Ramblings and Grumblings On Moneyball and Parity in Baseball

Ramblings and Grumblings on Moneyball and
Parity in Baseball
Moneyball opened in the past weekend to raving reviews of critics
and baseball fans alike. The movie centers on Oakland Athletics
general manager, Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt) through the 2002
baseball season. Impressed by the statistical analysis of recent Yale
graduate Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill, based on Paul
DePodesta), Beane put together a lowest paid roster after losing
superstars to free agency. Though they started the season with
eleven straight losses, the team turned it around with a recordsetting twenty-game win streak and eventually a playoff berth.
Moneyball presents a game-changing philosophy both on the silver
screen and in real life. At the time, player drafting and signing were
based on the word of mouths of scouts. Beane and DePodesta
changed that with player acquisitions based on statistical analyses
like on-base percentage, a stat measuring the ability of a hitter to
reach first base. However, the key to the 02 As success was the
dominant starting pitcher trio of Mulder, Hudson and Zito, who
combined to earn $1.97 million. With that years MVP Miguel Tejada
anchoring the offense, a 100-win team was in the books, literally.
The success of the film brings renewed attention to how smallmarket, low-budget clubs have to compete with the likes of the
Yankees and Red Sox. The opening of the film also coincides with an
excellent wildcard race in Major League Baseball. As of the writing,
Tampa Bay is tied with Boston, despite having only 1/4 of the Sox
payroll. Rays found themselves in a similar position at the start of
the season with the departure of star players like Carlos Pena and
Carl Crawford. In a low-payroll year, like the 02 As, they found a
way to win. Combined with low payroll teams making playoffs in
2010, baseball teams could find parity on the field while having
giant gaps financially, right?
Not really. The argument was helped by brief overachievement of
several small market clubs to start 2011, but most have been long
gone from the playoff picture. The reality is, to build a contending
team out of low budget, it is exceptionally hard to do it without
years of losing, pick compiling, or having some of the best contracts

left over from previous years (a la 02 As).
So how DID the Rays make it so far? The team previously known as
Devil Rays was rock bottom for their first decade. It all changed in
2008 with an AL Championship. On that breakout team, 7 were 1st or
2nd round draft picks from previous years. They also got a boost from
Carlos Pena, a home run or miss slugger. The moral of the story? If
you took it on the chin for a decade, there is an outside chance that
with all the right moves, you just might be breaking out, but dont
count on it.
Just ask the Pittsburgh Pirates. They had a hot start this year, just to
see the team regressing to a 90-loss season. The troubled franchise
has seen 6 out of their last 8 first rounders turn to marginal players
in the big leagues. When compounded with the inability to sign
impact players, its no surprise theyre losing so much. Kansas City
Royals were also caught in a similar situation, though many of their
draft picks are showing promise.
An alternative is to try to be as competitive as possible every year.
The dangers of doing so are outlined by Toronto Blue Jays from 2003
to 2010. The team consisted of two star players, Roy Halladay and
Vernon Wells, and a revolving door of veterans. The team turned out
to be a definition of mediocrity, being out of playoff every year. They
finished 2011 with an even 81-81, but with a much-improved pool of
prospects, combined with some offseason moves, the team could
repeat Rays success.
So why were the 02 As so successful? Its simple. Moneyball isnt
about getting on base or obsession about college draft picks, it is
about undervalued players. Whether it is getting great defense or
finding that cheap reliever who exceeds expectation, teams are
trying to find that diamond in the rough. And that year, Beane did it
better than just about everyone else. Rich teams have grown
smarter since then, but the core concept of Moneyball hasnt
changed: something for almost nothing. But dont count on it

Ramblings and Grumblings On Moneyball and Parity in Baseball

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramblings and Grumblings On Moneyball and Parity in Baseball

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramblings and Grumblings On Moneyball and Parity in Baseball

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramblings and Grumblings on Moneyball and

years of losing, pick compiling, or having some of the best contracts

You might also like