When I saw this article that appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune on October 2, 2015 I couldn’t believe what I was reading. It was riddled with half-truths and gave the impression that Moneyball was successful in baseball and because of this, could be applied to medicine. This belief however, cannot be substantiated.
To show its success they point to the Oakland Athletics who were the first to use Moneyball and had a winning season. Not mentioned was that they had 4 to 5 excellent young pitchers who were big-time winners. In other words, they won because of good players not because of Moneyball.
If Moneyball produced better players I think we would all be in favor of applying some of the principles to medicine to produce healthier people. However, instead of improving player performance, Moneyball appears to decrease the ability of the players to become great.
For example, batting averages have steadily been going down. Hitting .250 which was once mediocre at best, is now considered great. Pitchers are now pitching less and winning fewer games. And they are getting injured more often. When running the bases players are still getting the same number, if not more, hamstring injuries.
Proponents of Moneyball are quick to point out all the various statistics that are now available on players. They may be great for the managers to use but they do not improve play on the field. Nor do they give any indication on how the player’s skills can be improved.
If they would take half the time that they spend on evaluation of all the statistics on improving the ability of the players to run, hit and throw, we would see much better performances. It is a myth to believe that the players already at their peak. In many cases they are far from fully exploiting their potential.
By spending more time on improving the skills of the players we would see batting averages go up and pitching performances would be more reliable and successful. And, perhaps most importantly, there would be fewer injuries.