Master Index of Archived Threads


Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

G-Fafif Dec 06 2010 05:23 AM

Tells John Harper Michael Lewis was full of bleep...in more diplomatic terms. Ricciardi, sitting down for an interview in his hometown of Worcester last week, winced at the mention of "Moneyball." "It's been a farce," he said. "Michael Lewis is an outstanding writer, but there were a lot of liberties taken with the book that really didn't paint a lot of people in the right light." [...] "I found it funny that I got penciled as a geek or a moneyball guy," said Ricciardi, "when my whole background was in scouting and player development, with the ability to see something in a player and use that to take him in the draft or make a trade. "The book made it seem as if we didn't value scouts, and it created such a wedge between the so-called traditional baseball people and the non-traditional that I didn't think it was fair. "We did a lot of the things with the A's because we had no money, and we had to find value in players that didn't cost a lot. That's where I think the whole Moneyball concept was mangled. We believed in on-base percentage because we thought it gave us a bit of an edge. We were looking for any edge we could get to close the payroll gap (with other contenders) in any way, shape, or form. "We did things like trading for Jason Isringhausen and making him a closer, but we could do things like that because we had the opportunity and the need to find ways to fill holes. We didn't walk around saying we were smarter than everybody else, but the book tried to make it seem like that. "We never said we should get rid of scouts and just use stats. We were just smart enough to use some of that to help make good decisions. Today, I think the game has gone too far in the direction of using stats. I think there's a happy medium, with a need for evaluating players based on what you see with your own eyes." Ricciardi said he does believe in some of the offensive philosophies that became associated with Moneyball, such as valuing on-base percentage and power while not giving away outs in the form of sacrifice bunts or stolen base attempts. However, he also said that Alderson will adapt that philosophy now in the National League, in a big ballpark with a ballclub that led the league in steals last season. "We have no problem with running as long as we have a high rate of success," said Riccardi. "I still think we're going to value those 27 outs. Obviously, in the National League, pitchers have to bunt, but I also think Earl Weaver was right a long time ago when he said that if you play for one run, you get one run." Riccardi also said that outfield defense in spcacious Citi Field will be more of a priority than it was in the AL, and he said that manager Terry Collins will have more freedom to play the aggressive style he said he favors than people might think based on all the Moneyball talk. "That's another misconception," said Ricciardi, "that Big Brother is up in the sky, controlling every move the manager makes. There has to be cohesiveness between the front office and the manager, but we want Terry to use his instincts, his thought process during games. We want the manager to be able to think on his feet and make the moves that give us the best chance to win."

metirish Dec 06 2010 06:04 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

I love reading what these guys have to say. How many times during a game will SNY tturn the cameras to the big booth where Alderson and his lieutenants are viewing proceedings, especially when Collins tries to push things along.

Edgy DC Dec 06 2010 06:07 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

Good for him, but again, a lot of rhe misperceptions of them and their philosophies aren't from the book, so much as from folks who cite the book seemingly without having read it. Worcester is a strange place.

The Second Spitter Dec 06 2010 06:19 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

The TPTB haven't exactly quelled Moneyball discussion by saying stuff like: "I don't not want to commit to anybody before seeing them with my own eyes." That's straight from the first chapter, Sandy, my boy.

Edgy DC Dec 06 2010 06:52 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

But it's the exact opposite of what Moneyball represents --- statistics over eyeball evaluation --- to media personnel who cite it.

Ceetar Dec 06 2010 09:26 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

I just finished the book. I enjoyed it, but its hardly a how to guide on the best way to do things. One part I found the interesting was that the wait for the three run homer philosophy that's often applied to money ball was probably a result of an ignorant comment by joe morgan during the playoff broadcast.

metirish Dec 06 2010 09:37 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

I wonder if reading that book now for the first time seven years after it came out makes a difference in how one would think about it.

Ceetar Dec 06 2010 09:44 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

metirish wrote: I wonder if reading that book now for the first time seven years after it came out makes a difference in how one would think about it. Without a doubt.

Edgy DC Dec 06 2010 11:55 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

What it is is a good primer for competitive strategists in the fun challenge of using adversity to re-envision how to approach your business, reconsidering neglected assets and finding a new way to float your boat. There's a reason that Disney is both the best and the worst major film studio. They have the capital and talent to put behind ideas that are known to work, but they are slow to try a new idea. Working for the Yankees will never challenge your mind like working the A's. I'd be surprised if the movie doesn't become the biggest staple at corporate retreats since Apollo 13.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 06 2010 11:57 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

Ceetar wrote: I just finished the book. I enjoyed it, but its hardly a how to guide on the best way to do things. One part I found the interesting was that the wait for the three run homer philosophy that's often applied to money ball was probably a result of an ignorant comment by joe morgan during the playoff broadcast. Put me down for some ignorance. Long live the three run homer!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 06 2010 12:55 PM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

Good for him, but again, a lot of rhe misperceptions of them and their philosophies aren't from the book, so much as from folks who cite the book seemingly without having read it. Egggggggzactly. That and Cee-Irish's back-and-forth make me wonder... who HASN'T read "Moneyball" in this crowd? Ricciardi, sitting down for an interview in his hometown of Worcester last week, winced at the mention of "Moneyball." "It's been a fahhhhhhhhce," he said. Corrected.

