Even Buffett loses money every now and then.

I'm pretty sure that Buffett has never lost money five years in a row.

Billy Beane has had 5 losing seasons in a row?

Billy Beane has had 5 losing seasons in a row?

Fine, I'm pretty sure that Buffett has never had a five year stretch where he lost money four of the years and broke even on one.

If you want to talk about a team that is lucky to be playing in a crappy division the conversation should start and end with the St. Louis Cardinals

In relation to having a crappy division, teams like the Cardinals, Astros and even the Cubs had to always compete against another team that was run well for several years. The Al Central had the Royals and the Tigers stinking up the joint, the Indians entering a rebuilding period, and the White Sox, the situation was ripe for a team with a low payroll that didn't waste money on veteran goodness. (roughly speaking I'm talking about 1999-2006) In the NL Central you had the Cubs spending money and the Astros consistently being competitive along with the Cardinals also spending money. I don't think the Cardinals are really in a comparative boat. The NL Central is a crappy division, but there because of the number of teams, there are always as many if not more competitors.

Fine, I'm pretty sure that Buffett has never had a five year stretch where he lost money four of the years and broke even on one.

Just because I was having fun, but even the Yankees have had a stretch of 5 years where they finished below .500 4 times. It happens. Of course the movie Money ball covers a different time period than the current A's stretch, but why let that little factoid get in the way of your obsession.(I'm trying to figure out who is the most obsessive counter arguer that is clearly wrong between Tommy in CT on Blyleven, SBB on Jack Morris, True Blue on anything, or Joey B on his obsession with Beane or Olberman)

Just because I was having fun, but even the Yankees have had a stretch of 5 years where they finished below .500 4 times. It happens.

I know, and that's my entire point: Beane's A's are no different from pretty much any other franchise, and Beane is no different from pretty much any other GM. OK, he is probably above average, but nothing more than that. There is nothing particularly special or magical whatsoever about his ability to identify talent and make deals, and he has no keen, deep insight into the game that make him stand out above and beyond all the others. Yes, he had a very good run of teams in the early years, but that had as much to do with Sandy Alderson and steroids as it did with Beane himself.

And as far as my "obsession" goes, I'm not the one flacking this stupid movie, it's the few remaining diehard Beanebags who are doing that.