What the movie doesn't say: The Moneyball approach failed in the end

Actually, the ending notes on the movie before the credits roll suggest that the Red Sox won the series 2 years later operating on many of the same principles they used in Oakland.

Wouldn't that mean it worked at least in part?

•—•
Just because you SHOT Jesse James don't make you Jesse James.

The Moneyball approach is also used in soccer with statisticians looking at aspects of a footballers play. Of course the downside is that it is based on parameters of the stats that someone finds more interesting and valuable than other aspects of their game-play.

Its that man again!!

And the A's made the playoffs in 2013. They continue to outperform their payroll, which is the point. The fact that moneyball strategy was adopted by well financed teams is evidence that the theory is sound, and the A's continued success over well-funded clubs (the Mariners actually had the fourth highest payroll in baseball a couple of years back), shows that MoneyBall does work. It is not an equalizer - baseball is still a capitalistic venture, but it helps to equalize.

I think the film did say that, but only at the very end in the fine print. It's depressing to think about, so you know..... Beane went chasing after things like defensive ability after OBP became well known as a standard of value, but he and his genius staff never figured out a way to determine with stats who is the best at fielding. Of course he could actually watch the games, see who gets good reads on the ball in the outfield for example, but then that would be counter to his philosophy, eh?

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

your bottom line is more accurate than your title
it was never a long-term winning strategy for that kind of teams
it could only bring a title or two but not gonna make the team bigger
his team failed, the approach didn't
the failure was in making use of that weapon b4 it would spread among all teams and that didn't happen.


"It is never about what happened, it is only how you look at it!"

I was essentially a Moneyball denier until I read the book by Michael Lewis in 2008. Most of the reasons why I was a denier was because the things I heard about Moneyball from others were complete fabrications about what the book was saying. All Moneyball is trying to do is buy low and sell high. You want to find undervalued assets and invest in those assets, no different than investing in stocks.

At the time of this movie, 2002, players who walked and got on base were undervalued by the market. So the A's invested in players who were good at getting on base. Eventually teams caught on to what the A's were doing and began to value players who got on base more appropriately.

After that there was a shift, defense became undervalued. We saw teams like the Mariners in 2009 invest heavily in defense first players, which turned them into an 85 win team after they had won just 61 game the year before. During the A's 5 year stretch of mediocrity, the team dealt with a ton of player injuries and were, for the most part, slow to adapt to the changes in the market.

Now the A's are successful again, they are this year and have been since 2012. How are they doing it? One of the big market inefficiencies that the A's have been able to exploit is the heavy reliance of platoons. Platooning is the use of multiple players at a single position, mixing and matching hitters to get the best match up at the plate each game. For example:

Catcher: John Jaso and Derek Norris.
- Jaso has an .801 OPS (on base percentage plus slugging percentage) against right handed pitchers
- Norris has a .908 OPS against left handed pitchers.

Neither of these players are great hitters because they are weak hitters against same handed pitchers, but the combination of Jaso and Norris creates a great hitter.

Other examples on the A's include Brandon Moss, Craig Gentry, Josh Reddick, Kyle Blanks, Alberto Callaspo, and Stephen Vogt.

This isn't the only competitive advantage has going at the moment (their focus on fly ball hitters in an age where ground ball pitchers are heavily favored is certainly a factor) but it demonstrates a way the A's are using Moneyball to gain an advantage. And that's really all Moneyball is about.

Moneyball was a success because it changed the way people thought about baseball (and sports in general). Combining in depth statistical evaluation along with smart scouting principles is used by every single franchise in baseball today. That is a testament to the lasting effects that Moneyball has had on the game of baseball. That is its legacy.

Im the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

KC proved that old fashion scouting is best. They beat the A's in the one game playoff (after the A's collapsed down the stretch) and shows that youth, a great bullpen and STEALING BASES and bunting beats moneyball every time.

Not only DID the movie say this, it was the whole point of the movie.