Tonight I was invited by some friends to go to the Mets game. They were playing the Braves, and both teams were already too far behind to make the playoffs. So aside from fulfilling the obligation to play these games, and to continue to build stats, what motivation do either of these two teams have to give it their best, rather than just showing up and getting it over with? What difference would it make in the overall scope of the two teams (or league) as to who wins this game? (The Braves did, 11-3, for the record). Based on the fan turnout (maybe 20% of the seats were filled), it doesn’t look like most fans even care about seeing the game at this point either. We could move around and sit wherever we wanted without a bat of the eye by the ushers.
BTW - Debits Field is a really nice place. There are a ton of places to eat, and there are other activities to partake in (dunk tank, Xbox baseball consoles, batting cages, etc) besides just sitting in your seat and watching the game and unlike the new Yankee Stadium, you can actually SEE the field when wandering around the stadium
Contracts and roster spots play into it. Some players are fighting for contract extensions, some are padding stats for free agency and some are fighting to keep a job at all.
In MLB, it’s also a time when a lot of players get called up from the minors to get some work in the bigs and audition for next season.
Other than that, not much. They show up and play because it’s their job to show up and play. You can tell that a lot of them are walking through it.
The way US sports are setup there is no way you can send a major league team down to AAA because of all the money involved. Even the lowest paid MLB team could not survive with money they would get from playing at AAA.
And don’t forget that in BB and FB the lower level leagues are colleges so pro teams can’t be sent down there. They would have to develop new minor leagues.
Let’s put it this way- if the New York Mets finish in last place (not at all unlikely), there is NO WAY the TV networks would stand for them being dropped out of the major leagues and replaced by, say, the Toledo Mud Hens. That would be a disaster for television ratings.
Hey, I know that in the USA this could never happen, and not just because of the TV Networks - the owners would never let it happen. I’m just saying it would be more interesting. That said, my Rays would have never made it to the World Series last year, they would have been fighting for promotion to AA instead, based on previous seasons performances.
Some coaches pay a lot of attention to how players react when their team is way down, to see their character. The same might be true late in the season when a team has no shot at the playoffs.
One of the good things about the NFL is a lot of teams remain in contention for the playoffs late in the year. (of course that’s a negative for some fans)
Right. And the 1969 Mets would have had no chance at all of playing in the World Series, even though they were the best team.
A LOT of teams were only great for one season or so. Relegation would deny the teams that just happened to gel at the right time, whether or not they could sustain it.
If, say, the KC Royals’ youngsters somehow caught fire and reached their potential at the same time, they’d have a shot at winning the pennant this year. Under a relegation system, they’d have a shot ONLY at winning the AAA title… and by the time they got promoted to the big leagues, their best players would be signing big contracts with the Yankees, Angels and Red Sox.
The thing is, baseball does have a relegation and promotion system. It’s just that it’s based on individual players, not teams, and can happen at any time. But the best AA players will move up to AAA and the best AAA players will get to the majors, while the worst players will drop down a level (though they’ll probably retire/quit before dropping too far).
So in baseball, players do have an incentive to play hard – or at least try to be impressive – even in meaningless end-of-the-season games. Probably more so in the non-major leagues; there are plenty of major-league players not at all worried about being sent down even if they start sleep-walking through meaningless games.
But I kind of wonder if the threat of relegation has a big affect on soccer stars, anyway. If you’re the best player on a team heading towards relegation, what does it matter to you? Your contract doesn’t change, so you’re still making the same money right? And you’ll either be traded to or re-sign with a top-league team soon enough, right?
Because giving one’s best effort at all times is supposed to be what first class professionals do. Doing a half-assed job just because you’re 40 games out of first place is no way to maintain your self esteem and, more importantly, is no way to insure that management will bring you to spring training next year.
I’m sure if they did that, I’d watch professional sports only about a third as much as I am now.
Wait, that would still be zero.
I’d actually be halfway interested in watching a rookie promoted team play the worst in the major leagues: it’s bound to be either a car wreck or an underdog story.
If I was a manager, I’d care about how hard my(and other teams’) players are playing at the end of the season.
Let’s say that it is the following year and my team is down by 8 runs in a game in July. I want my players to be playing hard even though they have little chance to win that game. If they hustle to catch a fly ball, that might save a relief pitcher that I can use in tomorrow’s game. If my team can put a few runs on the board, maybe the other team has to use more of their bullpen.
Any team has a motivation to win in any game: Winning is just more fun. All these guys got where they were through a competitive spirit, not just talent. Discouragement can overcome that at times, sure, but it’s always there.
A team that already has a postseason berth wrapped up has no more motivation than a team that knows it’s out, btw. It has reason to protect and rest the stars, while giving the youngsters an opportunity to play and be seen by the big team’s management.
David Wright (to choose an example) is owed $39 million by the Mets over the next three years. They have to pay him that money even if he sits on the bench chewing sunflower seeds for all three seasons. Do you really think, if David Wright sleepwalks through the last few weeks of this season because the Mets can’t make the playoffs, that they won’t “bring him to spring training next year”?
This sort of thing might be motivation for a very few borderline Major Leaguers, and it might work in a sport like football, where a much lower percentage of the contract consists of guaranteed money. But for the regular MLB players on contracts, it’s pretty much irrelevant.
They play because it’s what they do, and, as you already noted, they’re professionals who also have a very competitive spirit.
No, but a player known as a malcontent gets traded. Look at Milton Bradley. And when the time comes to renegotiate the contract, you can bet that the player will be losing money if it’s perceived that he gave up just because his team did badly.
