User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6768 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
What is the measurement here? World Series championships? Playoff appearances? Playoff contention? Or "net outflow" of talent?
Or are the small-market defenders not appeased until KC wins a world series?
If KC was a better organization, they'd be Minnesota. Or Milwaukee. Or another small market that's been able to win lately. Wasn't it Milwaukee's big trade for Sabathia last year that got them in the playoffs?
I don't have the time to read through the rest of the comments just right now, but the NBA is actually a perfect example of how things should be done. You have a massive market team like the Knicks that can't get anywhere because they're stupid. Small markets like San Antonio and Utah consistently compete because they're smart.
Just look throughout the NBA. The dumb teams (LA Clippers, my Warriors, Knicks) consistently lose, and the smart teams (Houston, LA Lakers, San Antonio, Detroit) consistently win. Dumb vs. smart a much better divide in my eyes than rich vs. poor.
Agreed. But this is also the way baseball teams succeed.
Not necessarily at all. The Red Sox can #### up and stash Daisuke in the minors. The Yankees can do the same thing with Kei Igawa or, a few years ago, Jason Giambi.
You're gonna tell me a Kansas City or Oakland or Pittsburgh can make the same kind of mistake and still compete?
edit: my main point is that if you look throughout the NBA, who wins and who loses has almost no correlation to market size. If you take that same look at Major League Baseball, you're going to find a much different story.
Daisuke's on the DL, not in the minors.
This may just be my perception, but it seems that the NBA seems to have a huge proportion of "WTF?" signings. It seems that there are a ton of injured or just plain mediocre basketball players who make big, big money.
Giambi was also not a "mistake", he was worth his contract.
You're gonna tell me a Kansas City or Oakland or Pittsburgh can make the same kind of mistake and still compete?
you missed that part, and yes they can compete(if the owners want to, MLB spends less money on payroll percentage wise than the other leagues, there is money out there, they just don't want to spend it) . NBA really sucks because it's too tight of a restriction on money, meaning that sometimes you have to trade away 4 players just to make the money work out, and again, it's me, but I don't like any system that forces you to trade or get rid of players you own for strictly financial reasons, it doesn't fix anything, just changes the equations around.
The correlation is between "winning" and "drafting a superstar talent who pans out", which requires a top 5 draft choice (at minimum - usually more like top 2) and luck.
The teams in the NBA competing for titles have Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Tim Duncan, or someone similar. That's a prerequisite. The Atlanta Hawks currently have a pretty nice team. But they won't win a title, because they don't have the superstar they need. Even worse, since they have a pretty nice team, they're unlikely to get the draft position to get the superstar.
This is an interesting point. For all the talk about the relative "strength" of the baseball union and "weakness" of the football union doesn't a higher percentage of revenue go to the football players than the baseball players? And this isn't because of the Yankees, Mets or Dodgers. It is because a group of "small" to "medium" market baseball franchises simply don't spend their money. Almost all if not all football franchises spend all the money available to them under the cap. Football free agents seem to have more options.
Not really - they sign with one of the teams that have cap room for them.
I see this a lot, so I want you to reconcile something for me I'm having trouble doing myself - if that's the case, and I'm willing to acknowledge it might, or even probably, is, then why are the teams with the highest payrolls consistently the teams that play in the largest markets? Everyone says the A's and Twins and Pirates and Royals can spend like the Red Sox only if they want to, but how come the opposite winds up being the case so consistently?
But this happens in baseball all the time. There's no salary cap enforcing it, but the same types of trades happen every year. And it's almost always a team like Cleveland sending a Martinez to Boston who can afford it. As opposed to in the NBA, where it's the ran-by-morons New York Knicks sending productive guys to places like San Antonio, who actually know what they're doing.
yes it does, for various reasons, of which the biggest is that MLB teams have minor leagues.
This is an enormously overlooked point.
Consider the example of the Pirates. They HAD a Mauer (pre-thumb injury Jason Kendall - look it up), and they signed him to a long-term deal at market rates, and then when he suffered a career-altering injury in the first year of that deal it became a franchise-crushing burden.
If it had happened to the Yankees, they just would've traded for a veteran, eaten the losses, and kept on going.
That Yankees fans complain about things like this is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to line them up against the wall and start shooting.
You're absolutely right. The smaller teams absolutely SHOULD take their balls and go home until larger teams agree to a 50/50 split of prorated TV revenue between the host and visiting team for each game. If the larger teams that make all the money don't like it, they can play games amongst themselves.
This is a big problem the NBA has - it's hard to go from mediocre to great, so unless you think your team has a serious chance, the tendency is to try and tank whole seasons for the lottery picks. The NBA regular season has become a joke as a result.
