BirdsCommaAngry":14j5uvop said:
This hypothetical book would detail ways of how PC, JS, and co. perform their duties in a much more specific way than what we can get from the various articles, Win Forever, and our own speculations. It would allow us to better understand what has made the current teams so remarkable and to do so in a way that some of us might be able to apply parts of their ways of working into our own lives. It would also likely put us at a competitive disadvantage compared to not having some of our secrets documented for anyone to read. Which would you prefer?
I think every fan would (or at least should) want more in-depth reporting on their favorite team, but I have two questions, one simply pragmatic and the other maybe more substantive concern.
PRAGMATIC QUESTION: Who is getting access to do this and how do they keep it from just being a hagiography of celebratory back-patting after the fact? Moneyball worked because Lewis is a writer first and wasn't much of an A's fan, and because he was there for something while it was happening, and got to actually see it rather than just rely on fond recollections of how awesome everyone was. To get a real and non-BS account of what was happening in the 2012 off-season someone would have needed to be there. Just as an example, at the time they may have believed that Jaye Howard was the steal of that draft, but you'd never be able to find that out now.
MORE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION: I just don't know if the story would be that interesting. Moneyball is so interesting for two reasons:
1) It was symbolic of a HUGE shift in player evaluation as people had been evaluating players one way for 100 years, and then someone started to evaluate them a different way and then everyone changed what they had always been doing. I think the Seahawks nailed the draft as well as anyone has for a couple years and then had (on balance) really poor drafts for a couple years, but beyond drafting well I think it's hard to pinpoint anything they did that was super revolutionary (they just had a great run across a couple drafts), or anything that they did the flipped what everyone else does. I suppose one could credit the Seahawks with the rising value of larger cornerbacks, but those types of ebbs and flows at different positions happen all the time; they go in and out like the tide rather than tidal wave that was Moneyball-style player evaluation.
2) Moneyball also works as a story because MLB doesn't have a salary cap, so it's a classic David and Goliath tale. The NFL, with the hundreds of little ways that it forces parity, doesn't allow for those types of stories. Instead, the Seahawks story is a pretty straightforward NFL one and could be written about any number of teams: All the pieces fall in place and a team rises to the top, and then fights to hang on and maintain its position as its picked apart by free agency, the salary cap, and departing coaches.
FINAL VERDICT: 1) Would have needed someone there on the ground while the action was actually happening, 2) Despite being a really great team that had a pretty epic short draft run I don't think there's any evidence for the Seahawks F.O. really revolutionizing anything, 3) the NFL isn't really built for these types of stories.
Better football books: If someone had been on the ground for Chip Kelly's rise in Oregon; Michael Lewis' own work on the rise of the left tackle in the NFL (skip all the mealy-mouthed Michael Oher stuff); A great insider urban politics story about power and stadium fights in San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis, Minnesota, etc. (which gets you that 'Big NFL' versus 'Small Town' David and Goliath thing).