What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

MLB beats NFL in parity debate... (1 Viewer)

P

posty

Footballguy
This news isn't going to come as much consolation to our good friends, the Chicago White Sox. But their premature demise is a great thing for baseball in its never-ending quest to stick it to all those parity propagandists from the NFL.

OK, so it might not feel so great to members of the Guillen, Konerko or Pierzynski families. But hear us out on this:

As loyal reader David Hallstrom points out, the elimination of the White Sox this week continues a fascinating trend in our favorite sport:

Of the last five defending World Series champs, not one has won a postseason game the following season.

And yes, that word was "game." Not "series." Not "second straight World Series." The word was "game." Feel free to look this up.

Aw, never mind. We already did. Of the last five champs, the White Sox will be the third to miss the playoffs entirely (joining the 2004 Marlins and 2003 Angels).

The other two -- the 2002 Diamondbacks and 2005 Red Sox -- both got swept in the first round.

So obviously, winning is overrated.

All right, it isn't. But after a decade (1991-2001) where two teams repeated (the '92-93 Blue Jays and 1998-2000 Yankees), the Braves made it to back-to-back World Series twice (1991-92 and 1995-96), and the Yankees played in four World Series in a row (1998-2001), this competitive-balance epidemic is a beautiful affliction.

Now let's compare it to the NFL, where, according to league marketing rules, "Anything Can Happen."

The NFL matches baseball in one department. Three of the last five Super Bowl champs forgot to make the playoffs the next season.

But the other two SB winners -- the 2001 Ravens and the 2004 Patriots -- went a combined 4-1 in the postseason the following year, with the Patriots winning a second straight Super Bowl.

So which sport has its competitive-balance act together? The correct answer is now: Both.

We can feel those NFL-apologist, you-can-still-spend-your-way-to-the-World-Series e-mails coming, though. So before you start typing, we want you to consider this:

If the Cardinals win the NL Central and the Phillies win the NL wild card, eight of the top 10 payrolls in MLB will miss the playoffs this year. The last time that happened: 1993 (the final season in which only four teams made the postseason).

In the meantime, the Nos. 17 (Padres), 19 (Twins) and 21 (A's) payrolls are all going to make the playoffs (with lower payrolls combined than the Yankees). The Reds (No. 22) are still breathing. And good old No. 30 (the Marlins) just finished scaring the living crappola out of the NL wild-card field.

So the NFL had better pour a little more premium unleaded into its propaganda engines -- because nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training. Turns out, you have a better idea who's going to win the Super Bowl.

 
' said:
This news isn't going to come as much consolation to our good friends, the Chicago White Sox. But their premature demise is a great thing for baseball in its never-ending quest to stick it to all those parity propagandists from the NFL.OK, so it might not feel so great to members of the Guillen, Konerko or Pierzynski families. But hear us out on this:As loyal reader David Hallstrom points out, the elimination of the White Sox this week continues a fascinating trend in our favorite sport:Of the last five defending World Series champs, not one has won a postseason game the following season.And yes, that word was "game." Not "series." Not "second straight World Series." The word was "game." Feel free to look this up.Aw, never mind. We already did. Of the last five champs, the White Sox will be the third to miss the playoffs entirely (joining the 2004 Marlins and 2003 Angels).The other two -- the 2002 Diamondbacks and 2005 Red Sox -- both got swept in the first round.So obviously, winning is overrated.All right, it isn't. But after a decade (1991-2001) where two teams repeated (the '92-93 Blue Jays and 1998-2000 Yankees), the Braves made it to back-to-back World Series twice (1991-92 and 1995-96), and the Yankees played in four World Series in a row (1998-2001), this competitive-balance epidemic is a beautiful affliction.Now let's compare it to the NFL, where, according to league marketing rules, "Anything Can Happen."The NFL matches baseball in one department. Three of the last five Super Bowl champs forgot to make the playoffs the next season.But the other two SB winners -- the 2001 Ravens and the 2004 Patriots -- went a combined 4-1 in the postseason the following year, with the Patriots winning a second straight Super Bowl.So which sport has its competitive-balance act together? The correct answer is now: Both.We can feel those NFL-apologist, you-can-still-spend-your-way-to-the-World-Series e-mails coming, though. So before you start typing, we want you to consider this:If the Cardinals win the NL Central and the Phillies win the NL wild card, eight of the top 10 payrolls in MLB will miss the playoffs this year. The last time that happened: 1993 (the final season in which only four teams made the postseason).In the meantime, the Nos. 17 (Padres), 19 (Twins) and 21 (A's) payrolls are all going to make the playoffs (with lower payrolls combined than the Yankees). The Reds (No. 22) are still breathing. And good old No. 30 (the Marlins) just finished scaring the living crappola out of the NL wild-card field.So the NFL had better pour a little more premium unleaded into its propaganda engines -- because nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training. Turns out, you have a better idea who's going to win the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
It's been obvious to anyone that's been paying attention that the NFL has more of a competitive balance problem than MLB for the last few years.
 
