Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
It continues to amaze me how many people completely miss the fundamental premise of Moneyball. It's not just casual fans and blowhards who haven't actually read the book themselves. It's also analysts and journalists employed full-time in the baseball industry.

I thought I'd open up a discussion on the topic with the Batter's Box roster. Here's what we said:


Jonny:

Contrary to popular misconception, Moneyball (the concept):

- is not about emphasizing offence over defence.
- is not about drafting college players over high school players.
- is not about OBP to the exclusion of all other stats.
- is not about stats to the exclusion of scouting.

All of these were discussed in Moneyball (the book), because these were the things that made sense for a low-budget team to do given the market conditions at the time. What is Moneyball really about?

It's about exploiting inefficiencies in the market.
It's about collecting and using data as effectively as possible.
It's about questioning traditionally accepted theories.
It's about quantifying and managing risk.

If "non-Moneyball" teams start jumping on the bandwagon, drafting college players and signing big slow mashers to play the middle infield, these strategies will no longer make sense for small-market clubs, as the market prices on these commodities will rise. At that point, you'll see the truly savvy teams head in different directions altogether.

Billy Beane and the A's already seem to be doing that to some degree. Last year, they fielded one of the very best defensive teams in the majors. In this year's draft, they selected high schoolers in the 4th, 9th, and 14th rounds after not having drafted a single prep player earlier than round 18 in the previous two drafts.

Further, it's no coincidence that the Blue Jays this year drafted a lot of players who played in:

a) The Big XII - focus of limited scouting resources
b) Division II - recognition that there would be more competition than in years past for Division I players
c) The Cape Cod League and other summer leagues - making use of better data (wooden bat leagues)


Craig B:

"Euclid's famous dictum that "there is no royal road to geometry" applies equally well to baseball. There is no one, guaranteed, approach to achieve success, neither on the field, nor on the balance sheet. Any team that depends on the same principles, plans, and approaches as the other teams will not be distinguishable from the other teams; the only way they will be able to gain success will be through luck. To achieve longterm and lasting success, a baseball team - like any enterprise - has to find its own ways to success. Both of the two most successful teams in major league history - the Yankees and the Dodgers - have been guided by "the Yankee way" and "the Dodger way". Billy Beane is finding his own way, an analytical approach to the "talent market", and others are following in his footsteps, and it's proving to be successful. In the end, though, that approach isn't driven by the details (like on-base percentage or drafting college players). It's only about exploiting inefficiencies in the talent market. The real message of Moneyball isn't "OBP", it's "Be The House"."


Gwyn:

A friend of mine is convinced that before 2002 Beane and DePodesta had decided that the all-hit no-field model needed changing and fed Lewis the whole OBP over everything thesis as a huge smokescreen/diversionary tactic. Yeah, I know it doesn't really bear any close scrutiny but it's a funny idea.


Moffatt:

Moneyball at it's core is a business book, and not a baseball book. It's one of those millions of books marketed towards MBA students on "How to improve your company and WIN!!!!".


Jordan:

What struck me about the book is how much it resembles some of the best work coming out of what I only half-jokingly call the Cult of Innovation. Among the leading professional advisors, Innovation is a byword: what are you doing new and differently than everyone else? What's your niche, your twist, your first-move advantage, that which you're doing differently and better than the rest of the market? Innovation is what really sets market leaders apart -- and more importantly, sets apart the deeply satisfied practitioner from the one who's slogging along, demoralized (they're quite often the same divisions).

Moneyball is also a book about courage, and that's a difficult subject about which to write well. Beane and DePodesta come off in the book as supremely confident in themselves -- not an iota of self-doubt creeps through -- which is not likely an entirely accurate picture. I mean, everyone second-guesses themselves, unless they're pathological. But when you're doing something completely different, something that all the Conventional Wisdom tells you is just wrong, when an entire industry is ready to come down on you, then all you have to fall back on is your belief in your own values and that what you're doing is right. That's courage, and I admire the hell out of it.


Robert:

Jonny is right about what Moneyball is about, but a few points...

1) Nobody that I know of puts slow mashers in the middle infield - the only one I know of right now is Jeff Kent and he's been a second baseman for a long time.

2) I don't think the Jays drafted a lot of division 2 players, relative to other teams. Drafting Division 2 is resource-intensive because the stats are not nearly as reliably adjusted for context as division 1.

3) The Jays seemingly do put a lot of weight on Cape Cod stats. It is based on the belief that a hitter's performance with a wooden bat is fundamentally different than his performance with an aluminum bat. This is the traditional wisdom. As far as I know, there's no evidence (yet) to support such a supposition and there is evindence to suggest that aluminum bat hitting in Division 1 is as good a predictor of minor league batting as other minor league batting is. In this case, a "Moneyball" approach would be to de-emphasize Cape Cod stats. After all they are a year old and a hitter's ability can change a lot in that year. 2004 Division 1 data is more recent and therefore ought to be a better indicator of current hitting ability.


Jonny:

"Big slow mashers" was an intentional exaggeration, but your other points are well taken and, as far as I'm concerned, a great case-in-point about misunderstanding Moneyball. It's not a concept easily pinned down by an outside observer pointing to a few details or impressions. The things that struck me as Moneyball type strategies from the Blue Jay front office may not have been at all.


Leigh:

'Moneyball' is about the exploitation of inefficiencies in the marketplace; it's about stockpiling a series of advantages of varying magnitude in order to gain an edge over those who do not know that the opportunity to gain those advantages exists - or as Beane via Lewis says, being the house'.

It is a philosophy of team building wherein the most valuable asset is the one which best combines on-field value and unpopularity. It is about acquiring what has the greatest contribution to cost ratio because nobody else may want it. It is not about espousing a blind, unyielding faith in on-base percentage, it is about maintaining an allegiance to the unsexy. What's sexy this year, stolen bases and batting average? I'll take Scott Hatteberg. Oh, good-hitting middle-infielders are sexy this year? I'll take Pokey Reese. Tattoos, wacky sideburns and Ricky-from-Trailer-Park-Boys look-alikes not sexy anymore? I'll take Justin Miller, Kerry Ligtenberg and Terry Adams.

It's about winning in the cheapest and least sexy manner possible.


Gerry:

The business book section of your local bookstore carries a line of books with Guerilla in the title. Examples include Guerilla Marketing, Guerilla Sales, and Guerilla Promotion. The basic premise is how to achieve results on a low budget. The Oakland A's practice Guerilla Baseball, how to succeed on a low budget.

Around ten years ago, IIRC, Bud Selig began delivering his "small clubs cannot compete" speech. Bud believed it, as did other owners such as Carl Pohlad [Twins], David Glass [Royals] and Jeffrey Loria [Expos]. They could see that the revenue differential with the big clubs was growing and they did not know how to compete. Some of them had fire sales, some went with "youth movements". Every few years they might spend some money on some second tier free agents, especially of they were hoping to land a new stadium, only to give up again when the team did not perform as expected. They could not see how to compete.

After Steve Schott purchased the Oakland organization he cut back on their budget. Oakland did not have the same resources as the Yankees or the Texas Rangers. Oakland recognized they could not compete using the same methodology as the big clubs. While Bud, Carl and Jeffrey cried for someone else to help them out of their problems, Oakland, led by Sandy Alderson, looked for a way to help themselves. They developed their own system, their approach to "Guerilla baseball".

Others have pointed out the market inefficiencies that Oakland are trying to exploit. Another aspect worth reviewing is risk management. We know today that using a first round draft choice to select a high school pitcher is a risky move. Also the cost to develop a high school player was much higher. You had him in your system for three extra years and he had to be protected on the 40 man rester sooner. High school players were riskier and more expensive. In some cases the return from a high school player was higher but the return needed to be evaluated in a risk/return framework.

The Guerilla teams recognized that starting pitching was the most rare commodity in baseball. Free agent starting pitchers were overvalued and unaffordable to the poorer clubs. If you wanted to compete you had to develop your own rotation.

Managing players call-ups to the major leagues so as to optimize their value to the organization is also a new trend.


Jonny:

Thanks for participating, everybody. What does the Box say?

Misunderstanding Moneyball | 48 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mike Green - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 10:51 AM EDT (#15878) #
What never ceases to amaze me is how unwilling major league baseball teams are in general to adopt new ideas. Cases in point:

1. serious biomechanical evaluation of pitchers has been practised by but a few teams,
2. players with non-classical physiques from Calvin Pickering to Jayce Tingler continue to be undervalued...

As for Moneyball, what is truly novel about it is not the openness to new ideas about the game (Branch Rickey certainly was more of a pioneer in this regard), but as the title hints at, a fuller understanding of the financial aspect of baseball decisions. Mark me down with those who find this to be an unfortunate but necessary part of managing a baseball team in the current environment.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT (#15879) #

2. players with non-classical physiques from Calvin Pickering to Jayce Tingler continue to be undervalued...

