The Baseball Economist: The Real Game Exposed

by J.C. Bradbury

Freakonomics meets Moneyball in this provocative exposé of baseball's most fiercely debated controversies and some of its oldest, most dearly held myths—explained through the language of numbers and cool cash.

Two hot topics team up in The Baseball Economist, and the result is a refreshing, clear- eyed survey of a playing field that has changed radically in recent years. Utilizing the latest economic methods and statistical analysis, writer, economics professor, and popular blogger J. C. Bradbury dissects burning baseball topics with his original Sabernomic perspective, such as:
• Did steroids have nothing to do with the recent home run records? Incredibly, Bradbury's research, reviewed by Stanford economists, reveals steroids had little statistical significance.
• Is the big-city versus small-city competition really lopsided? Bradbury shows why the Marlins and Indians are likely to dominate big-city franchises in the coming years.
• Which players are ridiculously overvalued? Bradbury lists all players by team with their revenue value to the team listed in dollars—including a dishonor role of those players with negative values.
• Is major league baseball a monopoly that can't govern itself? Bradbury sets out what rules the owners really need to play by, and what the players' union should be doing.
• Does it help to lobby for balls and strikes? How would Babe Ruth perform in today's game? And who killed all the left-handed catchers, anyway? The Baseball Economist knows.

Providing far more than a mere collection of numbers, Bradbury shines the light of his economic thinking on baseball, exposing the power of tradeoffs, competition, and incentives. Statistics alone aren't enough anymore. Fans, fantasy buffs, and players, as well as coaches at all levels who want to grasp what is really happening on the field today and in the coming years, will use and enjoy Bradbury's brilliant new understanding of the national pastime.

Genres: Baseball, Sports, Economics, Nonfiction

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2007

Reviews

[Eric Hines · Rating 2 out of 5]

The more I read this sort of book, the more I appreciate the uniqueness of Bill James. Math-minded folks seem to have a inveterate tendency toward belaboring the obvious and making huge, crucial assumptions on the way to trivial conclusions. For many of these folks quantification is a sort of religion--there *must* be a way of quantifying anything. If the quantification is inadequate to the phenomenon, well it's the best we've got, so we'll put the inadequacy aside and start drawing conclusions.[return][return]Well, sometimes quantification *reduces* knowledge. When our uncertainty can only be expressed in vague and nebulous terms, at least we know we don't know. When we follow then path of the numbers zealots, for whom nothing can be expressed BUT in numbers (and the prose in any of these non-Jamesian books might be offered as Exhibit A in support of this proposition) soon we've got inadequate measures dressed up in the garb of certainty. It doesn't make for an improvement.

[Jackmccullough · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got to this book in a somewhat circuitous manner. When I saw Rick Porcello intentionally hit Kevin Youkilis with a pitch on August 11 it led me to make the commonplace observation that the designated hitter rule has led pitchers to be more likely to throw at batters in the American League because they don't have to worry about standing in the batter's box and facing retaliation.

This time I went beyond that to look for comparative statistics on hit batsmen in the American and National Leagues, and it turns out there is a debate in the field of economics about whether the DH rule does, in fact, lead to more hit batsmen. The debate involves, among other things, moral hazard, the conservatives' favorite insurance concept except when it applies to CEO's.

One of the links led to this book, and I ordered it online for dirt cheap.

If you're interested in baseball I recommend this book. The author, an economics professor and proprietor of the site www.sabernomics.com. The approach Bradbury takes is that the principles of economics, and the methods of economic research, can help you understand other aspects of human behavior, including baseball. As he puts it, the fundamental rule of economics can be summarized in four words: people respond to incentives.

In The Baseball Economist Bradbury discusses aspects of game play, lineup construction (does a good hitter in the on-deck circle "protect" the batter?), and the big picture economics of baseball's monopoly status, expansion, and whether Major League Baseball acts like a monopoly.

The one part I found not entirely satisfying was the discussion of the antitrust exemption and the Reserve Clause. His discussion of this topic focuses mainly on monopoly principles and barriers to the creation of new baseball teams, but I don't think that squarely addresses the questions raised by Flood v. Kuhn, because that case was addressed mainly to the monopsonistic character of baseball's labor practices, and not to the monopolistic character of its team expansion and siting practices.

Nevertheless, any baseball fan who wants to learn more about baseball, new statistics like OPS, and the interplay between baseball and economics should read this.

Oh, by the way, that question about the DH and American League pitchers? No doubt about it: since they are protected from retaliation they do hit more batters than their National League counterparts.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Underwhelming.

I'm not sure I have a main problem with this book. There are a serious of overlapping issues that really made this sucker so damn "meh" for my tastes.

First, there's a lot of pontification here. A lot of assumptions made that aren't checked on. OK, I get that happens, but it seems like overkill here. For instance, one chapter looks at the question of why there are no left-handed catchers. He notes this theory and that theory and another theory and .... finally on the last page of the paragraph, quotes Bill James on the matter and just decides, "Yup, what he said." Yeah, I also agree with what Bill James said on the matter. (If you got a southpaw with a strong arm, you make him a pitcher, not a catcher), but the whole chapter felt like a waste. A chapter on steroid testing gives a whole slew of conjecture on why players oppose testing for it even if they also say they oppose steroids. Well, if you're giving a bunch of possible reasons - could you look up any quotes or actions or anything by players to back up any of these reasons? C'mon - provide some evidence rather than just pure pontification.

Second, any factors beyond the math are factors that are ignored or minimized. Hmm..that sentence came out wrong. Look, I know it's sabermetrics and it's an attempt to look at things from a statistical point of view. I'm on board with that. But to do it well, it helps to be aware of limitations of what you're equations can tell you. For example, in a chapter titled "What Is a Ballplayer Worth" he adopts a statistical system that accounts for hitting and pitching and .... that's it. No defense. No baserunning. Nothing else. Bradbury notes this limitation in passing - but that's still the system he uses. His chapter on the lack of left-handed catchers notes the theory that catchers can frame pitches to add to their value - but then dismisses it as unimportant. (Oh, he's far from alone in that one. That was sabermetric conventional wisdom .... until we all learned it wasn't true). A chapter on Leo Mazzone looks at coaching ability as if it's as easy to transfer as hitting or pitching ability. Mazzone was doing a great job as a pitching coach in Atlanta, therefore the assumption is he'd have the same value anywhere. Well, dealing with people is a bit more awkward than that. There's how Mazzone worked with the main Braves pitchers, how he worked with Bobby Cox, how it fit the entire Braves system. Shortly after this book came out, Mazzone went to Baltimore and his brief stint there was a total disaster. The team's pitching got worse, their September ERA was 6.89, the worst monthly ERAs any non-Colorado team has had since WWII.

Sometimes I just plain don't like the why he handles the numbers. I already noted how he used a stat that ignored defense (and other factors) when looking at a player's worth. Aside from that, an early chapter looks at if pitchers are more likely to hit batters when they don't have to bat. He notes the AL did have more HBP from the 1970s-onward than the NL, but that the gap narrowed in the 1990s. He gives some reasons - the rise of MLB's warning to both benches practice, the emergence of interleague play. But these reasons don't really fit with the numbers he provides. The reasons he gives would explain why the gap between leagues would lessen due to fewer HBP in the AL -- but in reality the gap lessened due to MORE hit batters in the NL. But Bradbury focuses just on the gap between the leagues, not the raw rate of HBP. A chapter on efficient use of dollars judges teams solely on value per win. OK, fair enough - but sometimes it's worth it for a team to pay extra for a player. He can still provide value, even if he's not so cost effective. Heck, by the very nature of free agency, free agents cost more money, but some can really help the teams. Focusing solely on cost effectiveness leads Bradbury to conclude that the Indians and Marlins are the teams to watch out for in the future, not the Yankees. Note: the Marlins haven't made the playoffs since this book was published (March 2007 copyright) and have just two winning seasons, peaking at 87. Cleveland had a great '07, but then fell by the wayside. Look, everyone makes bad predictions - but this one by Bradbury directly stems from how he narrowly defines what makes a front office successful.

