Parity in football (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Awesome]

The original article overlooks a pretty big fact. Since 2000, the Yankees have won it twice, so has Boston. They are first and second in payroll respectively. The Yankees have also lost twice in the WS in that time frame. So the top 2 payroll clubs have taken 27% of the available WS spots since 2000, and have won it 36% of the time. Clubs that currently have payroll in the top 12 have won 9 of the last 11 titles, (81%), and have made up 17 of the 22 participants (77%). Here's your outliers:Arizona 2001 Champs. Schilling & JohnsonFlorida 2003 Champs. Ironically thought of as a team that bought a championship.Colorado 2007 WS Losers. Tampa Bay 2008 WS Losers.Texas 2010 WS Losers. On top of that, imagine Peyton Manning spending most of his career with the NY Giants. By now, Ben Roethlisberger would be the QB of the Jets, and Philip Rivers would be QBing the Redskins, and of course Aaron Rodgers would be an upcoming FA being eyed up by Detroit, San Francisco, and one of the Chicago teams. That's the system baseball has in place.

Or let's imagine Albert Haynesworth not sticking with the Titans. Or Barry Zito going from Oakland (where he won the Cy Young) to the Giants (where he's so awful they left him off the playoff roster).We can look at Tampa extending Longoria. Or Oakland extending Eric Chavez. Teams extend stars all the time. People can think Florida bought a championship in 2003 but their payroll was in the bottom 10. I didn't do a breakdown of every team but I know the Angels weren't top 10 when they won their WS. The Yankees had an incredibly dominant team in the late 90's/early 2000's. They had numerous all star players/hall of famers. Many were home grown. When you combine that with playing in a weak division (until recently no team outside the Yankees in that division did a good job developing talent) it equaled a gimmie playoff berth every year. Now that the other teams have caught up, you're seeing Tampa go toe to toe despite having a tiny payroll. Baltimore and Toronto have a great core and should contend in the next few years as well. This will soon be the toughest division in baseball.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Looks as if no one is going to be swayed either way. Let's have a little contest. We can visit this in 2012Everyone post their predictions for the upcoming season:- MLB and NFL Playoff teams- Top 10 MLB and NFL teams- Bottom 10 MLB and NFL teamsMy prediction? Posters will get a much higher percentage of the MLB teams right then the NFL teams. I would attribute it to the MLB having less parity than the NFL.

You start.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The data doesn't support jack ####. The data says that just as many teams in each sport have made it to the playoffs/title games. It says absolutely nothing about how many teams were legitimately in the hunt, or how many teams had a shot at the SB/WS BEFORE any games were played. In the NFL, I could barely name the teams that I think truly have no shot. Buffalo. Miami. Cincinnati. Arizona. Maybe Washington, but I could see it.In baseball? We actually just had this conversation at the gym the other day after placing bets on who WOULD make the playoffs. No chance? Pittsburgh, Houston, Cleveland, Kansas City, Toronto, Baltimore (debatable, but I can't see it), Seattle, NY Mets, and Arizona. I think many would put the Nats, but I could see them as an out-of-nowhere.That's the difference. I have written off, in my mind, 4 NFL teams and 9 MLB teams. And there are MORE NFL teams.

That's an awfully subjective way to measure things. Lots of people would come up with all kinds of lists. Not sure how that shows much.

Re: Oswalt - I didn't mean to imply he was lost to FA, but rather that even with a top pitcher, they sucked. To the other stuff, see top of my post.

So you're arguing baseball is a team sport. Big whoop. The Niners have a top middle linebacker, top tight end, and top running back. What did that get them? I seem to have killed the other quote while trying to piece things together, so I'll answer it last. I can't think of examples where NFL teams have lost stars in back to back years (though I have no doubt it happens). I think your question is rather biased by requiring back to back years. How often do teams even have true stars come up for free agency? And the notion Cleveland (or these other small market teams) cannot afford to keep star players is absurd. Baseball is designed to keep young players on the teams longer than football - but it's also a sport designed to actually have free agents with greater regularity. But even when stars sign elsewhere, the team that loses said player gets draft picks.

 

[dparker713]

What I define as parity is as many teams as possible with a shot to win it all in any given year. The NFL has it. Baseball doesn't.

Thats merely your confirmation bias speaking.

 

[Instinctive]

What I define as parity is as many teams as possible with a shot to win it all in any given year. The NFL has it. Baseball doesn't.

Thats merely your confirmation bias speaking.

I would say that it isn't. Baseball had always been my first sport, until a couple years ago. I found that it was a bit boring to me until the playoffs, because less teams were competitive all the time.This past year, I can think of SFO/SD and STL/CIN for their playoff spots as good races for most of the year.In the NFL? The Bucs, Packers, Giants all for one spot on the last weekend. The Colts were down the the wire with (I believe) Jacksonville. The NFC West was decided on the last game, etc etc...There's a lot more excitement in the offseason as well for me because, as I said, twice as many MLB teams, in my mind, have no route to the playoffs with their teams as compared to the NFL. That;s no confirmation bias, as it's my job to be objective...I honestly believe that the general population, right now, can envision more NFL teams making their playoffs than MLB teams making their playoffs. That would say there is more parity in the NFL...

