Moneyball DID NOT WORK!! Moneyball's True Story
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 08. 2022
- Moneyball, the mathematical madness behind the regular season success in early 2000’s by the Major League Baseball team, Oakland Athletics. The film is based on Michael Lewis's 2003 nonfiction book of the same name, an account of the Oakland Athletics baseball team's 2002 season and their general manager Billy Beane's attempts to assemble a competitive team.
In the film, Beane (Brad Pitt) and assistant GM Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), faced with the franchise's limited budget for players, build a team of undervalued talent by taking a sophisticated sabermetric approach to scouting and analyzing players. This little fact of info is really here nor there, but Billy Bene went to my high school, Mount Carmel High, back in the day in San Diego, California. While me and billy may have the same alma mater, that doesn’t mean I won’t do my job of breaking down the facts from fiction in Hollywood’s portrayal of this story and if his scouting methods actually changed the game of baseball.
Over 12+ Premium Sports Documentaries RAW and UNCUT
📺 SIGN UP to D.A.T.A. Productions Media’s Patreon page to SUPPORT the channel to continue giving valuable content. rb.gy/x8rufo
Please SUBSCRIBE to my BRAND NEW and STRICTLY SPORTS CZcams channel if you are a SPORTS fan: / @thesportsvault-espnen...
Subscribe to D.A.T.A. Productions Media [Primary Channel] For New & Updated Content
/ dataproductionsmedia
📧 Please SUBSCRIBE to my email list to stay connected for updates in the case I get taken down from a censorship purge. rb.gy/4lywc3
📕 NEW BOOK OUT NOW!!!
Link to Purchase: amzn.to/36QhHe2
Sports Secrets: Uncovering the Conspiracies and Finding the Facts in the Sports World
🎥 Links To Purchase ‘The Endless Season’ Documentary (Official Feature Film):
📀 Physical DVD (Amazon):amzn.to/3cVSUI3
💻 Itunes: apple.co/2ZPOYnf
Available on Amazon Prime as well!!
This video was remastered to suit The SPORTS VAULT Channel
Original Post Date on D.A.T.A. Productions Media: September, 17th, 2020
• Is Moneyball A True St... - Sport
*Over 12+ Premium Sports Documentaries RAW and UNCUT*
📺 SIGN UP to D.A.T.A. Productions Media’s Patreon page to SUPPORT the channel and WATCH quality premium content. rb.gy/x8rufo
*Subscribe to D.A.T.A. Productions Media [Primary Channel] For New & Updated Content*
czcams.com/users/DATAProductionsMedia
📧 Please SUBSCRIBE to my email list to stay connected for updates in the case I get taken down from a censorship purge. rb.gy/4lywc3
📕 NEW BOOK OUT NOW!!!
Link to Purchase: amzn.to/36QhHe2
Sports Secrets: Uncovering the Conspiracies and Finding the Facts in the Sports World
🎥 Links To Purchase ‘The Endless Season’ Documentary (Official Feature Film):
📀 Physical DVD (Amazon):amzn.to/3cVSUI3
💻 Itunes: apple.co/2ZPOYnf
Available on Amazon Prime as well!!
It worked. The problem for the As is that other teams caught on to what they were doing and started to reassess the way they evaluate talent and construct their own rosters. The As had a limited window of opportunity to make it work in the playoffs before the inefficiencies they were trying to exploit disappeared and the MLB playoffs are a crapshoot.
I feel that!
He stole the idea from the previous as gm sandy beans has won nothing since he got the at the end of 1990. He is a scam artist
That the film doesn't follow the book, and that there may be mistakes in the book, does not mean that they are lies. I think that's a very strong accusation against a well-researched and well-written book, and using that sort of language reflects poorly on you. As for the movie: it's movie, not a news report or a documentary. What's next? Moaning that Orcs aren't real?
Thank you!
Not quite. There are certain aspects of the game you should be able to leverage in a short series with more days off between games than in the regular season. For example, having a single dominant starting pitcher who can potentially start 43% of your games and account for over one third of your innings pitched should be a large advantage over a more balanced but similarly effective starting rotation. Keep in mind that I stopped following baseball more than a decade ago so I dont even know if pitchers are allowed to throw more than 50 pitches a week anymore.
But if you are talking about baseball when a pitcher throwing 200 innings in a season was not considered abusive, this was a differentiating factor. Also having a deep and effective bullpen can be a leverageable asset in the post-season. Baseball IQ (I realize this is an overly broad term, but think Derek Jeter vs Jason Giambi or Vladimir Guerrero) can be more useful where the competition is more closely matched.
The book was poorly written. Lewis literally starts his book by saying it was a story he fell in love with. Hardly objective writing if you ask me
@@1who4me This is as moot of a point as is possible. People do not write about things that do not interest them unless they are forced to, in which case it would by a negative bias. Stories are written by people and are therefore subjective by design.
@@1who4me I disagree that it was poorly written but I want to hear more about why you think so. Was Lewis speaking unfactually?
I think it can work but doesn't mean you're going to be number one. He did put a team together that could compete. It doesn't mean he was wrong. Their winning seasons proved it worked.
Nice analysis!
What is more important is he took people who did not have confidence, gave them a reason, their self esteem met their ability; not the scouts(say teacher in schools) and from that they nearly won it all! That is the story we hear and should push!
That’s a nice angle!
That only fits with Hattiberg though. I mean they were going to be really good in 2002 because of Tejada, Eric Chavez, the three stud pitchers etc.
