Of course, if F1 were simply a numbers game it just wouldn't appeal to me because it would be far too deterministic. Like all things statistical, the more knowledge gained in F1, the more questions that crop up. In 2002, Bridgestone tires were better than their Michelin counterparts; enough to "split" the field at some races with all the Bridgestone runners ahead of the Michelins. But why? Was it their construction? The type of rubber compound used? Their rate of wear throughout a race? Their affects on overall car aerodynamics? Or did the results have little to do with the tire and more to do with the car and driver? So many questions. So few and precious resources to allocate to answering them. Interestingly enough, in 2003 the Michelins are the better tire, so they may have done a good job answering the questions that mattered.

Not having read this book, only having read this blog entry and Amazon feedback, it appears Billy Beane has a knack for determining which questions matter. However, one of his weaknesses may be in how he answers these questions. His sabermetrics might indicate that his first base defense is weak. But is that because of the first basemen? Or is the pitcher allowing too many groundball hits to right field? Or, having shuffled with his team so often, is his catcher and pitcher not working optimally in their pitching strategy and causing a needless amount of hits that could result in misplays and errors further down the defensive chain? In answering these questions and finding the cause to be the performance of a particular player, is the answer to train him, trade him, or shuffle him to another position? Are there any mitigating factors to his performance that cannot be accurately measured? For instance, has he been having marital problems recently? Did you just trade away his best friend on the team?

I often find that people fascinated by statistics become overwhelmed by them because of these exhausting iterations of questions the statistics prompt. 4 years of solid performance is quite an achievement on the part of Billy Beane. But what will really be great is if he can stay the course and lead the As to championships instead of being bogged down by poor decisions (or perhaps indecision) based on the ever increasing amount of information he is compiling. In fact, Billy Beane's archilles heel is that he's so good at dumping weaknesses in his team and filling them with strengths that no GM in his/her right mind would contemplate making a trade with him. Why trade with Billy Beane if he's only dumping somebody he's determined to be flawed and requesting somebody he's determined to be an asset? If nobody wants to trade with him, does he have to start trading good players? How does that upset the team balance? I would say if given 10 years of solid performance, I will be extremely impressed with Beane. But even the latest stock market bubble looked good in the short term. It's longer term prospects weren't so bright.