View Single Post
03-03-2013, 02:45 PM
Joe Canadian
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: St. John's, NL, CAN
Country: Canada
Posts: 162
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Dr Quincy View Post
So the question is, did this team win the title because they used advanced stats to assemble a collection of players that the "eye" wouldn't have? Or were they a group, largely collected by the previous regime, who were big stars that ANY criteria would have said were good players?
The correct answer is a bit of both. Their large payroll makes little difference to whether or not they deployed Moneyball/Sabremetric methods in creating that team. But this back and forth argument over the definition of "Moneyball" is kind of missing the point of what Burke was saying. Advanced statistic analysis does help you win baseball games and championships. To some extent every MLB team now uses it. The market inefficiencies that Beane exploited in Oakland in the book are now gone, because all the other teams recognize the value in those players.

Burke seems to equate statistics in baseball with the success/failure of Oakland, not recognizing how the events in Oakland have shaped the game since. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Joe Canadian is offline   Reply With Quote