The whole point of the moneyball movie and system is to find players who are undervalued relative to their ability to produce runs and critically continue paying them low relative to their game utility to get a good, competitive team cheap.

There's a market distortion from the rest/majority of teams incorrectly evaluating the players. Knowing that and taking advantage of it is underpaying if you believe in paying people their real worth instead of just what you can get away with paying them.

▲

saurik 5 days ago | parent [-]

But like, is that "anti-labor"? The undervalued people who actually were important now being slightly more valued -- or, in the case of the storyline in the movie, having a job at all -- seems like it could even be pro-labor.

▲

relaxing 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

It’s neither anti- nor pro-labor; it simply exists in the context of a strong players’ union and a league that enforces constraints on team payrolls in order to promote equity between large and small market teams.

	▲	saurik 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		And I agree with you; the reason to ask this question is because it is something that is quoted in the article (in a screenshot, so don't try to ctrl-F for it ;P) as part of the background zeitgeist opinion on the premise.

▲

rtkwe 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a mixed bag. Over time it's probably raised the salary of these kinds of players as teams change how they evaluate player worth but initially the first couple seasons effect is to underpay players vs the value they bring to the team and that's contrary to a long held pro-labor stance is workers should be paid more in line with the value they generate for the company rather than just what the companies do pay them.