 

[Dr. Awesome]

How close would the MLB playoff race be if they only played 16 games?

 

[Instinctive]

How close would the MLB playoff race be if they only played 16 games?

It doesn't matter...because they don't. That's part of the parity of the NFL...that's part of what gives almost every team a shot in any given year...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

How close would the MLB playoff race be if they only played 16 games?

Or if the NFL played 162 games.

 

[DropKick]

What I define as parity is as many teams as possible with a shot to win it all in any given year. The NFL has it. Baseball doesn't.

It certainly feels that way but over the past 10 years the data does not support this conclusion.

The data does support the conclusion. You've just chosen to look at one set of data and ignore another. The two biggest spenders in baseball have won 6 of the last 11 AL Pennants (and 9 of the 15). NY has been in the play-offs 13 or 14 times in those 15 years. And as someone else said "clubs that currently have payroll in the top 12 have won 9 of the last 11 titles, (81%), and have made up 17 of the 22 participants (77%).You don't have to be statistician to see the relationship between payroll and the success. Payroll buys the best available talent and that increases the chance of success. Of course, the favorite doesn't always win. That doesn't mean the system is equitable.

The NFL clearly has a salary structure that promotes parity. MLB has a structure that rewards big spending and has made some teams forgotten entities. I don't need to count play-off appearances to understand that. The key here is the system in place to create a level playing field. Football has it. Teams like the Lions or Bengals may be poorly managed. Teams like the Colts may get a Hall of Fame QB and be in the mix for his entire career. Teams rise and fall. That is Sports.

Imagine a FF auction league where everyone gets $1,000 but the commissioner gets $10,000. He will have a great team. He almost certainly will make the play-offs, but a championship isn't guaranteed. Other people will assemble good teams or hit on a couple players. And, in head to head leagues, anything is possible. If he lost, does that prove the league to have a fair format?

 

[dparker713]

What I define as parity is as many teams as possible with a shot to win it all in any given year. The NFL has it. Baseball doesn't.

Thats merely your confirmation bias speaking.

I would say that it isn't. Baseball had always been my first sport, until a couple years ago. I found that it was a bit boring to me until the playoffs, because less teams were competitive all the time.This past year, I can think of SFO/SD and STL/CIN for their playoff spots as good races for most of the year.In the NFL? The Bucs, Packers, Giants all for one spot on the last weekend. The Colts were down the the wire with (I believe) Jacksonville. The NFC West was decided on the last game, etc etc...There's a lot more excitement in the offseason as well for me because, as I said, twice as many MLB teams, in my mind, have no route to the playoffs with their teams as compared to the NFL. That;s no confirmation bias, as it's my job to be objective...I honestly believe that the general population, right now, can envision more NFL teams making their playoffs than MLB teams making their playoffs. That would say there is more parity in the NFL...

You're moving the target to justify your confirmation bias. First it was win it all, and now its make the playoffs. Oh, and alot of those teams were competing for a playoff spot on the last weekend because 37.5% of the NFL makes the playoffs - not quite the NBA but its close. Whereas the MLB has the lowest playoff percentage at 26.7% - of course if 11 of the 30 MLB teams made the playoffs each year I'd be a whole lot easier for a mediocre team to make it to the playoffs (like the 7-9 Seahawks)

 

[BigSteelThrill]

37.5% 26.7% - (like the 7-9 Seahawks)

MLB.556%

.534

.519

.525

.516

.506

.568

.543

.584

.543

NFL

.438

.563

.563

.563

.563

.625

.500

.625

.563

.625

Hmmm, looking at the last decade, here is the winning % of the lowest playoff team each year. Pretty selective to pick on the 'hawk year to argue that point.

 

[dparker713]

37.5% 26.7% - (like the 7-9 Seahawks)

MLB.556%

.534

.519

.525

.516

.506

.568

.543

.584

.543

NFL

.438

.563

.563

.563

.563

.625

.500

.625

.563

.625

Hmmm, looking at the last decade, here is the winning % of the lowest playoff team each year. Pretty selective to pick on the 'hawk year to argue that point.

The greatest winning percentage during a regular season in MLB is .763, post dead-ball era its .721. Best regular season NFL record is 1.000, accomplished 6(?) times. Might want to normalize your data for a meaningful comparison.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

37.5% 26.7% - (like the 7-9 Seahawks)

MLB.556%

.534

.519

.525

.516

.506

.568

.543

.584

.543

NFL

.438

.563

.563

.563

.563

.625

.500

.625

.563

.625

Hmmm, looking at the last decade, here is the winning % of the lowest playoff team each year. Pretty selective to pick on the 'hawk year to argue that point.

The greatest winning percentage during a regular season in MLB is .763, post dead-ball era its .721. Best regular season NFL record is 1.000, accomplished 6(?) times. Might want to normalize your data for a meaningful comparison.

What you are saying states that the records are subjected to more "equality/parity" based upon the nature of the sport of baseball itself. Which I'm far more willing to buy into then MLB having more parity then the NFL. The sport may indeed, but the league does not.

 

[daveR]

Missing in this thread is the point that baseball is inherently equitible. That is, the nature of the game lends itself to average results over the long run.

Some time ago, I did a study which showed (to my surprise) that pitching isn't the deciding factor in a team's success (except in very exceptional situations, good or bad). The best stat I could come up with is situational hitting, or "how many hits does it take to score a run?".

Still, I suggest that the best players are going to win the most games (duh!) and the best players go where they are paid the most. This paradigm will yield better results in the 25%(?) of the games wherein it's possible to make a difference.

 

[VTjkru]

What I define as parity is as many teams as possible with a shot to win it all in any given year. The NFL has it. Baseball doesn't.

It certainly feels that way but over the past 10 years the data does not support this conclusion.

Imagine a FF auction league where everyone gets $1,000 but the commissioner gets $10,000. He will have a great team. He almost certainly will make the play-offs, but a championship isn't guaranteed. Other people will assemble good teams or hit on a couple players. And, in head to head leagues, anything is possible. If he lost, does that prove the league to have a fair format?

Great analogy. That's pretty much how I see it. With good preseason management, a keen eye during in season management, and a few lucky breaks here or there, anyone can be successful in that format but that is not a parity driven league. Especially if you are playing a dynasty league with contracts and the league holds an auction for free agents every year which will allow the Commish to buy up all the great players year in and year out.

 

[pollardsvision]

I think the biggest issue is that in baseball, there is much less hope for any given team to compete for a title.

Let's look at the Astros - I don't realistically see them in a WS, or even in the playoffs really, in the next 3-5 years. They have to build a farm system for those years, and then compete for a year or two, lose all those players in FA to the big spenders, and hope that the farm system can continue to replace guys year in and year out. Pitching is, arguably, the most important position, so let's say that next year, they have one of the best pitchers in baseball. I still don't expect them to compete. Look at them with Oswalt the past few seasons...

Now, how about Oakland next for football. (I tried to pick a team that many would say made bad contract decisions, just like the Astros)

Now, let's give Oakland one of the top 10 quarterbacks next year. Do you think they make the playoffs? I do. Does that QB probably stay with the team for a long time? I think so. Do they stay competitive for a long time? I think so.

I would argue that's parity. I cannot conceive of a situation with the Astros in the WSl next year. I could see Oakland in the SB. I cannot conceive of the Royals in the WS next year. I could see Detroit in the SB. I cannot see how the Nationals make the WS next year. I could see the Panthers in the SB.

That's parity to me. Not simply a correlating number at the end of the season, but the hope at the beginning of the season, and during the season.

I think you bring up the very point that keeps the NFL from having the level of parity that people think it should have.True, you throw a top 10 QB on the Raiders and they would immediately be contenders. Problem is, how often do these guys change teams? Almost never. Even when they allegedly have a problem of sexually assaulting women in the NFL's most conservative market, they don't change teams.

They can come in the draft, but 1 or 2, in a great year, could come from that and they'll generally take a few years to develop.

More often than not, the hapless team takes a QB high, pays them alot (making salary cap actually hurt parity) only to see them bust and set the franchise back.

We've seen a great number franchises go decades between finding that great QB. It's a great thing that they stay put, for the few teams that actually have them.

You are right though, that NFL franchises can derive hope from the dream that they'll land one of these, though it never really happens. When that fails, having almost 40% of the league make the playoffs does help take the sting out of the failure to land the piece that'll make them true contenders.

Regarding the bolded, going market by market looking at great teams, competitive teams, and awful teams will not show the NFL as having more parity than MLB.

You mention the Astros and Nationals. Both of those teams play in big markets shouldn't have any problem coming up with money to spend. The Astros problem, for a long time, was spending way too much money on FA's and completely ignoring their farm system. It's because of that, and not being poor, that they won't be in the WS anytime soon. This is also the same franchise that lost the WS a little over 5 years ago.

The Nationals are still finding their way, but there's absolutely no reason they can't compete in the near future, even though it won't be this year.

The Royals won't be in the WS this year or likely anytime in the near future, but they do have the best farm system in baseball. They do comparable resources to the Rays and would be able to pull of a similar run to the Rays if they do things right.

 

[pollardsvision]

Here is how I would categorize markets based on how much "hope" their fans should have in the near future (say, over the next 3 seasons). Let me know with which you disagree.

Far more hope for the NFL Franchise (4):

Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Wisconsin (though the Brewers have the pieces to make a bigtime run this year), Kansas City, NY's "little brother market" (Jets vs. Mets)

Slightly more hope in the NFL (2):

Washington D.C (though the 'Skins are a trainwreck and the Nats are on the upswing, I'll generously give that one to the NFL), San Diego (this assuming that the 90-win Padres will fall apart)

Far more hope in MLB (6):

NY (Yanks v Giants), Detroit, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Louis, San Fran

Slightly more in MLB (4):

Toronto/Buffalo, Minnesota, Dallas/Arlington, Tampa (assuming the 96-win Rays completely fall apart)

More or less Equal (10):

Chicago, Houston, Miami, Boston, Atlanta, Arizona, Denver, Cleveland, Oakland, Seattle

Non-shared markets:

MLB: 2 solid franchises (both LA's) with nothing financially preventing them from being great, except an ugly divorce

NFL: 2 great franchises in NO and Indy (on the verge of a potential long period of stinking), 2 solid franchises (JAX, TEN), 1 horrible franchise (CAR).

So, by my count, that's 6 NFL fanbases with more hope, 10 MLB fanbases with more hope, and 10 that are roughly equal.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So...despite the outcome over the last 10 years showing things are relatively fair,

Still stuck on outcome. Correlation does not equal causation.THE OUTCOME DOES NOT PROVE FAIRNESS.

Doesn't that depend on how you define fair? It seems like there are two ways to go there from the arguments in this thread - fairness based on outcomes or fairness based on initial beginnings.On outcomes, the data is clear and unquestionable. Baseball has just as much parity as football when you account for the different playoff structure. I've posted this many times in the baseball forum and in the FFA when we talked about it there. When you account for the different amount of teams that make it to the playoffs, baseball has about 1 less team in the postseason than football over the past 12 years or so. I had initially done the first point on this debate from the beginning of free agency in football and in that review which has since been purged, the difference was like 4 teams. So in the end, there is almost no difference between the two leagues.What gets everyone's hair up is the noticable disparity in spending on player's salaries that we see in baseball that we don't see in football - but what we don't see is the noticable disparity in spending on other things that happens in football. I don't know how, in the end, you can make a fairness argument without the endgame being playoff appearances. What else is there? The goal is to win the title. To do that you have to make the post season. It seems to me that the most common sense way to measure it would be that way. I also disagree that you can flip that argument and say that if there is some measure of parity it's in spite of the system. Baseball has a luxury tax system in place to help even the playing field. You can't accept that this exists and then make an argument where it doesn't. To me, the reason most people argue the parity in baseball topic is because of the emotional reaction to the Yankees' payroll. Facts really don't matter there.But then you have the other way to do it - some measure of having a true chance to be a playoff team from the beginning. Well, starting from there is a problem because you can't define it, but even if you could, in this sense baseball and football are very different animals. Football is very much an instant gratification type of sport. Draft picks are expected to not only play right away but be good right away - especially the high picks. The season is short and they only play one game a week. Baseball is a long term process. Draft picks are expected to go in the minors for years, especially high picks and only those most rare of picks make it up within a year or so and manage to stay and reach star level. There is no instant gratification in baseball on the ame level with football. There are no minor leagues in football where baseball is built on a system of those minor leagues to bring players along slowly and develop them even after college.And then within that structure you have baseball being better than the NFL is handcuffing young players to teams for years before they have any chance of being a free agent. That doesn't exist in football's system anymore. Baseball requires most players excpet the very very small amount of Super-2's that ever exist to play for their team unless traded for what usually amounts to 5 years without chance of getting away. And since they also play more games and have a longer season, more goes into the actual mechanics of baseball than football has to deal with.So starting from the beginning and saying teams have no shot isn't fair to baseball which in some ways is specifically set up to account for that in that it has a minor league system to let teams develop over a longer period. System's that pretty much force the Rams to throw Sam Bradford into the fire immediately are different then system's that let the Nationals bring Stephen Strasburg along over the course of a few years. The top QB taken this year may start day 1 - there is almsot no chance that Bryce Harper is the starting everyday player for his team from day 1. It could happen though, but it's much more rare in baseball than in football.In the end, comparing the two isn't fair to either. In both sports the majority of teams have a true shot every year if they are run right and have some luck. Both leagues have cannon fodder. But they are structured so differently that it isn't an apples to apples comparision anyway. But hammering baseball for not being like football isn't based on facts and doesn't account for the fact that it can't be given the many leagues encompassed by one team and how the system operates from the draft on.

 

[Jersey35]

Teams are listed in order of total regular season wins from 2000-2010. The left number is the 2010 team payroll ranking for each organization. To the right of each team is the team's number of regular season wins from 2000-2010. Green listings are teams in the top 15 in payroll for 2010. Red listings are in to bottom 15 for payroll in 2010.

1 New York Yankees 965

2 Boston Red Sox 920

11 St. Louis Cardinals 913

8 Los Angeles Angels 900

15 Atlanta Braves 892

27 Oakland Athletics 890

13 Minnesota Twins 863

10 Los Angeles Dodgers 862

7 Chicago White Sox 857

9 San Francisco Giants 855

4 Philadelphia Phillies 850

14 Seattle Mariners 837

12 Houston Astros 832

24 Cleveland Indians 816

5 New York Mets 815

25 Florida Marlins 811

3 Chicago Cubs 807

28 Arizona Diamondbacks 805

23 Toronto Blue Jays 805

26 Texas Rangers 776

16 Colorado Rockies 769

29 San Diego Padres 769

21 Cincinnati Reds 751

18 Milwaukee Brewers 741

6 Detroit Tigers 729

22 Washington Nationals 711

17 Baltimore Orioles 698

19 Tampa Bay Rays 694

30 Pittsburgh Pirates 681

20 Kansas City Royals 672

While not a perfect comparison for many reasons, including that it doesn't take into account yearly team payrolls - instead just slapping 2010's numbers on the whole thing - I think the numbers are still compelling. I think it can be argued that generally speaking, overall team salary "commitment" has remained relatively static over the last decade. If you disagree, please feel free to do so.

Taking all of that into account, only two teams in the bottom half of the league in salary appear in the top half of the league in victories. Seems to me there is a very high correlation between payroll and success in MLB. That's not what parity looks like in my world, and this certainly doesn't have the look of a system that encourages parity.

*Edited to color-code the results for better clarity

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Here is how I would categorize markets based on how much "hope" their fans should have in the near future (say, over the next 3 seasons). Let me know with which you disagree.Far more hope for the NFL Franchise (4)ittsburgh, Baltimore, Wisconsin (though the Brewers have the pieces to make a bigtime run this year), Kansas City, NY's "little brother market" (Jets vs. Mets)

I disagree for what it's worth. The Brewers were recently a playoff team and should be back this year. I don't know if I categorize the Chiefs as good. The Mets have issues that go beyond baseball on the heals of an awful front office. The Pirates have no chance, agreed. The Orioles will be a playoff team within these next three years.

Slightly more hope in the NFL (2): Washington D.C (though the 'Skins are a trainwreck and the Nats are on the upswing, I'll generously give that one to the NFL), San Diego (this assuming that the 90-win Padres will fall apart)

I would argue the flip on D.C. I'd much rather be the Nationals than the Redskins. And why do you assume the Padres will fall apart? I don't. They were picked to be the bottom of the barrel last year and almost pulled it off.

Far more hope in MLB (6):NY (Yanks v Giants), Detroit, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Louis, San Fran

The Giants could be in the Super Bowl next year or go .500. The Yankees are going to implode one of these years with the age on the roster (most of us agree with that) and the Red Sox and Rays are still sitting there with the Blue Jays and Orioles getting better. You have focused on the salary. Let me put it this way - if you wanted me to give odds on the Yankees winning the World Series in the next 3 years vs. the Giants winning the Super Bowl, I agree I'd give better odds to the Yankees - but not far more as you have used your categories here.I disagree with putting the Tigers far ahead of the Lions for the next three years to be successful. The Phillies are better than the Eagles, but it's not like the Eagles are basement dwellers. The Reds are better than the Bengals - but the Bengals are the laughing stock team ala the Pirates. The Rams and Cardinals might be about even. The Cardinals are going to have an issue this year that could hurt them with Pujols while the Rams are on the upswing. As for San Francisco - the 49ers were picked by some to go to the Super Bowl last year while the Giants weren't considered anything too important. The exact opposite happened. They are far more even then you give them credit for.

Slightly more in MLB (4):Toronto/Buffalo, Minnesota, Dallas/Arlington, Tampa (assuming the 96-win Rays completely fall apart)

I would actually say Toronto/Buffalo should be far more for baseball. The Vikings are hard to guage, the Cowboys were considered a Super Bowl team and the Rangers weren't considered anything World Series level. And again, why assume the Rays fall apart? I think you are wrong on all of these.

More or less Equal (10):Chicago, Houston, Miami, Boston, Atlanta, Arizona, Denver, Cleveland, Oakland, Seattle

Bears-Cubs-White Sox is pretty even; Texans-Astros I'd give to the Texans; Patriots-Red Sox is even; Braves-Falcons I'd give to the Falcons because of the Phillies makeup right now and how that division is going to look for the next few years; Cardinals-Diamondbacks are even though both should start being better; Broncos-Rockies I'd probably give to the Rockies; Browns-Indians is even; Raiders-A's who knows - both could surprise the hell out of us either way; and Seahawks v Mariners you kinda have to give the Seahawks right now.

Non-shared markets:MLB: 2 solid franchises (both LA's) with nothing financially preventing them from being great, except an ugly divorceNFL: 2 great franchises in NO and Indy (on the verge of a potential long period of stinking), 2 solid franchises (JAX, TEN), 1 horrible franchise (CAR).

Ok I guess. Jacksonville may be in some trouble depending on the new CBA. Who knows what's going to happen in Tennessee now without Fisher.

So, by my count, that's 6 NFL fanbases with more hope, 10 MLB fanbases with more hope, and 10 that are roughly equal.

So I came out close to the opposite of you. Which again only proves the whole measuring from the beginning thing is too impossible to use instead of the measure of different playoff teams. I do agree that it would suck to be a Pirates or Royals fan right now and for the past decade. I don't think anyone would dispute that. It hasn't been all roses for the Lions and Bengals fans either.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Teams are listed in order of total regular season wins from 2000-2010. The left number is the 2010 team payroll ranking for each organization. To the left of each team is the team's number of regular season wins from 2000-2010. Green listings are teams in the top 15 in payroll for 2010. Red listings are in to bottom 15 for payroll in 2010.

1 New York Yankees 965

2 Boston Red Sox 920

11 St. Louis Cardinals 913

8 Los Angeles Angels 900

15 Atlanta Braves 892

27 Oakland Athletics 890

13 Minnesota Twins 863

10 Los Angeles Dodgers 862

7 Chicago White Sox 857

9 San Francisco Giants 855

4 Philadelphia Phillies 850

14 Seattle Mariners 837

12 Houston Astros 832

24 Cleveland Indians 816

5 New York Mets 815

25 Florida Marlins 811

3 Chicago Cubs 807

28 Arizona Diamondbacks 805

23 Toronto Blue Jays 805

26 Texas Rangers 776

16 Colorado Rockies 769

29 San Diego Padres 769

21 Cincinnati Reds 751

18 Milwaukee Brewers 741

6 Detroit Tigers 729

22 Washington Nationals 711

17 Baltimore Orioles 698

19 Tampa Bay Rays 694

30 Pittsburgh Pirates 681

20 Kansas City Royals 672

While not a perfect comparison for many reasons, including that it doesn't take into account yearly team payrolls - instead just slapping 2010's numbers on the whole thing - I think the numbers are still compelling. I think it can be argued that generally speaking, overall team salary "commitment" has remained relatively static over the last decade. If you disagree, please feel free to do so.

Taking all of that into account, only two teams in the bottom half of the league in salary appear in the top half of the league in victories. Seems to me there is a very high correlation between payroll and success in MLB. That's not what parity looks like in my world, and it certainly doesn't have the look of a system that encourages parity.

*Edited to color-code the results for better clarity

Well, starting where the list starts to get red - the Indians, you have the Indians that were a playoff team around 2000, the Mets that were and wer ein a World Series, the Marlins who have won a title, the Cubs who are an outlier but have been in the playoffs, the Diamondbacks who won a title, the Rangers who were in the Series last year, the Rockies, Padres Reds and Brewers that have all been playoff teams and/or been in the World Series, the Tigers who are a playoff team and the Rays who have been in a Series.So over the course of the decade you picked, almost every team on that list has been int he playoffs and more different ones won the World Series than the NFL. It's not in spite of the system in baseball, either.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Teams are listed in order of total regular season wins from 2000-2010. The left number is the 2010 team payroll ranking for each organization. To the left of each team is the team's number of regular season wins from 2000-2010. Green listings are teams in the top 15 in payroll for 2010. Red listings are in to bottom 15 for payroll in 2010.

1 New York Yankees 965

2 Boston Red Sox 920

11 St. Louis Cardinals 913

8 Los Angeles Angels 900

15 Atlanta Braves 892

27 Oakland Athletics 890

13 Minnesota Twins 863

10 Los Angeles Dodgers 862

7 Chicago White Sox 857

9 San Francisco Giants 855

4 Philadelphia Phillies 850

14 Seattle Mariners 837

12 Houston Astros 832

24 Cleveland Indians 816

5 New York Mets 815

25 Florida Marlins 811

3 Chicago Cubs 807

28 Arizona Diamondbacks 805

23 Toronto Blue Jays 805

26 Texas Rangers 776

16 Colorado Rockies 769

29 San Diego Padres 769

21 Cincinnati Reds 751

18 Milwaukee Brewers 741

6 Detroit Tigers 729

22 Washington Nationals 711

17 Baltimore Orioles 698

19 Tampa Bay Rays 694

30 Pittsburgh Pirates 681

20 Kansas City Royals 672

While not a perfect comparison for many reasons, including that it doesn't take into account yearly team payrolls - instead just slapping 2010's numbers on the whole thing - I think the numbers are still compelling. I think it can be argued that generally speaking, overall team salary "commitment" has remained relatively static over the last decade. If you disagree, please feel free to do so.

Taking all of that into account, only two teams in the bottom half of the league in salary appear in the top half of the league in victories. Seems to me there is a very high correlation between payroll and success in MLB. That's not what parity looks like in my world, and it certainly doesn't have the look of a system that encourages parity.

*Edited to color-code the results for better clarity

Well, starting where the list starts to get red - the Indians, you have the Indians that were a playoff team around 2000, the Mets that were and wer ein a World Series, the Marlins who have won a title, the Cubs who are an outlier but have been in the playoffs, the Diamondbacks who won a title, the Rangers who were in the Series last year, the Rockies, Padres Reds and Brewers that have all been playoff teams and/or been in the World Series, the Tigers who are a playoff team and the Rays who have been in a Series.So over the course of the decade you picked, almost every team on that list has been int he playoffs and more different ones won the World Series than the NFL. It's not in spite of the system in baseball, either.

Wow. Spoken like a true Yankee fan. In a league where "you win 1/3, and lose 1/3, its what you do in the other 1/3 that really matters", those numbers are striking. The last time the Indians won the AL was actually 1997. Shockingly, the Yankees won the AL in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.

Two teams out of the bottom 15 in payroll made the top 15 in wins over the last decade, with one squeaking in at #14. Try selling this to a fan base in one of those smaller 15 markets: "We'll probably make the playoffs once in the next decade. If we get real lucky, we could even win a series when we get there." Because thats really the truth of the matter.