There are more minor problems as well. His charts are pretty bad. Charts on pages 48 and 50 are supposed to go from negative to positive, but Bradbury left off the negative sign for the negative numbers. So the numbers go from higher to zero then back to higher again. It took a while to figure out it was just glitched. A chart on page 92 that tries to describe the net value of players is supposed to be in the millions of dollars. I assume it's in the millions. It never actually says that, though. A chapter examining if MLB is a monopoly or not looks just at symptoms of what makes a monopoly a monopoly, not the actual main thing itself. Also, the chapter on monopoly notes a challenge to MLB from the "Central League" around 1960. Er, it was called the Continental League.
Bradbury says that Tony LaRussa is one of just two managers shown to have a statistical effect on balls/strikes called - but then Bradbury's chart shows LaRussa in third place. (It's the same chart that forgot to include negative signs). His chapter on Leo Mazzone is basically a rehash of a study done by two kids from Tufts University presented at a SABR conference in 2004 -- but Bradbury doesn't note them. He doesn't seem to be aware of them. Look, I get how that can happen. There isn't a single big storehouse of all sabermetric studies - but still, he's just replicating someone else's study. Here's a real nitpick, but one I found funny: he says Voros McCracken won a ring with the 2004 Red Sox. Rather (in)famously, they didn't give him a ring - just a really cheap watch. That broke shortly after he got it. And Voros hasn't stopped complaining about it since.

Here's one last complaint: a chapter on the evolution of baseball talent looks at the overall national population and how it's grown over time and how the number of roster slots has also grown and all various factors beyond that (competition with other sports for talent). HOWEVER, he didn't note the increasing presence of international talent in MLB. Given the point of that chapter, that's a massive oversight.

Yeah, the book bugged and so I fixated on the problems I had with it. Some studies aren't bad, just generic. Heck, even the Mazzone study I slammed earlier does a good job examining just how success Mazzone was with the Braves. There's a nice definition of what economists mean by rent-seeking.

[Aaron Sinner · Rating 2 out of 5]

Briefly: Mildly informative

In the book’s early pages, J.C. Bradbury refers to Alfred Marshall’s belief that “economics [is] nothing more than the organized analysis of common sense.” In many ways, this is the challenge of a sabermetrics (or in this case, sabernomics) book: Even if its ideas are revolutionary at the time, within a few years, its findings, if accurate, will be nothing more than another piece of the stathead’s conventional wisdom. And with a book built only on the foundation of ideas, with no plot to speak of, it is the excitement of the ideas and the analysis that creates them by which the book lives and dies.

The problem for this book is not that all of its ideas are now widely known; the problem is that its big ideas are, while its smaller ideas feel trivial. While it’s interesting to learn why there are no left-handed catchers in professional baseball, it’s not worldview-shattering, and doesn’t feel like more than a tidbit of trivia to be cited while watching a ballgame, rather than the beginnings of a raucous argument. Other topics offer larger ideas and non-traditional answers, but utilize half-thought analysis in which the author himself often does not reach a definitive conclusion. With only trivial tidbits, half-baked hypotheses, and the stathead’s conventional wisdom to offer, The Baseball Economist has little to recommend itself.

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book's an uneven read and suffers from dry prose throughout and an entry-level use of baseball statistics/sabermetrics. Some chapters are interesting, but too many are simplistic takes on complicated subjects. He had some good insights throughout, but most of these add up to a step one. The essays on the monopoly concerns are intriguing, but don't fully address the player side of the issues. The study on market size makes some strong arguments but neglects factors. Probably worth a read only if you're into the specific chapter topics, and only then with the caveat that it's just a starting point.