Chase Stuart said:
' said:
This news isn't going to come as much consolation to our good friends, the Chicago White Sox. But their premature demise is a great thing for baseball in its never-ending quest to stick it to all those parity propagandists from the NFL.OK, so it might not feel so great to members of the Guillen, Konerko or Pierzynski families. But hear us out on this:As loyal reader David Hallstrom points out, the elimination of the White Sox this week continues a fascinating trend in our favorite sport:Of the last five defending World Series champs, not one has won a postseason game the following season.And yes, that word was "game." Not "series." Not "second straight World Series." The word was "game." Feel free to look this up.Aw, never mind. We already did. Of the last five champs, the White Sox will be the third to miss the playoffs entirely (joining the 2004 Marlins and 2003 Angels).The other two -- the 2002 Diamondbacks and 2005 Red Sox -- both got swept in the first round.So obviously, winning is overrated.All right, it isn't. But after a decade (1991-2001) where two teams repeated (the '92-93 Blue Jays and 1998-2000 Yankees), the Braves made it to back-to-back World Series twice (1991-92 and 1995-96), and the Yankees played in four World Series in a row (1998-2001), this competitive-balance epidemic is a beautiful affliction.Now let's compare it to the NFL, where, according to league marketing rules, "Anything Can Happen."The NFL matches baseball in one department. Three of the last five Super Bowl champs forgot to make the playoffs the next season.But the other two SB winners -- the 2001 Ravens and the 2004 Patriots -- went a combined 4-1 in the postseason the following year, with the Patriots winning a second straight Super Bowl.So which sport has its competitive-balance act together? The correct answer is now: Both.We can feel those NFL-apologist, you-can-still-spend-your-way-to-the-World-Series e-mails coming, though. So before you start typing, we want you to consider this:If the Cardinals win the NL Central and the Phillies win the NL wild card, eight of the top 10 payrolls in MLB will miss the playoffs this year. The last time that happened: 1993 (the final season in which only four teams made the postseason).In the meantime, the Nos. 17 (Padres), 19 (Twins) and 21 (A's) payrolls are all going to make the playoffs (with lower payrolls combined than the Yankees). The Reds (No. 22) are still breathing. And good old No. 30 (the Marlins) just finished scaring the living crappola out of the NL wild-card field.So the NFL had better pour a little more premium unleaded into its propaganda engines -- because nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training. Turns out, you have a better idea who's going to win the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
It's been obvious to anyone that's been paying attention that the NFL has more of a competitive balance problem than MLB for the last few years.
Click to expand...
And the gap is widening.
 
Nothing like basing your whole case on one aberrant statistic with an exceptionally small sample size...

 
Chase Stuart said:
It's been obvious to anyone that's been paying attention that the NFL has more of a competitive balance problem than MLB for the last few years.
Click to expand...
What is the vector of the NFL's problem, in your opinion? Teams not spending to the salary cap? Straight-up ownership/front-office incompetence of some franchise? Something else?
 
But the Yankees are still outspending everyone else by a landslide.

While all the other dance partners are changing, the Yanks are still in the postseason almost every year for a long time now.

 
culdeus said:
Chase Stuart said:
' said:
This news isn't going to come as much consolation to our good friends, the Chicago White Sox. But their premature demise is a great thing for baseball in its never-ending quest to stick it to all those parity propagandists from the NFL.OK, so it might not feel so great to members of the Guillen, Konerko or Pierzynski families. But hear us out on this:As loyal reader David Hallstrom points out, the elimination of the White Sox this week continues a fascinating trend in our favorite sport:Of the last five defending World Series champs, not one has won a postseason game the following season.And yes, that word was "game." Not "series." Not "second straight World Series." The word was "game." Feel free to look this up.Aw, never mind. We already did. Of the last five champs, the White Sox will be the third to miss the playoffs entirely (joining the 2004 Marlins and 2003 Angels).The other two -- the 2002 Diamondbacks and 2005 Red Sox -- both got swept in the first round.So obviously, winning is overrated.All right, it isn't. But after a decade (1991-2001) where two teams repeated (the '92-93 Blue Jays and 1998-2000 Yankees), the Braves made it to back-to-back World Series twice (1991-92 and 1995-96), and the Yankees played in four World Series in a row (1998-2001), this competitive-balance epidemic is a beautiful affliction.Now let's compare it to the NFL, where, according to league marketing rules, "Anything Can Happen."The NFL matches baseball in one department. Three of the last five Super Bowl champs forgot to make the playoffs the next season.But the other two SB winners -- the 2001 Ravens and the 2004 Patriots -- went a combined 4-1 in the postseason the following year, with the Patriots winning a second straight Super Bowl.So which sport has its competitive-balance act together? The correct answer is now: Both.We can feel those NFL-apologist, you-can-still-spend-your-way-to-the-World-Series e-mails coming, though. So before you start typing, we want you to consider this:If the Cardinals win the NL Central and the Phillies win the NL wild card, eight of the top 10 payrolls in MLB will miss the playoffs this year. The last time that happened: 1993 (the final season in which only four teams made the postseason).In the meantime, the Nos. 17 (Padres), 19 (Twins) and 21 (A's) payrolls are all going to make the playoffs (with lower payrolls combined than the Yankees). The Reds (No. 22) are still breathing. And good old No. 30 (the Marlins) just finished scaring the living crappola out of the NL wild-card field.So the NFL had better pour a little more premium unleaded into its propaganda engines -- because nobody can ever use the old argument again that you know who's going to win the World Series on the first day of spring training. Turns out, you have a better idea who's going to win the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
It's been obvious to anyone that's been paying attention that the NFL has more of a competitive balance problem than MLB for the last few years.
Click to expand...
And the gap is widening.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely with you guys. In the NFL, you can count on one hand the teams that haven't contended in years. In the MLB, there are teams you know are going to suck before the season starts every year. Plus, a good draft pick in the NFL can turn a franchise around. In baseball, a star rises to prominence with a small market team, that team has to trade him before the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, or Dodgers throw a $150 million contract his way.
 
I actually did a study on this when I got my MBA...I looked at salary caps (or lack thereof) and the impact on winning percentage. Money spent was a strong indicator of winning percentage for MLB and the NBA whereas it was virtually non-existant for the NFL.

What this article ignores is that they are taking a very small sample and they are looking at playoff games won (not winning %). Anything can happen in a short 5 game series, and saying that the WS champs have not won a game in the last few years ignores the fact that the $$ they spent still got them back to the playoffs or damn close.

Anyone can tell you who 6 of the 8 MLB playoff teams will be in any given year. You can't even get close in the NFL.

 
Doug B said:
Chase Stuart said:
It's been obvious to anyone that's been paying attention that the NFL has more of a competitive balance problem than MLB for the last few years.
Click to expand...
What is the vector of the NFL's problem, in your opinion? Teams not spending to the salary cap? Straight-up ownership/front-office incompetence of some franchise? Something else?
Click to expand...
I think it's just the nature of the sport. Manning, Brady, McNabb, Palmer, Roethlisberger are all going to field good teams when they're healthy. There's also not as much turnover in recent years -- the Panthers and Bears have kept their stud Ds in tact, so they're going to be competitive. Coaching has no salary cap, and the best coaches in the game will have competitive teams almost every year.In baseball no one player can make that big of an impact, and coaching doesn't mean much. Additionally, while there's no salary cap, salary isn't correlated that closely with ability. That would be an interesting study actually -- see the amount of $$ paid to each player and correlate it with one statistic (maybe his VORP). I'd imagine the CC is a lot lower than people would think. See the Florida Marlins and the Boston Red Sox, where Boston got an extra 8 wins for an additional $105M in salary.
 
I think in baseball the dilution of the pitching talent actually helped the semi-decent teams more. They can get enough average hitting prospects and make some runs. Sure, there are 5-10 teams in baseball that are worthless and will probably always be, but take those out and you have alot of turnover in the mid ranks. At least it seems that way.

Where in the NFL it takes an owner, GM, and coach to get on the same page for several years to turn something around. In this "parity" driven NFL you have what amounts to 6-10 teams with a turnover of 1-2 per year in the top tier and when teams hit that tier they stay there a long long time.

I think you can classify the top tier right now as: (years in this tier)

New England 5+ years

Indy 5+ years

Denver 5+ years

Philly 5+ years threatining to fall out

Seattle 2 years and showing signs of staying long term

Cincy 2 years showing signs of staying long term

Pitt 5 years showing some signs of falling

Mid-Tier

San Diego - Could move to top soon

Dallas - Stuck here long term

Washington - Stuck

Giants - Stuck

KC - Stuck

Atlanta - Stuck

Carolina - Stuck

Frisky

Buffalo

Minny

Jax

Long term dead

SF

MIA

HOU

ARI

DET

GB - Biggest free fall in 10 years

OAK

CLE

Of the teams in each tier the only major mover in the last ten years is really Green Bay. San Fran was the big mover in the previous 10 years. I forgot some teams off the top of my head I'm sure, but they are probably mid or frisky teams. How often in the last 5-10 years has this order really changed? It has more to do with the motivation of the coaching/owner/GM role than where your draft picks are (see DEET).

 
Doug B said:
Chase Stuart said:
It's been obvious to anyone that's been paying attention that the NFL has more of a competitive balance problem than MLB for the last few years.
Click to expand...
What is the vector of the NFL's problem, in your opinion? Teams not spending to the salary cap? Straight-up ownership/front-office incompetence of some franchise? Something else?
Click to expand...
I think it's just the nature of the sport. Manning, Brady, McNabb, Palmer, Roethlisberger are all going to field good teams when they're healthy. There's also not as much turnover in recent years -- the Panthers and Bears have kept their stud Ds in tact, so they're going to be competitive. Coaching has no salary cap, and the best coaches in the game will have competitive teams almost every year.In baseball no one player can make that big of an impact, and coaching doesn't mean much. Additionally, while there's no salary cap, salary isn't correlated that closely with ability. That would be an interesting study actually -- see the amount of $$ paid to each player and correlate it with one statistic (maybe his VORP). I'd imagine the CC is a lot lower than people would think. See the Florida Marlins and the Boston Red Sox, where Boston got an extra 8 wins for an additional $105M in salary.
 
The correlation coefficient between team winning percentage and team payroll is 0.53, which means that roughly 28% of a team's winning percentaged can be explained by their payroll.

 
Chase Stuart said:
Doug B said:
Chase Stuart said:
It's been obvious to anyone that's been paying attention that the NFL has more of a competitive balance problem than MLB for the last few years.
Click to expand...
What is the vector of the NFL's problem, in your opinion? Teams not spending to the salary cap? Straight-up ownership/front-office incompetence of some franchise? Something else?
Click to expand...
I think it's just the nature of the sport. Manning, Brady, McNabb, Palmer, Roethlisberger are all going to field good teams when they're healthy. There's also not as much turnover in recent years -- the Panthers and Bears have kept their stud Ds in tact, so they're going to be competitive. Coaching has no salary cap, and the best coaches in the game will have competitive teams almost every year.In baseball no one player can make that big of an impact, and coaching doesn't mean much. Additionally, while there's no salary cap, salary isn't correlated that closely with ability. That would be an interesting study actually -- see the amount of $$ paid to each player and correlate it with one statistic (maybe his VORP). I'd imagine the CC is a lot lower than people would think. See the Florida Marlins and the Boston Red Sox, where Boston got an extra 8 wins for an additional $105M in salary.
Click to expand...
It also goes back to quality of ownership. The NFL has some real loser owners right now who don't know how to run an NFL team.:patheticlionshomer:
 
bagger said:
I actually did a study on this when I got my MBA...I looked at salary caps (or lack thereof) and the impact on winning percentage. Money spent was a strong indicator of winning percentage for MLB and the NBA whereas it was virtually non-existant for the NFL.What this article ignores is that they are taking a very small sample and they are looking at playoff games won (not winning %). Anything can happen in a short 5 game series, and saying that the WS champs have not won a game in the last few years ignores the fact that the $$ they spent still got them back to the playoffs or damn close.Anyone can tell you who 6 of the 8 MLB playoff teams will be in any given year. You can't even get close in the NFL.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
Chase Stuart said:
bagger said:
Chase Stuart said:
The correlation coefficient between team winning percentage and team payroll is 0.53, which means that roughly 28% of a team's winning percentaged can be explained by their payroll.
Click to expand...
for what sport?over how many years?where are you getting this from?
Click to expand...
BaseballThis yearESPN.com
Click to expand...
link?you also might want to look at more than one year as that is not enough of a sample size.over multiple years it is MUCH higher.
 
Chase Stuart said:
I think it's just the nature of the sport. Manning, Brady, McNabb, Palmer, Roethlisberger are all going to field good teams when they're healthy. There's also not as much turnover in recent years -- the Panthers and Bears have kept their stud Ds in tact, so they're going to be competitive. Coaching has no salary cap, and the best coaches in the game will have competitive teams almost every year.
Click to expand...
Oh ... I was thinking in terms of "market parity", where baseball's "small markets" can compete just fine in the NFL. Manning plays for Indy, Palmer for Cincy, etc.Well ... yeah, teams with the better players locked in for longer contracts are going to succeed :shrug:
 
bagger said:
I actually did a study on this when I got my MBA...I looked at salary caps (or lack thereof) and the impact on winning percentage. Money spent was a strong indicator of winning percentage for MLB and the NBA whereas it was virtually non-existant for the NFL.

What this article ignores is that they are taking a very small sample and they are looking at playoff games won (not winning %). Anything can happen in a short 5 game series, and saying that the WS champs have not won a game in the last few years ignores the fact that the $$ they spent still got them back to the playoffs or damn close.

Anyone can tell you who 6 of the 8 MLB playoff teams will be in any given year. You can't even get close in the NFL.
Click to expand...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview06/ne...tory?id=2386544Minnesota: 3rd place in ALC

Detroit: 4th place in NLC

San Diego: 3rd place in NLW

They also whiffed on half of their spots (gave Atlanta the NLE over the Mets).

:shrug:

 
bagger said:
Chase Stuart said:
bagger said:
Chase Stuart said:
The correlation coefficient between team winning percentage and team payroll is 0.53, which means that roughly 28% of a team's winning percentaged can be explained by their payroll.
Click to expand...
for what sport?over how many years?

where are you getting this from?
Click to expand...
BaseballThis year

ESPN.com
Click to expand...
link?you also might want to look at more than one year as that is not enough of a sample size.

over multiple years it is MUCH higher.
Click to expand...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=nyyUsing archive.org I can get the 2004 numbers but not the 2005. Will report shortly.

 
Practical example of why the NFL has more parity :

In 2002, MLB division champs were New York, Minnesota, Oakland, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Arizona. See how that compares to this season.

In 2002, the NFL champs were the currently winless Buccaneers, who made it to the NFCC by knocking off the 49ers. Philly made it to the NFCC by knocking off the Falcons, who had beaten Green Bay.

Who did Tampa beat in the Super Bowl? Why, the mighty Raiders ! How did they get there? By beating the Titans, who took out Pittsburgh in overtime in a letdown game for the Steelers after an emotional wildcard win over the Browns. Meanwhile, Oakland was well-rested for the AFCC after coasting by the Jets.

 
' said:
As loyal reader David Hallstrom points out, the elimination of the White Sox this week continues a fascinating trend in our favorite sport:
Click to expand...
You have loyal readers? :confused:

Or is attributing sources passe?

 
culdeus said:
I think you can classify the top tier right now as: (years in this tier)

New England 5+ years

Indy 5+ years

Denver 5+ years

Philly 5+ years threatining to fall out

Seattle 2 years and showing signs of staying long term

Cincy 2 years showing signs of staying long term

Pitt 5 years showing some signs of falling

Mid-Tier

San Diego - Could move to top soon

Dallas - Stuck here long term

Washington - Stuck

Giants - Stuck

KC - Stuck

Atlanta - Stuck

Carolina - Stuck

Frisky

Buffalo

Minny

Jax

Long term dead

SF

MIA

HOU

ARI

DET

GB - Biggest free fall in 10 years

OAK

CLE
Click to expand...
The bolded teams have all been in the Super Bowl this decade. :shrug: And several of the "dead" teams have been in the playoffs within the last 5 years.I can think of quite a few teams over the past 15 years that have made huge leaps between tiers. Take the L.A./St. Louis Rams -- they floundered badly for almost all the 90s ... then went to 2 SBs in three years. That's with the same ownership in place the whole time, too (different GM and coaches) of course. And the Eagles stunk for a long time before Andy Reid showed up. Similarly with the Bengals and Marvin Lewis (and that's with a bad owner).

Another one -- the lousy Browns/Ravens of the 90s became a Super Bowl champ in 2001.

There may not be parity within one given season (or else everyone would be 9-7, 8-8, 7-9), but as long as there's some mobility betwee tiers over time ... the NFL's overall parity is fine.

 
Milwaukee 27,518,500 0.416Tampa Bay 28,706,667 0.435Cleveland 34,569,300 0.494Pittsburgh 40,227,929 0.447Florida 42,118,042 0.512Cincinnati 42,722,858 0.469Montreal 43,197,500 0.414Kansas City 47,609,000 0.358Baltimore 49,212,653 0.481Detroit 49,828,554 0.444Toronto 50,017,000 0.416Minnesota 53,585,000 0.568Oakland 59,825,167 0.562Texas 59,845,973 0.549San Diego 63,689,503 0.537Chicago Sox 68,262,500 0.512Colorado 68,610,403 0.420Arizona 70,204,984 0.315Houston 74,666,303 0.568Seattle 78,483,834 0.389St Louis 81,008,517 0.648San Francisco 82,019,166 0.562Atlanta 88,507,788 0.593Los Angeles 89,694,343 0.574Chicago Cubs 91,101,667 0.549Philadelphia 93,219,167 0.531NY Mets 95,754,304 0.438Anaheim 101,909,667 0.568Boston 125,208,542 0.605NY Yankees 183,335,513 0.623
The 2004 CC was 0.54, almost identical to what it was in 2006.

 
Evilgrin 72 said:
Practical example of why the NFL has more parity :

In 2002, MLB division champs were New York, Minnesota, Oakland, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Arizona. See how that compares to this season.

In 2002, the NFL champs were the currently winless Buccaneers, who made it to the NFCC by knocking off the 49ers. Philly made it to the NFCC by knocking off the Falcons, who had beaten Green Bay.

Who did Tampa beat in the Super Bowl? Why, the mighty Raiders ! How did they get there? By beating the Titans, who took out Pittsburgh in overtime in a letdown game for the Steelers after an emotional wildcard win over the Browns. Meanwhile, Oakland was well-rested for the AFCC after coasting by the Jets.
Click to expand...
I don't see this as parity. What you have is a system in place where teams can make one single run and then nuke themselves for 5 years after that. I discount those one year wonders you list. The teams that are truly good stay good long term.
 
culdeus said:
Evilgrin 72 said:
Practical example of why the NFL has more parity :

In 2002, MLB division champs were New York, Minnesota, Oakland, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Arizona. See how that compares to this season.

In 2002, the NFL champs were the currently winless Buccaneers, who made it to the NFCC by knocking off the 49ers. Philly made it to the NFCC by knocking off the Falcons, who had beaten Green Bay.

Who did Tampa beat in the Super Bowl? Why, the mighty Raiders ! How did they get there? By beating the Titans, who took out Pittsburgh in overtime in a letdown game for the Steelers after an emotional wildcard win over the Browns. Meanwhile, Oakland was well-rested for the AFCC after coasting by the Jets.
Click to expand...
I don't see this as parity. What you have is a system in place where teams can make one single run and then nuke themselves for 5 years after that. I discount those one year wonders you list. The teams that are truly good stay good long term.
Click to expand...
The point is, good teams can get bad and bad teams good rather quickly in a salary-capped league, while the high-revenue teams in MLB are going to stay at or near the top for the most part. For the record, of those 7 teams I listed, 5 (Oak, NYJ, TB, SF, GB) were in the playoffs the year before (2001) and 3 of them (Jets, GB, Tenn) made a playoff appearance in 2003 or 2004, so the vast majority of those teams I listed that suck now were not "one year wonders."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it not also a factor of number of games played? Take a snapshot of MLB after 16 games, and you have a completely different picture

 
Evilgrin 72 said:
culdeus said:
Evilgrin 72 said:
Practical example of why the NFL has more parity :

In 2002, MLB division champs were New York, Minnesota, Oakland, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Arizona. See how that compares to this season.

In 2002, the NFL champs were the currently winless Buccaneers, who made it to the NFCC by knocking off the 49ers. Philly made it to the NFCC by knocking off the Falcons, who had beaten Green Bay.

Who did Tampa beat in the Super Bowl? Why, the mighty Raiders ! How did they get there? By beating the Titans, who took out Pittsburgh in overtime in a letdown game for the Steelers after an emotional wildcard win over the Browns. Meanwhile, Oakland was well-rested for the AFCC after coasting by the Jets.
Click to expand...
I don't see this as parity. What you have is a system in place where teams can make one single run and then nuke themselves for 5 years after that. I discount those one year wonders you list. The teams that are truly good stay good long term.
Click to expand...
The point is, good teams can get bad and bad teams good rather quickly in a salary-capped league, while the high-revenue teams in MLB are going to stay at or near the top for the most part. For the record, of those 7 teams I listed, 5 (Oak, NYJ, TB, SF, GB) were in the playoffs the year before (2001) and 3 of them (Jets, GB, Tenn) made a playoff appearance in 2003 or 2004, so the vast majority of those teams I listed that suck now were not "one year wonders."
Click to expand...
The Mets stunk every year until this year. The Dodgers weren't very good last year. Boston missed the playoffs, and finished behind Toronto. Detroit had the best record in baseball most of the season. Last year's WS team ranked third in its own division. The Marlins were nearly a .500 team with no payroll.Payroll makes up a small percentage of how good a team will be -- maybe 30%. In the NFL, I'd imagine coaching/QB play makes up at least that much. I don't think it matters if every year the Colts make the playoffs because Dungy and Manning are great, or if the Yankees make the playoffs because their salary is high. Likewise, the Rays miss the playoffs because of a poor payroll, and the Lions miss the playoffs because of bad QB play/coaching. I'd also say it's about as easy to move up in payroll as it is to find a good QB/coach tandem -- that is, not very easy.

Over the last two years, the White Sox and Tigers upped their payroll by over $30M. The O's, Indians, Brewers, Blue Jays and Nats upped by over $20M. But of course, payroll still is far from the be-all, end-all that Bud Selig tries to make it out to be.

