Moneyball Review: The 3 Unsung Heroes

A big reason the Moneyball A's of 2002 (and even the 2001 A's) were successful was because of their pitching. The movie focuses mainly on the bullpen when it comes to pitching, but the Athletics had an extremely talented starting staff, headlined by 3 young pitchers: Zito, Mulder, and Hudson. 2001 and 2002 were the first full seasons for Barry Zito (the first round pick in the 1999 draft), and he threw well over 200 innings both years. In 2001 he posted a 4.3 WAR and -1.578 PE. In 2002, he had a -1.036 PE and a 6.5 WAR. Because minimum salary was less than it is now, he posted a mind-blowing 49 WASP (you could even double his salary to adjust for salary changes and its still 99, which would make him one of the top in the league). Mark Mulder was the first round pick for the A's in 1998, and 2001 and 2002 were also his first two full years in the Majors. He was really impressive too, posting a 9.5 WAR, 109 WASP, and 1.129 PE over that time. Tim Hudson was the 6th round pick of the A's in 1997, and had already started 53 games by the time 2001 rolled around. In 2001 and 2002, Hudson was spectacular, posting an 11 WAR, 127 WASP, and -0.494 PE. The story of Moneyball is great, and Billy Beane changed the way many teams operate and forever revolutionized the way we evaluate baseball, but we aren't even talking about Pena over Hatteberg, Chad Bradford, and Rincon if the A's didn't have Zito, Mulder, and Hudson. They were high round draft picks that the Athletics hit on, giving them great starting pitching (and as the Rays are showing), that is how to best build a team with no money. You have to draft well, and you have to have starting pitching.

Moneyball Review: Scott Hatteberg or Carlos Pena?

The face of Moneyball is Scott Hatteberg. Who can replace Jason Giambi? Hatteberg. Why? Because he can get on base. "Play Hatteberg" becomes the mantra of Billy Beane, much to the dismay of Art Howe, who wanted to play Carlos Pena. So who was right? Despite being one of the big decisions, if not the key decision of Billy Beane's moneyball A's, some have suggested that the move is actually antithetical to the principle of moneyball. In 2002, Carlos Pena was making just $202,000, while Hatteberg was making $900,000. Pena was also a much younger player, although this doesn't really matter to Beane. The first question is whether Hatteberg or Pena was better in 2002 for the Athletics. The answer is easily Hatteberg. Hatteberg posted a 2.7 WAR (he bizarrely had a .7 WAR on defense, when the big question was whether he could play first base, he obviously could), while Pena posted just a .4 WAR in his time with the Athletics. Carlos Pena played in 40 games, giving him a WAR per game of .01, while Hatteberg (played in 136 games) had a .02 WAR per game. Hatteberg post a 333 WASP (if you are unsure what any of these statistics mean, check the tabs above), while Pena had a 505. While both numbers are great, Hatteberg was better value, despite having a bigger salary. For what it is worth, Hatteberg was also better in his Athletic career than Pena's Tiger (Pena was traded to Detroit by the A's) career. The big number for Beane and the A's though was OBP (on base percentage), and in 2002 it wasn't even close. Hatteberg had a .374 OBP, and Pena had just a .302. Pena had a PAPP of 2.88, while Hatteberg had a better PAPP of 2.57. Pena's PPG was a bad .875, while Hatteberg's was a better, but still not great .99. So yes, it seems that Beane was right, the stats were on his side in the Pena versus Hatteberg fight.

Moneyball Review: Carlos Pena

Art Howe loved Carlos Pena in Moneyball

A point of contention during the whole movie of Moneyball is Carlos Pena. Manager Art Howe wanted to play Pena because he claimed that he was a better first baseman, while Beane wanted Hatteberg to play because he "got on base" (I will address Pena versus Hatteberg in another article). Beane ends up trading Pena away so Howe couldn't play him anymore. In reality, the Athletics sent Pena, Jeremy Bonderman, and Franklyn German to the Tigers, and got Ted Lilly, John-Ford Griffin and Jason Arnold from the Yankees, and much needed cash from the Tigers. In 4 years as a Tiger, Pena posted a 1.3 WAR. In his final year as a Tiger, he made 2.75 million and posted a 0 WAR, giving him a bad WASP of 5500. Jeremy Bonderman (who was originally the "player to be named later") spent 03-10 with the Tigers, posting a 5.6 WAR. However, he made 41 million in his time there, giving him a horrible WASP of 7380. Franklyn German spent 4 years with Detroit, but couldn't figure it out at a -.2 WAR. As far as the players the Athletics received, Ted Lilly played a year and a half with the A's, pitching 201.2 innings. He earned a 2.3 WAR in this time while making just $453,575 in that time (and part of that could be offset with the money the A's got in the trade), giving him a phenomenal WASP of 197.2. Griffin and Arnold never played for the A's in the Majors, but Lilly alone seems to tilt this trade to the Athletics. The Tigers got better overall WAR in the trade, but the Athletics got much more value.