I don’t think Moneyball is the greatest, most influential book in baseball history.  Nor do I think it’s a bunch of nonsense.  The idea that capitalizing on undervalued assets could help small market teams was interesting and it was interesting to see how someone did so (or tried to do so).  I enjoy intelligent critiques of Moneyball and this is not one of them.

Against Moneyball (Buzz Bissinger)

http://www.tnr.com/article/against-moneyball?page=0,0

Whatever happens in the National League and American League Championship series unfolding over the next week or so, one outcome has already been decided--the effective end of the theories of Moneyball as a viable way to build a playoff-caliber baseball team when you don't have the money. . . .  [B]ut all you need to do is keep in mind one number this postseason: 528,620,438. That's the amount of money in payroll spent this season by the teams still in it--the New York Yankees, the Los Angeles Angels, the Philadelphia Phillies, and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

So what is “a viable way to build a playoff-caliber baseball team when you don’t have the money”?  /reads further/.  Oh, you don’t have one.  Your point in this column is that it’s easier to make the playoffs when you have oodles of money.  That’s…not very insightful.

The sabermetricians, unloved and unwanted for so long, scorned by the baseball men brotherhood for their nerdy obsessions, fell to their knees like attendees at a revival: Finally someone understood them.

Right – the only way to understand the game is if you played it.  Waaaait, Buzz is 4 ½ feet tall.  Why is he talking about baseball?

The explanation was dazzling, although Lewis barely mentioned the three reasons the A's had been so successful--pitchers Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson. The three won an astounding 149 games during that span. Each of them were 20-game winners in at least one of those seasons. The odds of three young pitchers coming together like that on one team was basically a matter of baseball luck.

 That’s an interesting point.  Thank you for adding some information.

Beane had seven first-round draft picks that year, each of them extolled by Lewis for their buried-treasure status. Three of them are still playing in the majors [who?], none with anything close to superstar careers and all of them long gone from the A's. Three others were busts [who?]. . . .  His theory that only college pitchers should be drafted over high school ones because of their experience sounded plausible. But it flew in the face of the Atlanta Braves, who won their division 14 years in a row from 1991 to 2005, and relied on pitchers drafted straight out of high school all the while [who?].

 I retract me previous compliment. Sure, I could look this information up, but isn't that the journalist's job (three are Swisher, Blanton and Teahen)? Or more importantly the columnist who's trying to make a point/convince me of something? Why throw out three guy's names and refuse to name any others? "Beane's 7 draft pickes really sucked that year." "Who were they?" "Oh, you know - those guys." "No." "Trust me, they fucking sucked."

Beane was also flippant, especially to the ears of anyone who'd ever faced the Yankees' Mariano Rivera in the postseason, about how there was no need to pay exorbitantly for a closer because just about anyone could close--but then he traded away one of his vaunted draft picks [who?] for a reliever who turned out to be lousy anyway [who?].

 What I don’t get is the point of this column.  Is it that Lewis glossed over things in his book, like Zito, Hudson and Mulder, that detract from the theme? Or is it that high payrolls equal success? Maybe it’s the latter.

For the four teams in the championship series this year, parsimony is not a problem. Each ranked in the top ten in baseball payroll. All of them topped the $100 million mark and the Yankees went over $200 million.

 Gotcha – teams with big payrolls win.  Let’s just double check that to make sure I (and Buzz) am not glossing over anything.  OK, last season at issue in Moneyball was 2002 so let’s start there:

2002: Angels – 15th highest payroll in baseball (about the middle);

2003: Marlins – 25th;

2004: Red Sox – 2nd;

2005: White Sox – 13th;

2006: Cardinals – 11th;

2007: Red Sox – 2nd;

2008: Phillies – 12th.

In 2009, the remaining 4 teams are all in the top 10.  For the past 7 years, only twice has a team in the top 10 won the WS.  And in 2008, the top three payrolls (Yankees, Mets and Tigers) all missed the playoffs with the Tigers finishing dead last in their division.

Maybe the point of column is that Buzz just doesn’t like Beane (or Lewis).

Since Beane has compared himself to J.D. Salinger, just wanting to fade away, maybe the best thing for him to do is retire and write a book about how, in the end, it all really didn't work.

 I think that’s it.

Here's my issue. Some people rail on Lewis/Beane/Moneyball claiming it is now a failure but that's not the point. Everyone's trying to make more out of less in every profession and this book explained how it was being done in baseball. Lewis probably took some liberties by trying to show that Beane was on the cutting edge but I'm guessing lots of teams were doing it. Red Sox held onto Youk the entire time. I just find it odd that a very good sports writer takes time out of his day to poorly bitch about an interesting sports book while taking to time to bitch about geeks in their basements.

