Moneyball
I thought I'd go dig out some quotes from Michael Lewis's book, especially from the chapter on the 2002 draft. Billy Beane desperately wanted Nick Swisher with the 16th pick, and was worried about other teams taking him first, especially the Mets, drafting one spot higher. Then he finds out the Mets might take Scott Kazmir.
"Scott Kazmir is yet another high school pitcher in whom the A's haven't the slightest interest. Billy's so excited he doesn't even bother to say how foolish it is to take a high school pitcher with a first round pick."
Drafting one spot after the A's, another team was foolish enough to waste a first round pick on a high school lefthander, and Cole Hamels went to Philadelphia.
Tomorrow, Kazmir and Hamels will face each other in the world series. Hamels will have to face another high schooler from that draft, Bossman Upton Jr. Of course, the A's didn't blow that draft, as their first rounders Nick Swisher and Joe Blanton have had major league value, though they eventually just became trade bait. Blanton will start game four of the world series.
The mocking tone Lewis uses for all the teams that fail to share the A's draft strategy does not pass the test of time though. There were many good players in that draft, and while the A's got two, they are nowhere near the best of the 2002 draft.
posted by Chone Smith @ 3:49 PM
23 comments
23 Comments:
You are right about this draft in specific, but that's not the point. The point was for Billy to show that there's a higher chance of turning a college hitter into an MLB regular than a high school pitcher. It's just ironic that the draft that was shown turned out to be one of the better high school turnouts in the first round, ever.
Chone, you seem to have completely missed the point of "Moneyball". Lewis and Beane are NOT saying their strategy is the best strategy that all teams need to adopt. They're saying that for teams like Oakland with limited resources, you need to make the highest-percentage picks you can - thus, no high school pitchers.
The Mets (and to a lesser extent, the Phillies) have the resources to take chances on low-percentage picks like that. If you also remember, the players that Beane selected were signed at much lower prices/bonuses than most of their similarly-drafted counterparts, because they simply weren't in that high of demand.
And just to put an exclamation point on it: on the very next page of Moneyball, you'll see that Kazmir signed with the Mets for $2.1 million -- almost as much more money as Beane had to spend on the entire draft.
Fat Jeremy Brown never really panned out (of course, most draft picks don't), but by any measure, the A's Moneyball draft was quite a success: Swisher, Blanton, and Teahen were all stars, and guys like Kiger and Colamarino (and even Brown) came pretty close.
If you can get three major league stars out of a draft, you're doing *damn* well. For comparison purposes: In 1999, the Baltimore Orioles had 7 picks in the top 50 -- an even better standing than the A's had in 2002. The O's then used the first six of those picks on Mike Paradis, Richard Stahl, Larry Bigbie, Keith Reed, Josh Cenate and Scott Rice, respectively. It wasn't until pick #50 (Brian Roberts) that the Orioles actually got a useful player.
So to put that in persepctive: the Orioles -- unencumbered by serious financial restraints -- passed SIX TIMES on the opportunity to draft Carl Crawford, Brandon Phillips, and Justin Morneau. They passed on Alex Rios, Willie Bloomquist, and Hank Blalock, and got nothing to show for it.
That's bad drafting.
I think the point is that just because there is a higher chance of turning a college hitter into an MLB regular than a high school pitcher, if your scouts are doing their job, they should be able to figure out which one is more likely, in any case.
I see this argument that there's a higher chance of turning a college hitter into an MLB regular than a high school pitcher to be similar to the joke about the lost quarter where the punch line is, "The light is better over here" but the quarter was lost off to the side in the dark. Just because there is a higher chance doesn't mean that your particular college hitter will be that one that is better, it is not like fishing in a barrel, the odds are still very low trying to find an MLB regular with a college player (it is just that a HS pitcher is that much less), that is why scouting is so important an input.
Plus, I think Baseball Prospectus' series of analysis of the draft found that the differential between college and HS players have shrunk over the years, particularly in recent years, negating that advantage for the most part.
But this was a pretty odd draft. 4 of the top 5 draft picks were busts, with only Upton doing well (and arguably not as well as other later picks). Still, there were very good players to be had in the next 10 picks, 6-15: Zack Greinke, Prince Fielder, Jeff Francis, Jeremy Hermida, Joe Sanders, Khalil Greene, and Scott Kazmir.
As noted, the A's passed on Cole Hamels to select Nick Swisher, but they also passed on James Loney, who I think can arguably be said to be better than Swisher going forward, younger, hits better so far.
In addition, one pick after the A's selected Joe Blanton, the Giants selected Matt Cain. I think it's very clear that Cain has been the much better value, even without considering that he was from high school and Blanton had a head start being from College.
In addition, I think it can be argued that Cain is better than any pick after Fielder, except for Hamels and perhaps Kazmir. A top of rotation pitcher is better than a slightly above average hitter any day.
The problem with some sabers is that they think that sabermetric by itself will solve all of baseball's problems, if only management would listen. It is a great irreplaceable tool - and I consider myself a saber - but scouting is just as important too, and just as irreplaceable. It will be the melding and integration of sabermetrics into the art that is scouting that will advance the state of the art of player prospect evaluation.
