Apologist wrote:
Quote:
defeat the best-laid plans of sabermetricians."
Initially this is the main thing I find objectionable, if not laughable. This is not the point at all of statistical study of the game beyond "traditional" numbers. I thought the point of Moneyball was that a small market team looked at undervalued or nontraditional stats like OBP and tried to gain an advantage over teams with much greater resources. Whether one agrees with the Beane philosophy or not, I'm not sure it can be "debunked" without looking at numbers in a different way, and that is exactly the point of the sabrmetrics.
For the record, I am in no way saying that everything you need to learn about a player or team can be found on Baseball Reference.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the "best laid plans of sabermetricians" are. But I will say that people often work backward to support a conclusion they've already made.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Beane's philosophy. In fact, it's a very smart way to put together a team. But I also think people gave too much credit to those high-OBP/nothing else guys for the success of the A's when the real thing driving them was the combo of Mulder, Hudson, and Zito.
Moneyball is an interesting and fun read, but it also suggests that Chad Bradford is far greater than he actually is. It's funny how a book that seemingly promotes objective analysis is so subjective.