Rating: 
Summary: Not just a book about baseball...offers management insight
Review: After taking a statistical model development class in graduate school, I was intrigued by the thought of statistical analysis applied to baseball. A classmate recommended this book to me. Michael Lewis does a good job, if only by accident, of uncovering a story that's not just limited to baseball. Here's what I got from the book:* Changing the culture of an organization takes years to achieve and, for change in behavior to occur, constant enforcement and encouragement of the right behavior has to exist from top to bottom. * Not everyone is willing or able to adapt to radical change. * Information is the key to market opportunities. Just as important is the ability to analyze the information and make a decision based on the analysis -- even if the decision is later proven to be wrong. Over the long term, inactivity and maintaining the status quo is much more damaging than making risky decisions. * Doing something the way that everyone else does it will not necessary lead to success in a crowded marketplace. Different paths from the norm must be taken. * Make decisions based on data rather than "gut instinct". * Those that believe in the status quo and tradition are generally the most difficult to persuade even if definitive evidence supporting a different view exists. Outsiders are effective at bringing about change because they value legacy the least. I would have given this book 5 stars, but I was constantly annoyed by Michael Lewis' implication that only those toting bachelor degrees from Ivy League schools are intelligent enough to accept the use of statistical analysis or that only the smartest go to Ivy League schools. I don't know whether Lewis attended an Ivy League school, but throughout the book he was always quick to point out whether a character went to an Ivy League school.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrific book even for non-sports-fans like me
Review: I don't care for sports, and never have. But this book is a GREAT STORY that just happens to be about sports. It is the classic story of the maverick who defies all the conventional wisdom but knows what he is doing and prevails. On yet another level, it is a terrific story about how one can think in an entirely new and different and above all USEFUL way about something that nearly every American (except me) knows something about has has strong opinions about. In this respect it's very similar to stories about incredible scientific discoveries. Either way, it's a great read that you won't want to miss.
Rating:
Summary: Essential for nerds everywhere, sports or otherwise
Review: If, like me, you're one of those hopeless stat geeks who never get tired of "who's better?" discussions, "Moneyball" may well be right up your alley. Chronicling how the cash-strapped Oakland A's regularly compete with the huge-spending likes of the Red Sox and Yankees, "Moneyball" sets out to demonstrate that how plentiful your resources are isn't as important as how you use them. In one sense, it's about how A's general manager Billy Beane, himself a washout as a player, manages to build successful teams on a tight budget with a bunch of guys even I haven't heard of. But in another, deeper sense, the book is about how any enterprise can be improved if it's remade along rational lines. Beane's business plan for the A's rested on a bold premise, namely that much of the traditional "knowledge" accumulated by baseball insiders was, well, b.s.. After all, Beane had tanked in his professional career after being tagged as a can't miss prospect, so how much could scouts know? Beane's plan, while radical, was also so fiendishly simple it's hard to believe it wasn't more common. Under Beane, the A's started judging prospects not by how athletic they were, or how good they looked in a uniform, but by how well they had performed in games. And if that meant hiring a group of Harvard graduates like assistant GM Paul DePodesta to pull names of college players off a computer, so be it. Of course, the A's also faced the problem of money, since their payroll had to be kept at about 40 million dollars, or 15 million less than Alex Rodriguez makes. The solution? Treating the team like any other business, Beane and co. used cutting-edge research and technology to break players and stats into parts. Since they couldn't afford highly desired players, the A's had to figure out what was most important and go after it. And if the research is to be believed, it's the ability to get on base by any means necessary. On-base percentage takes on an almost mythical importance in "Moneyball," with the A's searching relentlessly for guys who could get on base and do it cheaply. It's this aspect of the book that gets the most attention, and quickly becomes the most fascinating. Lewis emphasizes how the A's front office, with plenty of help from stat guru (but don't call him a statistician) Bill James, was able to look at numbers and find the underlying truth. As Lewis makes clear, it's not just looking at numbers that determines a player's value, it's looking at the *right* numbers. Lewis often draws parallels to the business world, and these comparisons serve to illustrate how one can make a killing with superior knowledge and counterintuitive thinking. It was strategies derived from the research of stat geeks that enabled the A's to improve their record in 2002 despite losing three of their top players to free agency. Lewis also takes some time out from the analytical stuff to paint a vivid portrait of Beane himself. Lewis lets us see him plying his craft in the draft room and at the trading desk, demonstrating the shrewdness of a swindler. He often appears to be playing a different game from his colleagues, which is exactly what Lewis wants us to think. And we get to see Beane's (sort of) human side while he works out, and stresses out, during games. His frequent profanity-laced tirades and incessant tobacco chewing may not be too savory, but Beane is clearly just like the rest of us in at least a few ways. Lewis gives us snapshots of some other, secondary characters as well. There's Paul DePodesta, Billy's Harvard-educated sidekick. There's Jeremy Brown, the overweight college catcher who was scarcely rated as a prospect despite having set records at Alabama. There's Scott Hatteberg, who was cast off by the Red Sox but given a new life in Oakland thanks to his ability to get on base. Finally there's Chad Bradford, the submarine-throwing pitcher who became a premier setup man with an 84-mile-an-hour fastball and a delivery that scraped the mound. We get to know all of these guys, and why they fit so well into the A's scheme. Lewis also happens to be a pretty damn good storyteller, with a an engaging and uber-readable style. Bill James said baseball statistics fascinated him because they had the power of language, and Lewis's discussion of this seemingly boring subject demonstrates why. By framing a book about baseball in the language of business, Lewis makes his story accessible to enthusiasts of both. Not to mention, the book is worth reading simply for Lewis's brutally hilarious description of Jeremy Giambi's outfield play. High comedy, friends, high comedy. I don't think "unputdownable" is a word, but if it were it would definitely be applicable to "Moneyball." I could even be convinced to say this is the best sports book I've ever read, and I've read some good ones. You don't necessarily have to agree with the A's strategies to enjoy the book, but you may well find yourself turned into a stat geek by the end. And for all you dolts out there saying Billy Beane had nothing to do with drafting Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, and Mark Mulder, it's right there on page 39 from a member of the A's scouting department: "Billy made us take Zito." So that's one down right there.
Rating: 
Summary: Money for Mr. Lewis
Review: Mr. Lewis wrote this book for the sole purpose of getting your money. The author could care less about the game of baseball.
Don't waste your money or your time on this poorly written book.
Rating:
Summary: "Walkers" are Cheap....or are they?
Review: I was finishing Moneyball during games 4 and 5 of the 2003 American League playoff series between the Sox and As and nothing could have been a more fitting ending to my combination reading/watching experience than the last at bat for the A's. Details below: Lewis does a fine job of detailing how the A's GM ends up drafting players who walk a relatively high percentage of time in order to build a team that scores as much runs in the regular season as the Yankees on 1/4 the payroll. I was able to observe and appreciate many of the player decisions that Billy and Paul made empowered by sabermetrics. Hatteberge would walk; Tajeda would swing, etc. etc. Reading the book helped to reinvigorate my appreciate of baseball and each of 2003 playoff series. If you recall the 8th and 9th innings of game 5 in Oakland, you will remember that the A's batters were successful in drawing a ton of walks. In the 9th inning the Sox had walked a couple more batters and the As had the bases loaded. The batter, Adam Melhuse does the job that Billy and Paul predict: he gets the pitcher to throw a ton of pitches until the pitcher either walks the batter or throws a strike (hopefully that the batter than handle). The count is 3-2; the batter, Melhuse gets a pitch in the strike zone...and watches it sail into the catcher's mit (another A was caught looking on the 2nd out of the inning as well--see below). I sincerely respect the job Billy and Paul have done, but all things considered it seemed fitting to me that when it came down to the last 2 outs, the As died with 2 of their 3 batters betting on the opposing pitcher's willingness to throw a ball 4 rather than their own ability to successfully put the ball in play. I guess that's what you get for $40 million. The Press Democrat
OAKLAND -- Adam Melhuse sat quietly at his locker, fielding wave after wave of questions about what he did -- or didn't do -- just moments earlier. Melhuse had been caught looking at a third strike when he needed only to put the ball in play to tie up the decisive game of the Division Series against the Boston Red Sox on Monday night. After Terrence Long also struck out looking, sending the A's to a 4-3 loss that ended their season and disappointed the Coliseum crowd of 49,397, Melhuse tried to put it in perspective. "It's not life or death -- it's just a game," Melhuse said. "That said, I'd have given my left foot to win that game. Literally, I would have chopped it off."
Rating:
Summary: Extremely Insightful
Review: I give Moneyball on the basis that it's reader is either a devout student and fan of the game such as myself, or someone who is big into small-business ownership. Yes, Lewis does add some "filler" to his novel by adding life stories and background to Bradford and Hatteberg, but at the same time this builds the psychological models of what exactly it means to be an "Oakland A" in Beane's model. The only real complaint I have with the novel is wanting more. A must read for any true baseball fan.