Too many sabers have the cocky attitude that they are way better than anyone else in baseball.
I think part of that is from imitation of Bill James, where imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Only, James has the talent to back up that cockiness, to walk the talk. His personality was what made many of us rush to the book store once we knew his book had been published. But there's only one Bill James.
Lastly, Swisher and Blanton were not cheaper. Swisher's bonus is within the range that could be expected, if anything it could be considered on the higher side, Russ Adams' bonus was in line with just ahead of him, Francis, Meyer, Saunders, yet Swisher got almost the same bonus as Adams a whole two picks later, and both were college position players.
Blanton too, got basically the bonus that draftees in that range got, looking at before and after.
I wouldn't exactly call Swisher, Blanton and Teahen stars. They're all big league starters. It's still very impressive to get three big league starters out of one draft, but calling them stars is pushing it a little, don't you think?
I don't see how you can call Swisher, Blanton or Teahen stars when they've had 5 good seasons between the 3 of them.
And Billy Beane had much more than $2.1 mil to spend on the entire draft. He spent about $1.7 mil on Swisher alone. I think Moneyball said he had something like $9.7 mil (which is still pretty shitty comparatively, but a lot more than $2.1 mil).
And the deal with high school pitchers in the first round was moreso the fact that their bonus demands were higher, since they needed convincing to forego college altogether. That, coupled with the higher risk of high school pitchers, made them unappealing with the A's.
"3 stars"? I can go for three MLB regulars as a damn good draft, but I would only consider Swisher a star, neither Blanton or Teahen are stars, unless the standards are being dropped. And Swisher, for me, would be borderline that.
And it was not just the Orioles who passed up on Crawford, Phillips, and Morneau six times, every other team passed them up as well. You can play that game with any MLB player drafted after the first round. Let's take Andre Ethier, an A's pick next year. They lucked into him because they first selected Bradley Sullivan, Brian Snyder, and Omar Quintanilla before picking Ethier with the 62nd pick overall.
I've seen some laud the A's for selecting Huston Street in the 2004 draft, but forget that they first selected Landon Powell, Richard Robnett, and Danny Putnam first, risking losing him with each of those, obviously worse, picks.
This is not to denigrate the A's selection processes, as every team has their own sequence of missed chances, but to demonstrate what I showed with a study of the draft - http://sfgiants.scout.com/2/343576.html - that I did 3 years ago, that once you get past the first 5 picks of the draft, the odds of finding a good MLB player drops precipitously and once you get to the last 10 picks of the first round, the probability has dropped to around 11%, or about 9-to-1 odds against you. And even the first five picks have not been slam dunks, the success rate there has been around 40-45%, not even coin-flip odds.
So as much as we would like to think that it is easy to find good MLB players in the draft, it is not easy because the talent is either not there or not easily projected 2,3,4 years hence. And it becomes pretty much a needle in the haystack beyond the first 2 or so rounds and isn't a trivial matter even in the first round, where the probability is already down to 11% in the 21-30th picks.
So boosting the odds by selecting a college hitter vs. a HS pitcher might mean, say, 13% probability versus 9% probability, sure, a much higher probability, nearly 50%, but still no slam dunk.
That's why I say scouting still is so important. It might not help you outdo other teams, but without good scouting, you definitely can be outdone by other teams.
About Kazmir's bonus (as well as Hamels') being higher than Swisher, I think part of it is as noted above, that they are high school players who could opt for college, but I think the argument could be made that they were possible because those teams had deeper pockets that the draftees' agents were able to get more out of.
If the A's somehow were able to draft Kazmir or Hamels with their Swisher pick, you cannot tell me that either would turn down a $1.78M bonus, which is only $370K less than Kazmir's bonus and $220K less than Hamels' bonus. They might not be happy, but I don't see anybody turning down that much money over a few hundred thousand dollars.
Beane's strategy works well for his team's need though. He needs his players to get to the majors quickly so he can win. Other teams have different needs, and can wait for players to develop over time
Debatable whether it worked or not, his farm system was crap until he traded away players who could have been part of the core to competing in the immediate future and he wasn't winning when he had them. And if nobody noticed, he used the Giants strategy the past few years, signing aging borderline good players as free agents to prop up the team.
People like the A's system now, but my question is: where are the stars? I see a lot of people who appear to be journeymen level producers, but you need some stars to get over the hump and be contenders. I see nice pieces but not really any stars. Perhaps they hope to sign one when they get their new park.
A few points:
1. I did overreach in calling Teahen and Blanton stars. (I think the jury may still be out on Blanton, but he's not a "star" yet). Fair point. Still, I don't think this changes my analysis of how the A's did in the 2002 draft, and that is: quite well, particularly for not having a pick above the 16th.
2. I agree that you can play the "hindsight draft" with any team, but I specifically looked at the 1999 Orioles because they had a situation that was so similar to the 2002 Moneyball A's, with seven of the top 50 picks. I don't think anyone can argue that the Orioles did much, much worse with their picks than the A's did with theirs.
