Sabermetrics changed baseball. This mathematical analysis of baseball statistics changed the way that scouts, managers, players and fans evaluate the successes of baseball players. It was widely introduced by Bill James, a once unknown baseball writer, who realized that traditional forms of analysis were skewed and didn’t accurately reflect the performance—both present and future—of a player. While it wasn’t welcomed with open arms, it slowly gained acceptance in the world of baseball.

Sabermetrics and The Book
Prior to this unconventional way of assessing player performance, Major League Baseball managers relied on other forms of evaluation, referred to as “The Book”. The Book was essentially a guideline of what to do in certain situations, such as bunting or drawing a walk. I view it as a mental reference that manager’s used to make decisions—much like a blackjack player may refer to a guide on when to hit or stand in the card game. This was seen as the norm back then, managers relied on this wisdom to make decisions during crucial (and often non-crucial) moments in baseball games.

There are several problems that James identified with The Book; one instance was regarding walks. They mention that walks were previously seen as a neutral statistic and weren’t necessarily good or bad for the team. James took a different approach and suggested the use of on-base percentage that would calculate the percentage of times a player reaches base safely—through a hit or a walk. This, James thought, was a better statistic because a walk is technically good for the team since they have another runner that has an opportunity to score.

Complacent Executives
James’ way of thinking introduced an opportunity for managers and owners to find talent at a lower cost, but it wasn’t highly regarded because these executives were content with the ways of the past. They were comfortable with their past successes based on their evaluations, so they didn’t look for anything new. These executives have left a lot of money on the table by overpaying players who are underperforming.

The problem is that they were complacent. In an article in The New Republic titled “Who’s on First” makes an interesting point when they state that:

Like most people, including experts, they tend to rely on simple rules of thumb, on traditions, on habits, on what other experts seem to believe. Even when the stakes are high, rational behavior does not always emerge. It takes time and effort to switch from simple intuitions to careful assessments of evidence.

These executives weren’t thinking outside the box, rather relying on old wisdom and processes that were familiar to them. The fact that something new had come along that could potentially be better was an uncomfortable adjustment for them.

When viewing statistics it is important to ensure that what you’re looking at is relative, especially because they have the tendencies to affect your thoughts and behaviors. Some of the statistics that were recorded weren’t necessarily bad to have, the problem lied in the changed thoughts about players based on these statistics. Sometimes we make snap judgments based on this data, which is a problem when the data may be irrelevant.

Executives could also have been relying on their own past baseball experiences. By drawing on their past experiences and making rash generalizations, it opens the doors to bad judgment. They assume that what had happened in the past is still relevant, which is often times untrue. Another problem that likely occurred is that these executives thought they saw something that they actually didn’t. They could have been too consumed with what they were seeing at the actual games, and not paying attention to relevant statistics. It is important to base judgments on facts, when possible, because it allows for conclusive findings. When watching a baseball game it is easy to be awed by sensational moments that are made and house those moments in your memory to be drawn upon at a later time. If you see a player hit a game winning homerun, it’s likely that you will have grandeur of that particular player. While this may be a positive memory, it can skew judgment. It is crucial to look at the aspects of the game in the big picture, rather than the short term.

Beane’s Effectiveness
Billy Beane was effective in changing the thinking of the Oakland Athletics based on his observations with how statistics were recorded. His methods may have not been traditional but he was able to pass his vision through to the organization and made them better because of it.

Collaboration
Beane was able to work with the Athletics owner to promote his management style and the owner saw his way of thinking. It is important to be collaborative in most situations and look for the win-win situation, and he was able to develop a relationship with the owner so he understood his style of managing. He also had to work with other management and they players so they understood this approach. One way that Beane sold his vision to other managers was through being creative in his approach. When speaking with the field manager about pitching rotations he told him to think of the player as “the closer before the ninth inning.” This was a great way to win others to his way of thinking because he created a vision within them, showing them a different way to look at the situation.

Unconventional Thinking
Beane was also a very unconventional thinker; he saw things that other parties didn’t see. When he would talk with scouts he would hear over and over about the body type of players and Beane would challenge their thinking. He would argue that they wouldn’t be successful in the MLB simply based on their body type and tout, “We’re not selling jeans here!” He was able to change the way that he thought which changed the way that he saw things and ended up changing the outcome. He wasn’t simply reliant on what others were doing. Beane had a much different perception on what a professional baseball player would be like and he was able to use this to his advantage. Many players who Beane thought would be successful were being passed over by other teams and he was able to sign them at a cheaper price because of it. Several scouts and managers had tunnel vision and simply weren’t forward thinking like Billy Beane.

Proactive Approach
Billy Beane was also effective in being proactive in his approach and ensuring that he was evaluating the proper criteria. He was great at evaluating future player performance. Beane relied on objective evidence and ignored subjective findings. By taking this scientific and statistic approach, he was able to see patterns and use them to his advantage. He took a qualitative approach to managing rather than simply looking at base evaluations. He was proactive, looking for things that he could control, rather than being reactive.

Takeaways
There is a lot to be learned from Beane and James’ approaches to baseball and it is applicable in many different arenas, not simply in baseball:

• By challenging the status quo, you are able to unveil new ways of thinking that can bring great success.
• By being forward thinking, you are able to adapt certain strategies prior to your competition that can give you a competitive advantage.
• It’s also fascinating to think how baseball, which is highly tracked and recorded, had such inefficiencies in its operations. The potential for this to happen in other markets is highly likely.
• Many of Beane’s methodology can be easily transitioned into our lives—being proactive, collaborating with our team members, constantly looking for the next best thing, never settling for the status quo and ensuring that we strive for more.

• Tweet