It’s pretty much an indisputable given, yet people (like in the previous post) still stubbornly cling to the idea that there is parity.
No, you are mistaken. I just manually went through and compiled those lists. For the most part, the big spenders that made the playoffs never changed: Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Dodgers, White Sox (or Cubs? I forget.)
The thing that surprised me is that the low-spending playoff outliers tended to repeat. I would have guessed that the couple 20-something payroll teams each season would be random, but they’re not. It’s the same teams (eg: Tampa Bay) with similar reliability to the non-AL East big boys. (Dodgers, Angels, White Sox, etc…)
San Diego and Minnesota were big repeaters, though I can’t recall offhand which if either were big spenders over this period of time.
There were many, many teams that never made the playoffs once in the entire 7 year span.
You have yet to show that there isn’t parity. Especially after compiling all that data that shows that teams from the top of the spending heap all the way to the bottom (and in-between) routinely make the playoffs.
I’d also wager that the reason many teams don’t make the playoffs in any seven year stretch is due to the fact that the MLB uses a much smaller playoff structure than every other sport.
I have shown conclusively that there isn’t parity. 80% of the playoff spots go to the top half of the league in payroll, leaving only 20% for the bottom half.
Teams that spend more should make the playoffs more. Having parity doesn’t dispute that.
The reason I think there’s parity in the MLB is because the teams that spend the most aren’t guaranteed playoff spots. They still have to work for it and in all the years you listed, teams that spend the #2 or #3 amount in a year rarely make the playoffs. One year, the #1 team even missed the playoffs. And the remaining spots can (and are) filled by anybody. The Rangers (this year’s AL champ) nearly had the lowest payroll in the league. And the average playoff payroll is a little over 12. Which is just amazing.
I agree that teams that spend more should have more success. That’s not what parity is, though. That’s the opposite of parity. Parity means that spending shouldn’t influence success either way because everyone should spend the same money. From wikipedia:
That’s irrelevant. Parity in sports refers to the idea of teams being on equal footing financially. MLB doesn’t have it.
As an aside, “everybody plays by the same rules” is meaningless in terms of fairness. It is trivially easy to construct a set of rules that unfairly favors some over others despite everyone playing by them. (For example, MLB’s financial system where richer teams get to spend more than poorer ones.)
You’re simply inventing a definition of “parity” that supports the conclusions you’ve already decided to arrive at.
When you use a Wikipedia definition to define parity as equal economic circumstances, you’re not even supporting your own argument. Economic circumstances mean the circumstances, not the choices. What matters are the conditions the team plays in, not how much money they CHOOSE to spend. If the Yankees decided to slash their payroll to $50 million a year, their “economic circumstances” would not change; they’d still be in the biggest market in the country. If the Pirates decided to go insane and spend $250 million on salaries, their “economic circumstances” wouldn’t change either; Pittsburgh would remain one of the smallest markets in the major leagues. What determines parity in the major leagues is the ability of teams to compete and win irrespective of their revenue opportunities.
To my mind there is no doubt that MLB does not have perfect parity, but at the same time the idea that it’s the rich eating the poor is absurd. The teams that are real bottom-feeders got there through management ineptitude. Really, MLB consists of three classes of teams: the Yankees and Red Sox, and big market teams, and the small market teams. There’s some distinction within those classes, but really, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference. Mainly it’s just the Yankees and Red Sox buying as many players as they can, which I’d agree is a problem (and would suggest that expansion could be a solution to - pop a few more teams in there to eat away some of their revenue base.)
You’re making the same bizarre error people always make in this argument, which is confusing a team’s spending decisions with their market size. A definition of “parity” based on spending decisions rather than spending opportunity is a stupid definition.
You baseball guys are comical in the hoops you jump through to defend the fact that big market teams have a clear advantage.
Also, note that I don’t miss the distinction between spending power and actual spending. “Big market teams” is simply shorthand. It’s not the ability of some teams to outspend others that creates the disparity, it’s the actual spending that does it. If Pittsburgh went crazy and spent $250 million each year, the critcism that MLB doesn’t have parity would still be valid.
Which specific teams spend what is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is not a level playing field financially. That’s what parity is all about.
EDIT: And I’m not cherry-picking a definition of parity. That’s what it actually means in the context of sports.
Oh for Pete’s sake guys! I am not a baseball fan but, to me, parity means that every team has an equal footing to making the playoffs. If some teams have the ability to spend more money…that is NOT parity.
The fact that some poor teams makes it to the playoffs doesn’t mean there is parity.
Exactly. Houston, TX is the 4th largest city in the US and the Astros regularly pull down over 2.5 million to 3 million fans a season. Their owner is number 300 on the Forbes 400 ranking. They’ve got plenty of money available to them.
Yet their payroll is still only 14th in the league.
At the risk of breaking up a baseball discussion to get back on topic
What about Drag Racing?
I’m not a massive fan, but I’ve seen enough of it to be familiar with some of the people and whatnot, and in the past few years I’ve noticed reduction in track lengths for safety, a seemingly NASCAR-inspired playoff system, and a new 4-wide track that the fans seemed to like but the drivers didn’t.
I just get the feeling when watching that John Force’s personality is holding things even at the level they are, and that will go away eventually.
