Is it possible to rid the world of the pernicious misreading of Moneyball that Billy Beane's "paradigm shifting strategy" somehow permanently minimizes the profound discrepancy between large- and small-market teams?
Beane developed a different method of evaluating players that, so long as the Oakland A's were the only team using the method, provided the A's with some advantage that might offset the revenue advantage of the Yankees, Red Sox, &c. Once Beane's approach was adopted by other teams, he lost the advantage.
If the Red Sox and the A's use basically the same approach to evaluating player A and Boston has more money to spend, Boston's deep pockets means that the Red Sox are going to get and keep the player. (See Kevin Youkilis.) When the evaluations strategies are the same, revenue goes back to being the key factor.
Worker falls 30 feet at draft stage in Philadelphia
15 minutes ago