Originally posted by Zamboner
What does the depiction of Art Howe have to do with the relevant theme of the movie, that some teams are at a financial disadvantage when it comes to assembling teams? Is there a more relevant inaccuracy to the point here that you could point out?
Tell me something that is different now than it ever was?
NOTHING!!
Who said ANY city owns ANY franchise?? No one.
We have some franchisees who chose cities that, for whatever the reason,
do not provide the financial basis they require to compete with the Yankees?
Egotistical owners screw themselves regularly by foolish spending that ends
up cost the franchise for many years down the road. My god, Steinbrenner
screwed himself for many years. Most of the small market teams have enjoyed
championships before. Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Oakland, Miami,
etc.... while large market teams such as Chicago and Houston have not.
Certainly it is not from payroll alone that championships are won.
The best teams are the ones with solid personnel and judges of talent who
don't waste the resources they have. This is why St Louis and Tampa are
good most every year, even though they don't spend money like drunken
sailors.
The meaning behind Moneyball is not "If you don't have money you can't
compete", but rather, it is a different approach to produce a competitive
team without having a truckload of cash to make it work. This isn't rocket
science. Sabermetrics is the newest version of what Bill James did for
years, and that is to evaluate talent based on mathematical comparisons.