The 1st, 5th, 6th, 13th 14th, 17th, 19th, and 21st teams ranked by payroll made the playoffs this year.

 
bagger said:
Chase Stuart said:
bagger said:
Chase: what are the other leading indicators and what are their correlation coefficients?
Click to expand...
I don't really know what this means. Can you unpack it a little bit for me?
Click to expand...
you say that payroll accounts for 28%....what else accounts for winning %?
Click to expand...
Well I wasn't thinking of it in terms of summing to 100. But basically finding the players that are good values -- that score a lot of runs and prevent a ot of runs -- for cheap is what accounts for the rest.Runs scored and runs allowed account for a very high percentage of team wins. AdjOPS for each individual player closely approximates runs scored, and some pitching metric (a nifty version of ERA) does the same for runs allowed. You could then rank the players from most valuable to least valuable. The reason salary isn't that relevant is because someone like Ryan Howard costs $400K while Randy Johnson costs almost 50 times that much, desite being much less valuable.
 
Chase Stuart said:
Payroll makes up a small percentage of how good a team will be -- maybe 30%. In the NFL, I'd imagine coaching/QB play makes up at least that much. I don't think it matters if every year the Colts make the playoffs because Dungy and Manning are great, or if the Yankees make the playoffs because their salary is high.
Click to expand...
30% actually sounds like a lot to me when you consider it's not based on how you spend the money, but only on how much you spend.I disagree that it doesn't matter where that 30% comes from. I consider the coaching & QB play to be a part of the real competition I want to see in "competitive balance" whereas I don't think how much money is spent is the kind of competition I want.
 
jhib said:
Chase Stuart said:
Payroll makes up a small percentage of how good a team will be -- maybe 30%. In the NFL, I'd imagine coaching/QB play makes up at least that much. I don't think it matters if every year the Colts make the playoffs because Dungy and Manning are great, or if the Yankees make the playoffs because their salary is high.
Click to expand...
30% actually sounds like a lot to me when you consider it's not based on how you spend the money, but only on how much you spend.I disagree that it doesn't matter where that 30% comes from. I consider the coaching & QB play to be a part of the real competition I want to see in "competitive balance" whereas I don't think how much money is spent is the kind of competition I want.
Click to expand...
If I'm a Raiders fan, it does me no good to say "hey we're not losing to the Patriots because they spend a lot more than we do, but because Belichick and Brady are a lot better than Shell and Walters." If it does give you some added comfort, more power to you.
 
Chase Stuart said:
bagger said:
Chase Stuart said:
bagger said:
Chase: what are the other leading indicators and what are their correlation coefficients?
Click to expand...
I don't really know what this means. Can you unpack it a little bit for me?
Click to expand...
you say that payroll accounts for 28%....what else accounts for winning %?
Click to expand...
Well I wasn't thinking of it in terms of summing to 100. But basically finding the players that are good values -- that score a lot of runs and prevent a ot of runs -- for cheap is what accounts for the rest.Runs scored and runs allowed account for a very high percentage of team wins. AdjOPS for each individual player closely approximates runs scored, and some pitching metric (a nifty version of ERA) does the same for runs allowed. You could then rank the players from most valuable to least valuable. The reason salary isn't that relevant is because someone like Ryan Howard costs $400K while Randy Johnson costs almost 50 times that much, desite being much less valuable.
Click to expand...
but don't runs scored and runs allowed come from the high priced players the team just bought (for the most part)??
 
Chase Stuart said:
jhib said:
Chase Stuart said:
Payroll makes up a small percentage of how good a team will be -- maybe 30%. In the NFL, I'd imagine coaching/QB play makes up at least that much. I don't think it matters if every year the Colts make the playoffs because Dungy and Manning are great, or if the Yankees make the playoffs because their salary is high.
Click to expand...
30% actually sounds like a lot to me when you consider it's not based on how you spend the money, but only on how much you spend.I disagree that it doesn't matter where that 30% comes from. I consider the coaching & QB play to be a part of the real competition I want to see in "competitive balance" whereas I don't think how much money is spent is the kind of competition I want.
Click to expand...
If I'm a Raiders fan, it does me no good to say "hey we're not losing to the Patriots because they spend a lot more than we do, but because Belichick and Brady are a lot better than Shell and Walters." If it does give you some added comfort, more power to you.
Click to expand...
Not added comfort, but I'd then put the blame on my Raiders and not on the league. That's baseball's problem right now. The teams that stink get to blame the league.
 
bagger said:
Chase Stuart said:
bagger said:
Chase Stuart said:
bagger said:
Chase: what are the other leading indicators and what are their correlation coefficients?
Click to expand...
I don't really know what this means. Can you unpack it a little bit for me?
Click to expand...
you say that payroll accounts for 28%....what else accounts for winning %?
Click to expand...
Well I wasn't thinking of it in terms of summing to 100. But basically finding the players that are good values -- that score a lot of runs and prevent a ot of runs -- for cheap is what accounts for the rest.Runs scored and runs allowed account for a very high percentage of team wins. AdjOPS for each individual player closely approximates runs scored, and some pitching metric (a nifty version of ERA) does the same for runs allowed. You could then rank the players from most valuable to least valuable. The reason salary isn't that relevant is because someone like Ryan Howard costs $400K while Randy Johnson costs almost 50 times that much, desite being much less valuable.
Click to expand...
but don't runs scored and runs allowed come from the high priced players the team just bought (for the most part)??
Click to expand...
Well I think that's where the 28% comes in. They don't really come from the high priced players as much as we'd think. Howard is an obvious example. Joe Mauer makes $400K. Travis Hafner makes $2.7M. Justin Morneau makes $385K. Miggy makes $500K. Adam Laroche, Matt Holliday and Garret Atkins all make chump change too (three of the top 10 NL leaders in OPS). Your NL Cy Young (Brandon Webb) makes $2.5M. Your AL Cy Young makes close to $9M, but he's on a small market team that can afford him. The Tigers star young pitching is cheap too.Money helps, and it helps a lot. But it's just as important to have good scouting and good coaching. It's also not as comparable as you might think; the Yankees routinely overpay for players because they can, which makes their salary a bit inflated (the players the Yankees have certainly wouldn't individually sum to $200M on the open market).
 