Hollywood never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
This is true
This film has aged strangely for me. For example, in the opening sequence we are shown title cards comparing the A's payroll to the Yankee's payroll during the 2001 ALDS. It's designed from the beginning to gain our sympathy for these plucky underdogs. But, on recent views, it makes me despise Oakland just a little. When I see that title card comparing the salaries, now all is see is two organization owned by billionaires that routinely bilk cities for stadium deals, but at least one of them is willing to pay his labor market rates.
Interesting take!!
It was a great movie, but a work of fiction that was based on real events. They intentionally changed, omitted and dramatized certain aspects to sell the film. People need to watch it in that context.
Well said!
Moneyball succeeded...... in making the game boring. Some people like slugfests. Some (like me) appreciate a good pitcher's duel. Moneyball managed to irk both of us.
I see your point!
Not only did the A’s not win a World Series, they didn’t even make one
This is true!!
The reason “MoneyBall” didn’t work was because other GM’s started copying and mimicking their own versions of it with higher payrolls and more talented players.
Usually what happens
With much more money than Oakland had.
Other teams were better,they could have been,see 2015 Royals!
So… if it isn’t work, why would people copy it?
@@TK-mf5in it does work- the only difference is now the higher payroll teams are using it and with that much more talent they’re able to win.
I’m not gonna lie. I have yet to see a “moneyball” team win a World Series
I believe the Red Sox were a team that did so.
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 I don't think the Red Sox count. After all, Moneyball isn't just using statistical analysis to identify good players. It's about finding those good players for cheap. You can't have a team of expensive free agency signings like Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, and Johnny Damon (who was done dirty in the movie, BTW), or trading prospects for Curt Schilling, and say this team was built on Moneyball principles. The 2004 Red Sox had the second highest payroll in MLB that year. You can credit them for acquiring the right talent, but that's not a roster built on Moneyball.
The postseason is basically a crapshoot. It's mostly a matter of who gets hot and who goes cold. The final eight teams have a roughly equal chance of winning it all. Which is why wildcard teams sometimes win the World Series.
Yup
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 In the book Beane specifically says "My sh*t doesn't work in the playoffs, there, it's f*cking luck."
You cut down on the crap shoot. If there’s just an ALCS and NLCS. 4 teams total. Like the good ole’ days.
I think the point of the book and movie is that the organization found a way to compete with a small budget. Not that it is the best way to make the playoffs and win the world series every year. Obviously if you can spend 250 million you are going to have a better shot at a World Series title than a team that spends 50 million. No matter how genius the people running that 50 million dollar team are.
Pretty much.
In a sense, money all did work. It allowed a small market team to compete with the big budget teams. Yeah the A’s didn’t win the WS, but they made the playoffs, which given their anemic budget was an accomplishment. I think the concept has been accepted by almost every other team…using advanced metrics to find players, rather than the traditional Avg, Hr, Obp, Hits, etc… The first team to come to mind who won it all, would be the Royals. The 2014-15 teams were built on defense, speed, and bullpen. Other than the bullpen (which was elite) every other player on those teams was “average”. They just played the game using the skill set that they were built for…which was elite Defense to limit runs scored, solid pitching with a shut down pen, and their speed and aggressiveness on the bases to manufacture runs.
Great Analysis!!
Exactly. Moneyball gave the A's general success but obviously people instinctively measure accomplishment with World Series victories. I think that's a mistake because the playoffs by nature are kind of random, and with the amount of rounds increasing over the years, that increases the possibility for randomness. Still, if problems go away, like with the Braves last year, most teams have a shot if they get there.
Agree 100%.
How are the Minnesota Twins any different? Last time I checked, they had more World Series rings and probably comparable number of playoff appearances over the past 35 years as Oakland using completely different strategy with same limitations. Atlanta was also considered a small market team during the 90's and they did pretty well for themselves.
They’re small market by choice. In the late 80’s to early 90’s they had the league’s highest payroll and far higher revenue than the Giants. They were the more popular team in the Bay Area by far.
I remember talking to my friends about this in 2002 and my point was exactly that made in the video. In a regular season of 162 games, assume maybe 4 plate appearances per game for each of the 9 batting spots on average and over the course of a season, you have somewhere in the ball park of 6000 plate appearances to press your posative expected value from high on base percentage. In a 5 game play off series, you have less than 200 plate appearances, so the sample size is far too small to rely on a very small statistical edge in one area, getting on base, where the other team may get people on base just a little less frequently, but they drive in runners at a much higher clip. The only thing that works in today's game is a balance between players who can get on base and players who strike out 150 times, but hit 40 homers with 115RBI. Add solid pitching and defense to that and you win. A team that just gets big hits or strikes out doesn't win, a team that never strikes out, but is all over the base paths doesn't win.
Good insight!!
You guys miss the entire point. The A's can't afford any high number players. They had to use this method. EVERY TEAM in the league since then uses Sabermetrics. Sooooo....YES it did work and it is still working for every team.
@@getgetoutout No, pretty sure we didn't. It's not that moneyball doesn't work, and yes, it was the best option for the As. The point is, that it doesn't work alone. No team is going to have a high enough on base percentage to drive in enough runs, playing primarily station to station baseball, especially over a best of 5 short series where you don't have the sample size for the statistics to play out. If you consider any on base, walks, hits, errors, you're still looking at a 65 or so failure percentage. What do you suppose a single standard deviation is on a number like that? I'd have to do the math, but I'll bet you could only have 4 or 5 base runners as you get swept in 3 and easily be within a -1 standard deviation.
To your point that everyone is using sabermetrics, you're kinda right. They use it nothing like the Oakland team which used statistics to promote getting on base and advancing runners. Today, it's used almost exclusively for defense, with spray charts and crazy shifts. 2020s offense is the exact opposite of Bill James. Baseball hitting now is all about homeruns and strike outs. That's why the coming rule changes, to ban the shift and promote more singles and doubles. The Oakland team of the early 2000s would never have kept a player with an on base percentage of 0.275, with 200 strike outs, even if he got them 40 homers. Today, this is almost every big league hitter.
