Changes in Sporting Values

Forming a franchise around specific "household name" players has been a goal for General Manager's across the sporting spectrum since the dawn of organized team sports. Every team wants the best, most impactful, and most well known players to build off of. Recently though, teams have found success from unlikely sources and it has changed the way that management systems and team owners look at possible directions to pursue. Buying runs, points, and opportunities has hurdled and surpassed the idea of buying players, and franchises who haven't caught on are being left behind in the dust. "Moneyball," a 2011 best picture nominee about the Oakland Athletics (MLB), demonstrates this idea. In 2002 the A's had a total payroll of $53 million (according to baseballreference.com), whereas the New York Yankees, who finished with an identical 103 wins, payed nearly $186 million for that season. Inversely, some teams who spend hundreds of millions of dollars on All-star type players have found little to no success in comparison to the models predicted based on their acquisition. Team management has completely changed during the past few decades, especially in baseball, and it is not necessary to spend ludicrous amounts of money on one player.

 The World Series has been set earlier this week. The St. Louis Cardinals will face the Boston Red Sox. The Cardinals golden age appeared to be over (at least for the moment) after the departure of their once-in-a-generation first baseman Albert Pujols. Since then not only have they maintained their credibility in the National League, but they finished tied for the best record in the MLB with no major acquisitions. Conversely, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, who along with Pujols acquired three other all-stars to add to their already lethal lineup, have drastically underachieved and haven't even been in close contention for a playoff spot. The Red Sox on the other hand cleaned house last Fall after a series of big-scale acquisitions didn't work out. They rebuilt from the bottom up and worked with what they had. The two teams fighting for baseball glory over the next couple of weeks have explicit similarities. They are built off of consistent players, only few of whom are anywhere near hall-of-fame eligibility (those who are are long beyond their prime performing years). Of course there are teams filled with superstars that have great success in their respected sports. And teams should value the presence of a possible dominant force in their leagues. But recently teams have found great success without that fire power that is so stereotypically cherished. What do you think about the direction of sports franchises? What other examples do you have to support/ the "moneyball" theory?