I can't remember which commenter (sorry) mentioned this, but I believe it was yesterday he compared MY's average HR distance and speed off the bat from last year to this year. Both were up this year. I figured it was just related to him bulking up some or a small sample size.

Then I ran across this article and here's the money quote:

So, very early this season (actually on the second full day of games), I had already noticed that balls were seemingly flying farther than they usually do, so I checked my numbers, and noticed that the standard distances of all the home runs around MLB were a lot longer than those hit in 2008. Since then, I’ve continues tracking this, and what was little more than a feeling and some numbers off a very small sample size have become a lot more compelling: the first 350 home runs this year are flying, on average, about 6 feet farther than last year. The likellihood that such a difference could come about by chance is exceedingly low, less than 0.0031% the last time I ran the stats on that. I’ve tried to come up with some other possible ways that league-wide homers could be flying so much farther, given that the weather is already factored out, and the ball is the most likely explanation.

http://waswatching.com/2009/04/19/is-the-new-yankee-stadium-a-homer-haven/

It sounds like many traveled for the game. I thought perhaps we could exchange our stories.

Based on FuturePants' recommendation I stayed at the Melrose. I don't think I'll stay anywhere else in the future. Cool old hotel and a very nice bar. Based on the recommendation of the chef I sat next to on the plane I went to Steel for sushi. Outstanding.

Here's the interesting part of my story. I was at the bar eating and a regular came in. Older gentleman. He and I start talking about baseball. He said he'd been a season ticket holder since the Rangers arrived in Texas and his seats were behind Hicks'. I mentioned the distance I traveled and crap I went through just to get to the game. At the end he said he was friends with Hicks and whether I had anything to pass on. I told him to tell Hicks to stay out of Jon Daniels' way. That started a conversation about the bad trades Daniels made and my defense of the health of the entire system. Thought that was pretty entertaining. 

I've watched a good portion of the games and have enjoyed them.  But I was wondering how they could improve it. One idea I had was to limit the number of MLB players on the rosters somehow (like 8-10 positional players, 2-3 starters and 3-4 bullpen arms) then fill out the roster with minor league players. To me, this would help with a few things:

1) It would make selection more elite.  Perhaps MLB players would be more gung ho with going since they'd be selected as the best US CFer for example.

2) It would help with making sure the MLBers get their ABs to get ready for the season.

3) Guys wouldn't be playing out of position to get them playing time. The way I would see it, you'd be selecting the best 3rd baseman you can get and best SS, etc., so that's where they'd be playing.

The minor league players probably wouldn't be getting as much playing time but that should be a far lesser concern for organizations than their stars not getting ABs or having to play out of position (so not getting ready for the season at their position). This wouldn't solve the Max Ramirez situation but I don't think that's too critical.

I'm mostly thinking this more from the perspective of the US, DR, Venz, and countries with more proven stars. The downside might be that teams like Japan and even Cuba would have a competitive advantage because their total roster might be stronger than the minor league players.

Anyhow, I've really enjoyed watching but was wondering if this might be something to reduce the complaints.

I'm going to delete this after I've gotten what I need since I've already made this type of fanpost a month or so back.

Now I'm traveling by myself since the Girl is gone and I'm taking a HS buddy and he lives in DFW. Here's what I envision: show up Sat, Sun maybe sit by an outdoor pool then walk around to a restaurant and some bars, Mon game and then hit another good restaurant, Tues home to Wyoming.

I'm thinking I'd like to stay downtown since I presume you can wander around from place to place to find a cool bar to sitdown in. I've got it down to the Hyatt, Indigo, Lawrence, Adolphus, Marriott and Magnolia (most expensive option). The alternative is fly in Sun, leave Tues and stay at the Ritz Carleton since it's actually a reasonable rate for two nights and I'm thinking of treating myself (for a decent price).

Do people have any suggestions regarding my list of hotels or other hotels that will fit my plans?

A couple people people were talking about stat cites and one mentioned that BP is becoming obsolete. The other day I just discovered (based on a discussion here) that baseballcube is really good for draft information. But the fact is, I'm not really well versed on what site is good for what (nor do I know all of them).  I basically use baseball-reference for most things since it has OPS+ and ERA+ and also look at fangraphs, mlb.com, yahoo, but I'm wondering if other people want to share their opinions.

What I'm thinking is: what site do you use and for what specific purpose? A unique metric, intuitive organization, easy to categorize what you're looking for, good biographical information, good minor league site, individual pitch information, etc. I'm sure people use different sites for different purposes so that's what I'm trying to figure out. If I want to find X categorized by Y I'd like to easily do it.

I'd like to understand what sites offer what without spending hours trying to figure it out plus I'm guessing there might be some lesser known sites. I'm unlikely to subscribe to a site but it would be good to know what they have to offer.