Assignment 3: Moneyball


I have included the article for this assignment as an attachement.

 

Moneyball, a book by Michael Lewis (2003), highlights how creativity, framing, and robust technical analysis all played a part in the development of a new approach to talent management in baseball. It also exhibited great examples of the biases and psychological pitfalls that plague decision makers.

 

 

Review the article “Who’s on First?” by Thaler & Sunstein (2003) from this module’s assigned readings. This article reviews the book Moneyball by Michael Lewis.

Write a critique of the article including the following points:

 

  • Examine why sabermetric-based player evaluation is such a shock to other executives in baseball.
  • Evaluate why Beane is much more effective in his success by constructing a matrix of pitfalls and heuristics that highlight the differences between Beane’s team and other executives.
  • Moneyball highlights how people tend to overestimate the likelihood of success and end up facing financial loss—in this case, it meant forfeiting millions of dollars. Analyze a professional or personal decision (yours or otherwise) that highlights this predilection in spite of substantial losses.
  • Explain how you would apply Moneyball’s management lessons in your own endeavors.

Write a 3–5-page paper in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M1_A3.doc.

 

By Wednesday, October 15, 2014, deliver your assignment to the M1 Assignment 3 Dropbox.

 

Lewis, M. (2003). Moneyball. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

 

Assignment 3 Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
Explained why sabermetric-based player evaluation is a shock to other executives in baseball.
12
Analyzed Beane’s effectiveness in a matrix of pitfalls and heuristics.
24
Analyzed a professional or personal decision that highlights the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of success.
24
Applied Moneyball management lessons in personal endeavors.
20
Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
20
Total:
100
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *