posted
This is for those who still think baseball will benefit from a hard cap. In case you thought my first topic on the salary cap was too difficult for to understand, then I'll simplify it for you in this here. I said everything I had to say then, but I'll have to bring new light to this topic. It's time to accept the reality.
PLEASE read carefully.
----
Is there something flawed in MLBs current structure that leaves some teams always on top and others on the bottom? Commissioner Bud Selig, the former owner of the small-market Milwaukee Brewers, has long argued that the fact that some cities are bigger than others puts smaller cities at a disadvantage. Does this supposed competitive imbalance threaten the game?
All of the major professional sports teams in North America represents geographic areas. And though the geographic origins of sports competition seem perfectly natural, the continued association of sports teams with regions is not so obvious. For example, professional tennis, golf, and auto racing all involve competition among participants who represent only themselves. Couldn't team sports operate in the same manner? Professional sports teams are composed of players from all over the world, many of them do not even reside in the cities of the teams they represent. Television allows fans to watch games from anywhere in the world. Why couldn't the Atlanta Braves become the Coca-Cola Braves, barnstorming the U.S. or just playing in front of cyber fans in Hollywood, garnering followers from all over the country? The economic necessity for geographic organization of sports teams has passed, but professional athletes continue to play as representatives of cities, states, or regions. Why does the geographic structure of all professional team sports league persists?
Local cities give fans something extra to cheer for. It's not easy for a southerner to root the Yankees. While geographic proximity is no longer a prerequisite for watching baseball, the home team is easy to grab on to for fans who don't closely follow the game. Fans who reside outside a metropolitan area with a baseball team don't have a home team to support, but those who do have a built-in reason to like the team. Win or lose, these teams evoke a sense of identity and pride that includes people to become fans.
Participants in sports without geographic representation sometimes have a hometown following; but when Bill Elliot wins a NASCAR race, no one in Downsville, Georgia, says, "We won," like baseball fans do when their team wins. These professional athletes have no homefield advantage because they have no field. It's easy to see how much sentiments can lead to more fans and generate more revenue for owners. If more fans mean more money, then owners will attempt to locate teams in the most populous cities. It is no surprise that MLB has at least one team in all but two (Portland and Sacramento) of the top twenty-six cities in the U.S. The greater the fan base, the greater the revenue owners will receive.
HOWEVER, this is where the problem starts. The Blue Ribbon Panel, which Commissioner Selig organized to study the impact on market size on competitive balance, identified the importance of fan-base size for the profitability of teams as a fundamental flaw in MLBs inherited league structure. The following is from their final report in 2000:
Many observers of MLB believe that the root of the competitive balance problems is the fact that clubs located in smaller cities or less fertile markets are unable to generate sufficient revenues to support the level of payroll necessary to be competitive on the field. The inability of a club to generate sufficient revenue in a particular market may be related to lack of population, poor demographic composition, and a lack of sufficient corporate presence and/or the proximity of other clubs.
* This came from The Report of the Independent Members of the Commissioner's Blue Ribbon Panel on Baseball Economics, July 2000, p.43*
It just so happens that North America lacks thirty identically sized cities. Table 1 ranks the population of every metropolitan area with a major-league team.