In the case of Pickering, his giant physique is an injury waiting to happen. When you're 6'5", 280, your knees and ankles tend to break down quickly. Then again, this is more of an argument against signing him to a long term deal than it is giving him a shot to hit MLB pitching. He's currently slugging around .800 in AAA with 23 HR. He deserves a shot somewhere. Time to start a free Calvin Pickering campaign?

In the case of Tingler, I'm not convinced he's going to have enough power to hit MLB pitching at all. See Tyner, Jason.

A better example of a non-classical physique being undervalued is Brant "titties" Colamarino.
Mike Green - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT (#15880) #
My point wasn't that Tingler will hit major league pitching, enough to have a regular job. He probably will not. On the other hand, with his defensive abilities, speed and ability to get on base, he's got a better chance to have a ML job of some kind than your average 10th round pick.

Tyner is not a great comp, save for the initials. He's 6'1", did not walk and get hit by pitches at anywhere near the rate that Tingler does, and hit for a better average in the minors. He hit .280 in a full season in the majors in 2001, but did not walk enough to be an effective player. I guarantee that if Tingler hits .280, he'll be very effective. Tyner was also a 1st round pick.

Sign me up for the free Calvin Pickering campaign. Maybe NFH can design a poster- Calvin behind bars, holding a bat, with a tray of Big Macs behind him or something.
robertdudek - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 11:30 AM EDT (#15881) #
Tyner has never shown the walking and HBP ability that Tingler has.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 11:49 AM EDT (#15882) #
How big is Tingler?

Even with the differences in size, speed, and patience, I think I've made my point. Players who show no power in the minors are pretty well guaranteed not to make it to the majors.

David Eckstein is the only "patience with no power" guy I can think of who has become a useful major league regular. And even he's looking downright mediocre these days.
Mike Green - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 12:06 PM EDT (#15883) #
Tingler's 5'8" tall and 150 lbs. There have been many slap hitting petite major league OFs from Luis Polonia to Matty Alou to Roy Thomas to Richie Ashburn. I'm not saying that he will hit in the majors, but just that he was an excellent 10th round selection.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#15884) #

Tingler's 5'8" tall and 150 lbs. There have been many slap hitting petite major league OFs from Luis Polonia to Matty Alou to Roy Thomas to Richie Ashburn. I'm not saying that he will hit in the majors, but just that he was an excellent 10th round selection.

I kinda disagree with you there Mike. I would much rather draft someone more power and strength. Someone like Christian Snavely (7th round, 2003) or Ryan Roberts (18th round, 2003) has a far greater chance of making an impact than Tingler.

FWIW, at 5'10", 190, Ryan Roberts is also "undersized". But at least he hits the ball over the fence now and again...
_Nigel - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT (#15885) #
I agree conceptually with Jacko on the need for some power to make the majors (its my major concern with Adams as a prospect). However, there is a niche for high OBP no power players. Take Brett Butler for example (I'm not suggesting that Tingler will be anywhere near the player that Butler was). Butler had a career SLG of .376 - well below league average SLG for his career (although he did play in some tough parks in his career - the old Municipal Stadium in CLE; Candlestick in SF and Chavez Ravine in LA). A few things are key to his performance, in addition to his ability to walk and get HBP:

a) he hit .290 for his career so his poor isolated power numbers were masked to some extent;

b) he stole 558 bases (regardless of what you feel about the value of the SB this was important to him as a prototypical "leadoff hitter");

c) he played CF and was generally regarded as an above average (at least early in his career) defensive player.

For Tingler the keys would seem to be: get the average up to around .300 and be able to play a strong CF. That gives him a shot at least.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#15886) #

I agree conceptually with Jacko on the need for some power to make the majors (its my major concern with Adams as a prospect).

Clealry, Adams has a lot more power than Tingler. Add in some patience and a reasonable batting average, and there's no question he's going to make the majors.

A more interesting question is was he a good first round pick? I keep hear J.P. talk about how Adams and Hill play at a "premium position", but that doesn't matter all that much to me if they end up being mediocre hitters.

One of the guys passed over for Aaron Hill in 2003 Conor Jackson (he was picked by Arizona, and converted from 3B to OF). Early returns are pretty good -- he looks like he's going to be power hitting stud. I'm not sure if the same can be said for Aaron Hill (though he's managed to improve his numbers significantly since I last looked at him). I say all this fully aware that Aaron Hill is playing a full level higher than Jackson, and Jackson plays in one of the best hitting parks in the minors.

