From the New York Times (Al, this is what I was going to e-mail you the other day):

 

April 26, 2005

10 QUESTIONS FOR . . .

Michael Lewis

 

The author of "Moneyball" and The Times Magazine article, "Absolutely, Power Corrupts," answered readers' questions on the present and future state of baseball.

 

Q. 1. When I read your book, I wondered whether the advantage of the strategy you described - acquiring undervalued players who seem unattractive to traditional scouts but nonetheless are good at getting on base - would be diluted as teams reassessed their standards for choosing players, to the point where baseball reached a sort of market equilibrium. To what extent do you think this has occurred?

- Adam Breuer, Cambridge, Mass.

 

A. To a great extent. Two Clemson economists actually have studied the undervaluation of on base percentage that Oakland exploited, and the way the market has become more efficient. You can read their report here.

 

If you asked the Oakland front office, they'd probably say that there are still inefficiencies in the market for baseball players. And that may be true. But, with a possible exception, they aren't as great as they were before Oakland began to systematically exploit them. The exception is in the market for amateur players. Find a better way to evaluate amateur players and you've found a gold mine.

 

Q. 2. I enjoyed "Moneyball" and found the Athletics' strategy fascinating. Their low priority on defense, however, is surprising. As a Mets fan, the 2005 team offers excellent defense as well as an improved offense. Of course, the Mets can afford to spend more than most teams on players that provide better offense and defense. As I watch the Mets in the field this year taking away offense from other teams and turning difficult double plays, I value the defense and appreciate watching better baseball in N.Y. What are your views on the importance of defense in having a competitive team?

- Jerry Stern, White Plains, N.Y.

 

A. It isn't that defense isn't important. It's that, at most positions, an ability to handle the bat is so much more important than whatever a player might do with the glove. Put another way: if you are putting together a baseball team, and you know what you are doing, and can't afford the player who can do it all, you will sacrifice glove work for bat work. Having said that, defense has become far more important to the Oakland front office in the past few years, for two reasons. 1) Offense has become more fairly priced - that is, it's harder to find cheap run producing ability. 2) Defense is much harder to value - and they think they have found better ways to value it, thus giving them an advantage when they go out to buy it.

 

Q. 3. Which organizations in the N.B.A. and N.F.L. best emulate Billy Beane's financially responsible and cerebral approach to evaluating talent?

- Tom Paradis, New York, N.Y.

 

A. I haven't made a close study of it but my impression is that, in the N.F.L., it's the New England Patriots. In the N.B.A., the Seattle Supersonics have made some noise about using statistical analysis to re-think the game. And Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has written quite a bit in his blog about working towards what he called "the Moneyball of the N.B.A."

 

Q. 4. In your article for The Times Magazine, you cited Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, and Mark McGuire as three of the four players who have had the most dramatic mid-career power increase. Who's the fourth?

- Dan Kaminski, New York, N.Y.

 

A. Sammy Sosa.

 

Q. 5. My vision for the future of baseball is that players should earn money based on Bill James' Win Shares. Everyone would get the major league minimum plus a prorated amount of the team's total salary. No one resents how much money golfers or tennis players make because it looks like they have to earn it all. I think the same would apply to baseball. If a player hit .350/.450/.650 (average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage) and ended up with 20 of his team's win shares, then no one would complain if that earned him $20 million. Any chance an idea like this could catch on?

- Terry Layne, Portland, Ore.

 

A. I'm not sure how many people will know what Win Shares are but the basic idea - that players should be paid based on what they produce - is a pleasant one. And there is exactly zero chance that the major league baseball player's union would ever let it happen.

 

Q. 6. What, if anything, will ever drive baseball toward realistic income parity between the dominant teams and other markets?

- Jo G. Prichard, Jackson, Miss.

 

A. The death of George Steinbrenner. Seriously, the only way that baseball owners and players agree to the sort of salary caps and revenue sharing that have created such a level financial playing field in the N.F.L. is if they experience a real crisis on the business end of the game. And if you step back from it a bit you see that the game is in pretty good shape. But I think that the theoretical problem envisioned by M.L.B. more than a decade ago - that when you have rich and poor teams, the rich teams would always beat the poor ones - will become more of a real problem the more efficient the market becomes. The Oakland A's - and other poor teams - can compete with a small payroll because they can find ways to make that money go further. But once they lose their intellectual advantage, they are doomed. The Los Angeles Angels spending twice as much on baseball players as Oakland matters more in 2005 than the Texas Rangers spending nearly three times as them in 2002.