Table 1: Population by MLB City
Metropolitan Area -- Team(s) -- Population (millions)
1. New York -- Mets, Yankees -- 18.323 2. Los Angeles -- Angels, Dodgers -- 12.366 3. Chicago -- Cubs, White Sox -- 9.098 4. Philadelphia -- Phillies -- 5.687 5. Dallas-Ft. Worth -- Rangers -- 5.162 6. Miami -- Marlins -- 5.008 7. Houston -- Astros -- 4.715 8. Toronto -- Blue Jays -- 4.683 9. Detroit -- Tigers -- 4.453 10. Boston -- Red Sox -- 4.391 11. Atlanta -- Braves -- 4.298 12. San Francisco-Oakland -- Athletics, Giants -- 4.124 13. Montreal -- Expos 3.426 14. Phoenix -- Diamondbacks -- 3.252 15. Seattle -- Mariners -- 3.044 16. Minneapolis-St.Paul -- Twins -- 2.969 17. San Diego -- Padres -- 2.841 18. St.Louis -- Cardinals -- 2.699 19. Baltimore -- Orioles -- 2.553 20. Pittsburgh -- Pirates -- 2.431 22. Denver -- Rockies -- 2.179 23. Cleveland -- Indians -- 2.148 24. Cincinnati -- Reds -- 2.010 25. Kansas City -- Royals -- 1.836 26. Milwaukee -- Brewers -- 1.501
Extending the logic that geographic ties generate fan loyalty, this means that bigger cities should yield more revenues to owners than small cities. More people means more loyalty expressed in fans purchasing tickets. Teams in large cities have a greater pool of fans to enjoy wins; therefore, wins should be more valuable to big-market teams than small market-teams. In an open market for players, the best players will gravitate toward the teams with the highest salary offers. This means trouble for teams in small cities, because the big cities will be able to pay higher salaries that teams in small markets cannot match. While an extra win in Kansas City may increase yearly attendance by 10,000, one more win for a New York team could generate 100,000 more fans, as New York has the population of ten Kansas Cities.
So much for the notion that teams should have near-equal shot at winning. The joy of competition is watching players on the field exploit all of their abilities to win the game. The uncertainty of the outcome is part of the thrill of witnessing sports events. If fans just wanted to watch good games, they could simply go to ESPN Classics. The uncertainty of the outcome is uncertain, of not critical, to the fun of watching. If certain teams have an advantage over other teams only because of the population of their fan base, the indeterminacy of competition disappears. The end result of competitive imbalance from the league's standpoint is that fans will stop watching the sport altogether.
At first glance, the recent history of baseball seems to confirm my suspicions that the population bases of teams influence the play of the game on the field. Over the past ten or eleven years, the Yankees -- representing a metropolitan area of a little over 18 million -- have been a dominant team, while several smaller markets -- such as Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh -- have been pushovers.
Although larger cities may have a revenue-generating advantage over smaller markets, it does not mean necessarily that small markets are doomed for permanent failure. As long as the advantage is not too large, the league may possess a sufficient level of competitive balance. Any prolonged under/overperformance by small/big market clubs does not prove market size to the main culprit. Poor management and plain 'ol bad luck may be contributing, if not *dominating*, factors. Haven't you guys ever thought of THAT as a possibility?
MEASURING BIG-MARKET ADVANTAGE
In order to determine whether there exists a problem that needs correcting we must measure how market size translates into wins and losses. Do big-market teams have an insurmountable advantage over clubs in the small market? To find the answer, I use regression analysis to measure the effect of city size on wins. Using the metropolitan population of MLB cities as a proxy for the size of the fan base, the regression estimates the magnitude of the impact of population size on on-field success. The regression uses the data to identify how much differences in population are associated with differences in wins. With this information, the regression procedure generates a predicted number of wins based on population size.
The results from the analysis both confirm and reject some widely held beliefs regarding market size and winning. It is true that larger populations are associated with more wins than smaller markets; HOWEVER, the magnitude of the impact explains only a *minority* of the difference in wins between the best and worst teams in recent history.
Not too long ago, I studied a chart which plotted the average wins by team from 1995 to 2004 and the population of the metropolitan area of the city as measured by the 2000 U.S. Census. On that chart there was an upward-sloping line that showed the estimated relationship between wins and city size. The upward slope of the line matched the casual observation that for the past decade teams in big cities have won more games than teams in smaller cities. This is consistent with the theoretical prediction that big cities have more revenue than small cities to use on free agents, coaches, management, minor leagues, etc.
HOWEVER, the story does not end there; the real question is *how large* is the big-city advantage? The regression estimates that every 1.58 million residents generate one extra win per season. For illustration, the largest market (New York) is expected to win 10.61more games than the smallest market (Milwaukee) in terms of wins predicted solely by population. In this sample, the most successful of the New York teams (the Yankees) won an average of 26.3 games more than the Milwaukee Brewers, according to the chart I saw. This means the difference in market size explains 40 percent of the difference in wins between the top and bottom markets. Forty percent is not chump change, but what about the other 60 percent? Well, these factors include the ineptitude and skill displayed by the front offices of these organizations.
