Comments on: Why The Agency Of The Future Looks Like My Fantasy Baseball Team

By: youth baseball pants

youth baseball pants — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:55:58 +0000

I’ve never understood fantasy baseball until now. Thank you for this post. I am pretty new to sports and have a lot to learn. This post was very smart and creative. Keep up the good work! Fantasy Baseball sounds fun!

By: EverydayUX morsels (January 25th – January 29th)

EverydayUX morsels (January 25th – January 29th) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:04:24 +0000

[...] Why The Agency Of The Future Looks Like My Fantasy Baseball TeamNice piece on how the traditional agency model has to (and will) change. [...]

By: [Report] for January 27th 2010 - AndreaVascellari.com | Andrea Vascellari

[Report] for January 27th 2010 - AndreaVascellari.com | Andrea Vascellari — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:45:50 +0000

[...] Why The Agency Of The Future Looks Like My Fantasy Baseball Team – Clever. [...]

By: alabut

alabut — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:44:58 +0000

Ironically, the closest thing to what you're describing is a sports-themed collective called Athletics: http://athleticsnyc.com/about

Usually virtual collectives are more for fun side projects than serious client work - I'm not sure how these guys pull off the team interactions or even practical matters like availability and scheduling, like Dan alluded to.

By: Hershberg

Hershberg — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:26:24 +0000

Which is precisely the reason why all MLB teams should expand the talent pool by increasing their payrolls to $208MM next year.

By: adamkmiec

adamkmiec — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:03:41 +0000

Well the Yankees did win the world series this year.

By: Hershberg

Hershberg — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:01:04 +0000

I agree that Beane came up with a new method for evaluating talent that ultimately led to expansion of the talent pool. What made him do that, however, was that he was working with a payroll of ~$40MM while the Yankees and Red Sox were each spending $100M plus. He had to come up with a means of identifying undervalued talent that would come at much lower cost than the established superstars.

You're telling agencies and marketers that they too need to expand the talent pool, though you're offering no suggestion for how that can be done outside of spending top dollar for talent (whether there is an existing need or not). That is about as revolutionary as what the Yankees do year in and year out and the opposite of what was chronicled in Moneyball. I'm sure Beane would have loved to be told that “everyone is an option.”

By: adamkmiec

adamkmiec — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:50:17 +0000

Moneyball was about more than just economically disadvantaged. It was about building a great team…and not just looking at the traditional means of evaluating that talent. Bill Beane was able to expand the pool of talent by taking this approach. Just my thoughts.

By: Hershberg

Hershberg — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:39:23 +0000

I think there are a variety of issues with what you're proposing that would ultimately make the idea impossible to execute on. The reasons why are probably worthy of a blog post themselves.

In the meantime, you may have meant it as a throwaway comment, but I don't see any parallel between the approach you're recommending and Moneyball. You're explicitly telling CMO's/VP's to pay for top talent, but Moneyball was all about a strategy for winning while economically disadvantaged relative to competitors.

By: adamkmiec

adamkmiec — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:55:06 +0000

Dan

But, the way I'm thinking about this is with contracts. When I buy you, I've locked you up for 3 years at $400,000 a year. So the concept of matrixing you across other obligations shouldn't exist.

Adam