It's That Time of Year Again

"Did the Oakland Athletics win the World Series? No? Aha, 'Moneyball' has failed yet again!"

Some people actually think like this, including a national columnist for CBS Sports named Danny Knobler, who gave a recent article this gem of a title: "Whether the Giants or Tigers win, Moneyball loses" (this was a few days ago, when the World Series was still in doubt). Click here for a link, if you have sadistic tendencies and wish to read the whole thing (I've just taken relevant excerpts). It goes on to say:

"Two games in, we don't yet have a winner of this World Series, but we already have a loser. It's not the Tigers (yet, anyway). It's Moneyball. If the Giants continue this fun run they're on, Moneyball loses, because if there's one team in the game that's more old school and less Moneyball than anyone else, it's the Giants. Unless it's the Tigers. If the Tigers become the first team since the 1996 Yankees to overcome a two games to none deficit (since then, eight teams have tried but failed), then Moneyball loses, too. And don't think some defenders of old-school scouting aren't watching and celebrating."

There are so very many things wrong with these statements, the most fundamental of which is drawing any kind of meaningful conclusions from the World Series participants. What if the A's make the World Series next year? Would that instantly validate 'Moneyball' strategies as the only way to build a baseball team? No! The playoffs are unequivocally, preposterously random. The Giants wouldn't have gotten to the Series without winning six straight elimination games, four of which were on the road. One loss in those six games and they never make it. The Tigers wouldn't have gotten there without playing in a god-awful division; they didn't even have one of the 10 best records in baseball. If you want to draw conclusions about "right" or "wrong" ways to build baseball teams, use the larger sample size of regular season results. Saying that 'Moneyball' doesn't work because "anti-Moneyball" teams got to the World Series in one random year is like saying that Duke and UConn are bad basketball programs because they lost in the first round of the NCAA Tournament last year.

Now, we get to the really juicy stuff:

"For almost a decade now, ever since the Michael Lewis book that sold plenty of copies and sold plenty of fans on the idea that the A's won games because of a better use of computers, the old school/new school debate has been baseball's hottest."

Is that the worst sentence ever written? I mean...it's certainly up there, right? If you read/saw Moneyball and came away from that book/movie and thought it was about "how the A's won games because of a better use of computers"...man, I don't even know.

For the rest of this article, Knobler operates under the premise that Moneyball was about a baseball team eschewing old-school scouts in favor of computers and advanced statistics. In a micro sense, that's true. But really, that premise is wrong. The Moneyball philosophy was about a low-payroll team trying to find market inefficiencies in order to field a competitive roster. At the time, Beane's scouts were overvaluing certain attributes (speed, defense, bunting) and undervaluing others ("bad-body" athletes, on-base skills, advanced statistics). Beane responded accordingly. As markets shifted to compensate, those inefficiencies changed over time. The landscape is completely different today! Billy Beane's team in 2012 was built on speed and defense, skills he might have scoffed at a decade ago! But writers like Knobler can't seem to understand that Beane and other progressive front offices aren't ideologically wedded to stuff like sabermetrics and on-base percentage. Those were tools used in the execution of a broader strategy, NOT the strategy itself. The tools have changed. Why am I wasting my time.

"The divide within the game never was as great as it was portrayed. The A's and other 'Moneyball teams' rely on scouting (without it, the A's never sign Yoenis Cespedes). The Tigers and Giants and other 'old-school' teams hire smart young guys who can analyze the numbers coming out of their computers."

Yes! Exactly! This is reasonable! Every front office uses a variety of different methods, ranging all across the "Baseball Ideas" spectrum. Because it would be silly not to use as many strategies to gather as much information as possible. Why does the rest of this article exist, then?

"But if it's not black and white, there are quite a few variations of gray, with the Tigers and Giants at one end of the scale and Moneyball as a concept at the other."

Knobler: "So the divide within the game was exaggerated, a balance of ideas exists, and it's not black-and-white." [realizes he now has nothing more to say and his article is effectively over] "Oh no wait, it's actually very polarizing, and let me explain why..."

"While the Tigers front office uses statistics as part of the evaluation process, 'it's not going to make the decision for us,' Dombrowski said. 'For some teams, it does.'

Giants general manager Brian Sabean said the same thing. The Giants front office wants all the information it can get, but would never make or reject a possible deal simply because of something they saw in the numbers."

There's two ways of looking at these comments.
1. Who in the heck bases their decision-making solely on numbers?
2. Who in the heck never uses numbers in their decision-making?

There obviously has to be a balance between statistics and scouting in front offices, a balance that Knobler has already admitted exists, yet ignores. Suggesting that executives in 'Moneyball' front offices are robots who pour data into Excel spreadsheets and make their decisions based on the numbers their computers spit out is preposterous. It's a straw man argument. I'm surprised that Dombrowski is playing along with this crap. Then again, this is the same guy who decided it would be a great idea if he could get Delmon Young to be his DH and hit in the 5-hole.

"Most decisions both these teams make come out of a strong belief about a player by one scout or another.

'You can't eliminate the human element of the game,' said Scott Reid, who has long been in charge of Dombrowski's pro scouting staff."

Because if it were up to Billy Beane, baseball wouldn't have a human element. It wouldn't even be a human game. Ideally, it wouldn't be "played" so much as "simulated" between opposing computer programs that could reduce the entire season to 0.074 seconds, with the "winner" receiving some terse congratulatory handshakes before retiring to his mother's basement for the winter.

"Scott Reid has worked with Dombrowski for 20 years. Dick Tidrow has been with Sabean for nearly that long, and Paul Turco has been with him even longer. They're exactly the type of guys who were most offended by the portrayal of scouts in Moneyball."

That's so weird, because Hollywood is usually so good about portraying real-life people and events with stunning accuracy.

"They're exactly the type of guys who are most satisfied to see a 2012 World Series involving two teams that lean the other way. 'We've always tried to stay up with the times,' Reid said. 'The sabermetric stuff has been great for the game. It's great for the fans. But it's information based on past performance. It does sometimes verify what your eyes and your scouting people are seeing.'

Ohmygod ohmygod ohmygod. "Sabermetric stuff"--or, "numbers," to the rest of us nerds--DOES verify what your eyes are seeing. That's what numbers do. That's why they exist. To quantify and record what our eyes see, because our minds can't remember every single data point. Eyewitness testimony absolutely has its uses. It's also unreliable because its subject to the whims and biases and other shortcomings of the brain. Numbers attempt to remove that human flaw and just record facts. But apparently they're worthless because all they're based on is "past performance." What good could they possibly do?!

"But when there are conflicts, the Tigers and Giants are more likely to trust their eyes and their scouts.

This year, the eyes are winning."

No, my eyes lost. They had to read this garbage.