This Post was created by Kevin Lindstrom:
Moneyball (Lewis, 2004) tells the story of General Manager Billy Beane's quest to build a winner out of a small-market, low-budget major league baseball franchise, the Oakland A's. He does this via "uncoventional" methods, including drafting and signing players other teams have little interest in, being selective and aggressive in the trade market, and micromanaging the on-field moves of the team. All of this is juxtaposed to teams like the New York Yankees, who essentially buy success by spending many times the amount of the A's on players. What kind of social world do you believe is constructed for players and coaches when it is clear that they are at a financial disadvantage? How does being at a financial disadvantage shape social worlds at other levels of sport, including the youth level?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the case of most players, managers, and organizations, when they are at a finacial disadvantage I believe it creates an attitude and atmosphere in which they believe they can't compete and win championships with the big revenue ball clubs (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers for example). Essentially the players develop an attitude saying its ok to lose to the "big boys" and try to win all the other games versus the poorer teams. Managers, instead of thinking about championships, are concerned with winning just enough games to keep their jobs. Organizations are more concerned about making money. The interesting thing about Money Ball is the Oakland A's developed a system of drafting (they took a catcher from Alabama in the first round that many people felt wouldn't get drafted in the first fifteen rounds and he turned out to be a great hitter), developing players (in the minor leagues the A's stressed the point of how valuable walking is and as a result they were always getting a lot of people on base), and then adding the final pieces through clever trades (Billy Beane got so good at finding good players for his team other organizations didn't want to trade with him because they were afraid of being embarassed). Essentially, in the eyes of the Oakland A's and Billy Beane, finances had little to do with developing a team and system that won consistently for a number of years. For most teams however, being at a finacial disadvantage meant they had absolutely no shot to even compete for a championship.
ReplyDeleteNot having the money to invest into players or teams plays a major role in sports. For example The Miami Heat recently added Chris Bosh and Lebron James to their team. There is not one NBA franchise that wouldn't want to have players like these on there team, but due to the financial cost to get players like these it then become much more difficult to do so. Point being for club teams that have money to invest in great athletes or new surroundings it then becomes a disadvantage to teams such as the Clippers, Bucks and many more.
ReplyDeleteComing from a coaching standpoint, I think that money to invest in facilites and equipment is tough to come by. Sometimes when you take your team to a field and it is all done up, it gets in the kids heads that the other team is better because they have more money. They can get private training lessons and they have better equipment. Honestly, sometimes it is true. As for professional sports, I think money plays a role in how well the teams do. If you have a great coach the team can go far, but only so far, therefore the teams with all the money, should be the winningest programs.
ReplyDeleteBeing at a finacial disadvantage can be extremely problematic at the younger ages of sport involvement. Equipment costs a lot and if organizations cannot afford, they either get second hand equipment or cut the sport all together. Even though some teams know that they do not have as much money as other teams, it does not always mean that they are at a disadvantage on the playing field. Sometimes it is a motivator for underprivileged to beat teams that have more than they do.
ReplyDeleteAs for professional sports, I think that teams that spend the big bucks, such as the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers should be contenders for the world series every year. This puts extreme pressure on the players and managers for these franchises. Teams like the Twins, Rays, and As are usually always the underdogs, but have proven that they can compete and beat teams that spend five times as much on players. The Rays made it to the World Series with the second lowest pay roll in all of baseball. Point is, when it comes to professional athletics, money doesn't always mean championships.
While I believe that teams which do not have similar finances to others can be at a disadvantage, it does not mean they are doomed. A great case in point is the Yankees. We all know they try to buy their team and they have been one of the most successful teams, but they do not win the World Series every year (or even make the playoffs) and they do not win every game. I think it is an advantage to have a larger budget to work with, but I also agree that the psychological aspect associated with money can influence the game. It can work in one of two ways: (1) the disadvantaged team feels down before play even begins; (2) the disadvantaged teams have an increased motivation to win and show that money does not mean success. I believe this is why the Yankees are not as successful as one would expect year in and year out.
