Assignment 3: Moneyball
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 â€œWhoâ€™s on First?â€ by Thaler & Sunstein (2003) from this moduleâ€™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 Beaneâ€™s team and other executives.
- Moneyball highlights how people tend to overestimate the likelihood of success and end up facing financial lossâ€”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 Moneyballâ€™s management lessons in your own endeavors.
Write a 3â€“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, June 15, 2016, deliver your assignment to the M1 Assignment 3 Dropbox.
Lewis, M. (2003). Moneyball. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Hayashi, A. M. (2001). When to TRUST Your GUT. Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 59â€“65.
|Assignment 3 Grading Criteria|
|Explained why sabermetric-based player evaluation is a shock to other executives in baseball.|
|Analyzed Beaneâ€™s effectiveness in a matrix of pitfalls and heuristics.|
|Analyzed a professional or personal decision that highlights the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of success.|
|Applied Moneyball management lessons in personal endeavors.|
|Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.|