Moneyball Methods: Bullpen Building With Billy Beane

I spent some time reading over Moneyball recently (again) and I couldn’t help but to think of Mariano Rivera and the rest of the Yankees bullpen squad as I took in this particular passage.

“…it was more efficient to create a closer than to buy one.  Established closers were systematically overpriced, in large part because of the statistic by which closers were judged in the marketplace: ’saves.’  The very word made the guy who achieved them sound vitally important.  But the situation typically described by the save–the bases empty in the ninth inning with the team leading–was clearly far less critical than a lot of other situations pitchers faced.  The closer’s statistic did not have the power of language; it was just a number.  You could take a slightly above average pitcher and drop him into the closer’s role, let him accumulate some gaudy number of saves, and then sell him off.  You could, in essence, buy a stock, pump it up with false publicity, and sell it off for much more than you’d paid for it.  Billy Beane had already done it twice, and assumed he could do so over and over again.” (Moneyball p. 125)

For those who don’t know, Moneyball is a book by Michael Lewis that details the inner-workings of the Oakland A’s front office (GM- Billy Beane) and their use of “new” baseball knowledge (e.g. OBP, SLG, OPS, etc.) to construct a cheap and effective baseball team (early 2000’s), which is rather conflicting with traditional baseball knowledge and methods (objectivist vs. subjectivist).  Anyway, this excerpt refers to the loss of closer Jason Isringhausen at the end of 2001, allowing the A’s to pick up a first-round draft pick as well as a compensation pick.

Compare this concept to the Mariano Rivera contract that was issued a few days earlier.  Notice the lack of nostalgia and absence of the “loyalty” from it all.  Some may say this is not the proper way to do things, citing issues of morality or team unity (leadership, etc.).  However, it seems as though this is simply an adjusted manner of thought, grounded in economical reasoning.  What I mean by that is, baseball has ultimately become a business and the players treat it that way (look at A-Rod).  Therefore, why not place your players in this framework, one which consists of returns, investments, inflation, and so on and so forth.  I’m not championing this conceptual dynamic, nor am I disagreeing with it, I’m just wondering if it could be helpful for the Yankees.

Instead of applying this thinking to their closer (which the Yankees obviously do not), why not apply it to the rest of your bullpen.  Need a set-up guy?  Make one.  Pluck him from the minor leagues and let Joba Chamberlain maintain course (rotation).  Need middle relievers?  Why settle for Ron Mahay, Percival or others, when you can simply (simply probably isn’t the best word) make them by giving your kids a chance (cheap and possibly effective).  Hell, and in the end, pump the stock up, let it hit its peak and then trade them off.  It’s not a bad idea considering the short shelf-life of a good reliever.

Buy, produce and sell.  Just another day at the office.  What do you think?