Michael Lewis on the Hidden Economics of Baseball and Football
Jan 29 2007Michael Lewis talks about the economics of sports--the financial and decision-making side of baseball and football--using the insights from his bestselling books on baseball and football: Moneyball and The Blind Side. Along the way he discusses the implications of Moneyball for the movie business and other industries, the peculiar ways that Moneyball influenced the strategies of baseball teams, the corruption of college football, and the challenge and tragedy of kids who live on the streets with little education or prospects for success.
READER COMMENTS
John
Jan 30 2007 at 3:24pm
Does any one know if Beane’s discoveries have significantly altered the coaching of baseball skills at minor league, college or high school level?
Baseball Ticket
Feb 7 2007 at 7:30pm
I’m very impressed with Michael’s conclusions. Interesting take on the situation. I’m curious; what does the conclusions about the economics of poverty mean for smaller venues?
Matt
Feb 8 2007 at 2:12pm
Just wanted to point out that the blog The Sports Law Professor thinks that Left Tackles are over paid and quarterbacks are under valued and he says why.
http://thesportslawprofessor.blogspot.com/2007/02/nfl-quarterbacks-are-underpaid-and-left.html
[URL corrected–Econlib Ed.]
pdbailey
Feb 11 2007 at 6:06pm
Russ used and odd points in this ‘cast. The assumption is that the owners are profit maximizing and have complete information. This is the same as assuming that there is no such thing as technological advancement–if you have complete information then you would realize all technologies instantly. Oakland had a technology improvement, it’s undeniable, look at the stories of pitchers where there is no argument that a lower ERA isn’t more exciting than a a higher ERA.
Salaam Yitbarek
Jun 4 2007 at 7:12am
I hope you don’t mind that I comment on your Michael Lewis interview here – I’ve only just listened to it, I feel compelled to comment, but comments are disabled there.
You talked about negative reactions to Moneyball from certain members of the baseball community often because of its implications on their livelihood. I think there’s another reason to dislike this rationalization or optimization of the game, and that is aesthetics.
For me, sport is first and foremost an art. For the most part, it is the imperfections in the game that make the art attractive. I don’t know if baseball would be as enjoyable if, for example, all field managerial decisions were made by a computer. Or if baseball athletes were all seven foot tall, 300lbs, and ran a four second forty.
Undoubtedly, some would enjoy the art of ‘manager software’, and others would enjoy the video-game feel of bionic athletes playing baseball. But it would be a changed art form, one that perhaps many current fans would no longer be interested in.
[Note: This comment has been moved here from a different thread, and comments reopened temporarily. We’ll keep them open unless they attract spam.–Econlib Ed.]
Comments are closed.