My point is that statistical analysis is important and should be used to shape a team and you can do a lot better than your payroll might suggest. However, in the movie, they talk about being card counters at the blackjack table. On any given night, a counter can lose his tail because his edge is only a percent or two above the house depending on the size of his bet spread. In a short series, without a difference maker or two, there's simply not enough at bats for a team designed like this to exploit their edge. The best teams, used stats to find guys who could get on base, to position outfielders in the most statistical advantageous way, then got a few bats that are going to have some big swings and misses, and 40 plus upper deck homers, and all the better if they happen to live for October.
Timely hitting,good pitching gets the job done in postseason
@@getgetoutout Miguel Tejada was one of their best players but he didn't fit into their system.They had someone right in front of tgrir face!
Moneyball "worked" but the problem is the movie doesn't show the value the team got from Zito/Hudson/Mulder
True
In Michael Lewis's book "Moneyball," he admits that advanced metrics can only be used to predict and manage a large sample of games such as a whole regular season, and that in the postseason all bets are off. And the point of the book was not that metrics are all, just that poor clubs could use them to their advantage. Lewis likes to find "market inequalities" -- situations where some trait is undervalued initially. Beane spoke of himself as a player as being unable to find the right headspace during an at-bat so that he could hit well with two strikes; instead, he swung at bad pitches, even though everyone agreed he had the athletic makeup to be a good player. The OBP/slugging was used to find players who were able to find that headspace, and to get around walks being somehow "not cool."
I think the "moneyball approach" only worked when nobody was using it. Once rich clubs use the same way of evaluating players, there's no market inequality anymore.
Good analysis!
At this time, since 1970, the A's had played in more playoff games than any other team in baseball except the Yankees. So I think something was working.
They should’ve highlighted the past success a bit more!
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 I disagree. While Finley was cheap the rules were incredibly different at that stage (early 70's). There was no free agency so all teams could actually compete. Once you got into the later 90's Oakland could not afford to compete against the high salary teams. At that stage the past was completely meaningless as the game had in many ways changed, especially for them.
Yeah,before moneyball,players named Eckersley,McGwire,Canseco,Catfish,Reggie,Rollie!
@@angelicalynn1259 When free agency hit, the A's got broken up because Pinley was a cheapskate and the players hated him. Then in 1980 he sold to the Levi-Strauss CEO who did have money, and he paid for talent. Then in 1995 that CEO died and the new owners were under 50 feet of crap.
I wouldn't claim he dramatically changed the way of baseball but he did influence it. I think teams do take other things into account now they didn't in the past-I think the newer stats like WAR, FIP and others are indicators that show different metrics are used in evaluating talent which were influenced by the A's
I feel you!
Let's face it. Player's stats are a lagging indicator of their future performance. Kind of like a cyclic stock that gets a bump at Christmas time and is an under performer the rest of the year. IMHO, each pitch is a move on the chess board. Put most of your money in pitching and batting, less on fielding. But I'm a logistician....
I like your angle on this topic!! Every pitch is a chess move!!
Baseball is the only sport where you have layers upon layers of statistics and it makes sense that there are hidden truths to be exploited. Plus baseball is the kind of sport where lesser teams always have at least a chance to beat a better team on any given day. It made a nice story about one particular team in one particular year. However, good analytics cant overcome a 200 million dollar salary discrepincy between 2 teams. Payroll discrepencies are the true indicator that we see year in an year out.
Very true! Good points
Tell that to the the angels. They drop lots of money but spend nothing on analytics. They haven’t been relevant in a decade
They really don’t. They’re 11th in 26-man payroll and nine of the ten teams ahead of them made the playoffs. It’s literally pay-to-win with no parity between big and small markets. Part of why MLB sucks compared to the other major professional sports leagues.
What is the point of baseball or any sport if big market teams can spend more money. How the hell is that anything even close to fair competition? What a stupid governing system. Makes baseball meaningless
Money makes the world go round!
I'd argue that the Oakland Athletics weren't even the first team to utilize sabermetrics for "moneyball". Earl Weaver and the Orioles did a lot of the same things and were far more successful. Weaver utilized statistical matchups and comparisons on models as part of his decision making between 1970 until his managerial career ended in 1986. In that span, his Orioles won the 1970 World Series, lost the 1971 World Series, lost the 1979 World Series, made the ALCS twice in 1973 and 1974.
Good insight!!
It’s ver convenient of Hollywood to ignore the excellent seasons of Zito, Mulder, Hudson, and Tejada. Don’t forget, Eric Chavez had a great year too.Jermaine Dye and Billy Koch were also very good.The team had plenty of muscle.
Yes they did!
Glad you this point was brought up as baseball is a team sport and they a lot of loaded talent that year, especially on the pitching. I was rooting for them to win it all that year but sadly it didn’t happen:
That trio of Zito, Mulder, and Hudson was pretty deep. That A's team was loaded for a low budget team. I am still baffled why the A's did not make it far, but the Angels won the World Series in 2002. The A's won 20 straight games while the Angels kept it close. The AL West for the top 3 teams were pretty competitive. I remembered the money ball talk by the media when I was watching baseball back in 2002 as a kid. That season was my favorite because the Angels won it all, but the A's play during that season was a sight to behold, not gonna lie. Team depth triumphs over sabermetrics as shown in the 2002 season. I think using mathematical predicting models and analytics are very overrated and I am saying this as a math guy. Sometimes, a postseason hero (e.g., Francisco Rodriguez in 2002 who posted a 5-1 record in the postseason) will show up out of nowhere and analytics will not see that. It's mainly how the managers and team personnel that evaluate the players by scouting them that gets the job done. Teams win championships as the result. Well, a story like Billy Beane is quite marketable in Hollywood story writing, but that doesn't match reality. Reality is not that entertaining in the grand scheme of things. Zito won the Cy Young Award in 2002 and won 23 games. The movie does not want us to know that. I know since I watched Saturday baseball in the afternoon and I watched games on TV when the A's and the Angels play against each other. TWIB showed a segment of the trio pitchers in Zito, Mulder, and Hudson. Those were the nostalgic stuff of legends.
Exactly. 3 great pitchers all finding their groove and peak at the same time. It’s never talked about in the movie but they sure focus on the winning streak.
You missed the entire point. The A's can't afford any high number players. They had to come up with and employ this method. EVERY TEAM in the league since then uses Sabermetrics. Sooooo....YES it did work and it is still working for every team now except the Oakland Triple A's. They are still forced to develop players, and there is no team better at it, just to have their top prospects sent to the Yankees 4 years later. Baseball champions are engineered by MLB. It's all fake. They let the teams in HUGE cities overpay and the little ones get screwed.
I feel you!
So how do you explain the Twins, who for a decade reached the playoffs almost every year, and they didn’t do any moneyball tactics whatsoever?
I believe that’s called regular baseball organization building haha
Oakland used sabermetrics to defeat low-budget teams who followed outdated methods. They could win enough regular-season games against other low-budget teams to lead their division. But when they came up against the best (most expensive) players, in league championship playoffs and the Series, they folded.
Facts
Moneyball DID work... when no one else is utilizing it.
True
It's unfair to call out that the movie paints the A's as unwinnable. They never implied that Oakland didn't win a WS before Bean. They are telling the truth, which is that the owner is cheap and refuses to provide investment into homegrown stars or FA talent.
It is funny you call out that Moneyball did not work, but using the same concept, Oakland broke ground with in 2003-04; Boston used to win the title, as you mentioned. Moneyball itself isn't going to win you the WS every year; it is about being objective to find the best possible outcome, aka win and for Oakland that is winning within your constraints. Oakland has constraints in what they can and can't do to win. Boston doesn't. Boston can afford to say, "We prefer an on-base guy who is also above average defender, and we can pay him what it takes to get him on our roster," Oakland can't do that.
Good analysis and the title has to grab ya.
Moneyball absolutely worked. It kept the stands full of fans rooting for the Oakland A's and it kept the A's at least competitive vs teams that spent millions more on players. If anything the proof that it worked was that the Red Sox started copied the system and went all the way a couple of years later. If the only object is to win the world series, then everybody but 1 team fails every year regardless of budget. If the actual object is to have fans show up, watch you play, and make the team money by keeping the stands filled -- moneyball works like a champ.
Nice perspective on the matter!
The Red Sox were more influenced by moneyball doctrines in 2003 than they were in 2004. A lot of the things they experimented with in 03’ like not having a closer was an unmitigated disaster and they gave up on it and traded for BK Kim. In 2004, they signed Keith Foulke to be the closer. They also spent *money* to bring in Curt Schilling. Manny Ramirez was getting paid a lot of money and he was the World Series MVP. Pedro Martinez was getting paid a lot of money as well. To say the Red Sox copied moneyball to win a title is innacurate. They did hire the guy who Billy Beane "copied" it from, Bill James.. but it’s a more accurate statement to say the Red Sox were influenced by sabermetrics, you could say they played Moneyball *with* money.. it was a hybrid of philosophies.
Moneyball was not really a major factor in Theo Epstein and the Red Sox winning a World Series. You could say the same for the A's making the playoffs.. the A's were good because they had one of the best rotations in baseball Zico, Mulder, Hudson, they had closer Keith Foulke and had MVP candidate Miguel Tejada, also Eric Chavez, and Jermaine Dye among others. They were not some ragtag island of misfit toys like the movie portrays. The Red Sox had a few "moneyball" type guys I guess you could say Billy Mueller and Kevin Millar fit that mold and they were big parts of the team.. but the Red Sox won because of Shilling, Manny, and Ortiz. It takes great players to win championships.. theres a reason why the Rays have never won a World Series..and it's because they don't have guys like Manny and Pedro playing for them. Nerdy statistical shit is good for regular season law of averages stuff but that will only get you so far.
The moves that Theo made that catapulted the Red Sox into becoming champions was trading Nomar Garciaparra for Doug Mienkiewicz and Orlando Cabrera.. then acquiring Dave Roberts. That made the Red Sox a well-rounded team who could pitch, hit, and the deadline trades for Mienkiewicz and Cabrera made the Red Sox a great defensive team. In Dave Roberts they got a guy who could run the bases and steal a bag in a big spot. Ironically, Theo trading the face of the franchise is what put Red Sox over the top.. I don't know how one would classify those moves from an analytical/sabermetrics perspective, I just know it was ballsy.
Loved the movie, but I hate the way that analytics have overtaken and changed the game. Analytics should be tools that help improve the game around the margins, not the end all be all. To be competitive all year you need a good combination of high average guys and a couple power bats. I’m so sick of this 3 true outcomes bs that teams love, I hate the saying that batting average doesn’t mater because it does. It’s so much more difficult to win constantly with a bunch of guys that bat in the low .200 than it is with 270-300. I wish the game would put more value on that approach
Good perspective!!
Also overlooked in the movie was Eric Chavez.
Good point!
He appears a few times brad Pitt calls him "chavi"
MoneyBall worked well enough for the As to be a playoff contender instead of a doormat. But not a legitimate championship team.
Agreed!