ReplyDeleteNot having enough money can become a huge disadvantage. Look at Lamar Odom. He was a #1 pick in the NBA draft by the LA clippers. The clippers signed him to a extensive and big contract to keep him around for a few years but after he did well and his contract was up he left and went to the Lakers. There are many teams who struggle like this. Think of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Remember how bad they were during the 80's and 90's? They had great players on there teams from the drafts like Steve Young but could not afford to keep them around therefore they lose them and still suck.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some concensus that an uneven financial playing field creates a disadvantaged position for those teams short on money. How does the social world of sports franchises change with the introduction of a salary cap, such as the one found in the NHL (described on page 383 of the Coakley text)? Should all sports have a salary cap?
ReplyDeleteA team with a low budget definitely suffers in comparison to teams with almost endless amounts of money. It was always be an advantage to have a larger budget to work with in regards to sports and almost everything else in life. However this does not mean that success can't be achieved without money. Im going to have to agree with HASA that teams like the yankees have lots of pressure to be the best every year. But when teams like the Twins and Rays show that they are talented and can play with the big dogs, then the tables turn a little bit. People feel like oh we have the money for such and such trainer, and the best equipment, ect, but this is not going to necessarily win us a championship if this is all we have. There has to be other things present that are not tangible like willpower, determiniation, commitment, leadership,ect ...
ReplyDeleteA salary cap would be hard to institute for the leagues that don't currently have it. Here are a couple of reasons whyit wouldn't work in baseball. First the players union would never agree to it. Second it would be nearly impossible to agree upon the amount of the cap. Teams like the yankees would want a high cap to keep the team as it is and low budget teams would want a low cap to keep the playing field "even.
ReplyDeleteThe salary cap is not a perfect fix. Even though the contract was rejected, it was interesting to see the contract the New Jersey Devils gave Ilya Kovalchuk. By adding years to the contract at league minimum salary, it brought the average yearly pay down thus reducing the cap hit. It is a good thing the NHL rejected the conctact because it could have lead to numerous other contracts like this.
I believe that being able to spend more money than the competition does give a upper hand to those teams. But why are they doing that and why aren't the "lower market teams" doing it?
ReplyDeleteWhile some teams simply do not have the money, others do and chose not to spend it. Take the Minnesota Twins for instance. They had/have an owner who is one of the more wealthy owners in all of baseball, in the past he simply chose not to spend the money. He chose to spend what he wanted to. While the Yankees owner, when he came into the league didn't have a tremendous amount of money, but now they are the most profitable team in all of American sports. The Yankees have built a winning team, yes by spending money, but not just on the team. They have spent money on numerous TV channels, advertising, etc...
So while it can be said, teams who spend more money will win more often, some teams have the means to spend but they chose not to.
The NHL salary cap system also includes a "salary floor." Should leagues have a salary floor to address the situation Zak describes?
ReplyDeleteHaving a new facility or equipment does not make the ability of the athlete higher. Like the movie, Million Dollar Baby, the gym was run down and in poor conditions however produced a few great athletes. Is it the quality of coaching and athlete ability that counts rather than the amount of money invested in the facility. The building of a top program like the Oakland A's take hard work, knowledge and commitment. Success regarding sports isn't measured by money.
ReplyDeleteI think that is one of the reasons the NFL is so popular. Most seasons just about every team has a reasonable chance to improve and get better because they are all on a level playing field. That is why the coming collective bargaining agreement is so important to the sport. It would be interesting to see what kind of hit the NFL takes if they have a lock-out. I love baseball but it is one of the most frustrating things for me is the that there is no parity in the league. I am die-hard twins fan and they have had some recent success but there were alot of lean years for me growing up a twins fan. The funny part of it was, teams like Kansas City, Baltimore and Pittsburgh had great baseball teams and now they have become a joke. Professional sports is always better when there is more even level playing field for everybody. Even the great Billy Beane is having trouble winning.....and I am a sabremetrics guy, I loved moneyball.
ReplyDeleteI think this idea of aquiring players and the player market in professional sport, success can be a direct reflection of the nature of the sport. The NBA is a league of superstars and the current trend is to aquire as many of them as possible to win games (i.e. Miami Heat). On the other hand, the MN Twins for years have had a small payroll, but have shown to have consistant success. Indeed they do have some of the top players in the MLB, but their approach has been a well rounded team and playing a team game in order to succeed.
ReplyDeleteIn determining how one team will approach the player market will depend on how they plan to go about winning games and is that in the nature of their sport.
I agree with matt. Small payrolled teams should compete against other small payrolled teams. But on the other hand, money cannot buy the Stanely Cup.
ReplyDelete