Buzz Bissinger still hasn't read Moneyball.

To summarize his argument, "Moneyball" is dead because:

1. OBP was never all that cool to begin with--the A's were great in the early 2000s because of Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, and Barry Zito, as evidenced primarily by the fact that they won a combined 149 games over three seasons [no circular reasoning going on there!].

2. "Only" 3 of Beane's 7 draft picks detailed in the book are still in the majors [he conveniently leaves out the fact that two of these draft picks, Joe Blanton and Nick Swisher, have played major roles on the two teams currently favored to make the World Series].

3. In 2009, the playoffs have been dominated by big-budget teams [never mind that the Twins and Rockies made the playoffs, or that the Rays reached the World Series last year, or that the Indians and the Rockies made deep postseason runs in 2007].

I hate this "debate," because it's tired, stupid, and really only matters to writers like Bissinger, as the rest of baseball has moved on. But I thought this piece was noteworthy in its poor reasoning and use of cherry-picked evidence.

over 2 years ago Cap'n Snegiryov 28 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yeah, I read this a couple days ago — Rob Neyer linked to it. What a stupid article. He also conveniently ignored the fact that the Red Sox, who have won two World Series the past five years, have a Moneyball-OBP-sabremetric front office(whatever you want to call it). They just have the money to go along with it.

I love the fact that he “proves” the A’s didn’t win by using OBP because they had great pitchers who won a lot of games. Because, you know, the offense had nothing to do with any of those wins.

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 21, 2009 9:16 AM EDT reply actions

Money ball is over because the big money teams adopted it and eliminated the intelligence gap.

by stuart dean on Oct 21, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions

use of cherry-picked evidence.

Joe Blanton and Nick Swisher, have played major roles on the two teams currently favored to make the World Series

the Twins and Rockies made the playoffs, or that the Rays reached the World Series last year, or that the Indians and the Rockies made deep postseason runs in 2007

by Brick. on Oct 21, 2009 10:17 AM EDT reply actions

Providing examples to refute someone’s argument is not “cherry-picking”; that’s how arguments are refuted. You cannot prove something by is true by giving examples, but you can prove something is not true by giving examples. That’s how logic works.

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 21, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions

bissinger’s points were: 1) beane’s “moneyball” draft sucked, and 2) small-market clubs can’t use the lessons of “moneyball” to get an edge on the big boys anymore

so i pointed out that beane’s moneyball draft actually yielded a fair amount of major league talent—especially considering beane’s highest pick was #18 that year, he did pretty well for himself. and i pointed out that small market clubs have been very competitive in recent years, and the successful small market teams have been those who are committed to some “moneyball”-style principles of exploiting market inefficiencies (TB, CLE in ’07, COL).

cherry-picking is when you take a few isolated examples and argue that they demonstrate some sort of trend. that’s what buzz bissinger did. all i did was point out significant factual evidence that runs counter to bissinger’s purported trends. please explain how that = cherrypicking. thanks in advance.

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Oct 21, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions

^ meant as a reply to brick ^

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Oct 21, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions

those aren’t good examples of any logic.

that blanton and swisher play for playoff teams is not evidence that moneyball “works.” it’s evidence that when you are a small market team that lets free agents go and has a ton of draft picks in the early rounds, you will probably end up with a couple average major leaguers. moneyball doesn’t “not work” because the others flamed out and it doesn’t work because the phillies and yankess traded for these two players.

the twins and rockies and rays made the playoffs. not because of moneyball. and they don’t proove that small markets can compete evenly either. they’re a product of weak divisions or, again, a boat load of high draft picks.

strawmen are not how logic works.

by Brick. on Oct 21, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions

strawmen are not how logic works

really? because you seem to think so dude. you’re trying to make it look like i made a “pro-moneyball” argument is based around the fact that swisher and blanton are viable major leaguers and that colorado and minnesota have been competitive playoff teams. that is NOT my argument. not at all. those facts were simply used to point out flaws in bissinger’s assertions.

if i were arguing for “moneyball” i would talk about how the way oakland’s front office did things in the 1999-2002 era have profoundly influenced the game, and how the market has come to realize the importance of things like OBP and SLG. i would talk about how statistical analysis now plays a major role in most front offices’ decisionmaking, and how, compared to the late 90s, a huge number of teams employ some sort of full-time sabermetrician or statistical consultant. that was not my argument, and that’s not what my post was about.

pointing out major flaws in a person’s reasoning = ! making an argument for the separate, contradictory position being critiqued. hope this helps.

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Oct 21, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Dear Dude,

While I don’t think Bissinger’s assertations are right, I don’t think your points are the reasons why. I think they are about as loose of counter evidence as his evidence.

by Brick. on Oct 21, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

so: buzz bissinger says that the “moneyball” draft was a failure. i point out that it yielded two pretty successful major leaguers (and a third, mark teahen, who is a ML regular). given that beane picked fairly low in that draft (as I said, # 18 overall was his highest), this is a pretty good success rate for one draft (look at what the indians did during the same period).

this is not direct evidence that contradicts bissinger’s point?

so: buzz bissinger says that small-market teams have been pushed out of contention, and that big payrolls rule the day, thus signaling the death knell of moneyball and the efforts of small teams to exploit market inefficiences. i say: small market teams have been very competitive in the playoffs in recent years. even though they do not all use the purported “billy beane” style of baseball, they have developed players, exploited market inefficiences (a HUGE inefficiency being the amateur draft) and have been relatively successful. in fact, many have even made it to the WS, and we know from other evidence that playoffs are mostly luck. this does not serve as direct evidence countering bissinger’s point?

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Oct 21, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions

i think regarding the draft, bissinger is parsing out the wrong thing in the first place. i probably got too stuck on that. as one specific draft, i personally think it was niether particularly successful nor unsuccessful. but i’ll buy you think it was based on those 3 guys.

and i don’t buy the secod piece any more from you than i do from selig. big market teams do rule the day. just because they don’t completely accross the board, doesn’t mean they don’t on the whole.

by Brick. on Oct 21, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions