Moneyball - Michael Lewis [60]
At any rate, by the beginning of the 2002 season, the Oakland A’s, by winning so much with so little, had become something of an embarrassment to Bud Selig and, by extension, Major League Baseball. “An aberration” is what the baseball commissioner, and the people who worked for him, called the team, and when you asked them what they meant by that nebulous word, they said, though not for attribution, “They’ve been lucky.” This was the year the luck of the A’s was meant to run out. The relative size of the team’s payroll had shrunk yet again. The difference between the Yankees’ and A’s opening day payrolls had ballooned from $62 million in 1999 to $90 million in 2002. The Blue Ribbon Panel’s nightmare scenario for poor teams had become a reality for the 2002 Oakland A’s. They had lost to free agency—and thus, to richer teams—three of their proven stars: Jason Isringhausen, Johnny Damon, and Giambi.
To a financial determinist like Bud Selig, the wonder must have been that they hadn’t simply given up. Of course, no one in pro sports ever admits to quitting. But it was perfectly possible to abandon all hope of winning and at the same time show up every day for work to collect a paycheck. Professional sports had a word for this: “rebuilding.” That’s what half a dozen big league teams did more or less all the time. The Kansas City Royals had been rebuilding for the past four or five years. Bud Selig’s Brewers had been taking a dive for at least a decade. The A’s didn’t do this, for the simple reason that they actually believed they were going to keep on winning—perhaps not so many games as they had in 2001, but enough to get themselves back to the play-offs.
Before the 2002 season, Paul DePodesta had reduced the coming six months to a math problem. He judged how many wins it would take to make the play-offs: 95. He then calculated how many more runs the Oakland A’s would need to score than they allowed to win 95 games: 135. (The idea that there was a stable relationship between season run totals and season wins was another Jamesean discovery.) Then, using the A’s players’ past performance as a guide, he made reasoned arguments about how many runs they would actually score and allow. If they didn’t suffer an abnormally large number of injuries, he said, the team would score between 800 and 820 runs and give up between 650 and 670 runs.* From that he predicted the team would win between 93 and 97 games and probably wind up in the play-offs. “There aren’t a lot of teams that win ninety-five games and don’t make it to the play-offs,” he said. “If we win ninety-five games and don’t make the play-offs, we’re fine with that.”
The 2001 Oakland A’s had won 102 regular season games. The 2002 Oakland A’s entered the season without the three players widely regarded by the market to be among their best and the expected result was a net loss of seven wins. How could that be? The only way to understand the math was to look a bit more closely at what, exactly, the team lost, or believed they lost, when other, richer teams hired away each of the three stars.
The first, and easiest, player to understand was their old flame-throwing closer, Jason Isringhausen. When Billy Beane had traded for him in the middle of the 1999 season, Isringhausen was pitching in the minor leagues with the New York Mets. To get him and a more expensive pitcher named Greg McMichael and the money to pay McMichael’s salary, all Billy Beane had given up was his own established closer, Billy Taylor. Taylor, who ceased to be an effective pitcher more or less immediately upon joining the Mets, Billy Beane had himself plucked from the minor leagues for a few thousand dollars a few years earlier.
The central insight that led him both to turn minor league nobodies into successful big league closers and to refuse to pay