A struggling DVD store (yes, they still exist) refuses to inject too much of their own capital into their almost-bankrupt company. The manager of the business beams with pride at their ability to not use up too much capital; patrons of the store applaud the continuing mediocrity. This is the problem with Moneyball.
Ever since Michael Lewis' book glorifying the cost-effectiveness of the Oakland Athletics hit shelves, both casual and die-hard fans alike have been either groaning at their billionaire owners willingness to dump buckets of cash on aging veterans, or jumping with joy at their decision to lock up a budding star player with a relatively cheap contract. These fans are applauding their mediocre teams for having the highest collective WAR (wins above replacement) per dollar spent. They are also condemning the big franchises like the Dodgers and the Yankees for spending so imprudently.
However, last time I checked, most of the big spenders, like the Yankees/Red Sox/Angels are still good, and the A's/Mariners/Pirates are still pretty much terrible. But, hey, they spend the least, so hurrah!
Brad Pitt/Billy Beane would like to disagree...
Unfortunately for all believers in Lewis' bible, baseball teams do not play on even economic footing. According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, signed in 2012 and running through 2016, there is still no salary cap in baseball like there is in the NFL. MLB teams are allowed to spend as much as they want to get the talent that they want, and on the field, talent wins games, not cost-efficiency (tell that to Bill James). There is no point in reducing one's WAR per dollar spent if the big MLB franchises can just spend double on their teams.
Moneyball is appealing to fans of small-market teams, like the Pittsburgh Pirates, since the micro-economics aspects of cost-saving gives them hope for the future. In essence, there is a widespread assumption that those who spend extravagantly will eventually get what they deserve (tumult, disaster, locust-swarms, whatever).
Take Albert Pujols, for example, baseball greatest slugger of the past decade. Pujols just recently signed a 10-year, $250-million contract to hit home runs for the Los Angeles Angels. Sure, his contract would make Billy Beane, and all supporters of Moneyball-economics weep, but the Angels have Pujols hitting for them, something the A's can't say. The billionaire owners of the Angels are not going to go bankrupt, and their team is going to keep winning because not despite of their extravagant spending.
Worth $250-million? If you can stomach the cost (which most billionaire owners can), absolutely
Good players win games, and good players are expensive. Thus, the teams who are willing to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase these mercenaries will most likely be the most successful. Unlike the NFL, the need to maximize dollar efficiency does not apply to the MLB. Moneyball is an attractive concept, but is pretty much void in baseball.
The problem with baseball, which is the same with the rest of the big financial institutions in the world, is that the teams are owned by billionaires who don't spend their own money. Fans need to stop supporting cost-effectiveness and saving as long as a salary cap doesn't exist. For the MLB and Wall-street, those who spend the most, usually win.
No comments:
Post a Comment