I loved the movie as it is, no intention to be a documentary but to tell an entertaining story concentrating on a part of what made that team successful. As a baseball fan and movie lover I don't expect a baseball movie to match Citizen Kane's brilliance, I simply want to enjoy the film.
It was a good film!
What I also learned from the movie, which is insane, is that they did all that with zero starting pitchers. Crazy.
That is a wild stat!
No starting pitching? They had three almost acres. Thats what people miss. They also had an MVP candidate. This team was not made up of a bunch of throw aways. And number four was Joe Blanton who was decent 4.
Check the stats of that years team.
If you’re just looking at the movie for what it is, I’d say it’s a solid movie. But as far as historical accuracy and for baseball fans who remember that era, it leaves a lot to be desired. Tejada I don’t think was even mentioned. Hudson was mentioned briefly and I don’t think Mulder or Zito were mentioned at all. It’s a good movie if you’re just judging it as a movie. But it was disappointing as far as what you’d want as a baseball fan.
Exactly my views!
Yeah, and the fact that the glory years of the A's were when they had actual superstars on the roster (Canseco, McGwire) and then the MoneyBall era success was mostly due to three great starting pitchers that scouts had very highly rated and their best player Tejeda was a big time steroid abuser. Those marginally talented players that were the essence of MoneyBall may have been undervalued, but they were not going to take anyone into the playoffs without the real talent, let alone deep into the playoffs where Beane never managed to get the A's.
@@dondajulah4168 Also, Tejada won MVP that year.
Stupid pitch clock has been the best thing for baseball. Moneyball is a snoozefest for fans. Players you get attached to constantly get traded to the Yankees or Dodgers if they get good.
The pitch clock has been a dodge edged sword!
All Moneyball did for the A's was give them an excuse to NOT PAY THEIR STAR PLAYERS!!!!! They got to the playoffs, but didn't not produce ONE World Series championship (Post '89, that is).
Since then, the Oakland A's have continued their cheapskate ways, and now wants to move to Vegas, where they will more than likely continue their cheapskate ways in a city that will cater to them!!!!
Thanks what I am saying!!
Moneyball ultimately failed because the A's did not improve after implementing the system. They ended up losing in the ALDS just as they had before. If Moneyball had worked, the Athletics would have gone on to play the Angels in the ALCS.
My thoughts exactly!!
one whinge. Art Howe was not against the money ball theory, At the time he was on board. The conflict started when Bean and co started in game managing him and that is a problem any manager would have. He would get phone calls to the dug out telling him to switch player X for Y and he grew frustrated with that.
Thank you for your insight!!
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 Art Howe was nothing like in the movie. The book he was little more favourable but it down played his willingness to adapt. Beans responded "it was not like I wrote the book or movie"
None of the scouts were opposed to it either
sabermetrics has the same flaw in sports that the metrics driven performance measures have in all of business. It cannot measure the ability of humans both outperform "norms" and underperform on any given day, week, or month. It also provides a gamification opportunity for the players, workers, or managers. Working as a production manager, it took me only about two seconds to realize that the "measurers and analysts" don't actually know how to make anything, and in their quest to measure everything, they created an opportunity for everyone to "meet" the data gates while producing nothing of value.
So what happened? Well, the key performance indicator for my production lines was that products crossed a certain imaginary line for "delivery". Not delivery against customer orders, not against actual sales or market projections, just push products across a line. So we did. Thousands of products easy to produce, but without real profit capacity for the company. Everyone made fat bonuses, but the company suffered.
So when the big suits came to figure out what was wrong, all of us "muscle brained" managers at the point of production outlined the problem, and the suits would not buy it. smh...glad I left as soon as I realized that these Harvard Biz grads were morons as the company no longer exists. All humans will find ways to adjust their behavior to what they perceive as their incentives. People act, data doesn't.
Good analysis!
I'm not even going to watch this because of that clickbait title. Sabremetrics worked so well that every other ballclub started doing it and with their bigger budgets they did it better and the A's couldn't really capitalize. It's still how ball clubs are run today.
Lol okay don’t watch. 🤷🏾♂️
The reason money ball did not work for the As is because big payroll teams like Red Soxs started to value the undervalued assets. It’s like how 3-4 defense is a great defense to run whe. All the other teams use 4-3 becuSe the 3 defensive linemen you’d use are not typical 4-3 defensive lineman. But once more teams started to use the 3-4 defense those players became more valuable and desirable.
Good points!
I think Sabermetrics gave teams something to think about in terms of small dollar markets vs big dollar markets. However, if it was as successful as the movie (and I do enjoy the movie) depicts, then EVERY team would use it and there would be no 'All Stars' in the game anymore. It would be teams full of what the movie calls "undervalued" players who play small ball against small ball. While I do believe that fundamentals are extremely important, and thats what got these guys to the Majors, there still has to be that balance of guys who arent the best fielders, but power hitters or guys who arent power hitters but solid shortstops. Its a give and take. So, while I think the whole concept of moneyball might have given some teams pause, I dont think that it necessarily changed the game as much as Hollywood would like you to believe.
Good analysis!!!
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 Thank you
It does work.....in a long regular 162-game season. But in a limited 3, 5, or 7-game series, it's a different story where in the small number of games anything can go. A seasonal player hitting .300 with 30 homers/100 RBIs, can end up doing subpar in a limited series while someone .200 and 20 homers for the whole season could hit .500 with more relative homers and RBls post-season. It happens all the time. With pitchers' performances, too. Sabrmetrics is good for measuring the outcome of players' performances in a long season. But playoffs is another matter.
Also, sabremetrics is a commodity that other franchises have adopted. So, Oakland doesn't have a monopoly in it.
Nice analysis!
