Moneyball Draft – Two Years Later

[Crash Course]

See: http://www.netshrine.com/20040606.html

Discussion welcome and appreciated.

[Crash Course]

Well, this should be interesting:

http://www.davisenterprise.com/artic...ts/219spt1.txt

Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane took in Wednesday's game. He was accompanied by Michael Lewis, author of "Moneyball: The art of winning an unfair game." Lewis is reportedly working a sequel to "Moneyball," about the A's draft class of 2002.

[RedSeat]

Granted, some may say that one should be fair and compare Beane's score here to what other G.M.'s would receive in terms of a grade for their draft work. And, it may be true that Beane's performance here is right in line with Joe Average G.M. Perhaps that is the lesson from this review? Billy Beane, and his Moneyball draft methods, do about just as good (in terms of money spent and success in finding prospects) as any other G.M. would do in a draft. Not better or smarter. Just average.

I'm not sure how you're determining that his draft is average. Just a hunch? It woulds seem that you'd need compare his results to something.

[Crash Course]

Average in the sense that most of the picks - in the first nine - look like they will not work out. I think the % is 15% overall - - in that only 15% of the players drafted, all-time, actually make the majors.

[huskerdru]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Average in the sense that most of the picks - in the first nine - look like they will not work out. I think the % is 15% overall - - in that only 15% of the players drafted, all-time, actually make the majors.

The only real bone of contention I have is the non-sequitur you throw in at the end:

"Billy Beane, and his Moneyball draft methods, do about just as good (in terms of money spent and success in finding prospects) as any other G.M. would do in a draft. Not better or smarter. Just average."

First, you haven't spoken about his Moneyball draft methods in the entire piece, so it's not really good to make them the focus of your conclusion. You analyze his picks and the signing bonuses they got, but absolutely nothing on the methods by which these players were chosen, nor on how these methods differ from the traditional or typical G.M.

Second, in order to forgive the First point, you'd have to establish that, regardless of the methods, they don't produce any better results in terms of positive price-performance major leaguers. Problem is, you can't by analyzing 9 picks in one round of one draft. There is not nearly enough data studied here to support such a broad, sweeping conclusion - probably not even a very scaled-down version of the conclusion. This is rife with potential for the strawman and his friend the hasty generalization.

Third, notwithstanding these two items, your conclusion is still a non-sequitur, as your claim hinges on how Beane would stack up against "any other G.M.," which isn't illustrated here. We haven't seen any info on how other G.M.s did in this draft, nor have we seen any analysis of the difference in draft methods.

What you have here (IMHO) is a very good analytical case that Beane's 2002 draft (for some reason or another), or at least the first round, is something shy of an overwhelming success. Problem is, that is the only sound logical conclusion that can be drawn here. Absent more data, some kind of comparison point (e.g., how did other G.M.s do in that draft...or, even better, how has Beane done over his entire career as G.M. versus other G.M.s), actual delineation of "Moneyball" draft evaluation methods versus traditional methods...none of us can do much more than opine and speculate beyond the specific issue of these 9 players.

[huskerdru]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Average in the sense that most of the picks - in the first nine - look like they will not work out. I think the % is 15% overall - - in that only 15% of the players drafted, all-time, actually make the majors.

Careful, though. That number swings wildly form year-to-year over time. 2002 may end up sending only 5% of draftees to the Show...or 25%.

[Deep Blue]

Short, interesting read that needs more data, more context, and more thought to get to any good conclusion, one way or the other. How can we grade without knowing how the other college age picks in the draft are doing ? How can we decide if these are good bonuses or bad bonuses, without knowing the context of the pick. For instance, is Swisher’s bonus (3rd highest for a college hitter taken) higher than the college hitters drafted around him, or lower, or inline ? And how are those college hitters doing ? Are the college pitchers taken before and after Blanton knocking down the doors to the big leagues, or working their way up through AAA, or are they trailing Blanton developmentally ?

It would be nice to see this premise get a more complete treatment (without reading all of the Michael Lewis sequel....).

[sweaver]

2004 is not the time to analyze the 2002 draft. We can begin to do so in 2006, and get a decent picture by 2012.

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by sweaver

2004 is not the time to analyze the 2002 draft. We can begin to do so in 2006, and get a decent picture by 2012.

Agreed, on 2006. But, do you really have to wait 10 years (2012) later to see if a college pick is working out?

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by huskerdru

What you have here (IMHO) is a very good analytical case that Beane's 2002 draft (for some reason or another), or at least the first round, is something shy of an overwhelming success. Problem is, that is the only sound logical conclusion that can be drawn here. Absent more data, some kind of comparison point (e.g., how did other G.M.s do in that draft...or, even better, how has Beane done over his entire career as G.M. versus other G.M.s), actual delineation of "Moneyball" draft evaluation methods versus traditional methods...none of us can do much more than opine and speculate beyond the specific issue of these 9 players.

Could not the case be made that since the draft is not "an overwhelming success" it is therefore at the end of the spectrum where most draft results fall? Is not "an overwhelming success" in terms of a draft not the norm?

[RedSeat]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Average in the sense that most of the picks - in the first nine - look like they will not work out. I think the % is 15% overall - - in that only 15% of the players drafted, all-time, actually make the majors.

