Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Way to take a condescending tone when half of the claims youve made in this thread have been proven completely wrong.

Nothing's been proven, unless the 2006 season has already been played. But if you want to believe all's well in baseball land, feel free.

[deeman11747]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Nothing's been proven, unless the 2006 season has already been played. But if you want to believe all's well in baseball land, feel free.

Then on that same note... how can you think any of your statements are correct under that same premise?

We study patterns of the past to get the best sense of what the future holds in store.

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Then on that same note... how can you think any of your statements are correct under that same premise?

We study patterns of the past to get the best sense of what the future holds in store.

As I said strictly my opinion. I don't claim to have proven anything. I don't see baseball having competetive balance. I don't think teams having an unfair advantage is a good thing, I don't see how you can "kind of have balance". My opinions nothing more. More reasons why I have become less and less of a baseball fan with every passing year. If I feel like my team has no shot before the season begins, or that the same 3 or 4 teams are the only ones with legit chances why should I even bother?

[dkgojackets]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

As I said strictly my opinion. I don't claim to have proven anything. I don't see baseball having competetive balance. I don't think teams having an unfair advantage is a good thing, I don't see how you can "kind of have balance". My opinions nothing more. More reasons why I have become less and less of a baseball fan with every passing year. If I feel like my team has no shot before the season begins, or that the same 3 or 4 teams are the only ones with legit chances why should I even bother?

Over the past five years, none of the champions were considered to be one of the 3 or 4 teams with a chance to win

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Over the past five years, none of the champions were considered to be one of the 3 or 4 teams with a chance to win

Not true

2000 Yankees won, and the other unlimited money team the Mets were the other team in the series.

2001, Yankees in the world series lost to D-Backs

2002 Anaheim defeats SF.

2003 Marlins defeat Yankees

2004 Red Sox defeat Yankees

In those 5 years the Yankees won once and the Redsox won once, and the Angels won once.

of the 10 teams to play in the WS in that span 5 teams were either from New York or Boston.

Marlins and White Sox were the only teams to win not considered one of the 3 or 4 power teams. And the White Sox I don't think can be counted as a small market team.

[dkgojackets]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Not true

2000 Yankees won, and the other unlimited money team the Mets were the other team in the series.

2001, Yankees in the world series lost to D-Backs

2002 Anaheim defeats SF.

2003 Marlins defeat Yankees

2004 Red Sox defeat Yankees

In those 5 years the Yankees won once and the Redsox won once, and the Angels won once.

of the 10 teams to play in the WS in that span 5 teams were either from New York or Boston.

Marlins and White Sox were the only teams to win not considered one of the 3 or 4 power teams. And the White Sox I don't think can be counted as a small market team.

I said the past five years meaning...well the past five years. That would be CWS, BOS, FLA, ANA, and ARI winning it. Also I was responding more to when you said "the same 3 or 4 teams are the only ones with legit chances" by showing that the majority of predictions didnt have these teams winning their division, let alone the title. More teams have a shot at winning this year than you think, and certainly more than 20% of them have a shot at the postseason since more than that many get in anyway.

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

I said the past five years meaning...well the past five years. That would be CWS, BOS, FLA, ANA, and ARI winning it. Also I was responding more to when you said "the same 3 or 4 teams are the only ones with legit chances" by showing that the majority of predictions didnt have these teams winning their division, let alone the title. More teams have a shot at winning this year than you think, and certainly more than 20% of them have a shot at the postseason since more than that many get in anyway.

Miscalulation on 2000. I think you missed the point on the other stuff. But I won't argue it anymore. Baseball is unbalanced, and it's a problem imo, and in a lot of other baseball fans minds apparently.

[Misfit]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

The Red Sox were the Vegas favorites to win it all in 2004. As for the others, no the Angels, Marlins, and White Sox weren't favored. I don't know about Arizona, but they had to be up there with Johnson and Schilling at the front of their rotation. The White Sox were right in the middle as far as payroll goes. Anyone who wants to look at team payrolls should go to usatoday.com and check out their database.

As I said before though, World Series winners don't matter much. Getting to the playoffs is the key, once the playoffs begin anything can happen. Last year's playoff teams as far as payroll goes:

2005
AL
Yankees (1st)
Red Sox (2nd behind Yankees)*
White Sox(13th, 1st in their division)
Angels (4th, 1st in division)

NL
Braves (10th, 3rd in division behind Mets and Phillies))
Padres (16th, 3rd in division behind Giants and Dodgers)
Cardinals (6th, 1st in division)
Astros (12th, 3rd in division behind Cardinals and Cubs)*

2004
AL
Yankees - (1st)
Red Sox - (2nd, behind Yankees)*
Angels - (3rd, 1st in division)
Twins - (19th, 2nd in division behind White Sox)

NL
Braves - (8th, 3rd in division behind Mets and Phillies)
Cardinals - (9th, 2nd in division behind Cubs)
Astros - (12th, 3rd in division)*
Dodgers - (6th, 1st in division)

* = Wild Card

Looks rather pitiful to me. Most of the teams are in the top half of payroll, and a lot were the highest paid team in their division. The NL has done much better than the AL, but the differences in payroll often aren't too big. The gap between the Cubs and Cards in 2004 was less than 7 million, and the difference between the Cards and Astros was less than 8 million. Only the Twins and Padres made it into the playoffs with payrolls less than 75 million. And one could argue the Padres only made it in 2005 because the highest paid players for the Dodgers and Giants missed most of the season due to injury. And with an 82-80 record, one could argue they didn't even belong there. The Braves have maintained a pretty high payroll, even though division rivals New York and Philli have outspent them the last two years. The Mets and Phillies have been two of the worst managed teams in recent memory while the Braves have been excellent in that department. At least in 2005, the Phillies and Mets were in the hunt for a playoff spot into September.

There is a positive correlation between spending and production, that is a fact I've done the numbers myself for a lengthy period of time through regression analysis. A salary cap would only help baseball be more competetive. Just think if the A's and Yankees both target the same player on the free agent market, who's going to win that bidding war? Anyone who says the A's even have a chance are overly optimistic. And once the Yankees land that big free agent, they are free to target another big one. Even as a fan of the team who has been number 2 behind the Yankees for the last two years and for 4 of the last 5 (the Red Sox were sixth in 2003) I'd like to see a cap. The current system lets free spending teams get away with too much and its a huge advantage. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox are able to gamble with high priced free agents and if they fail they have the money to buy depth. The Yankees would be in dissarray right now without their money, considering their farm system has been barren for the last few years (the Red Sox wouldn't be in any better of a situation, really, though they have far less dead money on their roster and a decent farm). The fact that the gap between the top two teams is as astronomical as it is (almost 85 million in 2005, only 10 teams even had a payroll in excess of 85 million) is absurd. Where as in the NFL, it is far more diverse and if one does a regression analysis on the last few years that payroll variable will come out as being statistically insignificant. This writer over at ESPN.com did not look at enough data before proclaiming the sport of baseball as being a league full of parity.

[VanCitySportsGuy]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

There's no doubt a salary cap would put everybody on a more equal playing field (in terms of restricting payrolls). But having a salary cap isn't the perfect equalizer. Just ask the Lions and Cardinals.

But with that said, just like I mentioened earlier, I count 17 teams this season with at least a decent chance at making the post-season.

For anybody to say that 80% of the teams have no chance of making the playoffs this season is foolish.

I can't fault the owners of the Yanks, Red Sox, Angels, Angels, etc... for spending lots of money in the hopes of improving the team. That's much better than David Glass pocketing Revunue Sharing money and not putting it back into the club.

[Misfit]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Just for the hell of it, the teams that I think have at least a shot entering the season:

AL East - Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays (highly unlikely, but I'll give them a chance, just don't believe in that lineup or rotation outside of Halladay)
AL Central - Indians, White Sox (the Twins are not good)
AL West - A's, Angels (the Angels keep slipping though, KRod is always one pitch away from career over, and Guerrero one swing)
NL East - Braves, Mets, Phillies (I'm trying to be optimistic for the Mets and Phillies, but its hard to believe in them)
NL Central - Cardinals, Cubs, Astros (Astros are just clinging, I don't think they're going to make it and I'm not ready to annoint the Brewers just yet)
NL West - Dodgers, Giants, Padres (does this division still matter? At least Jake Peavy is probably the best pitcher in the NL)

So I have 16, I imagine the 17 for most people is the Brewers, but I don't believe in that lineup they have or their rotation after Sheets. I think there are way too many question marks right now coming into this season with a lot of guys only having one good year under their belts and declines likely. If the Astros didn't still have Oswalt, Pettite, and Lidge I wouldn't give them a chance (and if so many teams in the NL didn't have a reputation for under-achieving). The Angels don't look great coming into the season, but their rotation is still solid and as of now so is their bullpen, but as I said, KRod is always just one pitch away with those mechanics. And I just don't buy the Blue Jays. Outside of Glaus, they really don't have much power in their lineup and Burnett isn't helping his cause with his current elbow woes. They need Vernon Wells to have a season like the one he had in 2003 for them to have a chance. And someone in the rotation has to step up. The bullpen did fairly well last year, but it's not one I'd have much confidence in (save for BJ Ryan, who should be money well spent for the next few years) until they prove otherwise. The Dodgers are the best in the NL West, but they aren't scaring anybody. And the Twins are just bad. Their lineup is just horrid and their defense is no longer a strength for them. As usual, if they want to compete they're going to have to do it with pitching and hope they get some help from their young guys like Liriano and Crane. Who's got the under on Tony Batista's OBP this year at .280?!

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

I see it closer to 9 teams being legit. But again, I am not going to argue this point. Obviously competetive balance is a problem, and obviously the fans of baseball recognize that.

[CMH]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Anyone who thinks that competitive balance is a bigger problem than steroids is wrong.

I thought that's what this was suppossed to be about.

But, to comment on what's become the in-thing to talk about. There isn't full parity in baseball. We all know this. However, the same can be said of the NBA and NFL. Those leagues have had the same couple of teams win the championship or compete in the playoffs every single year.

Is there a monster of a difference in that the AL (and the AL East in particular) has the Red Sox and Yankees. Of course. I understand it makes it difficult for the Blue Jays and for a wildcard to come out of the West or Central. But, consider that the rest of the AL East is extremely weak. The Central is the closest to balanced, and the West is right there. You can't blame payroll only on why the Yankees and Red Sox continually make the playoffs every year. There are other factors. If you choose to ignore them then that is your choice. As I've mentioned before, there are other teams that spend a ridiculous amount of money and have not had the success the Yanks and BoSox have had. The Dodgers actually play in a division that's probably the most balanced in terms of talent. And the Mets play with perhaps the best division in baseball. Again, the Yankees and Red Sox play against and with (meaning they also lose games to other teams outside of the division) the Devil Rays and Orioles every year (sorry fans).

The National League definitely has a lot of hope, but it also has more competition. I know the AL is a different type of problem, but there are opportunities for teams to make the playoffs.

To say that any team in the Central or West has no shot at the playoffs is ridiculous. They all have a shot especially with inbalanced schedules. Now, if you want to argue about the Blue Jays, then yes, I do feel terrible for their fanbase.

[Freelance]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

The point bk is making, I think, is this.

Sure, a team can catch lightning in a bottle. Or they can sign a couple of free agents and make a singular run at the playoffs.

But year in, year out, there are only a small handful of teams that can afford to make mistake after mistake in free agency, and still be able to operate in the black and pursue free agents. For most teams, a mistake or two in free agency can kill the next five years for them.

It is not a level playing field. And baseball isn't a legitimate sport anymore because of it.

[Stu]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

It is not a level playing field. And baseball isn't a legitimate sport anymore because of it.

Seriously though, name me a sport that is a level playing field? The NBA has a salary cap yet the Knicks have a payroll almost $100 million more than the Bobcats. In any sport you look at there are going to be teams who consistently don't compete. The question you have to ask is why is a team like the A's consistently in the hunt with a $50 million dollar payroll yet the Reds havn't had a winning record in the last 5 years while spending more money.

I agree baseball doesn't have a level playing field, and it never will. No sport has a level playing field because there's always going to be a big difference between markets and more importantly ownership and management.

[Theute19]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

The point bk is making, I think, is this.

Sure, a team can catch lightning in a bottle. Or they can sign a couple of free agents and make a singular run at the playoffs.

But year in, year out, there are only a small handful of teams that can afford to make mistake after mistake in free agency, and still be able to operate in the black and pursue free agents. For most teams, a mistake or two in free agency can kill the next five years for them.

That is the point that is the most correct about the current system in baseball. There are teams that will catch a run at the end of the season and into the playoffs, but will lose out in free agency the next season and be back to where they were. Or there are teams like the '01 D'Backs and '03 Marlins that drastically increase their payroll to make an all or nothing shot at the WS. Most of the smaller market teams don't have a realistic chance to do that (see Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, KC, etc.)

To a small degree there is competitive balance in baseball, but there are still teams that have small windows of opportunity to make a run before they can no longer afford their better younger talent (possibly the Brewers current situation, depending on your view). They can build from the minor leagues and hope that eveything falls into place within a couple of seasons (see the recent Twins). There is just too much disparity from the top payroll to the bottom (not counting the D'Rays that choose not to spend their money on the team).