Moneyball

) What was the “Moneyball”approach that Billy Beane and Peter Brandt applied to the Oakland Athletics 2002 season? Was it an “art” or a “science”? What single statistic did they boil their value consideration down to? (In class research/discussion)
-They decided to stop looking for overpriced, superstar players and spend money on underpriced players who can get themselves on base. I think that they combined the art of knowing how the game of baseball works with the science of statistics. Their main statistic was OBP (On-Base Percentage).

2) What is the equation used to calculate OBP? (In class research/discussion)
-OBP=(Walks+Hit by Pitch+Hits)/(At-Bats+Walks+Hit by Pitch+Sacrifice)

3) What is design? (In class research/discussion)
-Design, according to Merriam-Webster, means to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

4) Describe 3 situations where movie characters (intentionally or not) applied a step from the PLTW 12 Step Design Process. Explain both the (a) situation as well as (b) how the step is relevant:
1 –a) Billy Beane identifies the problem to his scouts to start off the meeting, b) Identify the problem.

2 – a) Billy decides to trade Jeremy Giambi away because he isn’t worth all the trouble he is causing off the field, b) Refine.

3 – a) Billy and Peter scouting the minor leagues and unwanted free agents to find cheap, good players, b) Research and Generate Ideas.


5) What is “Leadership”? List the three aspects of leadership that we come up with in class. (In class research/discussion)

1 – Direction
2 - Alignment
3 - Commitment


6) Describe 3 circumstances from the story where a character exercised effective leadership:
1 - Billy showed leadership when he taught Peter Brandt how to cut and interact with the players.

2 – Peter showed leadership when David Justice asked about Billy’s tendencies, and he gave honest answers and stayed loyal to Billy instead of just siding with David.

3 – David Justice showed leadership when he tried to talk to Chris Hatteberg in the clubhouse, although it wasn’t exactly successful.



7) According to the movie, what was the A’s record at the start of their winning streak? 68: 51

8) What does this ratio simplify to (roughly)? 1.33: 1

9) How long was the A’s record setting winning streak? 20 games won.

10) Given the A’s win/loss ratio at the start of the streak (listed two questions above), what are the odds of winning 20 games in a row? Run the numbers. (In class research/discussion)
- It would take 447 seasons for a streak like that to naturally occur, assuming the initial conditions were the same before each game.

11) Based on your calculation, do you think the A’s got lucky or was there something to the Moneyball approach?
- I definitely think that there was something to the Moneyball approach. With a team full of superstars, each star’s skill set can interfere with another’s and they normally don’t click very well. Look at last season’s Miami Heat. However, all of these players were either has-beens or cheap minor-leaguers who had good attitudes about the game, making for good team chemistry and a fairly successful season.

12) Did Billy Beane strictly apply the “science” of Moneyball to his management approach? Was there an “art” to his efforts as well? Describe a circumstance where he broke from the Moneyball approach to make a positive change for the team.
-He broke the “Moneyball” approach when he got rid of Jeremy Giambi. They knew before acquiring him that he would be a hassle off the field, but Billy thought he could deal with it. At a certain point though, he didn’t think he was worth it anymore.

Bonus Question (look into this if you’ve finished ahead of the class):
Money Ball was originally a book. What author wrote the book? What other books has this author written? Is there a theme to his writing?
-Michael Lewis wrote the book. He has also written Blindside: Evolution of a Game and Liar’s Poker. His books seem to all be themed around sports.

It's "Oscar Season", will Moneyball win the Oscar for any of the categories it's up for?
-No.