 

[VTjkru]

Teams are listed in order of total regular season wins from 2000-2010. The left number is the 2010 team payroll ranking for each organization. To the left of each team is the team's number of regular season wins from 2000-2010. Green listings are teams in the top 15 in payroll for 2010. Red listings are in to bottom 15 for payroll in 2010.

1 New York Yankees 965

2 Boston Red Sox 920

11 St. Louis Cardinals 913

8 Los Angeles Angels 900

15 Atlanta Braves 892

27 Oakland Athletics 890

13 Minnesota Twins 863

10 Los Angeles Dodgers 862

7 Chicago White Sox 857

9 San Francisco Giants 855

4 Philadelphia Phillies 850

14 Seattle Mariners 837

12 Houston Astros 832

24 Cleveland Indians 816

5 New York Mets 815

25 Florida Marlins 811

3 Chicago Cubs 807

28 Arizona Diamondbacks 805

23 Toronto Blue Jays 805

26 Texas Rangers 776

16 Colorado Rockies 769

29 San Diego Padres 769

21 Cincinnati Reds 751

18 Milwaukee Brewers 741

6 Detroit Tigers 729

22 Washington Nationals 711

17 Baltimore Orioles 698

19 Tampa Bay Rays 694

30 Pittsburgh Pirates 681

20 Kansas City Royals 672

While not a perfect comparison for many reasons, including that it doesn't take into account yearly team payrolls - instead just slapping 2010's numbers on the whole thing - I think the numbers are still compelling. I think it can be argued that generally speaking, overall team salary "commitment" has remained relatively static over the last decade. If you disagree, please feel free to do so.

Taking all of that into account, only two teams in the bottom half of the league in salary appear in the top half of the league in victories. Seems to me there is a very high correlation between payroll and success in MLB. That's not what parity looks like in my world, and it certainly doesn't have the look of a system that encourages parity.

*Edited to color-code the results for better clarity

Wow

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

The original article overlooks a pretty big fact. Since 2000, the Yankees have won it twice, so has Boston. They are first and second in payroll respectively. The Yankees have also lost twice in the WS in that time frame. So the top 2 payroll clubs have taken 27% of the available WS spots since 2000, and have won it 36% of the time.

Clubs that currently have payroll in the top 12 have won 9 of the last 11 titles, (81%), and have made up 17 of the 22 participants (77%).

Here's your outliers:

Arizona 2001 Champs. Schilling & Johnson

Florida 2003 Champs. Ironically thought of as a team that bought a championship.

Colorado 2007 WS Losers.

Tampa Bay 2008 WS Losers.

Texas 2010 WS Losers.

On top of that, imagine Peyton Manning spending most of his career with the NY Giants. By now, Ben Roethlisberger would be the QB of the Jets, and Philip Rivers would be QBing the Redskins, and of course Aaron Rodgers would be an upcoming FA being eyed up by Detroit, San Francisco, and one of the Chicago teams. That's the system baseball has in place.

Or let's imagine Albert Haynesworth not sticking with the Titans. Or Barry Zito going from Oakland (where he won the Cy Young) to the Giants (where he's so awful they left him off the playoff roster).We can look at Tampa extending Longoria. Or Oakland extending Eric Chavez. Teams extend stars all the time.

People can think Florida bought a championship in 2003 but their payroll was in the bottom 10. I didn't do a breakdown of every team but I know the Angels weren't top 10 when they won their WS.

The Yankees had an incredibly dominant team in the late 90's/early 2000's. They had numerous all star players/hall of famers. Many were home grown. When you combine that with playing in a weak division (until recently no team outside the Yankees in that division did a good job developing talent) it equaled a gimmie playoff berth every year. Now that the other teams have caught up, you're seeing Tampa go toe to toe despite having a tiny payroll. Baltimore and Toronto have a great core and should contend in the next few years as well. This will soon be the toughest division in baseball.

Let's talk about those "home grown" players. Here's some realities unique to baseball. Players often fall in the draft due to signability issues. Small market teams picking near the top of the draft have passed on more talented players because they feared not being able to sign them. (See Scott Boras). This doesn't happen in football.

Some foreign players are not part of the MLB draft. They are free to sign with any team they wish. The good ones are always signed by the big market teams. No such thing exists in football.

Teams like the Yankees are able to employ a much larger scouting dept than small market teams. This is made even more important by the fact that baseball prospects come from High Schools, Colleges, the Dominican Republic etc. NFL teams have far fewer avenues that need to be scouted.

Honestly, I am Brewers and Packers fan. Here are the realities of both those situations as I see them:

The Packers just won a Superbowl, and will likely be able to keep every member of that team that they truly want to around for a long time. Most notably players like Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Clay Matthews, Nick Collins etc.

The Brewers went to the playoffs a few years ago on the back of a good offense and CC Sabathia. Despite repeatedly saying he didn't want to go to the Yankees, Sabathia did after they outbid everyone else by nearly 40 million. The Brewers could make another run this year, because once again they have "rented" another pitcher. Once this season is over however, they will lose their cleanup hitter (Prince Fielder), then they will likely lose Zack Greinke the year after that. They won't lose those players for any other reason other than financial ones, which in turn makes baseball an inferior product.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Wow. Spoken like a true Yankee fan.