I'm a basketball guy that grew up watching the A's and the similarities between Beane and Morey are shocking. They found a statistical upperhand (OBP for Beane, 3's and free throws for Morey) and were able to win a lot but the things that they ignored (fielding and base running for Beane, ball/player movement and chemistry for Morey) put a ceiling on what they were able to get done and cost them shots at titles.
Good analysis!
I hated those Rockets teams, sorry but watching James “three time quitter” Harden dribble the who play clock to draw fouls sucked… but when they missed every three in Game 7, I loved it, the problem
With Morey and Beane, is that when the teams strategies don’t
Work, they are completely lost
@@andu1854 I don’t know who is more unlikable between Harden and Morey.
It was a machine to scout good talent and make competitive teams, but......... the problem was the owner that sells the player all the time and the other team lean about this...
Valid point!
Look no further than the Rays or the Twins. Metrics did revolutionize not only baseball but all sports. The way professional sports teams evaluate players has been changed forever
The A’s came up short when they blazed the trail tho. But you make a valid point!
It totally worked as this was the direction Boston went with their team and they quickly became a Dynasty and broke the Curse. The reason it did not work for the A's is because the A's have shit ownership. When teams like Boston are using the same advanced Metrics as Billy Beane is, Boston will win because there is just a flat out better organization executing Moneyball. This is what you missed in the final scene of the movie. When Billy Beane feels its a failure because the A's got eliminated.. but then his buddy uses the analogy of the guy scared to run to second base to basically tell Billy.. yeah you lost the game.. but you hit a Home run because you have forever changed the game of baseball... different teams win the world series.. but few have such a massive impact as to change the way an entire league operates.
Thanks for your input!!
Three words: Mulder, Hudson, Zito
Bang!
I did like the movie and have probably seen it 15 times. I’m also a baseball junkie. Stealing bases and bunting or sacrificing a runner over though are very important things in baseball and can help a team when a game or a series. This is even magnified in the post season. So some of the analytics are good and true but it’s not a exact science. Some times you will need to go out of that box in order to win.
Exactly. At the end of the day, sports will always be the Jimmy vs the Joes. X’s and O’s can only take you so far. Players win championships.
Dude turn the music down. I can hardly hear you
Got it!
The movie didn't touch on a large portion of the book. "Moneyball" isn't intended to work in the short term. The movie was ok, but it was Hollywood. I prefer documentaries for something with so many facets.
Yes! Lots of nuance left bout
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 the movie mentioned nothing about the draft picks and how they were used to fortify the franchise for the future.
@@michaelmartz8426 Great insight!
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 thank you.
One of the requirements of making a non-small budget film is that it appeal to a broad audience. Brad Pitt was cast as Billy Beane because how the hell else are you going to get a guy to convince his girl to see a movie about baseball. With this as your basis, do not expect any other than vague references to events with factual accuracy to be contained within the two hours of the movie. If you are an actual baseball fan, it is probably better watching the movie with the mindset that you are watching a comedic version of a baseball story.
Moneyball DID work, but you have to be more realistic about how it works and the expectations to be able to accomplish its goals. True, the Moneyball A's didn't ultimately win the World Series in any of those years, but it generally kept them highly competitive on a payroll that put them at a severe disadvantage. THAT was the real goal. With the A's payroll, by all accounts, they should have lost 90+ games every season. Instead they were competitive, fun, exciting, and made the playoffs 5 times in 7 years (better results than many other teams). Ask any Baltimore Orioles or Pittsburgh Pirates fan of the last 20 years if they would've preferred having a team that gets to a 2-0 lead in the ALDS/NLDS every year over the way their teams usually performed, and I bet every single one of them would take it. The A's attracted more fans, more attention, and were more competitive than they had any expectation of being, using only draft picks and players who weren't valued enough to command a higher salary from anybody else. And they did it fairly consistently, year after year, with a system that allowed them to retool with new players when the older ones left, yet still remain competitive (most years). They may have lost in the playoffs, but they got to the dance each year with teams that had no business getting anywhere close. That says something about their system. It wasn't everything, no, but it was something.
Also, the real key to the Moneyball strategy was just identifying and exploiting inefficiencies in the way other teams were playing and trying to find ways to eke out competitive market advantages in areas others had overlooked. Obviously 5-tool players are a great asset to have if you can afford them, but the A's couldn't afford them, so they had to look elsewhere for value. They took advantage of the fact that teams did not properly value OBP and ran with it. There is a key line in the book but not the movie where someone on the A's (I forget if it was Beane, and I forget the exact quote) says that if the league ever starts significantly undervaluing base stealers, then we'll sign a bunch of base stealers. Moneyball is just really about trying to squeeze the most value you can via for bargain deals that others may have overlooked, and optimizing your final results when you don't start out with a lot of room to work with. They did that.
Thanks for your input!
For sure movies take many liberties but i think in essence the concept works there is a similar story of a soccer coach in Mexico that took a bunch of old soccer players and a few young players no one believed in and created a team that made it to the finals they didn't win but gave one hell of a game and the whole stadium cheered and clapped for more than 5 minutes as they left the stadium the final score was 4 to 3 and and the wining team struggle to the last minute to win 8 years later people that saw the game still talking about it
The essence is there from the movie yes
Great video man! You got a sub!
Thank you so much!
it did work to a certain extent and then everybody else started doing it and or the secret was figured out and adapted to so the advantage went away. A’s I don’t think they won a series but Boston did break their supposed “curse” using some moneyball tactics.
Boston did win using money all tactics!
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 Yes, and with the help of the man who should be getting the credit - Bill James
FWIW A's won a division series against the Twins in '06
Why in the fuck did Billy beane turned down that Red Sox offer I will never understand for the rest of my life. Better job better team better pay and he'll actually be able to get good players I don't get why he would want to stick around with Oakland
Good points. The world may never know!!