jhib said:
Chase Stuart said:
jhib said:
Chase Stuart said:
Payroll makes up a small percentage of how good a team will be -- maybe 30%. In the NFL, I'd imagine coaching/QB play makes up at least that much. I don't think it matters if every year the Colts make the playoffs because Dungy and Manning are great, or if the Yankees make the playoffs because their salary is high.
Click to expand...
30% actually sounds like a lot to me when you consider it's not based on how you spend the money, but only on how much you spend.I disagree that it doesn't matter where that 30% comes from. I consider the coaching & QB play to be a part of the real competition I want to see in "competitive balance" whereas I don't think how much money is spent is the kind of competition I want.
Click to expand...
If I'm a Raiders fan, it does me no good to say "hey we're not losing to the Patriots because they spend a lot more than we do, but because Belichick and Brady are a lot better than Shell and Walters." If it does give you some added comfort, more power to you.
Click to expand...
Not added comfort, but I'd then put the blame on my Raiders and not on the league. That's baseball's problem right now. The teams that stink get to blame the league.
Click to expand...
Plus, it sure would feel better to me if I were a Patriots fan knowing my team is just simply better run than the Raiders than if I had to hear salary-cap excuses.
 
Chase Stuart said:
jhib said:
Chase Stuart said:
Payroll makes up a small percentage of how good a team will be -- maybe 30%. In the NFL, I'd imagine coaching/QB play makes up at least that much. I don't think it matters if every year the Colts make the playoffs because Dungy and Manning are great, or if the Yankees make the playoffs because their salary is high.
Click to expand...
30% actually sounds like a lot to me when you consider it's not based on how you spend the money, but only on how much you spend.I disagree that it doesn't matter where that 30% comes from. I consider the coaching & QB play to be a part of the real competition I want to see in "competitive balance" whereas I don't think how much money is spent is the kind of competition I want.
Click to expand...
If I'm a Raiders fan, it does me no good to say "hey we're not losing to the Patriots because they spend a lot more than we do, but because Belichick and Brady are a lot better than Shell and Walters." If it does give you some added comfort, more power to you.
Click to expand...
It is in the realm of possibility the Raiders could higher a great coach and draft a great quarterback. It is not in the realm of possibility for a Tampa Bay Devil Ray fan to imagine their franchise spending twice as much as the Yankees on payroll. :loco:I am still shocked that people do not acknowledge the competitive edge one team gains by spending twice as much on talent as every other team.
 
BlueOnion said:
Chase Stuart said:
jhib said:
Chase Stuart said:
Payroll makes up a small percentage of how good a team will be -- maybe 30%. In the NFL, I'd imagine coaching/QB play makes up at least that much. I don't think it matters if every year the Colts make the playoffs because Dungy and Manning are great, or if the Yankees make the playoffs because their salary is high.
Click to expand...
30% actually sounds like a lot to me when you consider it's not based on how you spend the money, but only on how much you spend.I disagree that it doesn't matter where that 30% comes from. I consider the coaching & QB play to be a part of the real competition I want to see in "competitive balance" whereas I don't think how much money is spent is the kind of competition I want.
Click to expand...
If I'm a Raiders fan, it does me no good to say "hey we're not losing to the Patriots because they spend a lot more than we do, but because Belichick and Brady are a lot better than Shell and Walters." If it does give you some added comfort, more power to you.
Click to expand...
It is in the realm of possibility the Raiders could higher a great coach and draft a great quarterback. It is not in the realm of possibility for a Tampa Bay Devil Ray fan to imagine their franchise spending twice as much as the Yankees on payroll. :loco:I am still shocked that people do not acknowledge the competitive edge one team gains by spending twice as much on talent as every other team.
Click to expand...
I'm not holding my breath on watching the Raiders sign a great coach and draft a great QB, but that's just me. Teams move in payroll more often than you might think: the Angels went from being a small market team to a big market team.
 
Chase Stuart said:
BlueOnion said:
Chase Stuart said:
jhib said:
Chase Stuart said:
Payroll makes up a small percentage of how good a team will be -- maybe 30%. In the NFL, I'd imagine coaching/QB play makes up at least that much. I don't think it matters if every year the Colts make the playoffs because Dungy and Manning are great, or if the Yankees make the playoffs because their salary is high.
Click to expand...
30% actually sounds like a lot to me when you consider it's not based on how you spend the money, but only on how much you spend.I disagree that it doesn't matter where that 30% comes from. I consider the coaching & QB play to be a part of the real competition I want to see in "competitive balance" whereas I don't think how much money is spent is the kind of competition I want.
Click to expand...
If I'm a Raiders fan, it does me no good to say "hey we're not losing to the Patriots because they spend a lot more than we do, but because Belichick and Brady are a lot better than Shell and Walters." If it does give you some added comfort, more power to you.
Click to expand...
It is in the realm of possibility the Raiders could higher a great coach and draft a great quarterback. It is not in the realm of possibility for a Tampa Bay Devil Ray fan to imagine their franchise spending twice as much as the Yankees on payroll. :loco:I am still shocked that people do not acknowledge the competitive edge one team gains by spending twice as much on talent as every other team.
Click to expand...
I'm not holding my breath on watching the Raiders sign a great coach and draft a great QB, but that's just me. Teams move in payroll more often than you might think: the Angels went from being a small market team to a big market team.
Click to expand...
Now I didn't say the Raiders would sign a great coach and draft a great QB, I just said it was within the realm of possibility (as slight as it may be). And I am not sure how you measure small market or big market teams, but the Angels have never been close to the Yankees in payroll.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart said:
Well I think that's where the 28% comes in. They don't really come from the high priced players as much as we'd think. Howard is an obvious example. Joe Mauer makes $400K. Travis Hafner makes $2.7M. Justin Morneau makes $385K. Miggy makes $500K. Adam Laroche, Matt Holliday and Garret Atkins all make chump change too (three of the top 10 NL leaders in OPS).
Click to expand...
That is the kicker. For the majority of the teams owning these players, they will have let these stars sign with other teams to stay competitive. :thumbdown:
 
bagger said:
I actually did a study on this when I got my MBA...I looked at salary caps (or lack thereof) and the impact on winning percentage. Money spent was a strong indicator of winning percentage for MLB and the NBA whereas it was virtually non-existant for the NFL.What this article ignores is that they are taking a very small sample and they are looking at playoff games won (not winning %). Anything can happen in a short 5 game series, and saying that the WS champs have not won a game in the last few years ignores the fact that the $$ they spent still got them back to the playoffs or damn close.Anyone can tell you who 6 of the 8 MLB playoff teams will be in any given year. You can't even get close in the NFL.
Click to expand...
I would be interested in seeing which teams have won the most division championships since 1995. I suspect we'll see a lot of the Yankees, Braves, Astros and Cardinals and not a lot of Royals, Devil Rays, Brewers and Pirates.
 
Chase Stuart said:
The 1st, 5th, 6th, 13th 14th, 17th, 19th, and 21st teams ranked by payroll made the playoffs this year.
Click to expand...
And in 2005 it was 1,2,3,4,8,9,11,172006 was 1,2,3,7,8,10,12,19

I know this is one of those situations where you can make the numbers say pretty much what you want, but put those 3 years together and out of the 24 playoff spots, 15 came from the top 3rd of payrolls, 8 from the middle 3rd, and 1 from the bottom third.

Yeah, I know, the Yankees should be the top 3rd by themselves...

 
Chase Stuart said:
Joe Mauer makes $400K. Travis Hafner makes $2.7M. Justin Morneau makes $385K. Miggy makes $500K. Adam Laroche, Matt Holliday and Garret Atkins all make chump change too (three of the top 10 NL leaders in OPS). Your NL Cy Young (Brandon Webb) makes $2.5M. Your AL Cy Young makes close to $9M, but he's on a small market team that can afford him. The Tigers star young pitching is cheap too.
Click to expand...
The difference is that in football, the Bradys, Mannings, etc... will likely play for the same team their whole (meaningful) careers. Most of these players you list above will be off their respective teams as soon as they are eligible to hit the open market. That's why football has more parity in my mind, you get rewarded for drafting well, while in baseball, you can often buy your way out of mistakes. it doesn't always work, but it more or less guarantees that certain teams will rarely be competitive.
 
Evilgrin 72 said:
Chase Stuart said:
Joe Mauer makes $400K. Travis Hafner makes $2.7M. Justin Morneau makes $385K. Miggy makes $500K. Adam Laroche, Matt Holliday and Garret Atkins all make chump change too (three of the top 10 NL leaders in OPS). Your NL Cy Young (Brandon Webb) makes $2.5M. Your AL Cy Young makes close to $9M, but he's on a small market team that can afford him. The Tigers star young pitching is cheap too.
Click to expand...
The difference is that in football, the Bradys, Mannings, etc... will likely play for the same team their whole (meaningful) careers. Most of these players you list above will be off their respective teams as soon as they are eligible to hit the open market. That's why football has more parity in my mind, you get rewarded for drafting well, while in baseball, you can often buy your way out of mistakes. it doesn't always work, but it more or less guarantees that certain teams will rarely be competitive.
Click to expand...
Right -- the fact that Brady and Manning will stay on the same team makes the NFL less competitive. The Raiders would have a better chance of winning if the Raiders had a chance to get Peyton Manning.I see both sides of the argument. But as a fan I don't care whether we win because we have a high payroll or we win because we have the best front office in the league. Don't you think Raiders fans are at a serious disdvantage vis-a-vis Steelers fans, who have a tremendous front office? The Lions don't draft nearly as well as the Steelers, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon. You've also got a bit of the loser's curse in football, where bad teams are likely to stay bad because they have to overspend on the top draft picks in the NFL, while good teams can maximize value by selecting cheaper players later in the first round.Blowing the Robert Gallery pick is going to hurt a whole lot more than blowing the Trung Canidate pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Encyclopedia Brown
Is Joe Maddon a HOF manager?
Replies
8
Views
496
Long Ball Larry
Long Ball Larry
Don Quixote
**** Baseball Hall of Fame Thread **** - Congrats to Beltre, Helton, and Mauer
2
Replies
78
Views
3K
Bogart
Bogart
Eephus
My OOTP Career Thread: Congratulations to the 1995 World Champion Blue Jays
2 3
Replies
128
Views
5K
Eephus
Eephus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top