Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion on "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I agree with both of you. Moneyball was about finding inequalities in the marketplace (undervalued assets), and pursuing them. The example used at the time was OBP, which was a great example. Unfortunately, OBP is no longer undervalued.
    I wonder what aspects of the game are presently undervalued.???
    http://soundbounder.blogspot.com/

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mwiggins View Post
      "If your finances are limited, it doesn't make sense to go after the same kind of players that the Yankees and the rest of the big market teams are trying to build their teams around. To compete, you have to do things differently".
      Those who have read my comments on broadcast revenue and financial fairness know that I believe small-city teams are getting cheated under the present system, and some kind of fundamental reform (not tweaks like "luxury tax") is more than justified.

      However, there has been sort of a silver lining in financial inequity just to the extent that some teams have been forced to "do things differently." Baseball is more interesting when teams are trying to win by differing strategies.

      That being said, I don't think a fundamentally unfair system is necessary to have a variety of team strategies.

      Originally posted by parlo View Post
      I wonder what aspects of the game are presently undervalued.???
      Relief pitchers who are not "closers"?
      Last edited by Pere; 01-01-2009, 02:12 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by spark240 View Post
        Those who have read my comments on broadcast revenue and financial fairness know that I believe small-city teams are getting cheated under the present system, and some kind of fundamental reform (not tweaks like "luxury tax") is more than justified.

        However, there has been sort of a silver lining in financial inequity just to the extent that some teams have been forced to "do things differently." Baseball is more interesting when teams are trying to win by differing strategies.

        That being said, I don't think a fundamentally unfair system is necessary to have a variety of team strategies.
        I think the current free agency with no salary cap system has not made it impossible, or I think overly difficult, for a small market team to thrive. Certainly it's much easier for the 2009 Minnesota Twins and Oakland A's to compete with the Yankees than it was for the 1949 Senators and A's to compete with the Yankees. The draft and the teams can lock up young players for 6 years really limits the big market teams from cornerning young talent like they used to be able to do. The Yankees have a lot more money than the Twins (actually, that's not true, but the Twins budget is much more limited), but the Yankees can't go out and sign Mauer away from the Twins. They can't sign sign Josh Hamilton, they have to make due with Damon in center.

        And the Yankees have proven that just buying the best free agents doesn't mean you'll win.

        BUT what the current conditions do make it impossible to do is for a small market team to keep their talent. The Twins or the Rays can draft better and develop talent better than the Yankees, but at some point most of their stars will leave and go to a big market team.

        Comment

        Ad Widget

        Collapse
        Working...
        X