Michael Lewis article in SI

[wijamie]

Just a heads-up- this week's Sports Illustrated has an article by Moneyball author Michael Lewis discussing the criticism that came about as a result of his book. It focuses a lot on the criticism Billy Beane took even though Lewis hardly even talked to Beane while writing it. Sort of a 'one year later' type of thing, and definitely worth reading.

Also, he mentions Baseball Prospectus and Baseball Primer in the article.

[TimmyB]

SI should arrive in today's mail... can't wait!

[wijamie]

I liked this one:

He calls Pat Gillick "the Grand Pooh-Bah of the Raccoon Lodge", the raccoon lodge being the segment of baseball who objected to the book, which he refers to throughout the article as The Club.

[SmedIndy]

I read it. He really calls the baseball establishment, especially the writers like Ringolsby to task.

And I say good for him!

[Crash Course]

I'll counter that Ringolsby's already forgotten more about baseball than Lewis will ever know.........

[SmedIndy]

Have you read Lewis' article in SI. The points the old guard cabal brought up in BA are totally refuted by Lewis.

That and a sportswriter is tainted by who he wants to be in cahoots with. Of course Ringolsby will be with the old guard.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

I'll counter that Ringolsby's already forgotten more about baseball than Lewis will ever know.........

And I'll counter that Ringolsby must have forgotten more than he should have.

[Crash Course]

Seriously guys, other than the x-amount of weeks he spent with his lips glued to Beane's bottom, what has been Lewis' baseball background? How can he now claim to be the "light" of all things true in organized baseball?

[SmedIndy]

You haven't read the article, have you....

[Crash Course]

I read the book, wasn't that enough?

[SmedIndy]

No - the article is an excellent refutation of the criticisms.

[sweaver]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

I'll counter that Ringolsby's already forgotten more about baseball than Lewis will ever know.........

"forgotten" being the key word....

I like Ringolsby, but I thought Moneyball was a great book.

[wijamie]

The point Lewis makes in the article is not completely a baseball one. I think Lewis' point is that teams as business entities are not being run in the most efficient manner. He's pointing out the irony that even though he showed all the inefficiencies, "baseball men" still want to do it their way and are criticizing something that goes against what they've learned. I don't think anyone questions Lewis' business knowledge.

You can pretty much take this to the bank- in 20 years, we'll be talking about why anyone could've questioned such common sense writing, because the old ways will have mostly disappeared. Just look at how much the tide has turned in the last few. Maybe the first Red Sox-Dodgers World Series will convince people.

[Rajah]

Not to be entirely off topic, but ringolsby turned me off years ago. he is the dark cloud that hangs over BA. he really should move on and go to sports illustrated so that he's easier (for me) to ignore.

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by SmedIndy

No - the article is an excellent refutation of the criticisms.

OK, I read it last night. I still see a guy, Lewis, (whose only knowledge of the workings of organized baseball, and the professional baseball media, was the one year he sat parked outside the office of Billy Beane, putting to paper any spittle that came from Beane's mouth, or the mouth's of his lieutenants) doing two things:

1. Attempting to tell "us" how wrong are those in organized baseball who disagree with the preachings of Beane - based on Lewis "vast" (12 month) knowledge of the game; and

2. Kissing the bottom of all the writers (like Neyer and Gammons) who helped him sell his book last year while also taking personal attacks at the writers who decided to use their right of free speech and voiced their own opinion of Lewis' book (which happened to be opinions other than what Lewis wanted to hear).

It's funny, everyone wants to hang Pete Rose for writing a book that many claim was an "OK, even 'tho this may not be in synch with reality, this is my take on what happened" book. But, the article in SI by Lewis is just the same thing - - - his opinion, based on his version of the facts, taking shots at anyone who was against him, etc.

I wish I could get my $3.50 back for buying that issue of SI.