Recently read: Moneyball
Moneyball, by Michael Lewis
Moneyball is a compelling mix of baseball, statistics and finance, with a healthy mixture of personal interest stories as well. It specifically covers the Oakland A's around 2002. The A's, having comparatively little money to pay players, looked very hard at exactly what traits are useful in winning baseball games, and recruited the least expensive players who could contribute to that.
In the process, there are some fascinating statistics-derived insights into baseball. The most useful thing a batter can do at the plate is not get out: An ability to draw walks turns out to be much more useful than lots of RBIs, for example. Somewhere along the way the book makes the study of statistics look interesting and useful, and that alone should be enough to recommend it.
It's at least as readable as his other book I read: Liar's Poker (this also explains the occasional bond analogy). Some parts benefitted from my limited awareness of baseball history: One chapter details a game around the A's 2002 winning streak, and not knowing whether they won the game or not makes for some good suspense. Knowing more baseball would probably have helped too, and it's certainly good enough to read again.
Highly recommended.
Moneyball is a compelling mix of baseball, statistics and finance, with a healthy mixture of personal interest stories as well. It specifically covers the Oakland A's around 2002. The A's, having comparatively little money to pay players, looked very hard at exactly what traits are useful in winning baseball games, and recruited the least expensive players who could contribute to that.
In the process, there are some fascinating statistics-derived insights into baseball. The most useful thing a batter can do at the plate is not get out: An ability to draw walks turns out to be much more useful than lots of RBIs, for example. Somewhere along the way the book makes the study of statistics look interesting and useful, and that alone should be enough to recommend it.
It's at least as readable as his other book I read: Liar's Poker (this also explains the occasional bond analogy). Some parts benefitted from my limited awareness of baseball history: One chapter details a game around the A's 2002 winning streak, and not knowing whether they won the game or not makes for some good suspense. Knowing more baseball would probably have helped too, and it's certainly good enough to read again.
Highly recommended.