That's the kind of thing I think teams should be looking for with their first round picks, when selecting position players. Potentially dominant hitters, regardless of what position they play. You can fill in the blanks at SS and 2B later in the draft.

Finally, let me add that I will be delighted if I am completely wrong about this, and Hill turns out to be a great player.
_Jordan - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#15887) #
Tingler's no Howie Clark, I'll tell you that. :-)

One of my favourite lines about competition -- and perhaps sadly, this came from a fantasy baseball column -- is this: "There are two kinds of people: those who finish in the money, and those in whose money they're finishing. Make it a point never to be in the second group." That kind of sums up Moneyball to me: deciding that and how you're going to always be in a position to win.
robertdudek - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:40 PM EDT (#15888) #
Generalities don't cut it.

Tingler has 28 extra base hits in 464 career minor league ABs. That's not no power - that's very little power.

He's skipped over two levels and has been able to put up a .381 OBP in a pitcher's league this season. He's also walked 87 times and struck out 27 times and been hit by 17 pitches in his career so far. Why don't you try to find out how many guys with that kind of K/W ratio made it to the majors?

Ever heard of John Cangelosi? Cangelosi (listed at 5'8", 160) averaged 1 extra-base hit every 20 ABs and yet managed to play over 1000 major league games. That's the guy I think Tingler will be if all goes well. Of course the odds are against him, but to say that a guy with that kind of strikezone judgment positively can not make it to the majors is stupid.

There's nothing I can think of that suggests Tingler isn't capable of putting up a .350 OBP in the majors if he works his ass off and stays healthy. I don't care how little power you have, a .350 OBP off the bench is a useful thing.
robertdudek - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:45 PM EDT (#15889) #
Jordan is right - Howie Clark hasn't got Tingler's strikezone judgment.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 01:51 PM EDT (#15890) #

Ever heard of John Cangelosi? Cangelosi (listed at 5'8", 160) averaged 1 extra-base hit every 20 ABs and yet managed to play over 1000 major league games. That's the guy I think Tingler will be if all goes well. Of course the odds are against him, but to say that a guy with that kind of strikezone judgment positively can not make it to the majors is stupid.

There's nothing I can think of that suggests Tingler isn't capable of putting up a .350 OBP in the majors if he works his ass off and stays healthy. I don't care how little power you have, a .350 OBP off the bench is a useful thing.

Sheesh, take it easy Robert.

I can revise my language if you like -- sure, Tingler has a remote possibility of turning into John Cangelosi.

If that's his upside, then he was _definitely_ a waste of a 10th round pick. Do you really think it's a good idea to use the draft to get your hands on easily replaceable fringe players?
_Four Seamer - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:07 PM EDT (#15891) #
John Cangelosi very definitely had his limitations as a ballplayer, but to describe him as an easily replaceable fringe player is an enormous injustice.

I think you're placing too high a value on your average 10th round pick. If you can get 1000 major league games out of a 10th round pick, you're doing very well.
Mike Green - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:11 PM EDT (#15892) #
http://www.sports-wired.com/draft/1994/JuneR/d10.shtml
The great, great majority of 10th round picks never make it to the Show. John Cangelosi would have made a very fine 10th round pick. COMN for the 10th round of the 1994 draft to get a flavor of who gets picked and what they did later.

And, I don't agree that John Cangelosi is Tingler's ceiling; it is a reasonably achievable target for him.
_Rich - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT (#15893) #
Great conversation, guys. In some ways, I thought the follow-up article in SI by Lewis was even more interesting than the book.

Is baseball really as opposed to innovation as Lewis claims? The fact that Beane is singled out for criticism so much more frequently than his counterparts who follow many of the same strategies suggests that people like Pat Gillick object to the book itself rather than the type of team-building strategies described therein. (I don't frankly see what the big deal is about the book that would make Gillick and Joe Morgan so offended in the first place, but that's another question.)
_MatO - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:19 PM EDT (#15894) #
For anyone who wants to know the value of draft picks they should check-out the Baseball Cube (promoted on a thread a couple of weeks ago). It has all the drafts going back to 1965. It's a good year if half the first round picks have a significant contribution in the majors never mind the rounds after the first. The fact is that the vast majority of players have no upside. If a 10th round choice reaches the majors it's a wondrous thing. If Russ Adams has a prolonged ML career then it was a heck of a pick.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#15895) #

John Cangelosi very definitely had his limitations as a ballplayer, but to describe him as an easily replaceable fringe player is an enormous injustice.

Once again, I'll try to remember to tone down my language :)

But I think your use of the term "enormous injustice" is supreme hyperbole.

Cangelosi played exactly one season as a regular, and then became a backup. He was traded twice for players of little consequence, and ended up playing part-time for six different teams. He was a nice little player, but _any_ team that wanted his services could have had them (and at bargain basement prices, I might add).

There's no point in drafting players that bring that skillset to the table. They can be had for free on the open market.

So maybe not "easily replaceable" -- how about "easily obtainable". And I'm more than willing to exchange the term "fringe player" for "role player" if you find that less inflammatory :)
_alsiem - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:26 PM EDT (#15896) #
(I don't frankly see what the big deal is about the book that would make Gillick and Joe Morgan so offended in the first place, but that's another question.)

I think the big problem is that the book aggrandizes Billy Beane. Beane the hyper-intelligent, dashing, ball of energy that effortless screws other GM's in trades. One conversation with Minanya from the Expos, is depicted as Beane stealing candy from a slow child. Is that how it really went down, probably not but Lewis is trying to sell a book. Books need clear winners and losers.

I understand that Lewis is doing a follow up book. If Beane is actively involved then he is more an egomaniac than an intelligent GM. Regardless of whether the criticism is justified, you job is harder if people don't like you.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#15897) #

Is baseball really as opposed to innovation as Lewis claims? The fact that Beane is singled out for criticism so much more frequently than his counterparts who follow many of the same strategies suggests that people like Pat Gillick object to the book itself rather than the type of team-building strategies described therein. (I don't frankly see what the big deal is about the book that would make Gillick and Joe Morgan so offended in the first place, but that's another question.)

Gillick should first read the book before passing judgement on it.

Did Morgan actually read it? He's the guy who kept claiming that Billy Beane wrote it...

I think that Lewis was more annoyed with the media than he was with major league management. I thought his "women's auxillary" comment in the SI article was hilarious. And it's not just "baseball outsiders" like Lewis who get shown the door by the women's auxillary. Ask any prominent web-based baseball writers how they are treated by the traditional print media -- It's mostly with contempt.
_Gwyn - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#15898) #
I think Lewis' follow up book is more about following the careers of the players from the 'Moneyball draft'
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#15899) #

The great, great majority of 10th round picks never make it to the Show. John Cangelosi would have made a very fine 10th round pick. COMN for the 10th round of the 1994 draft to get a flavor of who gets picked and what they did later.

And, I don't agree that John Cangelosi is Tingler's ceiling; it is a reasonably achievable target for him.

Thanks for the cube link Mike -- very cool!

I agree that the 10th round is a total crapshoot. I'd still prefer to go after someone like Adam Piatt than Tingler.

Maybe it's just a matter of taste.

Schmooth clean taschte. Cheersch.
_Rich - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#15900) #
I think the big problem is that the book aggrandizes Billy Beane.

True, but as I think Joe Morgan STILL does not know, Beane didn't write it. Lewis says in SI that he thought Beane himself wasn't too thrilled about how he was portrayed in parts. Moneyball shows that Beane is good at making deals and getting the players he wants, but it does omit that he also gives up value as well. Again, if someone objects to the omission, the onus is on Lewis, not Beane.
_Four Seamer - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT (#15901) #
Perhaps in retrospect my reaction to your description of Cangelosi as an enormous injustice was a tad hyperbolic. But my point remains that he was a solid, if unspectacular, major leaguer for a long time.

There's no point in drafting players that bring that skillset to the table. They can be had for free on the open market.

But if they could be had for free, do you really think the Blue Jays would ever have been reduced to playing Dave Berg and Howie Clark in the outfield this year, not to mention some of the other illustrious fourth and fifth outfielders we've seen in recent years?

The fact is that even a major league player has to be given a shot by somebody, somewhere, before he can make it to the bigs. In my view, there's nothing wrong with using a tenth-round pick on such a player. In fact, as MatO and Mike Green have said, it would be a real steal.
_Eric - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:11 PM EDT (#15902) #
So maybe not "easily replaceable" -- how about "easily obtainable".

Not so much now. The market for OBP is pretty different now compared to many of Cangelosi's years.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:11 PM EDT (#15903) #

The fact is that even a major league player has to be given a shot by somebody, somewhere, before he can make it to the bigs. In my view, there's nothing wrong with using a tenth-round pick on such a player. In fact, as MatO and Mike Green have said, it would be a real steal.

A skilled organization like Toronto should be able to unearth Tingler-like gems throught use of the the Rule 5 draft and judicious free agent signings. David Eckstein was not drafted by Anaheim, he was claimed off waivers when Boston dropped him from their 40-man roster.

