You guys are right. My bad, I was not clear in my analogy. I was not talking about how "good" a movie was, or how "good" an actor was, or how many awards he or the movie might win. I was talking about how much money the movie makes, whether or not it was a financial success.It's a false analogy. Subjective analysis of a movie is nothing like the mechanics of a baseball game.
Very few people decide to see a movie because Duvall, or Hackman are in it. But plenty of people (not me, however) will see a movie just because Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise are in it.
Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise can carry a movie financially, while Robert Duvall and Gene Hackman need bigger stars in order to make sure the movie they are in is a financial success.
Similarly, players like Adam Dunn and Jim Edmonds can not expect their teams to win if they are the best players. They need at least one better player on their team for them to make the playoffs. Players like Albert Pujols and Chipper Jones can lead their teams to the playoffs without better players on their team, with just supporting or role players on their team. They can be the best player on the team and the team can still win.
I did not make myself clear, I apologize.