 

The question is: do the fans care if only rich teams win? I don't know. New York fans certainly don't seem to.

 

Q. 7. Who are the young general managers who will carry forward the Billy Beane/"Moneyball" approach to baseball general management? It seems that Theo Epstein and Paul DePodesta have applied this approach to the Red Sox and Dodgers with great success. Are there any other sabermetricians in the G.M. pipeline worth keeping a watch on?

- Diego Panama, New York, N.Y.

 

A. I don't have any names for you. I know of 13 teams that have hired at least one person to analyze statistics for them, since "Moneyball" was published, which was just two years ago. So there is a growing pool of people with an understanding of the ideas, and experience inside a big league front office. But a G.M. needn't be a statistician; he needs only to understand the information that can be gleaned from statistics, and be open to the idea that there is such a thing as new baseball knowledge.

 

Q. 8. Do you think teams will ever revolutionize the scouting system entirely and get rid of the tools assessment for statistics? Or will the two coincide and work together?

- Dan Bumpus, Liverpool, N.Y.

 

A. It'd be nuts for any front office to say, "let's skip actually looking at players." There will always be some role for baseball scouts. The question is what they do, and how much influence they have. I'm not sure the baseball scout of the future will be a baseball statistician. But I'll bet that, to add value, he'll spend less time staring mutely at, and more time interacting with, potential hires.

 

Q. 9. Buzz Bissinger's new book about Tony La Russa seems like an answer of sorts to "Moneyball," arguing essentially that the numbers don't account for everything and the game is still played on the field, not on the ledgers of some 30-something Ivy League accountant. Have you read the book and what is your response to it?

- Scott T., Chicago

 

A. I haven't read the book but I was sent the introduction, in which the author contrasts La Russa with the young men and women with their Ivy League degrees now finding jobs in front offices - and says flat-out that these new people don't love the game as much as the more traditional baseball men. He wants his readers to believe that he is writing about the people who really understand and have a feel for the game, as opposed to these bloodless technocrats. This sort of silliness doesn't have much effect on me but if I were one of those Ivy League graduates - who has put up with endless crap from old schoolers, and worked for far less than what he might be paid in other lines of work, for the joy of doing something he loved - I think I might invite Buzz Bissinger over to show him some love.

 

Q. 10. Do you feel that the effect of modern strength training and nutrition techniques on the recent M.L.B. power surge is being overlooked? Put another way, if NO M.L.B. player touched steroids since 1985, wouldn't we nevertheless expect to see home run numbers rise due to recent and dramatic advances in the field of athletic training?

- John, Iowa

 

A. It's a good way to put the question. Not all technical advances in the building of baseball players' muscles are illegal, illicit or even ignoble. But the trouble is, without very good testing, it is impossible to determine how many of those home runs were earned, and how many were store bought.

I enjoyed this article. Some intelligent questions were asked, and they result in intelligent answers. Funny how this all works. In response to question two, as Michael Lewis stated, the Athletics have re-vamped their defense a great deal since producing a division winner in 2000 with one of the worst defensive outfields in baseball history. The Athletics now feature gold glove caliber infielders at second base, third base and shortstop, and a great defensive outfielder in Mark Kotsay.

 

In response to question nine, Buzz Bissinger's comment in his introduction was downright insulting. Bissinger essentially stated that those of us who study numbers do not love the game. That is funny, because I've sat twice now in 40 degree weather to watch minor league baseball this season.

The fact that the St. Louis skipper is behind the Bissinger book is embarrassing. It's a terrible "counterpunch" to Moneyball - the real response is coming with "Scout's Honor", the book detailing the Braves' success through their intense focus on scouting evaluation.

 

As for this article, I liked it a lot. I specifically enjoyed the discourse about Question #6, which does bring to light an intriguing question - for the A's, what hath Moneyball wrought?

The Athletics will survive just fine. As long as a team experiences success in the amateur draft, the system can never defeat the team.