SouthBronxBombers wrote:Moneyball works great when you have the payroll to go out and get a Schilling, a Manny, a Cabrerra, a Foulke, a Pedro et al. The Red Sox did not win with the moneyball concept, they won by buying studs. Moneyball has won nothing. The Twins have been just as good as the A's, the Braves have been a lot better, the Twins are in the same payroll range and the Braves limit their payroll as well. The A's caught lightning in a bottle with the three aces on the mound, and it got them what? A first round exit in the playoffs, no reall draw at the park and pretty much nothing. Moneyball is a theory, which has proven out nothing.
People throw around the term "Moneyball" as meaning "Acquire OBP guys, don't worry about fielding, don't steal bases, draft college players." They look at the Scott Hatterbergs and Chad Bradford examples and think: "That is a 'Moneyball' player and those players aren't winning championships."
To me, this is the cliff notes version. It is completely missing the point of the book and the "theory" behind it. What Moneyball preaches, at the heart of it, is "Don't waste your money." Whether your a small market or large market team, you can STILL institue the Moneyball strategy throughout your team.
The poster points at the Braves as an example for a team winning without using the Moneyball strategy, while limiting their payroll. Well, it seems that the poster has just contradicted himself. The Braves have been able to limit their payroll, at the bequest of Time Warner, by USING the Moneyball approach.
Look at their OF this year: Raul Mondesi and Brian Jordan. Whether or not they succeed this year, these two players were clearly undervalued before the year. The Braves, rather than force one of their top prospects (Francoer or Marte) to make a jump they might struggle with, went the cheap route and brought in two undervalued vets. Why get one of your top prospects a year closer to free agency while enduring a year of likely struggles? This is a Moneyball approach to the game.
This is a small example, but my point is that I agree with AcidRocks post. Almost every team these days is making some sort of effort to stop with the monstrous contracts that can ruin a franchise. THe effects of Moneyball can be seen on nearly every team. Just because a team doesn't fit EXACTLY into the mold of the A's of the early 2000's, does not mean that they aren't now heavily influenced by what the A's were able to accomplish by taking a closer look at their expenses. It also doesn't mean that teams were completely oblivious to this notion until Moneyball was written. The A's just provided a wonderful example of exactly how drastic one CAN be in saving money in MLB while still fielding a successfull team on the field.