If I were Beane, and I'm a Oakland native, I would've told the A's ✌🏾and left to Boston!!
Moneyball is still a very entertaining movie. Thank you for your illuminating video
You’re welcome!
I agree Sabermetrics doesn't work but most MLB teams use it today
Yea I can see that.
But sabermetrics does include a lot of the fielding and base running etc... stats he's implying it doesn't in this video. It's super reductionist to only talk about the OBP, there's many other stats they don't focus on in the movie but did focus on in real life
The biggest fiction is that it's hard to play first base. There's not a MLB level catcher alive who couldn't play fist base in his sleep.
Hot take!
The 72, 73 and 74 A’s were one of the greatest teams in Major League history. The 88 team that lost to the Dodgers was ridiculously talented as they went on to win it all the next year. I mean how many titles do the A’s have since the money ball era started? That sums it all up for me.
The movie didn’t touch on it that much!
Bro, the money ball era didn't start until the early 2000s. How many titles have they won in the money ball era? Zero. The best they did was a trip to the ALCS in '06. They were swept by Detroit.
Somewhat interesting. Always bugged me, the team's lack of interest in defense. Personally, i have found most of the overacheiving teams in history who went anywhere were built on good defense with a staff who had good control and kept the ball in the park.
Also the whole nobody respected walks until Moneyball is also aggravating. At the turn of the 20th century managers John McGraw and Fielder Jones most certainly used as part of the arsenal. Of course, it does need to be said, as players, those 2 drew lot of walks.
Analytics can’t predict a lot of things, especially T dubya T dubya. The Will To Win. - Ken ‘Hawk’ Harrelson
Yessir!
I couldn't watch it all. The background music is too loud and distracting.
Ya win some ya lose some.
Moneyball did work... for the Angels and the Twins who were using the exact same principles except with greater success
Believe it or not the Yankees were using Moneyball too. That's how they remained perennial contenders, always finding pieces to complement their expensive free agents and superstars
Just not as good for the A’s that would’ve produced a championship
moneyball just means exploiting market inefficiencies, and it absolutely works. if you find something that is undervalued, you can get it for less than it's worth. how does that not work? getting something for less than it's worth always works, as far as it goes.
Good point!
you can make a lot more money in the stock market buying "overvalued" stocks than "undervalued" stocks.
@@dondajulah4168 No one said anything about the stock market. These aren't stocks. Nor does every use of the word market have to do w stocks. Do you also walk into the supermarket and try to trade stocks?
@@HockeyNationHD I thought your point was broad and insightful, about market inefficiencies in general. This idea can work in any field even stocks!
There was an experiment to pick stocks with women CEOs and they did better than average, maybe because women had been undervalued so only the best of the best women could get as high as a CEO
It worked well enough to ruin sports. It’s analytical to Chuck up 50 three-pointers a game. For a starting pitcher not to throw more than 80 pitches/5 innings. And for idiot coaches to go for it on 4th and 5 from their own 40 yard line in the 2nd Quarter.
The deep hidden truth right here. Hahaa
Sabermetrics and advanced stats have been around since the early 1900's
Yea
This entire argument is moot considering literally all baseball teams admitted they followed his lead. So yes he did change baseball
No championships tho.
Weaker and less affluent teams can use sabemetrics pretty well during the regular season. However wealthy teams are filled with ultra talented stars much motivated to win a World Series.
It is under these circumstances that their star players will break down their opponents.
It is well known that these stars are oftentimes clutch players. Unlike the sabemetrics teams they're not waiting out a count to pull off a walk. Instead?
They're attempting to win the game with one swing of the bat. Or by striking a batter out. It is this "clutch phenomenon" that tends to dilute the value of sabermetrics during postseason play.
Thank you for your insight!!
An elite high school of elites for their children.
Lol did you ever go to this high school? Or even live in SD to confirm this statement? Haha
i like the movie. the problem oakland has is billy bean, if we could trade him it would make the team so much better. its like having arthritis. it never really goes away and you kind of have to live with it.
Lolol that’s funny
I can only assume this video was done by someone who has not actually read Moneyball, because not only is changing the game by winning the World Series never mentioned as a goal, but it is specified that Beane’s methods struggle with the postseason.
The book was about how the team was going to replace the production of Giambi/Damon/Isringhausen at a fraction of the cost by getting production from multiple undervalued players, with the ultimate goal of reaching 95 wins in the regular season .
The lack of postseason success is also covered. They refer to the MLB Playoffs as a crapshoot, which it mostly is as every team that makes it is good enough to win it. And perhaps the most famous quote in the entire book is when Beane states “My shit doesn’t work in the playoffs.”
I feel ya!
Sabermetrics has made the game unwatchable. There I said it.
Oooooh that’s a SPICY take
The backing track in the beginning gave me anxiety
Haha
yeah me too, fast forwarded
What always amazes me is how the majors will just do stuff because that's the way it's always been done. A bunch of followers and fake tough guys.
HAhahah they mask it as “tradition”
I liked the movie, but I am not naive enough to think that Hollywood *ever* tells the truth or the whole story. I cite the movie "Megan Leavy" as a prime example. Megan is a good person, but the movie rewrote a great many facts to make her appear as a picture perfect Marine who got screwed by the system, and makes MWD Rex out to be some sort of impossibly unhandleable working dog. Those things are simply not true, but Megan and Rex's story is not nearly as interesting, in fact.
