The New York Times has a good article this morning re-evaluating the concept of Moneyball:
“Moneyball” extolled the talents of Beane, portraying him as superior to other teams’ general managers. Lewis celebrated Beane for his ability to produce winning teams with small payrolls, but Terry Ryan has done the same thing with the Twins, a fact Lewis didn’t acknowledge. As little as Beane might have thought of Howe, the Athletics reached the playoffs three straight seasons under him and have not been there the last two years with Ken Macha as their manager after making it in his first year.
It has been three years since the publication of “Moneyball,” and it is worth assessing other matters the book discusses. Several times, Lewis wrote about the Athletics’ infatuation with Kevin Youkilis, a young player who had a high on-base percentage, the gold standard of Beane’s player evaluation. In limited playing time with Boston the past two seasons, Youkilis has compiled a .376 on-base percentage but has yet to show the Red Sox he is ready to help them on a daily basis. They are planning to try Youkilis, a converted third baseman, as a platooned first baseman this year.
So many consultants’ schemes and management theories turn out like the evil counsel to the king in bad movies set in the Middle Ages. They focus on the ends but not the means or the means but not the ends. Usually a lot of villages get flayed in the process. Moneyball seems to me like that, focusing on the average to get above average. It is like the trap in hockey – an intervention in the game from outside the game to win the game that loses the game. Focusing on Youkilis is like that. A cornerstone of not a lot.