Though the book too often read like an economics textbook, the appendix on multiple regression analysis did seem like a reasonable primer.

[Jeffrey Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

After reading Vince Gennaro's "Diamond Dollars," this was a huge let down. There was some interesting material in Bradbury's book, but most of it was disjointed and it lacked a cohesive focus. He also uses a lot of statistics and formulas, but without having a background in statistics, it is easy to get lost in the minute. Then in certain areas, he puts arbitrary figures out without any method of how he arrives at those figures (for example, he cites $3.88 as the per person value for city valuations without telling us how he arrives at that figure so it can be adjusted later).

I appreciate the effort at mixing baseball and economics. It is clear that Bradbury is well versed in both fields. Unfortunately for we readers, we get lost because he did not make a cohesive connection between the two fields while still managing to keep interest.

[Gabriel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This economist shouldn't be writing books about baseball, or books for general consumption at all. The way he explains things is very dense and boring, and manages to make this book more about economics than baseball.

I do not know about the methods used by the author, but his conclusions and opinions are just wrong. A few examples:

- Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire will reach the Hall of Fame.
- The Florida Marlins are the team of the future.
- Nobody wants to emulate the Tampa Bay Rays

The author continuously cites or paraphrases Moneyball, as if something who is reading this crap hasn't read Moneyball yet. If you reach this low you have probably read most of the books on economics and baseball.

The only interesting points in this book is the effect of Leo Mazzone and batters providing protection to the one in front of them.

[Zach Koenig · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading Michael Lewis' "Moneyball" and being fascinated (if not altogether convinced) by the concepts he discussed, I picked this book up to see how another mind would perhaps interpret the concept of sabermetrics differently. Through my experience reading it, there were some great moments, and some that I wished I would have skipped:

The Good:
-The first two sections of the book, dealing with such topics as the impact of the on-deck hitter, why no lefty catches exist, and why the Marlins and Indians are the best-run franchises in the major leagues. Author J.C. Bradbury uses a pretty hard-core mathematical model (regression analysis) to try and explain why certain phenomena in the game are true/false and what can be done to perhaps change misconceptions of those issues. Though I came up with a counterpoint to pretty much every mathematic analysis that Bradbury postulated, it was still very interesting to read his theories and immerse myself in a whole new way of thinking about the game of baseball.
-Also, I liked how Bradbury tried (at least as best he could) to provide an explanation of all the complication equations/experiments he was running. He knew that most fans wouldn't have a clue what he was talking about, so he gives a valiant effort in trying to make his concepts as simple as possible for the average fan to understand.

The Bad:
-Despite Bradbury's efforts to explain his theories in plain English, there just isn't anything plain about a regression equation that plots a multitude of data points. Though in an Appendix Bradbury thoroughly lays out his research methods, even the smartest of hard-core baseball fans will have a difficult time deciphering all he is doing without thorough research or a firm background (like a Bachelor's Degree) in mathematics.
-Finally, the last section of the book, dealing with the economics of baseball's market, is what really drags the text down. Though some of Bradbury's statistical/mathematic verbiage can be skimmed over and still kind of be understood by his summaries, the economic topics were very complicated and, to be honest, not all that interesting. I think that perhaps Bradbury would have been better suited to expanding (if possible) his section on parity, not writing for pages and pages about whether or not baseball is a true monopoly.

Thus, with all that said, I would recommend that baseball fans check this book out from your local library and read the first two parts, as you will be intrigued by Bradbury's studies. However, unless you are fascinated by and/or have a strong background in math and economics, the final two parts can be skipped altogether.

[Anthony · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not for the faint of heart. J. C. Bradbury goes in depth on everything from why average is an overrated Stat, to how derrek Lee should have won nl mvp in 2005. It can get a bit confusing sometimes, but in the end, you'll be glad you read it.