Moneyball, both book and film, were subject to the same victimization at the altar of the almighty dollar. Far fewer people would pay to reada book about, or see a movie about a baseball manager who got duped by an outsiders fringe hypothesis (as it corellates to baseball). Billy would look a fool, the team owner would look a fool, and the teams fans would look like fools. Not a good strategy with which to make people part from their money. To those that wrote the book, and those that made the movie, it wasn't about a Moneyball...it was about a Cashcow.
Solid analysis
Baseball is entertainment. A's were an entertaining team and did it with less money than other teams. Those are the only facts that matter.
Pro sports is entertainment firstly I agree with that
To be honest, I think moneyball ruined baseball because now everything is driven on analytics, taking autonomy from pitchers and managers. You won't see pitchers retired with 300 wins or hitter finishing with 500 homerusn due to limited innings a pitcher can pitch and hitting based on matchups/analytics.
Nice analysis!
Also it’s made baseball boring and unfun,
And a pitching clock, does speed game up, but it is still homerun or bust
Defense is important but that's not the point. The point is that if two players combined give you a higher on base percentage for less money that's the two you chose (all else being equal). One great player amd one mediocre player might cost more than.two average players that give the same result.
It sure seemed to work after Boston threw more money at the system. The problem was not the system but the lack of funding. If he truly did not care about defense (which I doubt) that's a flaw that needs fixed but it doesn't invalidate the idea.
Good Points!
Also Stratomatic baseball was around decades before Moneyball
Gotta look into that!
I tried watching but the annoying sonar sound made it impossible to get through, respectfully please remove
I see!
Their pitching staff was crazy back then.
They had some dudes
The concept of MoneyBall, was the use of previous ignored or subverted mathematical analysis of reality. Whether or not the movie or the book said this or that is irreverent to the concept of appreciation of statically analysis.
Yes
FU. The movie totally worked. It was awesome.
Lololol okay
I did like the movie and I think the truth is something between the movie and the absolute critics of these methods. Yeah you may be right that on base percentage is not the only criteria you should look after but I think Billy has proven that is a more important statistic then most people think or thought at this time. So yeah I think he had changed the game even if it was just by a little. And I do think it is also true that these so called experts in the 90s and early 2000s valued players by things that had not much to do with their value as players. And I think the film also showed that you don't have to believe every word out of a scouts mouth.
Thank you for your insight!!
Bill James was writing books about this in the 1970's. Nothing Billy Beane was utilizing was anything that wasnt already known to a very large segment of baseball fans. Really just that baseball is uniquely resistant to change among all major sports. You had a few guys like Gabe Paul and John Schuerholz that broke the rules to some extent, and of course there was Branch Rickey if you go way back. But really baseball mentality is like middle ages when compared to football where emphasis was always placed on innovation which led to the game constantly changing and embracing new concepts and ideas.
It did work. The As were never supposed to be a world series champ....they made the most of what they had and that was a success
I feel that!!
@@thesportsvault-espnenemy1217 now if we're talking about building championship teams, definitely a different story. By the way, I miss the hell out of San Diego. Was there for 6 years. Beautiful place.
The movie sucks in comparison to the book. The book is light years better.
As for an adamant die hard Ace van during this time, the reason why there was good as they were is because of the big three.
Mukder, zito, and the ace himself Hudson, rivaled any other three pictures. That was a 123 combo that was insanely unbelievable.
Yea they were GOOD!
How do you explain the Cleveland Guardians this year? With probably only one everyday player a big market team would want (Jose Ramirez) and a team that is younger than every other team's AAA club, they finished with the 3rd best record in the AL. They were invisible on the national stage. They hit very few homers. But they played exciting, interesting baseball all year. They make contact. They run out all ground balls. They go 1st to 3rd more than anyone else. They steal. They'll probably lose in the playoffs to one of those "Wait for the 3 run homer. Don't take any chances" big market teams. But I'd much rather watch Cleveland than any other team.
Good input!
Loved the movie but I laugh my ass off at the idea of how they make it seem that those A’s won all those games without mentioning their all start third baseman, SS, or starting pitching. It was all because of Chad Bradford throwing funny Scott Hatteberg and David Justice getting on base LOL😊
The land of misfit toys they portrayed 😂
"Sometimes its not about the X's and O's. Its about the Jimmy and the Joes"
Talent will always play arguably the largest role!
The music isn’t loud enough.
Can’t please everyone
the music needs to go...this video seems good but the music makes it unlistenable
I see!
Moneyball failed cause A's couldn't get their way with trades after few years of success, since everybody began using sabermetrics. Also, sabermetrics works poorly in the playoffs.
Thank you for your perspective!
I enjoyed this movie. It entertained me. Did not read the book but I see this movie for what it is: Simply Hollywood Entertainment. There is a saying "Do not let the Truth get in the way of telling a good story" which is the case here. So they will always take liberties.
True that
I mean it won a cheap team games. It’s kinda impossible what they went up against an still won a ton of games. Compare them to dodgers now for win per money spent they are legendary for that.
They def won on a budget!
The movie barely addresses the A’s pitching. It also made DePodesta a fictional comedic character. Baseball is vastly different due to these ideas than it was 20 years ago. Between this and Cleveland experimenting with the shift are why I think that is. I think it’s unfair to claim that it was completely wrong though. Just ask my dad who barely understands baseball though.
Don’t believe it was completely wrong but doesn’t necessarily give you an edge for championships
Baseball is one of the few sports where top draft picks often don’t pan out. In fact, it is like using a shot gun. Aim at a target and hope you hit something. That’s why the minor leagues exist. The analytics are a tool, but managing humans is an art. Anyone who claims to have the answer to who has long term talent, is a charlatan.
Managing humans is an artform!
Scott Hatburg?... Those othet letters are there for a reason and are not silent
lol wise guy here