Bollocks to Moneyball

Upon his retirement, Tony LaRussa, a successful innovator and sure-fire Hall of Famer, "ridiculed 'Moneyball' and its emphasis on statistics over human scouting and observation" according to the Associated Press.

Critics have smiled on Moneyball, the movie, but LaRussa has described why I was uneasy about the book and have no plans to see the film.

Moneyball, the book, cast statheads as cowboys and scouts as Indians (feather, not dot or Cleveland varieties). The analogy is apt because the relationships are far more messy and complicated. Scouts, like seamheads, are necessary but insufficient for the proper functioning of a Major League baseball franchise.

The real debate was never between stats and scouts, it was between useful stats and misleading stats. That's why the St. Louis Cardinals employ number-crunchers, just as every MLB team does, to help reveal some of the game's hidden insights. Over the years, new analysis has exploded long-held myths, including Larussa's signature creation, the folly of saving your best reliever for ninth-inning mop-up when you could employ him to put out fires in other innings. Maybe that's why LaRussa is sore.

Or maybe he's sick of the false dichotomy. LaRussa knows better than Bill James' personal guru how Matt Holliday feels today or whether Chris Carpenter can go on short rest or if John Jay can be relied on to drop a bunt. Team number crunchers have a better handle on the general efficacy of a bunt in a given situation.

In fact, LaRussa has been most renowned for his pitching match-ups, a strategy fully infused with both scouting and stats. The guy with the binoculars on LaRussa's left shoulder whispers that the opposing batter hates the high heat thrown by the righty in the pen. The SABR dude on his right shoulder notes that the batter has a .650 OPS against southpaws in day games. LaRussa's particular genius was to be open to surprising information, synthesize it and act on it.

Moneyball correctly cast Billy Beane and his band of mavericks as explorers who had found new worlds and were benefiting from the small competitive advantages they conveyed. There is absolutely no question that statistical research can unlock mysteries and disprove old customs in the game, though those advantages are becoming more nuanced and less impactful as the practice has become widespread. Likewise, there's no doubt that observation can reveal nuances unnoticed by the statistics. But unlike stats, observation can be corrupted by human psychology -- things like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance -- that has no power over the null hypothesis or a two-tailed test.

Here's a World Series example of the two at work: Mid-year, this blog noted the amazing performance of young Ranger starter Alexi Ogando, who twirled a 9-3, 2.92 line with a .591 OPS-against. Spectacular, but with a .241 BABIP and some other component statistics pointing the wrong way, I suggested a decline was in order. Furthermore, Ogando had reached his professional career high for innings by July. The Rangers  noted this, not to mention his 4-5, 4.48 performance in the second half, and downgraded him to the pen, where innings aren't so readily available.

A statmonger could guess that Ogando was gassed. I'm betting that keen observers like LaRussa and his staff could see it. In any case, the Cards feasted on Ogando for 14 baserunners and four runs in only seven outs. (To be fair, he was great in 9.2 innings of AL playoff service.)

The bottom line is that teams fare best when statisticians and scouts respect and rely on each other for confirmation of what they believe they've found. It's time to forget the false dichotomy perpetrated by Moneyball and just accept stats and scouts for what they are. 

b