3. You never know for certain, but multi-million-dollar contract disputes in every field of business can and do fall apart over sums as small as $200K. So I don't think it's a given that Kazmir would have accepted Swisher's bonus.
Wow. Thanks for all the comments, guys. The Moneyball subject still draws attention. If I want more readers I should reference it next time I write about baserunning or relative league strength in the 1950's.
First of all, any criticism I have is not so much directed at Beane, who I fully admit had a pretty good draft that year. It's Lewis's mocking tone that I mock. And it's the perfect time to do so, as the high school pitchers who sandwiched Swisher start the world series against each other.
I found the book entertaining, and mostly informative, but the smugness, the "look how dumb these guys are" that Lewis exudes was offputting. This is why there has been a such strong negative reaction to Moneyball in some circles, and why it is fun to mock Lewis in hindsight in situations like today's pitching matchup.
I did not miss any "point" in Moneyball. Lewis is not saying only that a low budget team cannot afford risky high school pitchers, he is making a blanket statement that taking such pitchers in the first round is foolish. His word, not mine. He uses the term even though it's the big market Mets taking Kazmir. I reject the idea that a small market team should not take risky picks anyway, they should take whoever is projected to provide the best return on investment. Every team should be willing to spend a bit more on a premium player if they get a chance anyway, as every team in baseball is wasting money somewhere, paying 4 million to a mediocre reliever or 3 million to a part time infielder or something.
"on the very next page of Moneyball, you'll see that Kazmir signed with the Mets for $2.1 million -- almost as much more money as Beane had to spend on the entire draft."
This is not true. Swisher got 1.7 mil and Blanton 1.4 The total draft was something like 9 million. If he thought Hamels (2 mil) was better than Swisher, and passed solely because of money, that was a bad decision. It is ridiculously easy to make up 300K on the major league budget and not affect your team by much at all.
Do you mean to claim that Kazmir or Hamels would have gotten the A's to the world series this year?
Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, but I'm not sure that Beane would have done any differently than he did. Have you seen the haul that Beane got for Swisher?
I have not claimed that any of these pitchers would have gotten the A's to the world series this year, or anything remotely like that. Where did you pull that comment from?
Swisher was a good pick. The guys picked right around him were good picks too. Lewis's theme of the A's being the only team that knew what they were doing is dead wrong.
Beane's organization has a type of player they target. Whether it is in a draft or in a trade with another organization. They have had pretty good results and it has led them to have far more competitive seasons with less budget than most major league teams. I like a lot of what was in Moneyball. When it came out I thought about mailing 1,000 copies to my beloved Royals' front office. (And I would have if I thought Baird could read). But I have to agree with Chone here. Lewis' tone was mocking and condescending. Though, it was also of someone that had just discovered something that he thought no one else knew. And for the record, in spite of Greinke, I'd be happy if the Royals never touched another High School pitcher. Because for every Zack Greinke, Scott Kazmir and Cole Hamels, there are about 10 Jim Pittsleys and Colt Griffins.
forex trading made ez -
get your exgirlfriend back -
google snatch -
governmentregistry -
government registry -
grow taller 4 idiots -
guy gets girl -
hcg recipes -
homemadeenergy -
home made energy -
how to break 80 -
hyper vre -
instant domain cash -
i software tv -
jamo rama acoustic -
linden method -
lose the back pain -
magni work -
maternityacupressure -
maternity acupressure -
musclegainingsecrets -
muscle gaining secrets -
negative calorie diet -
one minute cure -
one week marketing -
only 4 gamers -
paid surveys online -
panic away -
pc on point -
pc tv 4 me -
perfect optimizer -
phone number scan -
pick the gender of your bady -
power 4 home -
viral tweets -
warp speed fat loss -
webstigate -
win clear -
win spy -
worlds best compost -
xp repair pro -
yeast infection no more -
your approved -
500 love making tips -
acid alkaline diet -
advanced defrag -
amazing resume creator -
anti spyware -
art of approaching -
av advance -
banish tonsil stones -
bookmarking demon -
burnthefat -
burn the fat -
carb rotation diet -
catch spouse cheating -
cb affiliate blueprints -
combat the fat -
conversationalhypnosis -
conversational hypnosis -
cure angular cheilitis -
directory of ezines -
dirty talking guide -
dish tv for pc -
dog training online -
domain sales machine -
driver robot -
earth4energy -
magnificent points altogether, you simply won a new reader. What could you suggest about your post that you made a few days in the past? Any certain? affordable car insurance
Recently i ran into your website and so are already reading along. I think I’d leave my first comment. I don’t understand what to share with the exception that I’ve enjoyed reading. Nice blog. For certain i will keep visiting your blog really often
I am fascinate to comment here.
Goodness, there's so much useful data here!
Your blog is very informative. It is very interesting and i have enjoyed reading it. Thank you for sharing your ideas. I’m happy i found what i am searching for.
Excellent site, keep up the good work my colleagues would love this.
Post a Comment
<< Home