But if they could be had for free, do you really think the Blue Jays would ever have been reduced to playing Dave Berg and Howie Clark in the outfield this year, not to mention some of the other illustrious fourth and fifth outfielders we've seen in recent years?

Ok, the outfield has been pretty abysmal on many nights in 2004. The minor league free agents and NRI's that JP signed did not provide any depth when the Jays needed it. It's as big a crapshoot as the amateur draft. If the Jays were lucky enough to sign Ruben Mateo or Marcus Thames this year instead of Chad Hermansen, we wouldn't be complaining about our awful outfied replacement players.

However, Berg and Clark are the same class of role player that (I believe) Tingler is destined to become. Berg was actually decent until he forgot how to hit this year. Maybe it's related to his vertigo problems. If Berg manages to get over whatever is ailing him this year and play for a few more seasons, he's going to end up with a very similar career value to Cangelosi:

Berg: 1498 AB, 266/329/368, 179 RC, 87 OPS+
Cangelosi: 2004 AB, 250/370/319, 235 RC, 91 OPS+

The late rounds of the draft are a total crapshoot. I'd prefer to use those lottery tickets on a more complete (i.e. higher ceiling) package than Jayce Tingler.
_Nigel - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#15904) #
Jacko - I don't mean to be compative when I say this because I agree that its a matter of taste - but I would actually lean towards the Tingler type in the 10th round. Generally speaking, I don't think that a 10th round pick is going to have a good all round package and have higher upside. If they did, they probably went higher. I'd be interested in picks that had a skill (particularly one as valuable as getting on base) that was freakishly good (and almost certainly major league). Clearly those picks are going to be flawed in other areas (being available in the 10th round) but I'd role the dice that the superior skill might package well with the flaws. It's an interesting debate though.

By the way when I say freakish, I mean it with Tingler. His strike zone control is otherwordly. I don't know if, by itself, its enough to succeed but he sure isn't your typical prospect.
_Nigel - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:21 PM EDT (#15905) #
Let's try "combative" not "compative" !
_Keith Talent - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:23 PM EDT (#15906) #
http://journals.jevon.org/users/keith_talent
How about Moneyball as dramatic non-fiction?

Michael Lewis uses poetic license to make a better book, how much fun did we have reading about:

-how Beane never watches the A's play. I've seen Beane 3 times on TV, all three times he was watching the A's play with his bud JP.

-the wacky trade for Ricardo Rincon from Indians to A's hours before those two teams were to play, with Beane trying to be *happy* with Rincon on the phone. Rincon being confused and trying to go home, Beaney, with arm around Rincon, turning him towards the A's clubhouse.

-the shock of seeing Chad Bradford pitch for the first time.

The truth can be better than fiction. But it takes a writer with great imagination to spin the Moneyball tale the way Lewis does. I'm expecting 'Chasing Steinbrenner' in the mail any day now. We'll see how that stacks up.
Thomas - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 04:36 PM EDT (#15907) #
Interestingly, thinking back to the playoffs. I have never seen Beane on TV in a playoff game. Granted they may not show GMs in the first round games, but I recall seeing Steinbrenner, Beinfest, Hendry and Epstein on TV last year in the ALCS/NLCS and playoffs. Maybe Beane just doesn't watch Oakland's playoff games/very tight games. It seems only natural for him to watch games with his good friend JP, and you'd think that if this was some complete fabrication then Gammons or someone else would have said, "I've seen Beane in playoffs watching the A's lots of times."

I think Tingler was a good 10th round pick. I see Jack's point, and I agree that some of your lower picks should be used on high-risk, high-reward players, but I think that's he's underestimating the avialability of these players and the degree to which Tingler's patience stands out, especially if he can play CF (which I believe he can aquately, at least). If this sort of player with an extremely noticable skill in one area is still available in round 10, and your team believes he is not a crapshoot, but is instead a very good bet to become a good reserve player in the major leagues, then I believe it's wise to select him. Selecting 15 Jason Tyner's is not a good thing, but to turn to a blind eye to Tingler because you have a 1 in 15 chance of selecting Wes Helms or Adam Piatt is not a good policy, either.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:08 PM EDT (#15908) #

Let's try "combative" not "compative" !

No worries Nigel :)

Same goes for my comments in this thread. I'm far more convinced of Tingler's value than I was when this discussion began.

Generally speaking, I don't think that a 10th round pick is going to have a good all round package and have higher upside.

Yep, this is true.

