If you're a baseball fan and you haven't read it, you should. Whether you agree or not, it's a great read and something that baseball fans should understand, simply because it's starting to appear throughout the Major Leagues.
With that said, it's rare that the Moneyball principles are talked about in great depth at the college level. But why not? I guess first would be the "Money" part of Moneyball. Since salaries are not a part of the equation, neither is value. Still, the basics should remain the same. The basics, as I see them, are to not give the defense outs, to work pitch counts, and to get on base.
Sure, that sounds like common sense, but think about it. Not giving the defense outs is very different from how baseball has been played through the years. For example, when you sacrifice bunt, you give them an out. So, as a Moneyball principle, don't do it, except in very rare circumstances. Working the pitch count is similar. But many people will still preach that the first pitch will be the best you see in an at-bat. I would argue that if that's the case, you better damn well crush the ball if you're hacking at pitch one. But the reason for this principle is to get to the bullpen, where the lesser of the opponents' pitchers reside. Play to their weaknesses. Finally, you have to get on base. Save your "clutch hitting" claptrap for someone who believes in it. You don't score runs unless you're on base. The more you're on base, the more chances you have to score. And baseball is a game of averages.
With the basics behind us, let me get to the point. I was at the Nevada Wolf Pack-San Jose State University Spartans game yesterday. The Pack lost again and was swept by the Spartans. Things are not looking good at Peccole right now. The team, the past two Sundays, has not looked at all good to me. They're 2-1 in games I attended, and haven't looked especially adept offensively in any of them, save a two-homer game by Shawn Scobee. Without being able to cite other specific examples, I saw what has hit me as a recurring theme in the games I've seen this year: complete and utter ineptitude at handling certain in-game situations by head coach Gary Powers.
Article comments
1 - Admit it.
You're just bitter because the Wolfpack suck and that the SJSU has a pretty decent college baseball team. Admit it.
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
Moneyball was a great book and an intersting experiment on winning games. Games, not championships.
But the fundamentals need to be taught at the college level. Obviously if they're bad like "Admit it" says they are (I have no idea) then they'll manufacture a run when given the chance.
3 - mrjerz
Thanks, Admit it. I was really confused until I read that. But honestly, I might be just slightly bitter. I was expecting Nevada to finish first in all three men's sports in the WAC - something San Jose has never even sniffed. Of course, there's also the part where I actually believe what I wrote, and think it makes complete sense. If you don't think so, let's hear why.
Suss, I have to disagree. When you say "fundamentals" I'm hoping you mean things like smart baserunning and defense. If you mean to throw bunting in there, you lose me. Bunting and giving up outs is only a "fundamental" that's adhered to by people who like to bunt and give up outs. I disagree completely with the philosophy, and think more teams should be playing the game the way I see fit. Sure, it's a bit unrealistic and egocentric, but I think it's the way to go. I agree that the team might not be that good, but wouldn't you agree that if you're not that good, the last thing you should be doing is giving the other team an out at any point on purpose?
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
Again, I admit ignorance of the team in question but if they're one that struggles to generate runs and small ball is one of their strengths then I say go for it.
But yes, a five straight balls? Step aside and let the man pitch.
5 - mrjerz
Ignorance to the team shouldn't matter. I was simply using this example as a general case for Moneyball. I'll be the first to admit that one example is not enough to win an argument, but it was all I had. If you generalize about the lineup (leadoff guy can get on, third hitter has power, etc.) then it makes no difference what the strengths of the team are. Plus, it didn't work the way they did it, so I was right, right?
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Plus, it didn't work the way they did it, so I was right, right?"
Now that's my kinda logic. You'll fit in round here juuuust fine.