It’s truly amazing how many of our best and brightest baseball minds in the media still misunderstand the concept of Moneyball. To some, it’s still rigidly defined as teams that value on-base percentage above all else. For others, it simply means finding ways to earn on the cheap. However, the true definition is much more complex. The true meaning is still largely underappreciated and misunderstood.
Take, for example, New York Daily News columnist Bill Madden. On Friday, he wrote an article detailing the demise of Oakland A’s Moneyball. After watching the Yankees crush the A’s in a four-game sweep, Madden surmised that Moneyball isn’t enough to beat the mighty Yankees. Of course, this point of view assumes that the A’s are the central characters in the “Moneyball era” that has evolved over the past decade. Now that Michael Lewis’ bestseller detailing the evolution of Moneyball is being made into a movie, the Oakland franchise serves as a benchmark for all the debate surrounding the concept. If Oakland wins, Moneyball is considered successful; if they lose, the entire strategy is declared dead. This thought completely misses the point.
The definition is quite simple. Basically, Moneyball means using advanced statistical analysis to find undervalued talent. At first, these analytics were used by small market teams hoping to compete on the cheap against larger market foes. The Oakland A’s served as an example of this, as Billy Beane was the first general manager to take these statistics seriously and build a team around them. At the beginning of the decade, the new stat was on-base percentage, which many teams simply overlooked when creating lineups. It worked for a while, but soon (and especially after the book was written) other franchises adopted the tactics employed by Beane, including teams with high payrolls. Oakland has descended into mediocrity in recent years, leading many to dismiss the Moneyball concept. Once again, this is wrong thinking.
Now that on-base percentage is no longer underestimated, other metrics have been used to build lists while making efficient use of resources. The Tampa Bay Rays are the best example. Through the use of new defensive statistics, the 2008 Rays were able to go from being the worst team in baseball to runner-up in the World Series. They accomplished this feat without signing any notable free agents, or spending much more money. They just developed young talent and brought in players who could improve defense in general. Of course, Moneyball cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Using new stats alone won’t turn a sorry team into a contender. Even the Rays had good young hitters and good arms. The point, though, is that Moneyball-like thinking allowed the Rays to compete with financial beasts like the Yankees and Red Sox without spending anywhere near the same amount. The Tampa front office’s use of new statistics helped build a contender. This is thanks to the definition of Moneyball; the use of cutting-edge stats to build contending teams, while making more efficient use of money.
The A’s may be going through an era of mediocrity, but writing Moneyball off as a result is foolish and shortsighted. Teams that don’t use new Moneyball statistical analysis and tactics are now in the minority in Major League Baseball. There will always be a demand to find and develop undervalued products. Although many in the mainstream media, especially those of an older generation, dismiss new statistics and analysis, the monster created by Moneyball is here to stay.