For the same reason, you can't find any AAA shortstops who can both field _and_ hit. If they could, they would be in the majors.
_Nigel - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#15909) #
You might say the same thing about Toronto's current middle infielders :)
_Mick - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:18 PM EDT (#15910) #
If the Jays were lucky enough to sign Ruben Mateo

If Doug Melvin is reading this ... unlikely, true ... he just winced big-time. If the trade talks were accurate back in the day, the Rangers refused to deal Mateo and Rick Helling to the Jays for Clemens because Ruben was The Future.

That didn't work out so well, and seeing R-Mat's name on a Jays board would be cringe-inducing. Mateo was politely booed at The Ballpark this weekend.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:26 PM EDT (#15911) #

That didn't work out so well, and seeing R-Mat's name on a Jays board would be cringe-inducing. Mateo was politely booed at The Ballpark this weekend.

He's got the "failed prospect" label on him now, but he did hit the tar out of the ball in Nashville for 6 weeks this year, which got him a promotion. Something that Chad Hermansen did not manage to do.

Speaking of which, is Hermansen hurt?
Craig B - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 06:34 PM EDT (#15912) #
Do you really think it's a good idea to use the draft to get your hands on easily replaceable fringe players?

It's quite possible that Tingler will develop more power as he ages, like many players do.

Remember, a player could have zero power, I mean zero, and hit all singles, and still be a valuable player, if (say) he hit .300 with a .400 OBP. The problem is that that won't happen anymore; everyone will throw him strikes so those walks disappeared.

The 10th round of the draft is a good place to take a chance on guys. Tingler exemplifies such a player; he's a good centerfielder (or was in college), very reliable with the glove, and a master bunter, and can steal bases. If he can develop enough power to hit five balls a year over the fence and fifteen to the wall, he has a shot at being Brett Butler. That's his max upside, but it's a higher upside than pretty much anything left by the time you're at the 300th pick of the draft.

If Tingler makes the big leagues for one season as a fifth outfielder/defensive replacement/pinch runner/pinch-leadoff-hitter (doubtful for any 10th-round pick, but certainly possible) he'll have handsomely repaid the Jays for the "wasted" 10th-round pick and $1,000 bonus. If he doesn't, and instead just provides the paying fans in Charleston, Dunedin, New Hampshire, and Syracuse with some entertainment and a guy they'll all root for like crazy, it still will have been worth it.
robertdudek - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT (#15913) #
There's no point in drafting players that bring that skillset to the table. They can be had for free on the open market.

Not really. A guy with very good to great on-base skills and good defence is worth at least a million, maybe two a year even if he has limited power. If you don't believe that, think about how much J.P. paid Berg, a far inferior player to Cangelosi.

Drafting a guy like that means you can pay him about a 1.2 million for 3 years work.

What you don't seem to understand is that a high OBP guy of any sort (slugging or non-slugging) is a fairly rare commodity. Try searching for major leaguers who played at least 500 games and had an OBP over .040 better than league average. You won't find all that many, and many of those you do will have been considered all-stars.
robertdudek - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 07:51 PM EDT (#15914) #
BTW, we've outlawed OPS at this board. I recommend you use GPA [1.8*OBP+SLG)/4]. You can recalculate Berg and Cangelosi's numbers using GPA - it will be interesting.
_Jacko - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 10:11 PM EDT (#15915) #

What you don't seem to understand is that a high OBP guy of any sort (slugging or non-slugging) is a fairly rare commodity. Try searching for major leaguers who played at least 500 games and had an OBP over .040 better than league average. You won't find all that many, and many of those you do will have been considered all-stars

The statistic I'm more interested in is how frequently an above average OBP occurs with a below average SLG. I can try playing with the Lahman database to answer this question if/when I get some time, but my gut tells me that guys like Cangelosi are pretty rare animals. Which is why I think someone like Tingler is a poor bet to be successful in the majors.
robertdudek - Friday, June 11 2004 @ 11:11 PM EDT (#15916) #
If I have this straight, your reasoning is as follows: Player A is rare; player A suceeded; player B is like player A; therefore player B has little chance of success.

Yes Cangelosi was rare - and if you look at the population of college hitters last year, you'll find that Tingler is pretty rare. If you look at the population of minor league hitters in A ball and below, you'll also find that Tingler is rare.

So we've established that both Cangelosi and Tingler are rare.