On the ineptitude side, Joe Posnaski of the Kansas City Star recounts a story that points to an example of mismanagement of the Kansas City Royals -- the second smallest MLB market and a perennial loser -- that should've ran me out of that town and into the open arms of the Boston Red Sox:
Brent Mayne is a fine fellow. But he's also a 34-year-old catcher who hit .236 with no power, ran like he was a mime fighting the wind, guided the Royal pitchers to the second worse ERA in baseball and got paid $2.5 million. Meanwhile, catcher A.J. Hinch, who hit .298 he last two months of the season, banged the ball with significantly more power than Mayne and had a much better record behind the plate -- plus, he's a bright, loyal team player who got paid $250,000 -- was cut during the off-season. It's not that we think Hinch is Johnny Bench or that we blame Mayne or the Royals' downfall. It's not that this was the dumbest thing the Royals have done, or even in the top 100. No, it's just another spectacularly illogical move by a team that has become the new sports leader in spectacularly illogical moves.
*That article was published on November 10, 2002*
Here's the message I want to get across to those who still think baseball needs a hard cap: If you are looking to blame something for the woes of your favorite small-market club, don't just jump to blame the inherent inequities of the league. Do you know what's just as dangerous as small markets? Small minds.
According to the Blue Ribbon Panel, the owners feel that it is important for every team to have "at least periodic opportunities for success," in order to keep maximum interest in the game. If some teams have inherent advantages due to markets they serve, this standard may be in jeopardy. I can use the previous analysis to generate metrics that separate out the influence of market size on winning.
Using the estimate that every 1.58 million people in a city generate an additional win for the teams in that city, let's subtract the total number of wins due to the population from each team's actual average win total to create population-adjusted wins per season. Population-adjusted wins are the estimated wins of teams due to factors OTHER THAN POPULATION SIZE. I also calculate predicted wins, which is the number of wins a team "should" have based solely on the impact of market size. From this I calculate a third metric, wins above predicted, which is the difference between actual wins and predicted wins. This metric measures how well teams performed above/below the wins predicted by population size.
Table 2 lists MLB teams ranked according to population-adjusted wins and includes the other metrics and total postseason appearances from 1995 to 2004. It is as if each team played in a locality of equal size and, outside of luck, only the skill of the owners, managers, coaches, and players determines the outcome. The Yankees cannot gain more population-adjusted wins than any other team because of a market-size advantage, only due to skill or luck.
Table 2 Average Wins Adjusted for Population, 1995-2004
The first number next to each team is for Average Wins. The second is for Population Adjusted Wins (the teams are ranked in that order). The third is Predicted Wins. The fourth is Wins Above Predicted. The last is Playoff Appearances.
Even without their big-market advantage, the Yankees are fourth. While the Yankees may be second in average in total wins, it is clear that any big-market advantage is only a *small* part of the success of this organization in modern baseball history. The Bronx Bombers have won 8.5 more games than predicted given the population of New York. Yes, I KNOW the Yankees operate in a big market, but they have done many other good things to attain success, just as the small-market Royals have done many bad things that have contributed to their failure. In contrast to the Yankees, the Royals have won 8.4 games below their population-predicted wins. In fact (in case you weren't paying attention) the top and bottom clubs in population-adjusted wins, Atlanta and Detroit, have nearly equal predicted wins (ain't that some shit?). The eight clubs that never made the playoffs during the sample years are clustered at the bottom of population-adjusted wins.
Though the overall picture seems to indicate that market size had a very real but small impact on the performance of teams, small changes in wins can make huge difference in terms of making the playoffs. Why? Baseball is a game of inches. Using the population-adjusted wins for every team in every season over the sample, we can see if any team missed the playoffs due to difference in market size. When we look at each team's population-adjusted wins by season, it turns out that market size was a factor in keeping some teams out of the playoffs. Twelve times teams that missed the playoffs would have qualified if the cities were equally sized. Table 3 lists these teams along with their league, population ranks, and the number of post-season appearances over the sample period.
Table 3 Post-Season Appearances Missed Due to Population Size, 1995-2004
Year -- AL Team -- AL Population Rank -- Postseason Appearances
Again there is a counterintuitive story here. The losers are not necessarily the bottom-dwellers of the league or small-market clubs. Of the teams listed on Table 3, only Montreal never made the postseason during this time period. Only the Braves and Yankees appeared more frequently in the playoffs than Cleveland, Houston, Oakland, San Francisco, and Seattle. Boston made the playoffs five times and won the 2004 World Series. Cincinnati is a small-market team that has not been very successful compared to the others in the group; however, the Reds did win the World Series in 1990. (I guess people seem to have forgotten about that one.)
Yes, I know it's true that some clubs have missed the playoffs due to market size, but I'm not convinced that this is any more disheartening than teams that miss the playoffs due to playing in a strong division. It's quite common for the winner of a weak division to make the playoffs, while a team with more wins in a good division gets sent home (excellent point!). Over this time period four teams that did not make the playoffs had better records than at least one team in the playoffs. That is the structure of the game, and VERY few complain about it. I am NOT convinced that these teams missed the playoffs due to minor differences in market size merits any more complaints.
Another interesting aspect of the data presented in Table 2 is that it is hard to find much correlation between market size and "periodic success" in making the playoffs. The relationship between market size and postseason are not all that rare over these eight seasons. *Eight teams (25 percent) did not make the playoffs over this span. If you're keeping score, that means that the other SEVENTY-FIVE percent of the teams made the playoffs during that same time period. And check this out: only ONCE in these ten seasons did a team miss the playoffs because of its population (Montreal in 1996). Even these poor teams have seen their share of success if we look a little further in the past. Montreal had the best record in baseball in 1994, but was not able to go to the playoffs because of a strike-shortened season. Remember? In 1992 and 1993 Toronto won back-to-back World Series, and they played the Philadelphia Phillies in the latter series. Remember? In the early 1990s Pittsburgh played in THREE STRAIGHT National League Championship Series. Remember? Milwaukee played in the World Series in 1982, while Detroit and Kansas City were World Series Champions in 1984 and 1985. Remember? Do I need to add the Colorado Rockies in 2007 and the Tampa Bay Rays in 2008 as teams that made the World Series? The Rays has only existed since 1998.
I can hear some of you guys already. I'm going to play the role of a fortune teller and predict that some of you will ask the most frequently asked question about this topic: But what about the Yankees?
You know what; I'm sick and tired of hearing that question. "What about the Yankees, huh? What about the Yankees? What about the Yankees? What about the Yankees?" over and over and over and over again. It's time that you stopped crying. I don't like the Yankees, and I live in New York City. But I've got to be fair and give credit to where credit is due.
You want to talk about the Yankees? Okay, let's talk about the Yankees. Ask and you shall receive.
It is true that the Yankees have had unprecedented success in the late-twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, not to mention the team's glorious past, BUT it is important to remember that the Yankees missed EVERY ONE OF THIRTEEN PLAYOFFS held between their 1981 and 1995 postseason appearances. Where was the big-market dominance of that era? C'mon, I want an answer. And there's NO WAY you people can put the blame on the difference in free agency. Why? Because free agency came into being in 1976.
MY FINAL WORDS
While big-market teams may have an advantage over small-market teams, the advantage is slight and virtually MEANINGLESS. The bigger problem appears to the inept management of a few clubs that happen to be small-market teams. In other words, they just suck. Any attempt to improve the performance of these teams should focus first on creating incentives for owners of these teams to make better managerial decisions, before moving on to fixing any inequities that arise from the differences in market size.
-- National
...YOU STILL HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?
I know I won the debate. But I feel that you're itching to ask one or two more questions? I'll ask them for you, and I'll give you the answers. The questions are: If you say the market-size advantage is weak, then why is it that big markets do not have much an advantage over small-markets? If bigger markets offer more potential fans to generate revenue for the teams in that area, why do these teams fail to further exploit this advantage? Answer THOSE.
The answers:
1. There exist several rules that allow small-market teams to compete at a lower cost. The reverse order draft lets the worst teams pick new players first. The drafting team holds exclusive rights to any player it drafts, and therefore it does not have to compete with large-market teams who might be willing to pay more for the player for a short period of any player's career. After signing their initial contracts, these players are ineligible for arbitration for three years and free agency for six years. Small-market teams can trade these players to big-market clubs for a more suitable bundle of players or cash to be used to hire free agents. Small-market teams that manage their rosters *wisely* can compete by identifying good talent early when it's relatively cheaper.
2. The big-market advantage does not necessarily mean that the biggest market will always sign away the game's top free agents. Each player a team signs brings less value than the previous player (as a team improves, it values the additional player less); thus, are diminishing returns to signing additional free agents to the same team. Okay, I'll give you an example: the two top free agents in the 2004 off-season were Carlos Beltran and Adrian Beltre. The Mets only signed Beltran, while Beltre signed with Seattle. Big-market teams may get the first crack at free agents, BUT there are plenty of good players to go around.
Really?
Yes, really.
3. People routinely overestimate the advantage big markets have over small markets. Though big cities hold more potential baseball fans than small cities, those people are not necessarily freely available to watch baseball. I know because I live in New York City. You see, big cities also have more distractions. New York offers MANY more opportunities for entertainment than Milwaukee. Why? Because New Yorkers have more to do, a win in New York may not generate as much fan interests as a win in Milwaukee. So, though wins may generate more revenue in big markets than small markets, the effect might not be as large as you think.
MY FINAL WORD (AGAIN).
It's important to remember that attempts to limit the big-market advantage are not without risk. Revenue sharing, the most popular solution to the problem, while giving low-revenue teams more cash, also creates a disincentive for winning. Tying revenues to winning creates a strong incentive for management to put winning teams on the field. A small-market owner who receives a share of big-market earnings may prefer to live off his wealth transfer rather than put together a good team. Thus, proposals to minimize competitive imbalance must be crafted with caution, especially considering that competitive imbalance may not be the large problem many people suppose it is.
----
I've finally put an end to this debate. All of the evidence sits before your eyes.
-------------------- quote: ---------------------------------- posted by Andy - Laa: my posts in this thread are not as good as Michael P's Posts: 3024 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mikey P: baseball needs a cap
Based on what, exactly?
Did you read National's story or did you just skipped through everything and came to your own conclusion? He went as far as to make your arguments FOR YOU, and he still had a counter to them.
All of his baseball stories shed the light on how the game really works. This is the what's what on how the game is exposed. I don't know where he gets his stats from, but they're amazing.
No matter what your reason is behind the cap, that argument will be put a stop to by National's story.
The Yankees? Too late. Go back and read what he said. You were beaten to the punch.
The big-market teams always get the best players first? Too late. Go back and read what was said.
I was always a believer of the cap until I saw the light.
The players on your team are professional athletes. They should be able to compete with the best. You can look no further than TAMPA BAY to see that.
They (The Rays) will win 94 games in a division where that many wins can only land them in fourth place (I'm exaggerating, of course).
If your team was in the NL West, I don't think you'll be throwing a fit as much. 80 wins will get you a playoff spot in that division. If your team goes on a hot streak in the summer in the NL West, the cap will be the last thing on your mind.
Perhaps you were too young to see your team last play in the playoffs. Too young to remember what it was like to feel joyful about your team's pride.
Maybe your team needs a better team of managers, starting at their front office. That's what your team's problem is.
Face the truth. There's nothing you can say that will sound credible. Every argument you can possibly make was already made for you in the story. Any complaint and temper tantrum you can conjure up is all right there for you. Go back and read it. But you'll be too late. A fool-proof argument was made against you.
There's no reason to be ignorant about the game's structure anymore and face what reality is showing you.
Posts: 60 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok you win a team with a $200 million payroll has no advantage over a team with a $40 million payroll, none whatsoever so why are the yankees and red sox spending so much, i guess they just like to throw away money
the nfl has a cap and i'd say it works for them, baseball wants the yankees and the red sox playing for the pennant because that is the only way they get ratings
they don't want an even playing field, baseball is a joke
[ November 26, 2008, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: Mikey P ]
-------------------- quote: ---------------------------------- posted by Andy - Laa: my posts in this thread are not as good as Michael P's Posts: 3024 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
bluetoelover
unregistered
posted
I'm agreeing with Mike on this one. NHL recently just 'bought' into the salary cap system and after getting some of the kinks out it seems to be working now..hell I haven't seen this great of hockey in a long time!
As for baseball...how in the sweet fucking hell can you justify spending over a hundred million on one player for 7 seasons?? The salary's just don't need to be that high...for any sport. It creates anymosity between the players and the fan's who can barely even afford a ticket to the game and then the team spends that kind of money on the player all the while raising the ticket prices!
Yet again the NHL has dropped ticket prices in an attempt to attract more fans and to keep their present fans coming to the game and not breaking their bank. But you also don't see hockey teams spending over a hundred million on one player who does fuck all either. And yes Mike baseball IS a joke.
IP: Logged |
posted
yes hockey and every other major sport has a cap
the cap give each team a fair chance to compete
you can never convince me that one team having $150 million payroll larger than other teams does not have an unfair advantage
these owners did not get rich by being stupid, they wouldn't spend that money if they felt it didn't greatly increase their chances of winning
tampa bay making one world series means shit, eventually they won't be able to outbid the yankees or red sox for their best players
remember Dice K, the asian pitcher that plays for the red sox? notice how only the yankees and red sox had a chance to sign him?
oh yeah baseball doesn't need a cap, it's an even playing field
bluetoelover you're a hockey fan, the european stamkos was the #1 overall pick by tampa bay last year
if hockey worked like baseball, a small market team would've had no chance of signing him, he would've been signed by the new york rangers, boston bruins or a rich team like the red wings
-------------------- quote: ---------------------------------- posted by Andy - Laa: my posts in this thread are not as good as Michael P's Posts: 3024 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I can say is that I'll bet you anything (and when I say anything, I mean ANYTHING) that with a cap in place, the entire baseball empire will collapse. MLB knows that other major sports have caps instituted, but by them not putting in a cap they're trying to tell you something. They know something that the typical fan does not. My job is to tell everyone what that is.
I'm here exposing the revealing truth. You have to admit that anyone whose for the cap can NEVER make a case as compelling as mine.
Everyone whose replied here has ALREADY made my case for me. Everything you guys said has been paraphrased by me. I already made your cases for you so that you wouldn't have to.
Knowing how to make my argument is also knowing where you guys are coming from. I know what your concerns are, but MLB will ignore them. Why, for the fantastic reasons I stated before.
I am the secret baseball does not want you to know about.
Everyone has been successfully bamboozled for so long, it about damn time someone told you EXACTLY how things work.
Of all baseball topics I have posted (and will post in the future), I am perhaps more passionate about this topic. This is why I can't stress enough just how baseball has been successful without one. Go back to part one of this debate, if you want all the gory details.
Yes, I KNOW that a team with a payroll of $700 million (I'm being sarcastic with that figure. I mean $150 million) has an advantage over smaller markets. Didn't I already say that? I KNOW I did. BUT it's not as dramatic as people make it out to be. Why? Go back and read my topic again, people. I explain EVERYTHING. From A to Z.
The Yankees were always a big market team. Why haven't they made the playoff EVERY SINGLE YEAR from 1982 to 1994? Can SOMEBODY please give me an answer to that? Why was Pittsburgh able to make the National League Championship Series for not one, but THREE years in a row in the early 1990s. That's the round BEFORE the World Series, in case you didn't know. Pittsburgh always stayed a small market during those times.
If the front offices can figure out how to manage WISELY perhaps they'll upset some bigger clubs. How in the world can you tell me that the GM and the owners spectacularly illogical moves cannot be held accountable?
Get some players who can hit the ball out of the infield and perhaps we'll see a different story.
If the Pirates can beat the Yankees in at least ONE interleague game during the regular season, then they can do that to any team.
Remember: Since 1995 at least SEVENTY-FIVE percent of teams have made the postseason. That tells you right there that there's something else that's wrong that has VERY LITTLE to do with the salary structure.
Please bare with me on this one. TRUST ME when I tell you that when it comes to this topic I know what I'm talking about. I went as far as to show you sophisticated graphs to help illustrate my point.
Let teams like the Yanks and Red Sox throw away their money. But at least it has worked for them. You need to ask The Rays and The Brewers how they've been great without a payroll like the Yanks. I SWEAR TO ANYTHING that whatever they tell you, your favorite small-market team will take their advice into account.
I bet the Rays will win at least 80 games next year to show everyone that they are no fluke.
I don't know how else I can spell this out for you guys. I'm trying to pull the blindfolds away from you. But you want to keep them on and stay oblivious to the whole thing.
Who else do you know that does not support a cap can make an argument as compelling as mine. You won't find him. I don't know how you can sit there and say that NOTHING I said carried no merit?
posted
I think the popularity of the game comes down to the demographic. There are some cities where kids are not raised on baseball due to either culture, climate or population. There's a reason that the teams with the biggest payroll are also the cities with the larger populations.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bluetoelover: It creates anymosity between the players and the fan's who can barely even afford a ticket to the game and then the team spends that kind of money on the player all the while raising the ticket prices!
Really?
You raised a very, VERY interesting question about that part of the game. It's a very good thing you brought it up. As a matter of fact, I sent a private message to Mikey P not too long ago telling him that I was going to post a topic asking if high salaries lead to high ticket prices? Let's see if you're right. Just give me a couple of weeks to put it together. I love doing extensive research about the game of baseball. While fan talk about a subject that bothers them or just have curiosities about, I dig a lot deeper than your typical fan would to come up with the answers.
---
But back to the cap. Don't worry ... I know the NFL has a cap implemented. I'm going to make an ultimate case for you as to how it helped football. It's also another way to help people understand just how much I understand where you're coming from. Here's the case I'll make for you. This one is REAL good:
"Since the salary cap was implemented in 1992, 31 of the 32 franchises have made the playoffs. HELLO? 31 of 32 -- that's almost 97%. You said since 1995, 75% of teams made the playoffs without the cap. The only non-playoff team in the NFL is the newest team, Houston Texans.
The salary cap may have shortened dynasties, but it's spread the wealth for playoff excitement. Small-revenue teams have prospered. The Packers have had at least 10 playoff trips in the salary-cap era. The Vikings have done it about eight times DESPITE the low revenue of the Metrodome. The Colts have made just about as many trips to the playoff in the salary-cap era. That's as many as the Cowboys, Dolphins, Broncos, Eagles and Patriots.
Yet, even in the salary-cap era, 14 teams could end up with 10 losses in a season. Imagine how bad the gap will be if teams have $40 to $50 million MORE to spend on payroll than other teams?"
Someone might say: "Damn, National. He got you there."
Well, that's an excellent argument there. But's let's remember something: Baseball allows for FEWER teams to make the playoffs than the NFL does. If MLB instituted a new system in 1995 that allowed for 12 teams to make the playoffs, instead of 8, you know that 75% would EASILY be anywhere from 85 to 92 percent. Imagine ... at least 85 teams since 1995 making the playoffs in MLB WITHOUT the cap? Then people's case of "my team can't make the playoffs year after year" becomes even MORE weak. How can your team not be a part of that 90% rate?
But back to reality where 8 teams are allowed in the playoffs. How can your team not be a part of that 75 percent rate? Scroll back up for the answers again.
Another thing to consider:
Unlike the NFL, MLB does NOT have an equal number of teams in each division. The NFL has 4 teams in each division. MLB has 4, 5, and 6 teams in different divisions. The Pirates are in a division of SIX teams, making it much less likely for them to make the playoffs. How come no one ever complains about the unequal advantages is each division in MLB? If MLB had 4 teams in each division in a league that allowed for 6 teams to make the playoffs, instead of 4, that 75% would be closer to 100%.
These are other things to consider that makes my argument 100% solid.
-------------------- quote: ---------------------------------- posted by Andy - Laa: my posts in this thread are not as good as Michael P's Posts: 3024 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mikey P: cc sabathia signs wih the yankees
i am shocked
I love your sense of sarcasm.
You also forgot about K-Rod signing with the Mets. I guessed you weren't shocked about that news. Neither one didn't sign with the Braves, and I'm not sweating it.
I have acknowledged time after time after time your points of concerns about this topic. But everyone refuses to take anything I said into consideration. The things I'm telling you are not fairy tales that were pulled straight out of someone's ass. These are facts, and I know how the truth hurts. Reality can be an ugly thing to accept.
It's funny how no one was able to answer my questions explaining how the Pirates were able to go far enough to be just a win or two shy of making the World Series in 1990, '91, and '92, proving the whole world that even though they opperate in a small market, they were no fluke. Funny how no one was able to answer how the Yanks failed to make the playoffs every year from 1982-1994, at the times when they were still giving away a lot of money. Sure, they came close a few times, but there were more ugly times than good. I know it's hard to believe, but the Yankees were the laughingstock of baseball those times. Also funny was that no one had a comeback about the comments I made not too long ago about MLBs and the NFLs had their playoff structures set up.
Besides, I already told everyone (several times, actually) that big-market teams DO have better chances of signing prominent free agents. Let's not pretend I'm in denial about that. Go back and read what I said. It's there.
My arguments are fool-proof. I made arguments that would be in your favor many times, and I came back the the mot brilliant responses that people never knew existed.
If you want to talk about today, and forget about the Pirates success and Yanks failures in the past, I'll bring up what I said about how small-market teams can compete (of course, you can also ignore that part and skip right through it and pretend I never said those words).:
1. There exist several rules that allow small-market teams to compete at a lower cost. The reverse order draft lets the worst teams pick new players first. The drafting team holds exclusive rights to any player it drafts, and therefore it does not have to compete with large-market teams who might be willing to pay more for the player for a short period of any player's career. After signing their initial contracts, these players are ineligible for arbitration for three years and free agency for six years. Small-market teams can trade these players to big-market clubs for a more suitable bundle of players or cash to be used to hire free agents. Small-market teams that manage their rosters *wisely* can compete by identifying good talent early when it's relatively cheaper.
2. The big-market advantage does not necessarily mean that the biggest market will always sign away the game's top free agents. Each player a team signs brings less value than the previous player (as a team improves, it values the additional player less); thus, are diminishing returns to signing additional free agents to the same team. Okay, I'll give you an example: the two top free agents in the 2004 off-season were Carlos Beltran and Adrian Beltre. The Mets only signed Beltran, while Beltre signed with Seattle. Big-market teams may get the first crack at free agents, BUT there are plenty of good players to go around.
Really?
Yes, really.
If you are looking for overnight success for your Pirates, just be paitient. Success takes time. TRUST me when I say that the Pirates will be back on the mix. Not next year, but soon enough. If their front office can find the *wise* way of assembling their nucleus, they will creep up on many teams. The same goes for the Royals. I am liking what I see with them.
----
Stayed tuned for Salary Cap III. You'll love this one. Why? Because what I'm going to say will have you think, "I can't believe the commissioner was lying to me all this time." Also, stayed tuned for the REAL story behind palyers salaries and ticket prices.
I should host a show on FOX called "Baseball's Biggest Secrets FINALLY Revealed".
----
Mikey, it's always a pleasure arguing with you and those who agree with you. There's another baseball topic I'll post in the future that I know you and I will agree on. You'll be AMAZED as to how I found those answers.
It seems like we can't stand each other here, but when it comes to EVERYTHING else, we agree on.
-------------------- quote: ---------------------------------- posted by Andy - Laa: my posts in this thread are not as good as Michael P's Posts: 3024 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
C.C. will tell you the same thing. $160 million will make a VERY reluctant man say "yes".
You should give it a sight-see one day. When they say NY is the entertainment capital of the world, believe the hype. The women are so much hotter, among other things.
But what I don't want to hear from Mark is how this has been his life-long ambition. I will not buy that garbage.
But, seriously, you're making this waaaay too much fun for me. It gives this topic some color. I want to whole world to see the Atlanta Braves take care of the Yanks next season during interleague play. After that, the Yanks can take care of everyone else.
----
Don't worry, I'm not done with the cap issue.
I will return with a new episode of Baseball's Biggest Secrets FINALLY Revealed.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