You know who that sounds like? The Pirates and Royals..."
Absolutely. The difference between MLB and the NFL, though, is that the Pirates and Royals would still be incapable of a Yankees-style run of sustained success even if they'd drafted well and been well-run. After a few seasons, Malthus always wins.
And of course, it's not like the various teams' scouts and GMs are handed out at random. Teams with more revenue are able to spend more on building and maintaining their own brain trust, just like they're able to spend more on building and maintaining their roster.
This is an oversimplification, though. Even a transcendant superstar like Michael Jordan needs a Scottie Pippen to consistently win. LeBron hasn't gotten over that hump precisely because of that. Tim Duncan did what he did because the Spurs are ran by geniuses who plucked Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker well after the lottery.
I mean yes, you need a superstar to win in the NBA, I'll grant you that, but a) there's a lot more to it than luck that determines who winds up with the superstars and b) once you have a superstar, you have to have the ability to surround them with real talent.
Yes, but this year they aren't going to be in the playoffs, and wouldn't be even if they added Sabathia, because they're experiencing the best-case scenario season for a mere 75% of their players rather than 100%. And the Red Sox are going to be in the playoffs despite injuries and disappointments galore.
Well, Pippen and pliable league officials stooging at the behest of David Stern.
Indeed. In most sports this is the divide. In baseball you have this, and you also have the poor vs. rich divide.
But it's not a complete oversimplification. The Bulls had two star players. That's all they needed. TWO! The Spurs have one superstar and two other star players and a bunch of decent role players. Look at the Spurs draft choices and free agents and tell me their geniuses. They lucked into Tim Duncan and made two good draft choices in Ginobli and Parker. The rest of their acquisitions look a lot better because they're playing with Tim Duncan.
So the overall point was a good one: in basketball, you almost always need only one or two dominant players. Other than the 04 Pistons, you'd be hard pressed to find top teams without one or two superstar players.
But back to the topic at hand:
Competitive balance sucks, I don't see why people care. I don't give a #### if Pittsburgh is out of it every year, that's Pittsburgh's fault. Is it harder for them to compete? Sure, but so what? Make some smart draft choices, spend your money wisely, or shut the #### up.
If the Marlins can do it, any team can do it. The fact that they can't do it every year means nothing to me. I would be very bored watching the Rays and Phillies in the WS every year.
Playing a single day of major league baseball gives you access to health insurance for life.
Five years after playing in the NFL, your health benefits expire. Now imagine what it's like to go out and get health insurance on your own after being a pro football player.
Wow, a Knicks fan complaining about league officials?
I would send you a tape of Larry Johnson's infamous 4 point play in the mail as a counterpoint, but all of my envelopes are frozen right now.
But that's a fourth of their roster. If you have six stars in MLB on the level of Parker/Duncan/Ginobili, you're gonna have a damn good team. And they wouldn't have won all those titles if they hadn't found solid role players like Bruce Bowen to go with the core.
And, again, the real point is that the smart teams tend to be able to do this in the NBA. Utah and Denver, despite not having a real, top-10 or 15 superstar, consistently compete for home court playoff spots, because they're well ran.
And in the NBA, you can't buy your way out of ####### up. If you're the Knicks and you keep bringing in bloated contracts like Jerome James or Stephon Marbury or whoever, being in New York ain't gonna help fix that.
I don't see why that's a good thing. Essentially, in the NBA every team is a "small market" team - if a big contract guy gets hurt or performs poorly, that's it - you're not going to contend.
To me, that's back-assward - if I'm running things, I want to help the teams that are poor but want to contend, not cripple the teams that are rich and want to contend.
Can someone show this? And again, by what count? WS championships? Playoff contention? Winning or losing record? Which teams are "rich" and which are "poor?" And again, by what standard--payroll or income?
It's really easy to say this, but I'm skeptical a divide exists unless someone can show it. I'm even more skeptical of any vast distinction between rich and poor. That is, if it's two teams that are "rich" and two teams that are "poor" and everyone else is on some close-to-linear scale in between, who gives a damn?
Oakland was competitive all throughout that disastrous Jermaine Dye contract.
Who's a Knicks fan? Bite your forked tongue, you slanderous knave.
The Eric Chavez contract hasn't been killing the A's either.
His Stats I case study was his paper on Productive Outs.
Just look throughout the NBA. The dumb teams (LA Clippers, my Warriors, Knicks) consistently lose, and the smart teams (Houston, LA Lakers, San Antonio, Detroit) consistently win. Dumb vs. smart a much better divide in my eyes than rich vs. poor.