My reasoning would be:

Player A is rare; player B is rare; player A succeeded; player B is like player A; therefore, player B has a reasonable chance of success.
_Jacko - Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 09:36 AM EDT (#15917) #

Yes Cangelosi was rare - and if you look at the population of college hitters last year, you'll find that Tingler is pretty rare. If you look at the population of minor league hitters in A ball and below, you'll also find that Tingler is rare.

That's what I was hinting at -- how many guys from minors/college with the Tingler/Cangelosi profile get to the majors and are successful. If what you say is true, then Tingler has a better shot that I thought.

I was under the impression that low power OBP freaks are more common in college and the low minors.
robertdudek - Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT (#15918) #
The thing about Tingler is that his W/K ratio is not just good - it's off the charts, both in college and in the minors. Not even the best college hitters have W/K that good. That's why I think he has a shot.
_NDG - Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 10:08 AM EDT (#15919) #
I know it's not a great comp, but like you said Robert, Tingler is a rare breed. COMN for Marcos Scutaro minor league stats, and you'll see someone who hits for a decent average and has a good walk rate (at least in 2000, 2001, and 2003). He obviously differs from Tingler in that Scutaro strikes out a lot more, but has a bit more power as well. Notice Scutaro's inability to walk at the Major league level (just 22 in 310 PA) despite showing that ability in the minors, and presently being employed the A's. I think this is a very realistic worry for Tingler if he doesn't put some 'fear' into the opposing team.
_NDG - Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 10:09 AM EDT (#15920) #
Wow Dudek, you had a rebuttal up before I finished my post ... stop stealing my thoughts!
robertdudek - Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 10:47 AM EDT (#15921) #
If a guy never strikes out and hits a lot of linedrives, he's going to hit .300. That's because the average on balls in play in the majors is about .270 to .290. The key for Tingler will be if he can make regular solid contact (even if they are only singles) as he moves up the ladder.

And if he does he'll get his fair share of walks - if a pitcher knows that a guy is a .300 singles hitter he's not going to groove pitches with men on base. When there are guys in scoring position, singles are very valuable.

Guys like Cangelosi and Butler, despite having very little power, always drew a lot of walks. The game hasn't changed enough to make such a player an impossibility. It will be interesting to see Tingler in person at some point over the next few years. The ability to foul off two-strike pitches is potentially a very important weapon. And if Tingler is good at that (which I suspect he is) he's going to drive pitchers crazy with 8 or 9 pitch ABs.
robertdudek - Saturday, June 12 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT (#15922) #
The Top Ten in park-adjusted walk-to-strikeout ratio, 2003 Division 1 (100PA+)

Missouri         Jayce Tingler   5.60 
Toledo Mitch Maier 3.49
Wright State Chris Tuttle 3.14
Arkansas State Matt Rogelstad 3.08
Campbell Sal Deanda 2.96
Oklahoma Eddie Cornejo 2.82
Arizona State Dustin Pedroia 2.81
Tulane Michael Aubrey 2.73
Texas Southern Aulston Taylor 2.71
St. Francis Anthony Giudice 2.68


Only four of these guys played in one of the elite conferences (Tingler, Cornejo, Pedroia and Aubrey). Aaron Hill was #20 on this list (Rickie Weeks #16, Conor Jackson #19, Stephen Drew #25).

Despite the lack of power, Tingler ranked #45 overall as a hitter in Division 1 in 2003.
_Neil Paine - Saturday, August 07 2004 @ 10:04 PM EDT (#15923) #
While a blind, unyielding devotion to on-base average alone is not the core principle of Moneyball, why should a "devotion to the unsexy", or any other pseudo-philosophical statement be the chief lesson learned from Lewis either? I don't care if you are the Yankees or the Twins, the Braves or the A's, what is the primary goal of a baseball offense? To not make outs, whether it be at the plate, on the basepaths, etc. Making an out is essentially the cardinal sin of baseball offenses. So, and this may be repeating the obvious, what stat measures this? OBP. It was undervalued, true (so Oakland could afford it), but why should small-market teams need to get on base any more than large-market teams? The Red Sox employ a similar emphasis on OBP (Nixon, Mueller, and Ramirez are good examples... and of course there's Youkilis), and they boast one of the highest payrolls in baseball. Winning cheap and ugly is the primary economic lesson to be learned from Moneyball, but the greatest baseball wisdom to glean from the book is that an offense centered around some combination of OBP and Slugging (OBP being weighted more) will score more runs and thus be more successful than one that emphasizes, say, batting average and stolen bases. So Beane's approach was not, as some may suggest, about being different, but instead about exploiting baseball's traditional view of how runs are scored.
Misunderstanding Moneyball | 48 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.