Beane Right On The “Money”

For weeks, everywhere I went, people were asking me if I had read the book “Moneyball” written by Michael Lewis. I finally purchased it and devoured it. This book goes a long way to explain how the Oakland A’s, on such a low budget, have been able to compete and win against the supposed best teams in baseball with the highest payrolls.
 
There has almost been a mystique about A’s general manager Billy Beane and his practice of using unconventional stats to rate players and make player personnel decisions. Most everyone inside baseball knows that Oakland values offense, and that they really value on-base percentage. Other than that, Beane has left others guessing as to the statistics he uses to make decisions. This book has offered some insight into that process that has led to the favorable outcome of fielding a contending team with a small budget.
 
“Moneyball” is full of evidence that the usual statistics that are used to rate player efficiency may not be the most valid and that many of the traditional moves made during a game, like bunting and stealing bases, may not lead to the most runs.
 
That information alone should give people inside the game new objective criteria to use in personnel decisions and in strategy decisions during games. Even more importantly, it gives low budget teams another tool or strategy to compete against teams that can bankroll the players they want.
 
However, this book is much more valuable than just giving baseball more statistics to consider. Baseball has always been driven by analysis of statistics and numbers. Now there is a new wave of statistics coming into play. Lewis quotes Bill James, baseball’s leading analyst, as he gives this caution, “I wonder if we haven’t become so numbed by all these numbers that we are no longer capable of truly assimilating any knowledge which might result from them.” For me, “Moneyball” gave more knowledge and insight between the lines than it did in print.
 
Two of the players Lewis singled out were infielder Scott Hatteberg and pitcher Chad Bradford. By telling them that the way they went about their job producing the statistics they did was highly valued in their organization, the Oakland A’s were telling both these players they believed in them and highly valued them.
 
Having someone believe in you and value your contribution is a powerful force for anyone to be encouraged to perform at his best and to succeed.
 
It is so easy, especially in baseball, to stress the things a person can’t do over the things a person can do. Lewis states that “Not once in [Hatteberg’s] ten years with the Red Sox did anyone in Boston suggest there was anything of value in his approach to hitting — in working the count, narrowing the strike zone, drawing walks, getting on base, in not making outs.” What is sad is that this can happen in any organization.
 
In 1976, the Cubs told me that the highest I would ever pitch again was Double-A, and they released me. Gene Mauch told me he liked the way I pitched and that he believed in me. I pitched nine more years in the big leagues, winning over 100 games.
 
One of the first things the players said about Tony Peña when he took over the Kansas City Royals was that he believed in them. As a team, they have made an amazing turnaround from a year ago.
 
So Beane has found a way through statistics to let players know he believes in them.
The second thing I gleaned was that Beane took the responsibility to tell the whole organization what attributes and statistics were valued. By doing that he gave every player a plan to succeed.
 
Ballplayers, whether they are in the minor leagues or the big leagues, have always wanted to know what was expected of them and what they need to do to move up or succeed. Beane, through statistics, has given a blueprint for players, managers, coaches, and scouts to follow. Everyone knows what is expected of them. That makes it much easier to formulate a plan to succeed.
 
Mike Scioscia took over the Anaheim Angels and let them know the type of baseball he expected. He fit the pieces together to play his brand of baseball, the players believed in it, and they won Anaheim’s first World Series last year.
 
For any organization to succeed, they need a clear consistent plan to follow from the Major Leagues down through their player development and their scouting. I believe that plan should come from the Major League manager, but Beane has made it work from the position of general manager and he has made it clear and concise by using statistics as the basis for measurement.
 
Finally, just putting money into payroll does not assure success. Last year the American League West finished in inverse order to their payrolls. Low budget teams like Oakland, Minnesota, Anaheim and, now, Kansas City, have found ways to succeed while big budget teams like the Mets, Dodgers and Orioles have struggled.
 
Another analyst highlighted in “Moneyball”, Voros McCracken gives some insight, “The problem with major league baseball is that it’s a self-populating institution. Knowledge is institutionalized. The people involved with baseball who aren’t players are ex-players. In their defense, their structure is not set up along corporate lines. They aren’t equipped to evaluate their own systems. They don’t have the mechanism to let in the good and get rid of the bad. They either keep everything or they get rid of everything, and they rarely do the latter.”
 
What he is saying is that you are either inside the institution of professional baseball or you are outside of it. Players become coaches and managers and then get moved from team to team. That is why innovation from the outside is so hard to implement. Even General Managers seem to move from team to team.
 
Beane dared to go outside the system using ideas put forward by an outsider like James and others. Now, because of his innovative success at Oakland, other teams have taken note. People that have been under Beane are now in place in other organizations. James, meanwhile, now works for the Red Sox.
 
With all this talk and emphasis on statistics, one would have to ask, is the key to winning solely wrapped up in the analysis of objective statistics? Hardly.
 
I decided to apply many of the stats Beane holds dear for pitchers to a list of the Top 10 winning pitchers in the American League. Jamie Moyer is on that list but he doesn’t score high applying Beane’s stats. “Moneyball” made a case that once a ball is put into play it is mainly luck as to whether it is hit hard or it is a hit or an out. I contend, subjectively, that Moyer continually makes quality pitches in pressure situations that lead to poorly hit balls and outs. He already has 15 wins, and I would venture to say that most clubs would welcome him to their staff.
 
“Moneyball” was entertaining and enlightening. If the material written and the implications between the lines help to cause positive innovation in organizations like Detroit, Tampa Bay, San Diego and Milwaukee, then all of baseball will profit. That would be great for the game.
 
Note: Since this article Beane’s A’s have remained in contention every year verifying that his system does work.
 
August 2003
By Geoff Zahn Former Head Baseball Coach University of Michigan and 12 Year Major League Veteran Pitcher