If 15% making the majors is average, I'm not sure you can call this draft average. Blanton is still looking like a very good prospect. I think you're a little premature burying Swisher (who's OBA is around .400). And Murphy was dealt for a current major leaguer.

That's one guy in the majors now, another likely to be there soon, and several more possibilities, most notably Swisher who's getting on base in AAA. Maybe that is just average, but without actually comparing it to other drafts, I couldn't say for sure. My gut feeling is that it looks pretty good.

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by Deep Blue

How can we grade without knowing how the other college age picks in the draft are doing ? How can we decide if these are good bonuses or bad bonuses, without knowing the context of the pick. For instance, is Swisher’s bonus (3rd highest for a college hitter taken) higher than the college hitters drafted around him, or lower, or inline ? And how are those college hitters doing ? Are the college pitchers taken before and after Blanton knocking down the doors to the big leagues, or working their way up through AAA, or are they trailing Blanton developmentally ?

So many questions.

How can we grade without knowing how the other college age picks in the draft are doing ? Simple, IMHO. Either the picks are performing well in the minors (or above) or they are not.

How can we decide if these are good bonuses or bad bonuses, without knowing the context of the pick. For instance, is Swisher’s bonus (3rd highest for a college hitter taken) higher than the college hitters drafted around him, or lower, or inline ?

If it's the 3rd highest, it's on the high end, for sure.

Are the college pitchers taken before and after Blanton knocking down the doors to the big leagues, or working their way up through AAA, or are they trailing Blanton developmentally?

Well, the the ones taken by the A's, following him, sans Murphy, are not doing to well. If you want to compare.

Blanton is actually a bone for me here. Everyone who wants to tout the A's draft brings him up. Is he the only pitcher that the A's took in the first round? Is he the only player that the A's took in that part of the round?

If someone wants to talk about him, then we must discuss John McCurdy and Ben Fritz at the same time. They are picks 24, 26, and 30. Brothers by Beane. What about McCurdy and Fritz? They're the forgotten Beane Brothers. How are they doing? What kind of picks have they turned out to be?

[Crash Course]

Originally Posted by RedSeat

If 15% making the majors is average, I'm not sure you can call this draft average. Blanton is still looking like a very good prospect. I think you're a little premature burying Swisher (who's OBA is around .400). And Murphy was dealt for a current major leaguer.

That's one guy in the majors now, another likely to be there soon, and several more possibilities, most notably Swisher who's getting on base in AAA. Maybe that is just average, but without actually comparing it to other drafts, I couldn't say for sure. My gut feeling is that it looks pretty good.

You have to remember that the 15% is overall draft. I would guess - and would have to check for sure - that the percentage for 1st rounders, like the nine were, is closer to 50% or higher.

[Deep Blue]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

So many questions.

I'm a questionning kind of guy (besides being a typical long-time reader, first-time writer, who greatly enjoys the discussions here....) I am not a particularly strong advocate or critic of the baseball portions of Moneyball (i.e. I don't think it discusses a markedly superior or inferior approach - just a different approach, and have no strong bias either way).

Originally Posted by Crash Course

How can we grade without knowing how the other college age picks in the draft are doing ? Simple, IMHO. Either the picks are performing well in the minors (or above) or they are not.

On one level I agree with your statement - but if I am grading the draft in comparison to other drafts (or other draft techniques) then I think I need context to make a judgement.

Originally Posted by Crash Course

If it's the 3rd highest, it's on the high end, for sure.

Obviously if it is the 3rd highest it is on the high side of all bonuses, but what is the significance of that ? If he was the 3rd college hitter taken, then I would say it falls inline with where he was drafted. If he was the 10th college hitter taken, then they probably badly overpaid. If he was the first, maybe he is a relative bargain. My point was generally that saying he received the x-largest bonus by itself doesn't tell me anything, unless you also tell me he was the y-drafted player. X and Y together perhaps give me some information. By themselves, they are data points without context.

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Well, the the ones taken by the A's, following him, sans Murphy, are not doing to well. If you want to compare.

Critiquing the article (not the draft) - I was trying to make the point that if the author believes "Although, he is not dominating the competition and banging down the door to the big leagues - which is what you would hope for and expect at from a college player, taken that high in the draft, signed to a bonus that lofty, at this point in his career." the author should provide a context to make that point.

Originally Posted by Crash Course

If someone wants to talk about him, then we must discuss John McCurdy and Ben Fritz at the same time. They are picks 24, 26, and 30. Brothers by Beane. What about McCurdy and Fritz? They're the forgotten Beane Brothers. How are they doing? What kind of picks have they turned out to be?

Agreed - we need to be more complete. And in general I was looking for more from the article - more complete analysis of the draft (premature as it may be), and context for the conclusions that were being drawn. Still, interesting to read, and interesting to see some of the discussion comig from it.

[huskerdru]

Originally Posted by Crash Course

Could not the case be made that since the draft is not "an overwhelming success" it is therefore at the end of the spectrum where most draft results fall? Is not "an overwhelming success" in terms of a draft not the norm?

Whoa!! Lemme sort out the double-negatives and make sure I know what yer talkin' about. Okay, I think I got it now

The case could be made that since this was a not-very-good draft it falls into the end of the spectrum where most drafts fall...but it certainly is not necessarily so. This would assume that the success rate for drafts (15%) is constant year-to-year, which we don't know, cuz we don't have enough data here.