More than a decade ago a computer whiz came along and revolutionized the way that baseball players were rated, developing a bunch of new measures that no one had ever heard of before that were supposed to get at what *really* made one player more productive than another. Managers and owners had been valuing -- and paying for -- all the wrong things, according to this new way of doing things (called Sabermetrics or Moneyball). Some of the traditional measures were overly simplistic. Others seemed based on superstition more than anything else. Statheads loved it, the teams that implemented these ideas early on seemed to prosper. Eventually a book and now a movie got out about the story of the development of this new way of doing things. (Tag line: "What are you really worth?") But it turned out that the new measurement system hasn't necessarily made the players or the way they play the game dramatically better, and not all of the initial effects on teams' success rates have lasted very long, either. The teams that spend the most money are still generally the teams that have the best records. The players that are most efficient and consistent at hitting and fielding and pitching make the most money. Moneyball hasn't even made owning a sports team more economicial, which was one of its main appeals at the beginning. Meantime, purists argued that these new stats could be helpful at the margins but that they only go so far, and noted that several of the best players and teams in terms of winning games actually don't look that good on paper. At the Atlantic Wire, a group of sportswriters discuss Are Sabermetrics Good for Sports? The New York Times reviews the movie based on the real story here: Brad Pitt in ‘Moneyball,’
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
