Sox/Cubs and baseball
I always wonder: in baseball, if you have a line-up full of all-stars, does that guarantee you a championship? It certainly increases your chance of a winning season to reach the playoffs.
At least, in video game simulations, a team full of all-stars will get you that ring.
With the recent trades involving all-stars, where are the Sox and Cubs? Without a salary cap (like the NBA), you can spend gazillion amount of moolas to have a traveling all-star team. There is something to be said about making the playoffs every year for the Yankees and recently, the Red Sox. And the Cubs? the Sox? we're lucky if we make the playoffs again this decade. If fan support is what you're really after, which should generate more revenue, why can't teams work up the nerves to satisfy the fans? A team will make more money if the team goes to the playoffs (well, the Cubs might the be only exception). Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.
Of course, Billy Beane of the A's is really good at working with a tight budget. Nevertheless, having more money to spend is sort of like cheating, because then the playing field is not leveled. Maybe the win-loss column should be weighted so that a win means less to a team that spent more money and means more to a "cheaper" team, and vice versa, where a loss would count more to a richer team and less to a cheaper team.
I always wonder: in baseball, if you have a line-up full of all-stars, does that guarantee you a championship? It certainly increases your chance of a winning season to reach the playoffs.
At least, in video game simulations, a team full of all-stars will get you that ring.
With the recent trades involving all-stars, where are the Sox and Cubs? Without a salary cap (like the NBA), you can spend gazillion amount of moolas to have a traveling all-star team. There is something to be said about making the playoffs every year for the Yankees and recently, the Red Sox. And the Cubs? the Sox? we're lucky if we make the playoffs again this decade. If fan support is what you're really after, which should generate more revenue, why can't teams work up the nerves to satisfy the fans? A team will make more money if the team goes to the playoffs (well, the Cubs might the be only exception). Sometimes, you have to spend money to make money.
Of course, Billy Beane of the A's is really good at working with a tight budget. Nevertheless, having more money to spend is sort of like cheating, because then the playing field is not leveled. Maybe the win-loss column should be weighted so that a win means less to a team that spent more money and means more to a "cheaper" team, and vice versa, where a loss would count more to a richer team and less to a cheaper team.
