I’ll admit it right out of the gate – I’m a fan of Moneyball. I thought it was a great read from beginning to end and I would recommend it to anyone. It gave insights into the inner workings of a Major League organisation and taught us about how the Oakland Athletics had massive success as a low market team. If anyone actually think that the A’s continual success was down to dumb luck then they are completely mistaken.
Was it the Moneyball approach that made them “over achieve”? Was it something else? All I know is that the A’s had prolonged success like no other small market team in modern day baseball ever has. This is all beside the point though. After reading this article on ESPN I really had to wonder the persons motivation for writing it. I can definitely see his point about there being too many stats in baseball (as I’m sure Derek Jeter would agree, defensively anyway) but his all out attack on Moneyball stinks of a man afraid to admit that there may be something beyond complete and utter trust of a scouts eyes. Like it or not, baseball is evolving into world of computers and complex stats, and it’s maybe time that people just accept it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not all for this. Watching Tony LaRussa make pitching change after pitching change is no-ones idea of fun but this does seem to be the way the game is going.
The author of the article, Art Garfamudis, also seems to forget that there is a man behind his story, and his rejoicing over Jeremy Brown’s decision to end his career does not sit well with me at all. An article about his dislike for a book is one thing, but a celebration over a career ending is an entirely different story.
Posted by ph34 