Yeah, go count the number of different teams that have won a title the past 25 years. The NBA is how not to do it.
The one in which he put up a 110 OPS+, a lost season, and a 105 OPS+? I mean, it wasn't great, but it was hardly crippling. The Eric Chavez contract, on the other hand....
Really easy to say it, even easier to dismiss it offhand by asking a lot of very, very specific questions that likely no one has the time to address in great detail.
I mean, what exactly are you asking for? There are clearly a set of teams (the Bostons, New Yorks, Chicagos) that spend much more than the set of teams on the other end (the Oaklands, Pittsburghs, Minnesotas, Kansas Citys) year to year. So in that sense, there is clearly a divide. What I think we're arguing is whether that divide means anything.
By what count? I mean, playoff contention and winning are more or less the exact same thing, and, conversely, a lack of playoff contention and losing go hand in hand. So let's go with that.
As for your standard, I think it has to be payroll. Are there reliable income figures out there? If someone can show me the Oakland A's or Kansas City Royals really take in the same income as the Boston Red Sox (or comparable) year to year, then I certainly have no argument. I'll stop right now. (And, I know, all the owners "have the money" to compete, but it kinda illustrates my point if Carl Pohlad or Lew Wolff have to invest disproportionately than John Henry to approach that kind of success.)
Or maybe you feel like Buddha:
In which, case, hell, that's legitimate. I'd just have to agree to disagree there.
That's more a product of the way the sport of basketball is played than the way the NBA is structured. If it was ran the same way as baseball, you'd just have Chicago and New York and LA winning every title for the past 25 years and there wouldn't be any funny Miami, San Antonio, or Detroit outliers.
Dynasties are always going to be prevalent in basketball no matter what because of the disproportionate effect one or two players can have on the outcome of a game, compared to baseball or football or what have you.
They don't have to invest disproportionately to win. They just can't expect the same ROI, financially speaking, that Henry can. Winning means a lot more in terms of raw dollars to the Red Sox than it means to the A's or Twins.
And I don't have a big problem with this.
No, this goes back to the point earlier that hitting the jackpot in the NBA draft is worth way way more than any amount of money.
Drafting Tim Duncan has a way of making you look real smart.
7.60% 01 NYY $201,449,289
5.12% 02 NYM $135,773,988
5.10% 03 CHC $135,050,000
4.63% 04 BOS $122,696,000
4.34% 05 DET $115,085,145
4.29% 06 LAA $113,709,000
4.26% 07 PHP $113,004,048
3.89% 08 HOU $102,996,415
3.79% 09 LAD $100,458,101
3.73% 10 SEA $98,904,167
3.65% 11 ATL $96,726,167
3.63% 12 CHW $96,068,500
3.34% 13 STL $88,528,411
3.10% 14 SFG $82,161,450
3.08% 15 CLE $81,625,567
3.06% 16 TOR $80,993,657
3.01% 17 MIL $79,857,502
2.84% 18 COL $75,201,000
2.78% 19 ARI $73,571,667
2.68% 20 CIN $70,968,500
2.68% 21 KCR $70,908,333
2.59% 22 TEX $68,646,023
2.53% 23 BAL $67,101,667
2.46% 24 MIN $65,299,267
2.39% 25 TBR $63,313,035
2.35% 26 OAK $62,310,000
2.24% 27 WAS $59,328,000
1.84% 28 PIT $48,743,000
1.61% 29 SDP $42,796,700
1.39% 30 FLA $36,814,000
Big, (.5% drop or more...ish) following the Yanks, my Cubs and the Phils. Then a long plateau of steady decline to Wash. Then a drop to the Pirates and Padres. Then a little drop to Florida. Where's the line between rich and poor? I see either 1, 3, or 7 on top. And maybe 3 on the bottom, with a 20-ish group of middle-class teams.
I didn't realize Kansas City had a $70mil payroll this year. I was ready to accuse them of not trying, but perhaps they just aren't spending well.
Opening day payrolls from http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries
Except as soon as Duncan's rookie contract ran out, he'd be available to the highest bidder. San Antonio would look smart for three seasons before he left for whoever offered him the most dollars.
edit: Or, I guess what I'm saying, is that the way the NBA is structured has allowed the small-market Spurs to keep Duncan/Parker/Ginobili (25% of their team) in a way MLB didn't allow for, say, Oakland, to keep all of Giambi/Tejada/Chavez/Hudson/Zito/Mulder (or 25% of their team).
