MLB: June 2011

The Game Room
21

With all due respect: this is disingenuous. The argument is not and has never been that it is impossible for small market teams to compete at all, ever. Of course, if you cherry pick the moments in time that suit your original opinion, you can find examples that run counter to what’s happening. Especially if you’re using standings at one-third of the way through a single season. If I’m allowed to cherry pick examples, I can prove to you that Harrison Ford can’t open a movie. I can prove anything.

But the argument is really this: small markets are at a very significant disadvantage over any substantial period of time. Teams that can and do spend more money will, over time and all other things being equal, win much more consistently than teams that spend less. This is the definition of lack of parity.

Let’s see how well it holds up. I just took about an hour and calculated the combined wins for every major league team for the last 10 years (not counting this year, so it’s for 2001-2010). I also calculated the total salary, in millions, of each team’s opening day roster for each of the same ten years.

Here’s the top ten, by wins:

New York (AL): 973
Boston: 924
St. Louis: 904
Anaheim: 898
Atlanta: 888
Minnesota: 888
Philadelphia: 882
Oakland: 880
San Francisco: 850
Chicago (AL): 850

Of those 10 teams, seven (NYY, BOS, STL, ANA, ATL, PHI, SF) are in the top 10 for aggregate payroll over the period. An eighth (CHW) was 11th overall for payroll.

Of the remaining three teams in the top 10 for payroll, the Dodgers finished 11th in wins, the Mets 15th, and the Chicago Cubs 13th. Thus no team with a top 10 payroll over a 10-year period has finished worse than 15th in total wins.

Now let’s look at the bottom ten by wins:

Kansas City Royals: 662
Pittsburgh Pirates: 669
Baltimore Orioles: 690
Washington Nationals (Montreal Expos): 713
Tampa Bay Rays: 721
Detroit Tigers: 731
Milwaukee Brewers: 745
Cincinatti Reds: 757
San Diego Padres: 783
Arizona Diamondbacks: 785

Of these ten, seven (CIN, MIL, SD, KC, WAS, PITT, and TB) were in the bottom ten with respect to payroll. Arizona was 16th. Detroit was 13th. Baltimore was 17th.

A pattern is developing here. There are definite outliers on both ends. Minnesota and Oakland both managed to place in the top 10 of wins while simultaneously being in the bottom ten of payrolls; over a ten-year span that’s incredibly impressive in light of the data. The Mets and Cubs, third and fifth in terms of spending, respectively, barely made the top half of the league (though it should be noted that no top 10 payroll finished out of the top half of the league, and in fact only three teams with top 15 payrolls did not finish in the top 15 with respect to wins).

So I went and calculated the (approximate) cost of a win for each team over this 10-year period. This resulted in some interesting numbers, which I’m trying to figure out. The Yankees (1.82M/win), Red Sox (1.34M), and Mets (1.41M) are grotesque outliers on the top end, the former two because they spent so much and the latter because they fell so short of expectations.

Oakland (610K), Minnesota (650K), and to some extent Florida (470K) are the outliers on the other side. Not so much because of the low cost of a win - the actual low cost of a win was similar to that of a bunch of other teams, like San Diego (670K), Tampa (570K), or Washington (690K). No, Oakland and Minnesota (and Florida) are unique because they managed to sustain low cost-per-win numbers even at high numbrs of wins.

See, the numbers were suprisingly consistent across the league. With the exception of the outliers above on each end, teams with around 800 wins or fewer tended to have cost-per-win ranging from 60K to around 90K (but a much higher concentration on the low end of that scale). Teams with 800 wins or more tended to range from 95K to 1.2M.

This, to me, at least, strongly suggests a correlation between spending and long-term success. The two main exceptions to this rule on the low end, Oakland and Minnesota, are the two best-managed small market franchises in the league; the most prominent exception on the other end, the Mets, are a franchise in total disarray. So, OK, I’ll concede that absolutely outstanding management can lift a low-budget team up (though not into the very upper echelon) and absolutely terrible management can knock a high-budget team down (though not out of the top half of the league!). But most teams are not run by Billy Beane or Omar Minaya, and for the muddy middle of baseball, there is no parity - the spenders (New York, Boston, Anaheim, Atlanta, St. Louis) will dominate in the long run and the poverty-stricken (Kansas City, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Washington, and even Tampa Bay) will be unable to compete consistently over time.

22

Thanks for running those numbers, storyteller. A point I would make is that spending a lot of money is not necessarily a function of being in a big market (although it obviously is on the high end with the NY teams). That is to say, there is no demographic reason why the Cardinals (2.8 million metro) should be able to have a higher payroll than the Padres (3 million metro) other than that they are a better run team.

There are really only a few “small market” teams - Kansas City and Milwaukee are the only two I’d absolutely put in that category.

Another way to look at is that while spending can lead to winning (in the case of NY or Boston), winning can also lead to spending (which I’d argue is why STL can remain competitive in what is actually a pretty small market by MLB standards).

23

Another problem is that the revenue-sharing system, designed to offset issues of market size and other income-related factors and to help provide competitive balance, is basically a system used by the owners of some teams to line their own pockets rather than spending money to improve their teams.

While it’s clear that market size is a big factor in revenue and in the ability to spend to improve a team, we can’t just blame the Yankees and the Red Sox and the other wealthy teams for the current situation. Owners of losing teams who take revenue-sharing money and don’t improve their teams with it are just as much to blame.

24

Daisuke Matsuzaka’s name is now being mentioned in the same sentence as Tommy John’s. That would take care of the remainder of his Boston contract time. So, close the book on Gyroball-san: Two pretty good (if maddeningly erratic) years, three wasted ones, costing something like $81M. Two World Baseball Classic MVP awards that each cost him the season afterward. Damn thick head of his, never could (or wanted to) adapt to MLB ball. Damn the WBC too.

25

Just as a counterpoint, the Mets are the perfect example that Big Spending does not equal success as were the Dodgers in the 90s. To be 15th over 10 years with the spending the Mets did is pretty sad. Also several of those bottom dwellers were pocketing money from revenue sharing and not spending it.

The A’s had a 10 year period of great success while spending low so it depends on the time period you look at. No doubt the Yanks and Sox have an huge advantage but they also fuel the game. Attendance and profit for the last 10 years is at an all time high.

26

This post has given me no choice, but to bring out the ordered list.

  1. As Jas pointed out revenue =/ market size. The Cardinals and Braves aren’t examples of large markets dominating. In fact they show that by building strong organizations both on and off the field you can achieve revenues (and expenses)greater than your market would dictate. They aren’t proof that the Royals, and Marlins of the world can’t compete, rather models for how they can.

  2. Along similar lines winning teams should be spending more money. Otherwise their gms aren’t doing their jobs. Not all wins are created equal. The 87th win is much more important than the 77th win, since it could be the difference between reaching the postseason or falling short. Team who they can win have large incentive to spend more money per marginal win. If you are not expected to compete, the marginal value of win is worth much less, and often you are better off just seeing what your own players can do. What gets lost here is that anyone can afford a $10 million player, if that player makes them $11 million in revenue.
    You are right that high spending teams will consistently have more success than low spending clubs. What you miss is that spending ranks of teams are not anything close to constant

  3. That said there are certainly advantages to being a large market, but that is true in any sport salary cap or no. I would say that between revenue sharing, increasing amounts of equally distributed revenue, and, most importantly, cheap amateur talent, the disparity in baseball is equal to or less than any other major sport. The yankees can grab whatever free agent they want, but free agents are rarely still at their peak. Every team can compete. Not everyone will have the same opportunity, but if you build a strong organization you can have success, even have sustained success. And even if you don’t, you can can have a good run every so often.

  4. I used the current standings, because they are current, but pick any year and you will find multiple small market teams competing, often ones not given any chance in the pre-season. Last year it was the Padres and before that the Rays.
    Pick a year.

  5. I can understand thinking the yankees have an unfair advantage, and things should be done to quell that advantage. What bothers me is when people claim that only a handful of teams have a chance of competing (not winning, but competing) each year. In March I tend to think the amount of teams that can compete for a playoff spot and thus a WS title (for me having a legitmate shot in September) if things break reasonably well is somewhere around 80%. And pretty consistently one of those half dozen teams that I count out completely proves me wrong. There are no hopeless franchises. Well outside of the Mets.

27

That’s all we’re saying, really :slight_smile:

I think you’re ignoring what happens at the trade deadline, which is partially why drawing conclusions at the end of May is ludicrous. The historically big spenders tend to get richer and take on even more payroll while cherry-picking players from more frugal teams. I’ve seen teams fold the tent and ship off stars at positions in the standings where some of the more financially promiscuous teams are still looking to acquire players to get better. Why? A large part of it is risk aversion due to their financial position, which is partially a result of market size.

Teams like the Royals and Pittsburgh have been glorified farm teams for over a decade now.

28

The Cardinals and Braves are strongly regional teams; their effective markets are much larger than their metropolitan areas. The Cardinals largely established this in the radio days (now decades after its peak, I believe their radio affiliation network is still the largest in the league), the Braves with cable TV, and both benefiting from a dearth of teams across the South.

True, small-market teams can and sometimes do compete. But they are at a major disadvantage even when they’re smart, and they have no chance of forging a dynasty. That is wrong. Every team in the league creates the value of MLB baseball; every team, with both great management and great luck, should have the chance not only to compete but to win with consistency. An environment that allows for this provides better sport to the fans of all teams.

The basic revenue problem in MLB is with ownership of TV rights, which is presently assigned to the home team in each broadcast market, regardless of where the game is played. Both teams, and the league as a whole, should have a stake in the ownership of each broadcast, regardless of whose fans are watching, as both teams and the league are necessary to create the value that is being sold.

With ownership of broadcast rights held more fairly as a starting point, the league could dispense entirely with after-the-fact tweaks like “revenue sharing” and “luxury tax.”

29

Giants GM Brian Sabean went on local radio yesterday andripped into Scott Cousins about the Buster Posey incident.

I have no idea what Sabean was thinking. I don’t see any good coming of this, and a whole lotta bad.

30

When I first read the story, I thought it had been described as a clean (albeit violent) hit. As a Giants’ fan, what’s your perspective on Cousins’ hit?

31

Every Giant player said it was clean, and I agree (I wouldn’t be adverse to a rule change prohibiting collisions, though). It was just tough luck for Posey and the Giants – which is why Sabean’s comments are so bizarre.

32

Cousins’ agent was exactly right when he said,

I also disagree with the suggestion that this play was worse because it was carried out by a rookie who “chose to be a hero.” Sabean’s line about “if that’s his flash of fame, that’s as good as it’s going to get, pal” is really unbecoming in its bitterness. For the record, Scott Cousins has been a professional ballplayer longer than Posey has, working pretty hard to prove himself at each minor league rung from the New York-Penn League to the Pacific Coast.

33

(bolding mine) sums up the problem precisely. I would think that players would tend to be emotional, bitter, seeking revenge; management should be cool and calm. The roles are reversed here – the players are acting like growns ups, and Sabean is being childish. It’s unbecoming.

34

The Giants today released a statement to “clarify” Sabean’s remarks. I think by “clarify” they actually mean “backpedal furiously away from his fucking stupidity while trying not to throw him under the bus.”

Apparently, Sabean’s remarks were “not meant to vilify Scott Cousins.”

Bullshit.

When the specific and unambiguous content of your remarks serves to vilify someone, then it’s completely ridiculous to say that you never meant to vilify that person. You did mean it. It’s right there in black and white. There was nothing subtle about the comments; they aren’t open to multiple interpretations.

In non-MLB news, a 13-year-old Little Leaguer in Arizona died after being hit in the chest with a baseball while trying to lay down a bunt. Link. That’s fucked up.

35

MLB should fine his ass.

36

I’m sure they will, along with requiring a more-public apology than he’s given so far. So, anybody seen any actual specific rule change proposals that could have prevented the Posey injury, or just the general demand that there be one?

Damn shame about the kid getting hit in the chest at just the precise time in the heartbeat to stop it. There seem to be one or two hockey players almost every year who die from taking a puck to the chest, too.

37

There is already a rule on the books. Enforce the obstruction rule at home plate and this doesn’t happen. Maybe make it an automatic out if the runner intentionally targets the defender rather than the base, that isn’t a bad idea anyway.

38

It’s not just a matter of rules on the books. There are also the interpretations and enforcement directives that the league gives the umpires, and the customs of play that have evolved over the years.

In any case, I don’t think anybody has made a compelling case that there should be any change. A player got hurt. That’s too bad. This is not a new thing. Why should this injury lead to policy changes that will change the feel of potential scoring plays in almost every game?

39

I do not see the need for a rule change. The catcher is more at fault in my opinion then the runner in this case. Sabean is being a complete Schmuck.

To clarify, the catcher can not completely block the plate and expect not to be bowled over. Either brace for the collision or leave an avenue for the runner to slide in. Either way, Posey did not really make the play correctly.

40

On another note… God bless Albert Pujols. That is all.