View Single Post
03-04-2013, 07:10 AM
Joe Canadian
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: St. John's, NL, CAN
Country: Canada
Posts: 162
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Man Bear Pig View Post
Nuff' said
No. There's a lot more to be said about the 2004 Red Sox than that list of high payed players, especially when Nomar only played 38 games for the Red Sox that year before being traded to the Cubs. And that Nixon only played 48 regular season games, meanwhile a player like Bellhorn was a big contributer and getting payed $490,000. You're simplifying their approach that year to just "spending money", which categorically isn't true. You've decided to define Moneyball as just the exploitation of market inefficiencies, that's cool. I tend to think the book and that term describe something bigger than that, but if you want to define it like that cool.

The problem lies with how Burke was using the term. It appears, given the context of the other quotes, that he was using it as a stand-in for Sabremetrics. And even if you personally discount the 2004 Red Sox as merely a big spending team, you can't ignore how Sabremetrics has influenced every MLB franchise since Beane popularized it. That's the point. Teams do win using that approach, and it's used so much now that the market inefficiencies Beane explotited in the early years are gone because everyone else has realized how valuable those players are. Burke wasn't using Moneyball to describe exploiting market inefficiencies, he was using it to describe Sabremetrics... and clearly he is wrong.

Joe Canadian is offline   Reply With Quote