How the Nerds Finally Beat the Jocks

Michael Lewis' new book Moneyball is the story of how and why an extremely insulated and ossified culture -- Major League Baseball -- finally noticed and exploited a decades-old grassroots analytical renaissance pioneered by cranky outsiders like Bill James. James Surowiecki has an interesting (and rare) interview with James at Slate, and the valuable BaseballPrimer.com chews the fat with Lewis.

Comments

[Lefty]

Bum links, Matt.

Having listened to an NPR presentation by the author, though, it seems that Oakland places a lot more weight on on-base percentage instead of batting average and also go for the odd body shapes that the big time scouts don't like. They'll take pudgy guys that can really hit and field over the Greek gods that do the same but command huge salaries.

[Michael Stack]

BaseballPrimer link is busted, here is the interview:

http://www.baseballprimer.com/articles/david_brazeal_2003-06-10_0.shtml

[Michael Stack]

...and here is the Slate interview w/ Bill James:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084193/

I'd recommend to anyone who enjoys this topic to check out http://www.baseballprospectus.com.

[Matt Welch]

Ack! Try it now, should work. Must get used to this whole "blogging" thing.

[Luca Brasi]

OBP is far more important than batting average. OPS (on-base plus slugging) is another good, yet crude, measure of a hitter. I've been enjoying the baseball links that have been posted as of late, thanks.

[Curt Warner]

Excellent interview with Mr. James. It's great to see his ideas getting the respect and attention they deserve.

[Matt Welch]

I've always disliked OPS, myself. *Too* crude, adding those numbers as if they were equals. Plus, one hell of a geeky-ass name. I'm kind of a Runs Created purist when it comes to fancy new explain-everything stats.

[Luca Brasi]

What are your thoughts about win shares?
I agree about OPS being crude, but it is a quick way of evaluating a player. If you're really inot baseball and stats, etc, you might want to check out classic baseball that STATS runs off of ESPN's website.

[Curt Warner]

James disciple Rob Neyer has some interesting thoughts on OPS on espn.com. It would be logical to give more weight to OBP, since it is more important than slugging and is an actual percentage.

OPS is a good shorthand number.

[Matt Welch]

I loved Win Shares, crude as *they* undoubtedly are, because of the way it tackled the eternal riddle of measuring defense. There are too many random assumptions in it so far, but what a great conceptual start! As for my OPS hang-up; I just find it much, much, much more useful to look at the two root numbers, than their artificial combination. ".417 & .532" conjures up a much more specific and evocative image than .949. Also, it's not bad math.

[marc w.]

If OBP is so crucial, and Beane recognizes this, then why do the A's absolutely stink at getting on base?
Why would he bring in Chris Singleton, who was coming off a sub .300 OBP season (though he's done quite well)? Does this approach only apply to the draft and player development? Because it certainly doesn't seem to be much of a factor in their trades (with the possible exception of Hatteberg).
As far as OBP being more important than SLG., in general, I think that's true (I'm a fan of Ms, who take more advantage of OBP than anyone in the league). But I'd argue Oakland's success over the past few years has had much more to do with slugging than OBP - of course, their great pitching has been a factor too 🙂

[Sarantitis Joshua]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/25/2004 08:30:26
A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate.