-
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Very good article.
The only thing I'll add. The lack of a salary cap in baseball does help the teams that can spend to continue spending to fill their holes. However, there are far more teams that can't spend than teams that can. And, there are enough playoff spots for those teams that can't spend.
Does it make it a bit unfair? Of course. The Yankees, for example, are almost a guarenteed lock to see the playoffs. But, it does go to show that it's not a 100% guarentee as the Red Sox, Dodgers, and Mets proved last year. Money doesn't win championships, but it helps you remain competitive rather than going through cycles.
The biggest issue is management. The teams that can't spend (and there are over 20 of them in MLB alone) continue to spend on players that make their fan base do double-takes. I know the Pirates don't have all the money in the world, but Pirate fans you have to admit that in the last five years the team has made some idiot moves. The same goes for the Royals and Tigers. I know that the Yankees can sign a Rondell White, Jarret Wright, or Hideki Irabu and brush it off like nothing. I realize the Pirates and Royals can't do that as easily or at all. But, there are a bunch of have-nots that don't make as many bad signings as some of the teams in the bottom.
Again, I can only name five teams (though, I admit I didn't even try thinking of them - I got the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, Angels) that can spend willingly. Only two of those teams went to the playoffs last year. Only two of those teams have won a championship in the past 5 years (three in the past six). In six years, three teams "without" money have won the championship. Competition isn't completely balanced, but it also isn't completely unbalanced.
Anyway, who picked competitive inbalance over steroids? Are people really serious about that?"It may well be that we spectators, who are not divinely gifted as athletes, are the only ones able to truly see, articulate and animate the experience of the gift we are denied. And that those who receive and act out the gift of athletic genius must, perforce, be blind and dumb about it -- and not because blindness and dumbness are the price of the gift, but because they are its essence." - David Foster Wallace
"You'll not find more penny-wise/pound-foolish behavior than in Major League Baseball." - Rob Neyer -
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Very good article. Most people just assume that no salary cap = no competetive balance but the author did a good job showing that isn't necesarily the case. I think an important point is that bad teams, such as the Devil Rays, Royals, etc are going to be bad with or without a cap. They don't have a chance because they've been poorly run, not because there's no cap.
Also, YankeePride, the Red Sox made the playoffs last year.
Last edited by Stu; 03-30-2006, 11:21 AM.Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
That article is incomplete. Over the last year I've researched the topic of competetive balance quite extensively and written over 100 pages on the subject.
The author focuses quite a bit on championships, which is an incorrect approach. The approach one should take when looking at salary caps vs competetive balance should merely be who makes the playoffs and who was in contention. Once a team gets to the playoffs, all bets are off on who wins.
Baseball has been fortunate because the top two payrolls of the past 2 years have been the Yankees and Red Sox, who are both in the same division. They play each other nineteen times, while they do not play the lower payroll teams of the Central and West nearly as much. Is it a coincidence that the much more modest payrolls of the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Devil Rays over the past several years have had really no chance of topping the Yankees and Red Sox? Of course not. In the Central where the Twins have consistently had a low payroll, they competed with other modest to low payroll teams of the last few years in winning the division. They were the lowest in their division in 2002, but were the highest in 2003 and second highest in 2004. The White Sox won last year with a medium payroll, but the highest in their division. The same can be said of the '02 Angels. Really, the only outliers have been the A's, Marlins, and Mets. The A's have been competetive with a different philosophy than most clubs, while the Marlins were able to just beat the system. The Mets are an example of a high payroll not guaranteeing a playoff berth.
In short, one can buy success in baseball where as if you were to look at the top payrolls in the NFL they usually do not perform well. There is a positive correlation between payroll and winning percentage in baseball that isn't there in football. Major League Baseball has been pretty fortunate with their system, and in some ways lucky, but if you think Tampa Bay (2005 payroll of 29 million) has any chance of topping the Yankees (2005 payroll of 208 million) this year you're going to be dissapointed.Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Good article. If only he had written it before I turned in my senior exit paper on this topic.Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Originally posted by YankeePride_YP
The issue is with the Wright's, Irabu's and such. If you're a small-market team, one bad signing can ruin the team's financial situation for years.
The way I see it there are three issues with the payroll differential:
1) Being able to dish out huge contracts
2) The impact of big signings, especially those which don't pan out
3) Being able to keep players.
Small market teams can be successful, but their biggest problem is landing top players in the prime of their careers. Sure it's true that small-market teams can compete, but it is much more difficult for them.
However, anyone who thinks competitve balance is a bigger problem than steroids is crazy"Darth Vader doesn't cry, Peter."
"The guy was married to Natalie Portman and blew it. I mean, think about it."
http://www.capsblueline.comComment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
The competetive balance is definitly not as bad as people make it out to be. Yes... the sport does need a salary cap but I just want to bring something up that no one has mentioned.
Obviously spending a lot of money helps you fill holes but.. with using the Yanks as an example... a lot of times the money we spend gets us in trouble because the front office feels obligated to follow through with they investment. For example... Kevin Brown... we traded for him and his $16 million contract. The guy needed to reserve a seat on the DL he was there so much. If he had been making $2 or $3 million... the guy wouldve been gone in his first year. Aaron Small? The guy won 10 games in a row with a $300,000 contract. Any other team he would obviously be in the rotation the following year. Not for us... because we're obligated to insert the disgusting contracts of Pavano and Wright in the rotation. Why? Because the front office wants to feel like their getting something for their money's worth.
Now obviously the benefits of spending a lot of money far outweigh the negatives... that goes without saying...but I just thought this might be an interesting thing to share.
Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Brain fart.Originally posted by camulosVery good article. Most people just assume that no salary cap = no competetive balance but the author did a good job showing that isn't necesarily the case. I think an important point is that bad teams, such as the Devil Rays, Royals, etc are going to be bad with or without a cap. They don't have a chance because they've been poorly run, not because there's no cap.
Also, YankeePride, the Red Sox made the playoffs last year."It may well be that we spectators, who are not divinely gifted as athletes, are the only ones able to truly see, articulate and animate the experience of the gift we are denied. And that those who receive and act out the gift of athletic genius must, perforce, be blind and dumb about it -- and not because blindness and dumbness are the price of the gift, but because they are its essence." - David Foster Wallace
"You'll not find more penny-wise/pound-foolish behavior than in Major League Baseball." - Rob NeyerComment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Competetive Balance?
80% of the league has no chance to make the postseason before the season already starts.Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Only 6 teams have a chance at the post-season?Originally posted by bkrich83
I wouldn't be surprised if either the Red Sox, Yanks, Jays, White Sox, Twins, Indians, Angels, A's, Braves, Mets, Cardinals, Astros, Cubs, Brewers, Giants, Dodgers, or Padres made the playoffs.
That's 17 teams right there.Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
What are you basing that on?Originally posted by bkrich83
Lets take the last 6 years... where payrolls of the richest teams really started to pull away.
Yankees
Mets
A's
Mariners
Cards
Braves
Giants
White Sox
D-Backs
Indians
Angels
Twins
Red Sox
Cubs
Marlins
Dodgers
Padres
Thats 17 different teams in just the past 6 seasons.... and you still think 80% of the league has no shot?
Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Great minds think alikeOriginally posted by asianflow
Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
LOL, I also counted all the teams I thought had a shot, and got 17.
Balance is getting better, that's for sure.
Not as good as the other sports yet, but there's only a handful of teams who year in and year out don't have a chance.Originally posted by Jay BilasComment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Tough to count the Padres last year, they were over .500 by 2 games. Marlins won't contend again. Hell it's hard to count any NL West team, since they are all awful.Originally posted by deeman11747
Yes I still see 80% of the teams in the league who have no shot before the season started.
Coincidence, only people in this thread that think competive balance is there are Yankee and Red Sox fans?Comment
-
Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?
Indian, Twins, Padres, Brewers, Jays have no shot.Originally posted by asianflow
Giants and Dodgers do only due to the sadness of the NL West. Mets payroll is skyhigh, they are 1 of 3 teams in the league that can spend at will.Comment
Comment