Well any single way you cut it up you're going to wind up being kind of arbitrary, but for the purposes of examining the "rich" vs. the "poor" it's probably more productive to compare something like LA and up and Milwaukee and down on that list, rather than lump 20 teams in the middle which would put Tampa ($63 mil) and Anaheim ($113 mil) in the same "class".
God forbid I ask for detail rather than accept a blanket assumption.
Please illustrate the "clear divide." Please reference my earlier list if you're willing and if you trust CBS' salary data. And if the "clear divide" is the last 3 teams, then isn't the problem that they're not trying?
OK. You mentioned Oakland, yet the Rays with a similar salary were able to make the World Series last year. In 07 the middle-salaried Rockies and DBacks made the playoffs. In 06 and 05, St. Louis and San Diego both went each year and neither were high salaried.
Yes, the higher salaried teams are represented, but I think it's remarkable how baseball actually allows smart teams that good at drafting and development to often get the best years out of a player BEFORE they become expensive. That's how "small-market" teams can and do consistently compete.
And the notion that there is some precipitous decline between one group of teams that are "rich" teams and one group that are "poor" teams is malarky.
The only thing that NBA teams can do is go over cap to retain their own guys, and to be able to pay more money than other teams. The first point is moot because MLB has no cap. The second is probably valid, except that teams routinely just sign-and-trade the rights away to save money. The Royals were dead set that they weren't paying Beltran, so they would've just gotten rid of him anyway. Much like the Pistons did with Grant Hill, the Raptors with McGrady, the Sonics with Rashard Lewis.
"LA & up" makes a .06% difference (of total MLB payroll) between it and Seattle, the team following.
"Milwaukee & down" makes a .05% difference between it and Toronto, the team preceding.
How is either of those options any more illustrative?
My point is there is no simple, binary line between "rich" and "poor" teams. Rather, I think it makes more sense to say that spending more money will generally help a team compete better, but it is not any sort of guarantee.
Moreover, baseball allows ample opportunity for teams to compete and win while spending a third of the highest spending team. Show me another sport that can claim that.
Except none of them do consistently compete. The "group of small market teams" consistently gets a representative (kind of like, say, mid majors in the NCAA Tournament), but there aren't any of them out there mimicking what the Yankees or Red Sox do. The Padres went, and now they're in the cellar. The Rays went, and not only did they ahve to suck for about a decade to build up their core, but we'll see what of it they actually retain long term.
You go back all the way to 05, and give five teams as examples. Out of 32 that have made it in those four years. That's my point. The small market teams that make their noise are the outliers. There is a divide.
It's not God forbid you ask for detail, it's just that I don't understand what asking for so much detail accomplishes. You didn't make any points yourself, rather, you asked a series of difficult to answer questions and then, in lieu of not having answers for them, dismissed the notion of a meaningful divide outright.
Like I said above, no matter which way you cut it, the process will be arbitrary. But I would go with, generally, the 10 or so teams that year to year remain in the bottom constituting "poor" and the 10 or so teams that year to year remain at the top constituting "rich." That's where a divide definitely exists. It's one thing to argue whether the divide is meaningless, or self imposed (by stingy teams like Oakland or Kansas City), but there's clearly a divide between the promiment haves and the prominent have nots in baseball.
That's a pretty useless point. If you don't see a difference between the A's and the Dodgers, then you're not trying real hard.
I've been running around in circles trying to make this point, so thank you for stating it more clearly.
There are about 14 or so teams that profile "like the A's" and another maybe 12 or so that profile "like the Dodgers." Between those two groups, there exists a clear line. There's plenty of debate to be had about whether you think that line has any meaning to it, and even which specific teams belong in which specific groups if you must, but I don't know why I have to belabor that single point. The line is there.
Obviously, the Dodgers are a larger-market, higher-revenue team than the A's. I don't deny that. But I'd be curious to hear your 14 and 12, because there are only 30 teams total and I think there are a lot more than 4 teams that are solidly middle-class.
Yet, every year a middle- or low-salaried team seems to make the playoffs. Mind you, this at the expense of a team in the top 8 or top 10 in salary. If there really was some dichotomy in salary, you would expect the 8 playoff spots populated by the top 10 in payroll almost every year. But that is not the case.
As for consistency, within the last five years, San Diego and St. Louis made the playoffs two years in a row. That ain't bad. Oakland had their run for a while before then. Only Boston and New York seem like a lock over the last 5 years or so. Is that the clear divide you would suggest are the prominent haves? Two teams?
By asking the questions, I'm making the point there is no meaningful divide, and I think I've supported that. Buster Olney and a lot of mass media think there is and they haven't successfully shown it to me.
