View Single Post
09-11-2011, 01:28 PM
Fraction Jackson
Registered User
Fraction Jackson's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 962
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
The point wasn't to win the world series per se. It was to do the best they could with what they had to work with.

Teams that use(d) Sabremetrics had significantly lower cost/win than teams that didn't use them.

It may not mean a world series, but it might mean the difference between 80 wins and 60 wins and 80 wins puts more butts in the seats than 60 wins does.
This, this, this. It's massively missing the point to claim that Beane's ideas didn't work because the A's never won a World Series. The point was that the general idea (find players who are undervalued because of X/Y/Z and then build a team around those sorts of players; OBP was just what happened to be undervalued at the time) could allow small-market teams to play above their payroll. If anything, the Twins have done it better than the As have, but either way the system remains valid.

As to whether a similar strategy could be seen in the NHL, I'm sure the statistical tools are there to allow for that - things like Corsi and the various iterations of QualComp, GA/60 (instead of +/- which is worthless except in comparison to teammates) and so on...

However, that in turn misses the point also. Moneyball was designed to allow a small-market team to compete with opponents with 3-4x more money devoted to player payroll. That isn't really a thing that happens in the NHL now. There are small market teams still, but the difference in payroll in the salary cap era is much less significant. While the principles of Moneyball can still be applied in general (i.e. find what's undervalued and then pursue players who are good at that thing), it wouldn't have the same impact.

Fraction Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote