View Single Post
04-24-2009, 11:06 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 111
vCash: 500
I agree that hockey isn't as easily statistically modeled as baseball but I don't think that the fundamental argument of Moneyball is in stats. Rather, the book is about finding undervalued assets.

If you look at the method used by Billy Beane in Moneyball, you'll see that most teams have adapted similar methods with great success and now it's all over the league so the strategy is no longer as effective. If you look at the Oakland A's roster this year though, you'll find that they have a lot of players with proven track records (Giambi, Garciappara, Chavez) but have been discounted by other teams because of their injury histories so the philosophy is still the same, just the method is different. That said, the A's are in last place in their division so maybe that method isn't very effective.

I think hockey is more comparable to football in that a player's effectiveness is somewhat dependent on the type of system they play in. Teams like the Colts and Patriots always seem to find impact players despite picking late in the draft while perennial losers like the Lions have a decade worth of busts despite picking in the top 10 almost every year.

TheRumble is offline   Reply With Quote