More Moneyball

I'm officially obsessed with Moneyball, the book glorifying Billy Beane in all his sabermetric glory. I've been having some problems with it. First he ran off Grady Fuson because he drafted Jeremy Bonderman, a pitcher who every other GM around the league would love to have. Second, the players he glorifies in the 2002 draft aren't really amounting to much.

And here's the part I really can't understand. From reading Moneyball, you'd assume it was the A's selective hitting that made them as good as they are. This is simply not true. Their hitting in 2002 and 2003 -- the years when Beane went loco -- was some of the worst in the AL. In 2002 when they won over 100 games, there were only six teams in the AL that scored less runs. One year later, they were the 9th worst run producer in the AL.

Even look at what Beane and DePodesta did with what they call their most important catagory - on base percentage. In 2002, they were fifth in the AL. In 2003, they were 10th with a pathetic .327 team OBP.

Why do the A's win (and this point is the elephant in the living room of Moneyball -- something that is obvious, but not talked about)? Three words: Mulder, Zito and Hudson. The last two seasons, the A's have led the AL in ERA with three starting pitchers who could all find their way to the hall of fame.