|
Post by friartuck on Sept 22, 2011 15:31:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 23, 2011 21:02:35 GMT -5
I read the book. It was an extremely interesting topic with some fantastic chapters but a very poorly organized "book". It was one of those things that left you disappointed, because it could've been excellent, and you wanted it to be excellent, and you wanted more... but the author blew it.
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 23, 2011 21:12:43 GMT -5
Good article. It helps explain why the book felt choppy... because of the things that the author left out.
He's right, though, that the main premise of using the scientific method and finding useful statistics can give you an edge. And while I agree that you cannot over-rely on statistics (I'm a big believer in team chemistry), it's clear to me that the more you understand the statistics and the science, the more of an advantage you have over your opponent.
|
|
|
Post by harlem on Oct 4, 2011 11:25:22 GMT -5
I thought it was a very good film. Well-acted, and not too much inside baseball. That might be why most of the people who are bagging on this film are stat geeks. They didn't specifically dwell on different stats, but instead just acknowledged their importance. There would be no need to try to explain RC/9. This is not a movie made strictly for SABR. It pays as much attention to baseball stats as "Good Will Hunting" did to math. You have to know what it is about, but you do not have to be able to solve quadratic equations to enjoy it.
Recommended movie. Definitely. Unless the fact that they ignore Barry Zito is going to drive you out of your mind.
|
|
|
Post by harlem on Oct 4, 2011 11:28:05 GMT -5
Another thing I wonder about, with regards to money ball and its philosophies. I wonder how many successful managers had intuition about what things are preached about in moneyball, but never had (or bothered with) the statistical evidence to back up their sixth sense? John McGraw comes to mind as a manager who seemed to know the value of a players limited assets and use them perfectly, same with Tony LaRussa and Al Lopez.
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Oct 18, 2011 7:08:49 GMT -5
Another thing I wonder about, with regards to money ball and its philosophies. I wonder how many successful managers had intuition about what things are preached about in moneyball, but never had (or bothered with) the statistical evidence to back up their sixth sense? John McGraw comes to mind as a manager who seemed to know the value of a players limited assets and use them perfectly, same with Tony LaRussa and Al Lopez. I'd say that if someone's 'hunch' matches what statisitical analyses would recommend doing, there is no need to run the analysis. For example, in 1990, the whole point in running the analyses is to identify that Tony Phillips or Mickey Tettleton or David Wells or Cecil Fielder were more valuable than conventional wisdom suggested, but the Tigers recognized that without doing the analyses (I think). Moneyball, to me, is the idea of correctly identifying undervalued players and acquiring them at low cost to help you win on a low budget. The statistics are just a tool to help you identify who those guys are - nothing more, nothing less. That written, few people have both the mind and the baseball knowledge to figure that stuff out without a statistical analysis, but I don't doubt for a minute some have done it successfully for an extened period of time. McGraw and Rickey come to mind for me. Lopez may well be another.
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Oct 18, 2011 7:17:38 GMT -5
I thought the movie was better than the book, for what it is worth.
I really didn't think the book was that good a read, to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Oct 18, 2011 7:27:17 GMT -5
|
|