Rating:
Summary: Take The Bats Off Your Shoulders
Review: Will this be the legacy of the Oakland A's? Nine consecutive losses in games that could have clinched the American League Division Series? Did you watch last night's Game 5 of the 2003 ALDS, Oakland against the Boston Red Sox? It was a remarkable bit of baseball. Even skipping all the baserunning errors and pitching changes, Oakland only trailed 4-3 in the bottom of the 9th, with Boston's highly suspect bullpen poised to give the game to Oakland. This is how the inning unfolded for Oakland: Walk. Walk. Sacrifice bunt. Called strike three. Walk. Called strike three. No runs. No hits. No swings. No errors. Three men left on. Red Sox 4, A's 3. The legacy of Billy Beane is a story that's not yet fully written. There are now three AL teams that play Moneyball -- Boston and Toronto as well as Oakland. Two of those are playoff teams, and Toronto is on the march, perpetually improving third-place finishers in a strong division. The story of "Moneyball", as told by Michael Lewis, effortlessly recounts the "stathead" revolution: how analysis of baseball stats went from the only three stats shown on TV in the '70s (BA, HR, RBI), to the more complex methods espoused by Harvard men like Paul DePodesta, who came to power at the height of the small-market revolution. Unbeknownst to baseball's asleep-at-the-wheel Commissioner, there is a way to win ball games without expensive free agent signings. Billy Beane's A's have won four straight AL West titles, espousing the virtues of patience, power, pitchers who throw strikes. Under his philosophy, teams can win with or without the high-salaried slugger (Jason Giambi, who crawled his way to a .250 batting average with the Yanks in 2003), without the highly-paid manager (Art Howe, who sleepwalked his way to a last-place finish with the Mets in '03, and hopefully won't be back). Oakland wins every year, even as their salary plummets. They'll lose Miguel Tejada this winter, and still win at least 95 games in 2004. This is baseball... without the baseball. Where are the limits to winning Moneyball? You go deep into the A's lineup in the bottom of the 9th in the One Big Game they couldn't win: where was the slugger? Where was the scary bat? For a team that prides itself on the big picture (the three-run homer), where were the fundamentals? Why didn't Eric Byrnes touch home in Game 3? Why did two different innings in Game 5 end when baserunners were gunned down (by a mile each) going for the extra base? Why did Ramon Hernandez sac-bunt in the 9th, giving the Red Sox pitchers the out they couldn't get themselves? Why didn't Melhuse and Long *swing* at strike three? In the long run, Moneyball has proven itself to be a winning philosophy. The sabermetrics revolution is in its early stages, not its late stages -- in spite of Oakland's repeated playoff failures; in spite of Anaheim's throwback World Series win in 2002; in spite of George Steinbrenner's bank vault and cable millions. This is the wave of the future, the natural answer to baseball's escalating salary structure: you can win without paying $6 million a year to a .260 hitter who doesn't walk, or without paying Todd van Poppel money to Todd Van Poppel. However... why are the A's 0-9 in championship games? Why didn't the team take their bats off their shoulders when it really counted?
Rating:
Summary: Moneyball
Review: In short, if you follow the oakland A's, you will love this book. If you follow baseball closely, you will love this book. A fan of baseball will like it. A casual observer may find parts boring.
Rating:
Summary: Not What You Think It's About
Review: Great writer, lousy title, flawed book, but still worth reading if you know what it's about. Fans of the Oakland A's will enjoy the book for the inside view of the 2002 season - incomplete but insightful where Lewis chooses to look. Fans of baseball who struggle with the direction of the game can see how the economics of the game are driving a new strategy in managing teams - and see why the Red Sox and Blue Jays are following the Athletics formula for appraising player talent differently than traditional (conventional) methods in the league. Those looking for how baseball should be restructured should look elsewhere. This book doesn't have all the answers. It could give fantasy baseball managers a few things to mull over. Sabermetricians will find it light on substance (no math and almost no stats in it). Finally, for fans of Michael Lewis, it's not his best work. I expected more than he fits in here. Good bits, but a bit too much of Michael in the pages, and not enough about the rest of the Athletics players, coaches and executives. It reads like 40-60% of the material Lewis had in mind is missing, however; it introduces the New Baseball Management, and the 2002 A's, but ends just when there should be some sort of payoff. More time with the team, or more time to put something more together could have made this a great book. Deserves 3.5 stars, and could have been more (sort of like the Athletics postseasons recently)
Rating: 
Summary: Making a lot out of little
Review: The author's contempt for traditional baseball wisdom and leadership and his hero worship of Billy Bean the GM of the Oakland team distorts the few insights the book offers. Sure there is far too much "conventional wisdom" and old-time, seat of the pants flying in the game. And what game doesn't have that? The stock market? The attribution of genius to the number crunchers who figured out that on base percentage was more important than batting average and the few other items of this nature certainly doesn't justify a book. In many cases the author grudgingly admits that a lot of people had kind of figured these things out anyway - like that luck plays a big part in any single game's outcome. The liner right at the first baseman, the bloop single... Casey Stengel and Connie Mack knew that. The book is also disfigured by a certain intellectual snobbery. The new age wizards are all from Yale or Harvard it seems. If you want to irritate baseball people that's a good way to start. The story about the release of a veteran player days before he qualifies for a pension by the hero Billy Bean is mentioned coldly, factually. One can't tell whether this is to illustrate Billy's admirable ruthlessness in pursuit of victory or his bad side which the author couldn't quite condemn out of gratefulness at being allowed inside the clubhouse. It could make a non-A's fan hope they lose. The book also has page after page of "filler" anecdotal stories about ballplayers which I enjoy as an old-time fan but which have little relationship to the theme of the book. Verdict: as a baseball book, fair. On a personal basis, kind of nasty. I wonder if Billy Bean liked it? I might add that it is obvious why the book virtually ignores the three star pitchers obviously responsible for the A's recent success, Hudson, Mulder and Zito. It is because they were not selected on the new, miraculous, computer-analysis basis but presumably by the old time "good face" scouting demonized so acidly in the book! The book is very selective in this area.
| 
