MovieChat Forums > Moneyball (2011) Discussion > Sorry but their 'philosophy' sucks

Sorry but their 'philosophy' sucks

posted 7 years ago by illnagas (457)
5 replies | jump to latest

and it makes baseball extremely boring. I've read Bill James and it was interesting to a point, but not revolutionary. He spent an entire chapter on determining who the best value in MLB was, and his conclusion was Ken Phelps. Never heard of him? That's because he stunk. James severely overvalued walks and home runs, while dismissing speed fundamentals and defense and adopting the so called philosophy has made the a bore. The self proclaimed geniuses don't even watch the game, as they disdain any so called eye test in favor of deciphering the game through spreadsheets.

[–] strntz (10816) 6 years ago

Metrics is an evolution of thought. While James did dismiss defense and his disciples followed, wins-over-replacement takes defense into account as it should.

I've played ball for 40 years, and one thought that always went through my mind when we were behind late is that if no one made an out in an inning, we would score. This meant we didn't need hits or home runs, just keeping the merrry-go-round going. Beat out a bunt, force an error with speed, a walk, a bloop. At the end, it adds up to runs. I was glad and even felt vindicated when on base percentage became a big metric.

But "moneyball' has evolved beyond pure on base percentages. OBP is still a big metric, but guys who are plus defenders can grade off a couple of OBP points if they can turn balls in play into outs.

So yes, moneyball has evolved, but it started the revolution.

[–] illnagas (457) 6 years ago

Ill stop here:
Wins over replacement takes defense into account as it should

No. It attempts to take it into account. But newsflash: not everything can or should be boiled down to statistics. Don’t be scared of that statement. Having every human action tracked and judged by stats should not be something to strive for.

[–] stevewyzard (1248) 6 years ago

Whether on not the philosophy "works" or not can be argued until the end of time. What Moneyball did change in Major League Baseball is that now the perceived superstars are the general managers and front office. When you root for your favorite team, you're really cheering for the deep-thinking academics who hire managers to be their mouthpiece to the public, and players to help them implement their plans. This is in line with Moneyball author Michael Lewis's idea that 99.99% of everybody are idiots, while only a few elite geniuses know what's really going on. Lewis's books (regardless of the field of interest) are really just unabashed idol-worship of (to use his phrase) "card-counters in the casino of life".

[–] illnagas (457) 6 years ago

If Lewis thinks everyone (but him of course) are idiots and describes GMs as the elite, deep thinking superstars, he sounds like a real asshole. At least that explains why SABR guys are the most annoying dickheads people in sports.

[–] dl4060 (58) 5 years ago

When did he say Ken Phelps was the best value? In which abstract. Ken Phelps was actually an excellent player, and I most certainly have heard of him. He did not cost much money, so he gave his team quite a bit of value. Home runs and walks are extremely important. James did his best to determine what contributed to winning, I'm sorry if you don't like what he found.