The Second Spitter Dec 08 2010 02:51 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

But it's the exact opposite of what Moneyball represents --- statistics over eyeball evaluation --- to media personnel who cite it. Moneyball does make the distinction between what others have seen vis-a-vis what you see, stating that the former is more prejudicial than the latter but both are equally prejudical. But you're right, that's not what Moneyball is about and I sit corrected. I may have been a little overzealous to crack a joke about Moneyball (as I've done in other thread) as I fondly recall Doug Pappas' most eloquent summation about a doctrine that he himself played an integral part in developing. He said: "It's a bit like Reaganomics - it makes so much sense, that it could easily blind you from reality." During our discussions about it, we both agreed (as we both had a background in Economics) that it something that is likely to have cyclical success, because in the long-run economic agents will adjust their behaviour, so the inefficiency you're exploiting (undervalued players) is no longer viable (because clubs are ascribing their "proper" value). Doug said the worst thing Beane did was to cooperate in the publishing of that book, because it allowed some clubs (particularly the ones bound by budget constraints) to reach a level playing field. The last time the A's made the playoffs was 2006, Moneyball came out in 2003; if you believe to the argument in the preceding paragraph then you could reach a conclusion that their absence from the playoffs since 06 is related. As to its cyclical nature, the argument is that the market for players is riddled with what economists call "asymmetric information" which broadly is a inefficiencies caused by facts (or a lack of facts). Undervalued high OBP college players was but only one. The onus falls on the buyer (ie the baseball club) to screen (or identify) others. But you can only benefit from it, if other clubs are not alert to it. For example, the A's are now screening high school ballplayers, a category of players they wouldn't touch, to see if they are undervalued and subsequently exploit an advantage. If they can, I guarantee any advantage they may gain will only exist in the short-term. One final point: I understand there are arguments for why the theory expounded in Moneyball may still be relevant today, such as some clubs don't believe in it, some don't value draftees highly, the survival of the old scout's network, etc.

Edgy DC Dec 08 2010 06:04 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

Really good summation. Thanks. The onus falls on the buyer (ie the baseball club) to screen (or identify) others. But you can only benefit from it, if other clubs are not alert to it. For example, the A's are now screening high school ballplayers, a category of players they wouldn't touch, to see if they are undervalued and subsequently exploit an advantage. If they can, I guarantee any advantage they may gain will only exist in the short-term. Especially if some guy writes a book about what they're doing and why.

Ceetar Dec 08 2010 06:53 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

Edgy DC wrote: Really good summation. Thanks. The onus falls on the buyer (ie the baseball club) to screen (or identify) others. But you can only benefit from it, if other clubs are not alert to it. For example, the A's are now screening high school ballplayers, a category of players they wouldn't touch, to see if they are undervalued and subsequently exploit an advantage. If they can, I guarantee any advantage they may gain will only exist in the short-term. Especially if some guy writes a book about what they're doing and why. The writer portrays them as fairly smug about no one noticing are caring about 'new statistics'. For instance, he talks about showing players that they do better when they lay off the first pitch, and that works for a couple of days, and then they go back to swinging at it. Billy Beane also came off as a bit of a deranged lunatic.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 08 2010 11:03 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

"Cocky," yes. "Deranged," I don't see. Doug said the worst thing Beane did was to cooperate in the publishing of that book, because it allowed some clubs (particularly the ones bound by budget constraints) to reach a level playing field. The last time the A's made the playoffs was 2006, Moneyball came out in 2003; if you believe to the argument in the preceding paragraph then you could reach a conclusion that their absence from the playoffs since 06 is related. Oh, yeah. You could make the argument that several teams-- some with much bigger budgets-- were well on their way to closing the A's lead on exploiting market-inefficiencies at that point... but he more or less gave a turbo boost to the others with his cooperation. It actually only makes retrospective sense IF Beane had been headed for, say, an early retirement and the speaking circuit... or if he's just as much of a self-lover as his detractors say he is.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 08 2010 11:08 AM Re: Ricciardi's Had It With The Moneyball Talk

It's shocking to me that as recently as the beginning of this century, a MLB front office could have a significant competitive advantage over another front office simply by understading the value of OBP and bases on balls.