Do you see how this is vague? The top 10 teams? The bottom 10 teams? Even over a span of several years, the difference between the 10th and the 11th teams, or even the 10th and the 15th team payrolls will be marginal. Same for the bottom.
Please show this clear and definite divide. State which teams are haves and which are have nots. Because I don't see it.
Alright, let me try to kind of consolidate what I'm saying, because I figured I'd run into this.
For argument's sake, let's just say the five at the top are the "rich" and the five at the bottom are the "poor."
Regardless of what you think the size of the middle class in between those two is, at the heart of this argument, I believe, is what causes that vast difference between "the rich" and "the poor." I do believe the difference exists, I do believe it's partly systemic, I don't really have a solution (I certainly wouldn't claim to be that smart) and I do think it kind of sucks.
I brought up the NBA, but I'm struggling to continue arguing for it, so I'll concede that point, and stick to the simpler version I've hopefully laid out above.
Yet the opposite point is what Olney and others suggest--that there is a clear line between "haves" and "have-nots" and that this is what is prohibiting the "have-nots" from being successful. I find that point more useless, if you will. And I seek to refute it.
There are always going to be haves and have nots. It doesn't mean that things shouldn't be done to help teams be competitive, but rather that whatever systems are put in place will still result in some sort of inequity.
I'd be in favor of longer service time, or a limit on draft bonuses, as a means of ensuring that talent stays with a team as long as possible.
Backing up what Stevens is saying, from his list in #144, the gap between #1 (NYY) and #2 (NYM) on the list is greater than the difference between #2 and #21 (Kansas City). The gap from #1 to #5 (DET) is bigger than the gap between #5 and #30. The payroll disparity problem in MLB is primarily a problem that the New York Yankees spend too much money. And, perhaps, at the other end that the Pittsburgh Pirates, San Diego Padres, and Florida Marlins spend too little. But the Padres are a bit of a special case this year with their owner's divorce and the Marlins are quite clearly "cheap" more than "poor". Miami is a fine-sized city and as somebody pointed out in the other thread on this subject, a well-run Marlins franchise could have been well-positioned to become the MLB franchise of choice for the Caribbean and much of Latin America. So that leaves the Pirates, I guess.
In terms of <u>markets</u>, I doubt there are many markets smaller than Milwaukee, which is a fairly small city with a divisional rival 90 minutes south. And yet, the Brewers are able to maintain pretty much a median MLB payroll and pay essentially as much money as a team which has an entire country to itself. Are the Brewers at a disadvantage compared to the Blue Jays? Yes, of course, but not so much that all hope is lost for baseball-loving cheeseheads.
I'm saying there is a dichotomy between the very richest teams and the very poorest teams. I don't see how "San Diego and St. Louis for a couple years" and "Oakland with their run a while before that" refutes that. They're anamolies, and they typically regress back to where they belong (see present day Oakland and San Diego, and, I would argue, where Tampa will likely be in four or five seasons. That's the point, the small markets, even only IF they're ran well, "get a run." They can't sustain it like Boston or New York can).
That's part of the point too I guess. If a team like Boston or New York is ran well (or the LA Angels) they can sustain success with a money. No small market team, even if ran well, has proven the same is true on that end of the spectrum, which is kind of a shame in my opinion.
I'm not really sure we're talking about the same thing here. When I say "haves" and "have nots" I mean comparing, in a rough sense, the team consistently around 10th in payroll to the team consistently around 20th. There's a difference there, and I don't see what's so vague about it.
OK, you had me Olney.
Baseball is a game of percentages. Looking for a clear line is most likely a mistake.
I've exhausted a lot of bandwidth convoluting my point, but I have to work to get done now so I'll exit by saying I pretty much agree with everything here.
How many teams are going to do this?
Because I'm pretty sure the middle-10 teams will be happy to take all the revenue sharing money going to the bottom-10 and play in a 20-team league.
Face it. The bottom 10 revenue franchises contribute very little to the economics of basbeall.
But if you look at Stevens' list in #144, the gap between #10 (SEA) and #20 (CIN) is less than the gap between #1 and #2 or between #27 (WAS) and #30 (FLA). And once you get past the first few teams on the list (NYY, NYM, LAD, CHC) and the bottom few names (FLA, PIT), there isn't this year-to-year consistency that you're talking about.
If you're talking about "systemic" differences, the lists of "haves" and "have-nots" are, I think, much smaller than you think they are, and are not immutable. Miami is <u>not</u> a small market. It may now be a ruined market, thanks to Huizenga and Loria, but that's not "systemic" in this sense. Yes, some cities - NY, LA, CHI - are bigger, and, therefore, better markets than others. And MLB has addressed this historically by putting multiple teams in these cities. One problem is that these cities tend to have one dominant franchise (Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Giants in your area) and one lesser franchise. But I don't see why that would be "systemic"; it more likely is just an indication of which team was better-run over its history. And aside from the A's, the other "lesser franchises" seem to be doing fine (in terms of revenue/attendance/payroll).
