyDeleteAlan - There is no salary cap in baseball. Hence why the Yankees payroll is over $200 million and Kansas City is only at around $36 million. It's sad, but that's how the system works. As far as other sports, LA and Boston has a combonation of high payrolls and a lot of luck.
Anonymous - I wasn't referencing the book (haven't read it but am sure it had more explanation than the movie) but the movie. The movie made it seem like Beane was revolutionary in what he did and was successful in what he did. I am not disagreeing with the notion that sabermetrics are important, but unfortunately the guys who are the best at getting on base and have the best FIP and xERA, etc. also happen to be the most expensive. It's just the way it goes. So did he advance baseball? A bit, yes. But not enough to change the landscape because money is still the most important factor (not the only factor, just the most important).
The movie was great and if anyone says otherwise you're just wrong.
ReplyDelete