Note: This is a reposting of an article written during the changeover; however, new material was added.  If you already read it, you may want to comment on Michael Kay's buffoonery.

Billy Beane never wrote a book.  Billy Beane never had a cute name for his tenure in Oakland.  But everyone from MLB Network's Mitch Williams to the broadcast crew of last week's Reds/White Sox game would have you believe it. 

Most broadcasts rely on that crutch for some lively fifth inning banter.  The scenario usually plays out as such: Player x draws a walk.  Player x played for AAA Sacramento, and was a September call-up for the Athletics.  "Yep, he's one of those players out of the Oakland system." 

And the analyst, as was the case last Saturday in Cincinnati, always takes the bait.  The response is some variation of, "Well that Moneyball philosophy isn't working too well lately now is it?"  The play by play man, sensing a rant bubbling beneath the surface, plays it one of two ways.  One is to agree and move on.  The other is to encourage it with some variation of, "It hasn't been successful in recent years has it?"

Of course, if I'm the third man in the booth, I come down on a different side.  "Moneyball is quite successful.  Michael Lewis got a best-seller out of it.  And until last week, it was going to be adapted into a comedy on the big screen."  I would then receive two cold stares that say to me, "We're talkin' baseball here, son.  Dirt in the uniform, stealing bases, hittin' the cut-off man and such.  You're talkin'bout book learnin' during a baseball game."  Then I'd have to remind them that Moneyball is a book, and no, Billy Beane did not write it.  It would just get ugly from that point.

Billy Beane should get credit for his successes, and be admonished for his failures.  He should not be worshipped as a demigod, nor cast as a villain.  Beane did what any manager of anything should do - exploit inefficiencies in the marketplace for their employer's benefit.  That is what "Moneyball" is.

Of course, one could argue that Beane's greatest failure was declassifying all of it.  I am convinced that there are a handful of scouts and GMs out there who would still be scratching their heads over what Oakland was accomplishing.  Beane's self-congratulating attitude toward his trades kept other GMs away.  The "f-ing A trade" was no longer possible.  After all, there's got to be a reason Beane is calling about this guy.  With this book in hand, the other GMs knew exactly why.

Beane's success should not be minimized.  Aside from Oakland's early decade success, the Red Sox employed similar strategies to win the 2004 and 2007 World Series titles.  In essence, to use the euphemism, the Red Sox were playing moneyball, only they did it with more money.  I do not mean to say that Billy Beane is responsible for those titles; however, I do mean to say to those who use the term "Moneyball" as a baseball strategy, "It can and has worked."

Another Beane success comes from an analysis of marginal wins.  Marginal wins are essentially wins over a baseline versus dollars spent.  Some may say that there is no room for this in a winning and losing industry.  What I say to that is that everyone has a job and tools with which to do it.  Managers maximize their outputs using various inputs, all within an environment that has constraints.  Beane's job is to use the right combination of scouts and tools to obtain the best possible talent, given the payroll he has been assigned by his employer.

In 2006, the A's won the division with a $49,000,000 marginal payroll (I stripped out the portion that clubs are obligated to pay, vis-à-vis league minimum).  In 2008, that figure was $32,300,000.  This year, that figure is back up to $46,000,000. 

Overall, the constraints have grown, and the wins have decreased.  That said, the A's of the past three seasons have been in the top ten in terms of investment needed per win.  Each 2006 win above baseline (Tampa) cost the A's $16,520.  Each 2008 win above baseline (DC) cost the A's $26,973.  One could surmise that the loss in efficiency came from the increase in constraints.  That figure, by the way, ranked seventh behind Florida, Tampa, Minnesota, Milwaukee, LAA, and Arizona.  For fun, each of Seattle's two wins above baseline cost them $839,243 to achieve.

One final note would be to point you to this site:  baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/03/20...

You will notice that the A's join the Brewers, Diamondbacks, Blue Jays, Indians, and Twins as the only clubs from 2006-2008 to have above average total wins and a below average payroll.

I think that before we deem the Beane regime a failure, let's see how the 2007 and 2008 drafts pan out (when payroll went down, thus Beane knew that future success would have to come from drafting).  The big what if has always been, what could the guy be doing in a constraint-free environment?

Update: As I sat down to watch "The Sports Reporters" on the four letter's Sunday line-up, I flew into a Beane-esque rage over Michael Kay's opening line.  In essence, Kay talked about Tim Lincecum's awesomeness.  Okay, fair enough.  Then he lamented the fact that he just doesn't look like a Major Leaguer.

I would like to say that this was tongue-in-cheek.  Perhaps this was something that Kay thought would serve as witty, one-line analysis.  What it is, is THE reason why people continue to cite "Moneyball" as a relevant script on baseball.

What part doesn't look Major League? Is it the part where he throws the ball past professional hitters on a regular basis.  Is it the part where he makes knees buckle?  Is it when he comes off the mound to effectively field his position?  Was Jim Abbott Major League enough?

Of course, it should come as no surprise to me that a Yankee employee would say such things.  After all, this is the franchise that publicly squabbled with its best player of the 1980s over a moustache.  Could you imagine if this element of the Yankees coprorate culture had taken hold in the 1920s? 

Yanks: "Mr Frazee.  I hear you have a play opening down this way.  I can deliver some dough, if you can help get this team of mine out of the doldrums."

Sox: "How about Ruth?  He's a good player.  I could launch plays on Broadway for the next five years if you took him off my hands."

Yanks: "Ruth?  That slob?  Doesn't he play with hot dogs in his pocket?  A smoker too I hear.  Eh, he don't look like a Major League ball player.  Send him to the White Sox.  That team looks like they'll win a lot titles.  He could make them worse.  If we took him, I don't know when we'd win.  2005 at the earliest."