People talk about the Red Sox a lot as a big-market team. But is their natural market (New England) any bigger than, say, Toronto's market (Ontario)? It seems to me that the Red Sox advantage is simply that they're a better-run team who have done a better job of building their brand. But that's a good thing, for both the Red Sox and for MLB as a whole. The Cardinals are another team in a relatively small market that competes just fine.
Off the top of my head, the only markets that seem like they might be too small to adequately support an MLB team are Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa, and Oakland. The A's share a market with the "big-market" Giants, so I'm not entirely sure why they can't tap into the Giants' fan base. Milwaukee actually has a history of being a very good baseball town (check out the Braves' attendance numbers in the 1950s) and Pittsburgh is a huge sports town with a gorgeous ballpark. So I'm not even sure how true it is for any of these cities.
The payroll disparity issue is basically a problem with the Yankees at the top end and the Marlins and Padres being cheap at the bottom end.
Yes. There is a big difference between the teams at either end of the spectrum. But that is not a line in the sand that separates some of the teams in the league from the others.
Anomaly is a dangerous word. Like "aberration" or however Selig referred to Minnesota when he was making the contraction case that small-market teams couldn't compete. That smaller payroll teams CAN succeed and often DO succeed really goes a long way to diminishing the notion that baseball success is function of payroll. And that "haves" have all the answers.
As for "getting a run," didn't Oakland have one? Hasn't Minnesota been consistently competitive? Didn't Milwaukee have good hope for making the playoffs after the last couple years of success? I grant that those teams shouldn't expect to have BOS and NYY kind of success. But BOS and NYY are well funded teams run by smart people. Money definitely helps, but my Cubs have spent in the Boston neighborhood and don't have two recent championships to show for it, nor do they have as many playoff appearances in a much weaker division.
Again, there's no line in the sand above which you can spend to guarantee success, however you define it. More money increases likelihood, but offers no guarantee.
Maybe we're not talking about the same thing, but what is vague about your reference is the "around 10th" part or "around 20th". Look at this year's payrolls. The difference between the 10th and 20th team is $28 million. Significant, but the difference between 1 and 2 is almost 3 times that. Moreover, what's the significant difference between 10th or 11th or 12th? Likewise for the neighborhood around 20th. It becomes arbitrary instead of looking at where the breaks really are and noting there isn't one huge dropoff between two different tiers. Looking at the salaries in a graph would better illustrate this. I'm sorry I don't know how to do that.
Of course, they tend to be signing these guys in their early to mid-30's, and paying market rate for their "services" in terms of $/expected WAR. So, including injuries and early declines, they're really not getting a good deal on the FAs.
Exactly. This is why MLB doesn't have as big a competition problem as their payroll disparity might suggest. Because teams can control their own players for 6 years, FAs are almost always on the downside of their career. And because players are drafted/signed so long before they hit the Majors, the uncertainty in that prevents teams from being able to gain too large an advantage there just from money.
People have mentioned that the A's had their dynasty cut short. But given what's happened to Mulder and Zito and Hudson since they left and given what they got in trade for Mulder at least, how much better would the 2009 A's really be if they'd re-signed all of those guys?
When was the last time a small market team(bottom 8, say) signed a premium free agent away from another team?
Baseball's competitive advantage over basketball is due to the structure of the game itself; the better team loses more often, you rarely see teams that win more than 60% of their games.