[Cory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting read. Fun for any fans of baseball and economics. My dad bought the book for me as a gift during a visit to the baseball hall of fame. Very neat - some typos and editing errors, but you can tell a lot of passion went into making this book.

[Brian Koser · Rating 2 out of 5]

Learned some things (statistics show that batters don't protect each other in the lineup), but mostly it was too-complex writing on boring topics.

[Greg · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read a bit more than half of this book and just didn't feel like finishing. The topics discussed aren't new and aren't presented in an interesting way. Many of the statistical analyses were either slightly flawed or had a lack of depth. The author seemed caught between attempting thorough analyses at risk of losing the reader, and performing simple analyses at risk of losing depth. I took one statistics class in graduate school and could easily spot flaws in some of the arguments.

The chapter on steroids and game theory was interesting. This chapter should have been the model for the entire book. Instead of copying a Bill James statistical analysis, Bradbury should apply broad-scope economics theory to larger issues in baseball.

[Ivan Taylor]

I found this book quite interesting. Having studied economics in university, I was quite familiar with the concepts that were applied. Having worked on baseball statistics for many years, I was also familiar with the sabermetric terms. However, I was happily surprised with the way these two different subjects could be combined in a thoughtful manner. I felt that the book ended a little abruptly and I thought that a lot of pages in the Annex were wasted with old data and analysis on marginal revenue analysis of every ball player on every team in MLB.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

All right, so I didn't actually finish it. I've put off reading this for a few years and by the time I actually got around to trying, it was a bit stale for me. Not because the ideas are stale or that the writing was stale, but just because I had seen all the thoughts before. If you don't spend your free time reading baseball analysis, I recommend this book. If you do, well, you have probably already read it before (even if the book was the origin for a lot of the thoughts).

[Eric · Rating 2 out of 5]

Parts of this were pretty interesting, but most of it really wasn't. I should have guessed that from his blog, which I've been reading for a while. Some of it was insightful and dealt with baseball-related issues that I find interesting, but the rest of if was just stuff he thought would be fun to research I think. It probably was, but it doesn't necessarily make it interesting to read.

[Jose · Rating 4 out of 5]

So far, a great economic perspective of baseball. Particularly, it looks at baseball economics not in the popular trades, salaries way, but also in terms of strategies and using specific economic methods. You probably don't need any formal economics training to understand this, either, as his appendices do a good job of laying a foundation.

[Christian Schultz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bradbury apparently couldn't decide whether he wanted to write a statistics book or a baseball book. Nonetheless, I found about half of it interesting and readable, particularly those chapters concerning players' real values.

[Rob Olson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I would describe this as the high school stats reading level version of Moneyball without the interesting narrative.

It 's a tough book to get through. I only recommend it to die-hard baseball fans. That said I found several of the topics to be interesting and thought provoking.

[colin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Think a more economics-minded version of "moneyball" without the fluffy personal insights into the various characters.

[Toby · Rating 2 out of 5]

Come on, dude. If you're going to publish a book on this subject, at least take the time to make sure it doesn't read like stereo instructions.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

An easy read and a great introduction to sabermetrics.

[J.f. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fresh new perspective on things like revenue sharing, left-handed catchers (or the lackthereof), and determining player value.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Awesome math/baseball nerdery. If you like the way Baseball Prospectus looks at the world of hardball, you'll like this book too.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a baseball fan and statistics major, so this book was right up my alley.

[Joaquin · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's econ which is naturally a little dry, but it brings up good questions. Some of the math can get a little nerdy as well, but the book was worth reading.

[Ron Kaplan · Rating 3 out of 5]

business,economics,statistics

[Christoph Weber · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://www.weberseite.at/sport/the-ba...

[Gilbert · Rating 3 out of 5]

You gotta be a nerdy baseball fan to enjoy this one. Still, the last few chapters were quite boring.

[Sean Asbury · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very disappointed.

[Chad · Rating 2 out of 5]

Got boring fast.