Originally posted by quackquack
Tampa and Oakland seem to be consistently good. The Twins for many years were good. There is no reason to think that KC and Pittsburgh won't be good. It is time for fans of teams that don't invest in players to stop crying.

Yes, they will be good for a while but then they will fade and have years of mediocrity before they are good again. Yankees and Red Sox will ALWAYS be good with the exeption of a couple off years here and there.

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.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
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 c ...[text shortened]... at Bill James did for
years, and that is to evaluate talent based on mathematical comparisons.

I know all that.

But you still fail to point out any relevant inaccuracies in Moneyball. That was my question. Regardless, you have addressed the point here. It's not inaccurate per so, more that its messaged has been misinterpreted by whodey.

Originally posted by Zamboner
I know all that.

But you still fail to point out any relevant inaccuracies in Moneyball. That was my question. Regardless, you have addressed the point here. It's not inaccurate per so, more that its messaged has been misinterpreted by whodey.

I fail to see how you can call the fact that there were some terrible misrepresentations about the people involved. it glorifies Billy Beane more than he deserves. But if you like the fodder, enjoy.

Originally posted by quackquack
The idea that large market size determines who goes to the playoffs is simply untrue. 5 Central Division teams made the playoffs but only one of the six teams that play in NY, Chicago or LA did. Three of the bottom 5 payroll teams are in the playoffs (Oakland, Pittsburgh and Tampa) while only three of the top 10 payrolls are in the playoffs.

The worl ...[text shortened]... a single team in baseball had a .600 winning percentage. The balance in baseball is tremendous.

If I was an owner I would have a contract where I can lower their pay if they don't make the playoffs for my team.

Originally posted by RBHILL
If I was an owner I would have a contract where I can lower their pay if they don't make the playoffs for my team.

That would never work because they are paid as the season progresses.
It would be too messy trying to recapture funds, re-apportion taxes and medical paid,
etc... besides the fact that the players union would never agree to it.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
That would never work because they are paid as the season progresses.
It would be too messy trying to recapture funds, re-apportion taxes and medical paid,
etc... besides the fact that the players union would never agree to it.

You could always fire a play as they do the coaches.

Originally posted by RBHILL
If I was an owner I would have a contract where I can lower their pay if they don't make the playoffs for my team.

Anything can be negotiated but there is little logic in your proposal. One player does not determine whether a team makes the playoffs. For example Mike Trout may be the all around player in the game but to punish him because much of the rest of his team is a disappointment simply lacks logic.

Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
Yes, they will be good for a while but then they will fade and have years of mediocrity before they are good again. Yankees and Red Sox will ALWAYS be good with the exeption of a couple off years here and there.

I hope you are right but the evidence does not support your case.l

Originally posted by quackquack
Anything can be negotiated but there is little logic in your proposal. One player does not determine whether a team makes the playoffs. For example Mike Trout may be the all around player in the game but to punish him because much of the rest of his team is a disappointment simply lacks logic.

Tell that to Michael Jordan.

Originally posted by quackquack
Anything can be negotiated but there is little logic in your proposal. One player does not determine whether a team makes the playoffs. For example Mike Trout may be the all around player in the game but to punish him because much of the rest of his team is a disappointment simply lacks logic.

Let's say if it comes down to a field goal and the kicker misses yeah punish him because it could've been an easy kick to make.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
That would never work because they are paid as the season progresses.
It would be too messy trying to recapture funds, re-apportion taxes and medical paid,
etc... besides the fact that the players union would never agree to it.

I don't know if you know this. But when players get injured the owners don't have to pay The rest of the salary if it's game ending injury. Also if the injury happens in the state of California they can get Worker's Comp.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Let's say if it comes down to a field goal and the kicker misses yeah punish him because it could've been an easy kick to make.

Should we just dock his pay or should we cut off his body parts?

Originally posted by RBHILL
Tell that to Michael Jordan.

Michael Jordan certain did very little to help his baseball team and that is what this forum was talking about.

Originally posted by RBHILL
I don't know if you know this. But when players get injured the owners don't have to pay The rest of the salary if it's game ending injury. Also if the injury happens in the state of California they can get Worker's Comp.

You are out of your tree. The contract is en force regardless of injury.
Some owners will take out insurance policies on large contract players
to re-coup the loss they sustained paying an injured player.
The only times that owner's are relieved of the financial obligations from a
player contract are these:

1. The league suspends the player without pay.
2. The player specifically breaches his contract (and this one usually goes to court)
3. The team suspends the player without pay for a specific violation of
team rules or contractual morality clause, or something specifically written
into the player's contract.
4. If the player is injured on a non-team related incident (and this only comes
into play if the contract is not fully guaranteed).
5. The player refuses to play, despite being medically cleared to do so,
and while not on a legal leave of absence from the team.
6. Another team trades for the player and under the terms of the trade,
agrees to pay for the remainder of the contract.