Suppose that that playoff setup hadn't been implemented, and the leagues still had two divisions each. Here's what would have happened if the teams had had the same records (they wouldn't have, of course, because different divisional alignments would have meant different personel decisions, different organizational assessments of position in the success cycle, etc., but we'll suppose it wouldn't have been a lot different):
Second place teams parentheses. * = did not make playoffs in actual setup
AL
1995 East: Cleveland 100-44 (Boston 86-58) | West: Seattle 79-66 (California 78-67)
1996 East: Cleveland 99-62 (New York 92-70) | West: Texas 90-72 (Seattle 85-76)
1997 East: Baltimore 98-64 (New York 96-66) | West: Seattle 90-72 (Anaheim 84-78)
1998 East: New York 114-48 (Boston 92-70) | West: Texas 88-74 (Anaheim 85-77)
1999 East: New York 98-64 (Cleveland 97-65) | West: Texas 95-67 (Oakland 87-75)
2000 East: Cleveland 90-72* (New York 87-75) | West: Oakland (91-70) and Seattle (91-71) playoff
2001 East: New York 95-65 (Cleveland 91-71) | West: Seattle 116-46 (Oakland 102-60)
2002 East: New York 103-58 (Boston 93-69) | Oakland 103-59 (Anaheim 99-63)
2003 East: New York 101-61 (Boston 95-67) | Oakland 96-66 (Seattle 93-69)
2004 East: New York 101-61 (Boston 98-64) | Anaheim (92-70) and Minnesota (92-70) playoff
2005 East: New York (95-67) and Boston (95-67) playoff | Chicago 99-63 (LA of A 95-67)
2006 East: New York (95-67) and Detroit (95-67) playoff | West: Minnesota 96-66 (Oakland 93-69)
2007 East: Boston (96-66) and Cleveland (96-66) playoff | West: LA of A 94-68 (Seattle 88-74)
2008 East: Tampa 97-65 (Boston 95-67) | West: LA of A 100-62 (Chicago 89-74)
NL
(Remember, the Braves and Reds were in the West, the Cubs and Cards were in the East.)
1995 East: Chicago 73-71* (New York 69-75) | West: Atlanta 90-54 (Cincinnati 85-59)
1996 East: St. Louis (88-74) and Montreal (88-74) playoff | West: Atlanta 96-66 (San Diego 91-71)
1997 East: Florida 92-70 (New York 88-74) | West: Atlanta 101-61 (San Francisco 90-72)
1998 East: Chicago 89-73 (New York 88-74) | West: Atlanta 106-56 (Houston 102-60)
1999 East: New York 97-66 (Philadelphia 77-85) | West: Atlanta 103-59 (Arizona 100-62)
2000 East: St. Louis 95-67 (New York 94-68) | West: San Francisco 97-65 (Atlanta 95-67)
2001 East: St. Louis 93-69 (Chicago 88-74) | West: Houston 93-69 (Arizona 90-72)
2002 East: St. Louis 97-65 (Montreal 83-79) | West: Atlanta 101-59 (Arizona 98-64)
2003 East: Florida 91-71 (Chicago 88-74) | West: Atlanta 101-61 (San Francisco 100-61)
2004 East: St. Louis 105-57 (Chicago 89-73) | West: Atlanta 96-66 (Los Angeles 93-69)
2005 East: St. Louis 100-62 (Philadelphia 88-74) | West: Atlanta 90-72 (Houston 89-73)
2006 East: New York 97-65 (Philadelphia 85-77) | West: San Diego (88-74) and Los Angeles (88-74)
2007 East: Philadelphia 89-73 (New York 88-74) | West: Arizona 90-72 (Col. and S.D. 89-73)
2008 East: Chicago 97-64 (Philadelphia 92-70) | West: Houston 86-75 (Los Angeles 84-78)
In this alternate reality, the Yankees still have a big playoff run, but its 8 of 9 years instead of 14 of 15, and it's been two years since they made it (though it was even more dominant, since there were only two post-season berths; this is tempered a bit by the fact that they squeaked through some tight races). Boston has made the post-season once since 1990, and it was a one-game playoff with Cleveland. Cleveland made the post-season in 2000 when they didn't in real life. Oakland still won its division 3 out of 4 times, though Minnesota only won it once, getting burried in other years behind great Oakland and Seattle teams. The late '90s Ranger teams are remembered as more impressive. The Angels are working on what passses for a dynasty—two years in a row, and working on number three.
In the NL, The Braves had two separate runs, but failed to make it in two consecutive seasons, and did in both of those in real life. St. Louis winning the East in 5 of 6 seasons is very impressive as well. Florida still gets both of their post-season berths, though, and with division titles instead of wild cards. The Mets fail to make the playoffs in a season in which they actually did. Houston loses a couple of post-seasons, but gains one that they didn't really have. The Cubs also got two division titles that they didn't really win, one in a year when they didn't make the playoffs in real life (they also lose '03).
Overall: The teams that made the post-season most frequently, and had the most sustained runs, were the Yankees, Braves, Cardinals, and Athletics; one huge payroll, two medium sorts of payrolls, and one small payroll—total symmetry in that department by one admittedly glib reckoning. But Boston, Los Angeles, and Chicago teams are anything but dominant in this scenario. The Angels are basically even with Oakland and Texas, and the Dodgers haven't been to the post-season since 1988. The Cubs have been a couple of times, and the White Sox once; the Red Sox are discussed above.
We still get the historical anomoly of teams making the playoffs for several years in a row, so it hasn't been driven entirely by the new setup. But it hasn't been driven entirely by dollars, either.
