I just finished reading Moneyball – The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
by Michael Lewis, also well-known for his

best-selling book Liars Poker: Rising through the Wreckage on Wall Street
, and although it’s an OK book (written in 2003) about how a major professional team is pioneering the use of a revolutionary statistical system (called sabermetrics) for scientifically evaluating and selecting players to maximise team performance, I actually found it amazing that the book was written in the first place for a few reasons.
-
The book is mostly about how the Oakland Athletics (The A’s), a “small-market” resource constrained Major League Baseball Team, have broken ranks with the traditional methods employed by the rest of the league to employ a scientific statistical method to value players to ultimately field the winningest team while competing against richer “big market” rivals like the New York Yankees and Mets. This has led to the A’s consistently having one of the best team records in the league while also having one of the lowest payrolls at the same time, clearly outperforming every other team when considering the number of team wins vs. the total team payroll.
What really surprised me about this book was the continued comparisons of the “market” for baseball players to financial markets, namely that the Oakland A’s have discovered and now exploit “market inefficiencies” which lead to abnormally high profits or performance over a sustained period. The case goes, if markets were “efficient” then all information would be known to all traders in that market under exactly the same conditions, making it therefore impossible to generate excess profits from better information. This is one of the reasons insider trading can be so profitable since the trader has non-public proprietary information that they can trade for their benefit.
So why did this surprise me? – Two reasons below…
- Disclosure of Trade Secrets: If the A’s believed they have discovered an inefficiency in the market for valuing player performance that has led to their “abnormal” positive performance, why would they participate in the publishing of this book which essentially would disclose its “secret sauce” to their competitors (the other teams)? Given the implications of disclosing their methods (even though the A’s did not invent them), they risk eliminating this market inefficiency, thereby making the market more efficient leading them to a situation where they can no longer acquire valuable players at discount prices
- Reputation Effects for repeated interactions: Given that the A’s have 29 other teams they need to interact with repeatedly, the publication of this book not only discloses their secret sauce as covered in #1 above, but it also announced to these teams that the A’s believed they were “smarter” than the other teams and took advantage of the other General Managers in the league . In game theory, with repeated interactions you clearly do not want to take advantage, or screw over, your fellow players for fear of retribution. In a nutshell, reputation matters. If I were a peer of Billy Beane, the General Manager of the Oakland A’s, I would be extremely wary of ever doing a deal with him given what I have read in this book.
Public Enemy #1 according to Nash
For these two reasons, I was extremely shocked to read such an open discourse of the Oakland Athletics’ trading strategies. The rest of the book is actually just OK – I did not love it, and as a kid I was an avid reader of baseball books, and Michael Lewis tries to bring the game to life through experiences of some of the players who were evaluated by the A’s over the course of his research. As a whole though, I am very supportive of the use of technology and more quantitative analysis (see ‘I don’t need your stinkin’ numbers’ section in the link) to measure performance, so its definitely worthwhile in this respect.