Here you go. At the 2:00 mark.............
EDIT Correction - at the 0:47 mark and again at 1:41, sorry!
I love Moneyball (the book and the movie) as much as anybody. They are both basically about how young White men with laptops can "upend the status quo" and "change the world," though, which seems pretty profound (and true) in 2003, but I am not sure that exact brand of capitalism and sports management is aging well.
The reason the 2002 Oakland Athletics were good was not because they had Scott Hatteberg playing 1B. The reason they were good is because they had excellent sluggers in Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez and a three-headed monster of a starting pitch staff in Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson, ages 24, 24, and 26, respectively.
You know what all five of those guys had in common?
All of them debuted as Oakland Athletics and "came up" through their farm system.
That is, all five of those guys, the five best players on the team and all on very affordable rookie contracts, were identified, drafted, and developed by those same scouts and coaches the movie absolutely trashes.
It is pretty funny in hindsight when Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill eviscerate the scouts because the team-building the scouts did was the reason the Athletics were any good in the first place. The movie makes very little mention of any of these guys. It turns out the arbitrage advantaged described in Moneyball was of relatively limited value compared to simply hitting on good young players, which is either random or based on the skill of your scouts and coaches, depending on who you ask, and even that arbitrage was very easy to copy throughout the league once word of it got out.
So if everybody is equal on analytics nowadays, then what can teams do to gain an advantage?
Superior scouting and development of players to generate superior value of young guys on cheap contracts. That is, back to the traditional way of things, Moneyball being kind of obsolete when everybody does it.
The point -- Billy Beane's scouts were not bad. Far from it -- they were some of the best in the business. Everybody whiffed on Lazard (including the Packers). Scouts messed this one up, not caring to look deeply enough to see that his size, hands, blocking ability, and character/motor would supersede his lack of straight-line speed.
That is going to happen when you have to evaluate thousands of prospects per year.
I love Moneyball (the book and the movie) as much as anybody. They are both basically about how young White men with laptops can "upend the status quo" and "change the world," though, which seemed pretty profound (and true) in 2003, but I am not sure that exact brand of capitalism and sports management is aging well.
The reason the 2002 Oakland Athletics were good was not because they had Scott Hatteberg playing 1B. The reason they were good is because they had excellent sluggers in Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez and a three-headed monster of a starting pitching staff in Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson, ages 24, 24, and 26, respectively.
You know what all five of those guys had in common?
All of them debuted as Oakland Athletics and "came up" through their farm system.
That is, all five of those guys, the five best players on the team and all on very affordable rookie contracts, were identified, drafted, and developed by those same scouts and coaches the movie absolutely trashes.
It is pretty funny in hindsight when Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill eviscerate the scouts because the team-building the scouts did was the reason the Athletics were any good in the first place. The movie makes very little mention of any of these guys. It turns out the arbitrage advantaged described in Moneyball was of relatively limited value compared to simply hitting on good young players, which is either random or based on the skill of your scouts and coaches, depending on who you ask, and even that arbitrage was very easy to copy throughout the league once word of it got out.
So if everybody is equal on analytics nowadays, then what can teams do to gain an advantage?
Superior scouting and development of players to generate superior value of young guys on cheap contracts. That is, back to the traditional way of things, Moneyball being kind of obsolete when everybody does it.
The point -- Billy Beane's scouts were not bad. Far from it -- they were some of the best in the business. Everybody whiffed on Lazard (including the Packers). Scouts messed this one up, not caring to look deeply enough to see that his size, hands, blocking ability, and character/motor would supersede his lack of straight-line speed.
That is going to happen when you have to evaluate thousands of prospects per year.
Best part is at 8 seconds where he yells "ALLEN!". A-aron can see what they're running and knows Lazard is going to be wide open.
He sure had enough speed to burn the corner and the safety for a touchdown the other night.Sweet. A winner. So glad his journey ended where it should have and all those loser combine speed stat obsessers who passed him over in draft can go the way Billy Bean did with all his scouts.
Lazard on the Pat McAfee show today
If you look up Tuesday's Pat McAfee show on YT they have an interview with Aaron Rodgers that also breaks down that entire play and what was going on from the QB side. For someone who never played football it's incredibly interesting to listen to. Makes you appreciate just how in depth and the intricacies of what's going on out there.