[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You're correct, to a point. The problem, however, is this: the economics of the game have changed pretty radically, even since the mid-90's.

Well, perhaps. As far as competitive balance goes, it doesn't appear that we're any worse off now than many other periods in baseball history. In the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract the author uses a competitive balance metric (which is unfortunately not published in the book) and calculates competitive balance through the decades. Here's how they fall (the higher the number, the more competitively balanced):

1870's: 21%
1880's: 24%
1890's: 27%
1900's: 30%
1910's: 36%
1920's: 34%
1930's: 31%
1940's: 34%
1950's: 34%
1960's: 40%
1970's: 45%
1980's: 56%
1990's: 57%

Now, this measure seems to be based primarily on the regular season win-loss gaps between teams, so it doesn't necessarily reflect the realistic chances of winning a World Series for all teams - for example, in much of the 60's the Yankees and Dodgers dominated the playoffs. Still, as we've seen over the last 20 years, there has been quite a distribution of World Series champions. Even since the resurgence of the Yankees in '95, they've not won the World Series since 2000.

As for the games' finances, while individual things like free agency and the amateur draft have altered things in a big way, I'm not sure the overall effect is necessarily all that different. If you look at attendence figures over the history of baseball, there have always been radical differences between the most successful and the least successful teams. Keeping in mind that for much of baseball history, attendence was the biggest revenue factor, I'm not so sure that the current huge disparity between the Yankees and a team like the Devil Rays is any more pronounced than the difference between the Yankees and the St. Louis Browns in the 1930's (the Yankees outdrew the Browns by a better than 8:1 ratio in that decade).

The Yankees themselves have undergone periods of mediocrity. Why did the Yankees not dominate the 1980's? Partly because Steinbrenner didn't spend as much, mainly because the management of the team was so lousy. Who's to say that the management of the Yankees may not suffer again in the future, or that Steinbrenner (or his eventual replacement) will continue to spend outrageously?

Originally Posted by SkyDog

As I mentioned earlier, the days of the bidding war are virtually over. Teams trade players away but pay huge portions of their salaries. Top-tier players only bother talking to 2 or 3 teams during free agency. These are very recent developments (like 2000 and beyond), and I don't really see them changing until there are radical changes in the game's rules.

Contrary to popular belief, the Yankees aren't involved in bidding for every free agent. Who set the tone for free agent spending this offseason? The financially strapped Arizona Diamondbacks. Yes, certain teams don't get involved in bidding for the high-profile free agents, but those certain teams aren't always the same each season.

Also in the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract was the following prediction for the future of baseball:

"History shows that nothing more clearly than that one cannot anticipate history. This is true, I think, because many of the things that we all know turn out, when put to the test, to be untrue, or to be true only up to a point.

Having said that, four things about the future of baseball seem so obvious to me that I am willing to put them on record in a hardcover book, so that the next generation of sportswriters can make fun of me twenty years from now. Those four things are:

1. That baseball will eventually solve or contain the problem of economics corroding competitive balance."

His explanation for this particular prediction was as follows:

"...Baseball will eventually solve or contain the problem of free agency destroying competitive balance because:

a. The historical trend in all sports and across many decades is towards ever greater competitive balance.
b. There are obvious solutions to the problem.
c. If the obvious solutions are not adopted sonner, the problem will become so acute that they will have to be adopted later.

Broad, powerful forces in sports and society tend to level competition within any fixed group. The details of negotiated contracts can obstruct that process for a period of time, but not forever."

Take that for what it's worth, but a differing opinion to consider.

Now, what does all this mean for BBM? First off, we have to decide how much we want the game to mirror reality, and how much we want it to deviate from reality to provide a more satisfying gaming experience (knowing that these two goals aren't always the same).

A major issue here is that the primary crux of the game, the financial aspect, is modeled on current conditions. As such, it's somewhat difficult to match historical trends unless the game system is flexible enough to handle multiple possible financial systems and change them over time to match reality, i.e. not introducing the amateur draft until the mid-1960's and free agency in the mid-1970's.

Secondly, if Bill James is correct and competitive balance issues will eventually be addressed within the game, this will undoubtably be some kind of financial solution such as increased revenue sharing which will be a modification from how the game is currently set-up. Should BBM try and anticipate these possible changes and incorporate them into how the game progresses through the future? Should some kind of revenue sharing system be included in the game that kicks in when payroll disparity passes a certain ratio? Should any city that gets to a certain size be granted an expansion team or have another team move there (as ought to happen with the New York/New Jersey area)?

For my part, while I want the game to feature challenging scenarios, I also want the game to feel immersive. If the Yankees are always making the playoffs and never have any down periods, and if it's not just the Yankees but the Mets and the Dodgers also then I'm going to lose that sense of immersion. I don't want the Yankees to always win and the Devil Rays to always suck - I want the possibility of some variation in expected outcomes, for the Yankees to suffer some 8-10 season periods of mediocrity, for the Devil Rays to have some brief shining moments where smart management leads to on-field success, a new stadium and increased revenues that allow them to compete for a wild card for a decade.