[kq76]

Can any team in the NBA really count as a moneyball team though? I don't know their payrolls, but I thought the spread of theirs wasn't nearly as much as the spread you see in baseball. You don't often hear, "team X couldn't afford player Y" only that "player Y doesn't want to go to team X" for whatever reason. Maybe payroll disparity isn't necessary to qualify as a moneyball team for some people, but I think it is. I mean, any team or business worth anything probably tries to identify something they can do well that others don't. Would you call any team near the top of their sport a moneyball team simply because someone says they're doing something others aren't?

Maybe the Spurs should be congratulated for having a good enough organization that maybe the only big name that didn't want to be there was Leonard, but I'd say that's a pretty low bar. It's no real surprise they did well with how high of draft picks they've been awarded. Other than maybe identifying Popovich and whatever magic he may wield, did they really identify and exploit any market inefficiencies? Does their great passing game count? Should Golden State count for figuring out how underutilized the three-pointer game was? Was either team in nearly the financial shape as the Athletics were/are before they turned things around? If so, then okay, maybe they do qualify.