Very nicely done, Vaux. Nice work and nice analysis. But just to nitpick. The White Sox would have won the AL West in 2000 with 95 wins.
1) How the three divison setup has screwed us out of some epic pennant races. The AL East would have had some knock down, drag out battles every single year.
2) New England would still be miserable. Thank God for the wild card.
- the Twins being competitive
- the Twins' farm system cranking out lots of talent
- the Twins spending less on their MLB roster than people think they should
people would eventually figure out that, maybe, the Twins (and other teams) are actually spending more money in ways that are productive but the casual fan doesn't see.
The payroll thing matters, sure; but it's nowhere near the whole story.
Probably been addressed, but with remotely proper controlling for number of playoff teams by structural design, I cannot think of a single example of the NFL having better competitive balance than MLB, and on balance MLB kicks the #### out of the NFL wrt to it.
Ugh.
I mean if you have a Kobe or LeBron on your team, you would probably win a big percentage of game regardless of who the other 4 players are. Similarly if you have a good QB, WR or RB. They get the chance to make an impact on every single play.
Whereas in baseball, having an ace or a superstar 1B isn't enough to guarantee regular success. An ace pitches just once every 5 days and a position player gets a limited number of at-bats.
That's where the 'small-market' teams suffer with their limited budgets; they just can't afford a deep squad. Of course, a smart GM will be able to find good, cheap replacement level or pre-arb players to fill the roster but it's hard to be consistently successful that way.
Which is one reason anybody who's actually given any though to the issue talks marginal revenue. The issue is not primarily absolute resources but the financial rewards for success on the field.
To get back to the Twins for a moment, when I checked a decade ago there was no market more sensitive to on-field success than Minnesota (at least as measured by attendance. Their terrible lease prevented them from taking full financial advantage)
From what I can tell the Yankees do make slightly more for a random win than anybody (worth noting that both Voros and Zimbalist found otherwise) else but it's dick in the overall revenue stream. These days the bulk of marginal revenue comes from making the playoffs (and winning the World Series) and from what I can tell, the financial rewards are broadly similar across all markets.
What has distinguished the Yankees in the Steinbrenner era from other teams is that Steinbrenner is utterly uninterested in the short-term return on investment -- and he's been able to keep the people fronting the money happy. This could easily change. (Steinbrenner appears to have frequently borrowed against the increased value of the francise to keep things moving)
Problem being that the big market teams just might take them up on that if push actually came to shove. Something not too different from that happened in English soccer. What had been called the First division broke away, renamed itself and then rejoined on its own terms. (And yes, I know its vastly more complex than this)
Besides you're assuming that the small market ownerships are unhappy with the current state of affairs. I doubt it. Oh they'd love full revenue sharing with or without cap and floor == it is after all found money. Based on what's happened in the NHL, you'd have to assume the won't support cap and floor without very generous revenue sharing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114619267334238458.html
this WSJ article says the Yankees thrown out 70+M in 2005 and the Royals / Pirates / Marlins etc all recieved 30M+ .
Looking at Cots, it seem to support these #. since the payroll of those teams have generally gone up in the last few years. I think this is more or less an adjustment period and in the next few years we'll start to see a even more competitive market. here's a few evidence that I think support this.
Royals 2009 MLB payroll : 70M
Twins : 65M
Rockies : 75M
Reds: 73M
just a few example, a quick look around COTs shows a very clear indication that the smal market team's payroll have gone up considerablly over the last few yars. where as the Yankee's payroll have hovered around the same (ridiculas height) since 04.
I have to lean towards that a lot of time, it's the owners not opening up the pockets more than the market's competitiveness. plenty of these "small market" teams had huge payroll at one point or another. the D-backs / O's / Rangers all sported close to or over 100M payroll at one point. the Indians were sporting a 81M salary to start this year. Certainly the large market teams have an advantage. but it is absurd to say that small teams can't afford at least a couple of 20M guys if they really WANT to.
If anything, it seems to be that the Yankee's combination of huge market and a owner who's very willing to spend is the exception to the rule here.
So I would guess that if I were able to change all this I'd do...
A. move a 3rd team back to New York or start a new team, put it in the AL.
B. expand the playoffs to the NFL formula of 12 teams (4 seed )
Since one of the major problem is obviously that making the playoffs in the MLB is typically the hardest of the 4 major sport by a significant margin. which makes a problem when you have a team like the recent Toronto Blue Jays that is good but locked in a division where there's always at least 1 better team . and due to the unbalanced scheduel it makes it even harder for them to compete for the wild card
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main