Sandel devotes a section in Chapter 5 to "Moneyball." After describing the rise of Moneyball, he poses the question: "Moneyball made baseball more efficient, in the economist's sense of the term. But did it make it [the game] better? Probably not." He goes on, a few sentences following, to say, "This illustrates the point I've tried to make about various goods and activities throughout this book: making markets more efficient is no virtue in itself" (p. 179). First, devote a paragraph to the issue of moneyball. We know its good for the sports economy, but, in your opinion, is it good for the game? Your answer should reflect an ethical perspective since the economic question is already settled. Second, do you think Sandel has made his more general point of "making markets more efficient is no virtue in itself