In case you wonder in the future - this is where you lost any credibility you may have had and where I stopped paying attention to you...

 

[daveR]

Browns - Indians isn't close. It's Browns, because the Indians have zero chance anymore. Their (somewhat) recent success was due to an owner buying the team cheap, then getting the city to build him a stadium. His costs were minimal & he put his revenues into the team. The current owner paid WAY too much & has no money to work with.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Wow. Spoken like a true Yankee fan.

In case you wonder in the future - this is where you lost any credibility you may have had and where I stopped paying attention to you...

My god no. Not that!

 

[renesauz]

Teams are listed in order of total regular season wins from 2000-2010. The left number is the 2010 team payroll ranking for each organization. To the left of each team is the team's number of regular season wins from 2000-2010. Green listings are teams in the top 15 in payroll for 2010. Red listings are in to bottom 15 for payroll in 2010.

1 New York Yankees 965

2 Boston Red Sox 920

11 St. Louis Cardinals 913

8 Los Angeles Angels 900

15 Atlanta Braves 892

27 Oakland Athletics 890

13 Minnesota Twins 863

10 Los Angeles Dodgers 862

7 Chicago White Sox 857

9 San Francisco Giants 855

4 Philadelphia Phillies 850

14 Seattle Mariners 837

12 Houston Astros 832

24 Cleveland Indians 816

5 New York Mets 815

25 Florida Marlins 811

3 Chicago Cubs 807

28 Arizona Diamondbacks 805

23 Toronto Blue Jays 805

26 Texas Rangers 776

16 Colorado Rockies 769

29 San Diego Padres 769

21 Cincinnati Reds 751

18 Milwaukee Brewers 741

6 Detroit Tigers 729

22 Washington Nationals 711

17 Baltimore Orioles 698

19 Tampa Bay Rays 694

30 Pittsburgh Pirates 681

20 Kansas City Royals 672

While not a perfect comparison for many reasons, including that it doesn't take into account yearly team payrolls - instead just slapping 2010's numbers on the whole thing - I think the numbers are still compelling. I think it can be argued that generally speaking, overall team salary "commitment" has remained relatively static over the last decade. If you disagree, please feel free to do so.

Taking all of that into account, only two teams in the bottom half of the league in salary appear in the top half of the league in victories. Seems to me there is a very high correlation between payroll and success in MLB. That's not what parity looks like in my world, and it certainly doesn't have the look of a system that encourages parity.

*Edited to color-code the results for better clarity

Wow

NOt sure how anyone can realisticly argue with this. This data is very compelling, and goes to show how misleading the data supporting parity really is. This data is simple and straightforward, untempered by "playoff appearances" or "WS wins". It's just regular season wins...and far more compelling.

 

[DropKick]

Teams are listed in order of total regular season wins from 2000-2010. The left number is the 2010 team payroll ranking for each organization. To the left of each team is the team's number of regular season wins from 2000-2010. Green listings are teams in the top 15 in payroll for 2010. Red listings are in to bottom 15 for payroll in 2010.

1 New York Yankees 965

2 Boston Red Sox 920

11 St. Louis Cardinals 913

8 Los Angeles Angels 900

15 Atlanta Braves 892

27 Oakland Athletics 890

13 Minnesota Twins 863

10 Los Angeles Dodgers 862

7 Chicago White Sox 857

9 San Francisco Giants 855

4 Philadelphia Phillies 850

14 Seattle Mariners 837

12 Houston Astros 832

24 Cleveland Indians 816

5 New York Mets 815

25 Florida Marlins 811

3 Chicago Cubs 807

28 Arizona Diamondbacks 805

23 Toronto Blue Jays 805

26 Texas Rangers 776

16 Colorado Rockies 769

29 San Diego Padres 769

21 Cincinnati Reds 751

18 Milwaukee Brewers 741

6 Detroit Tigers 729

22 Washington Nationals 711

17 Baltimore Orioles 698

19 Tampa Bay Rays 694

30 Pittsburgh Pirates 681

20 Kansas City Royals 672

While not a perfect comparison for many reasons, including that it doesn't take into account yearly team payrolls - instead just slapping 2010's numbers on the whole thing - I think the numbers are still compelling. I think it can be argued that generally speaking, overall team salary "commitment" has remained relatively static over the last decade. If you disagree, please feel free to do so.

Taking all of that into account, only two teams in the bottom half of the league in salary appear in the top half of the league in victories. Seems to me there is a very high correlation between payroll and success in MLB. That's not what parity looks like in my world, and it certainly doesn't have the look of a system that encourages parity.

*Edited to color-code the results for better clarity

Well, starting where the list starts to get red - the Indians, you have the Indians that were a playoff team around 2000, the Mets that were and wer ein a World Series, the Marlins who have won a title, the Cubs who are an outlier but have been in the playoffs, the Diamondbacks who won a title, the Rangers who were in the Series last year, the Rockies, Padres Reds and Brewers that have all been playoff teams and/or been in the World Series, the Tigers who are a playoff team and the Rays who have been in a Series.So over the course of the decade you picked, almost every team on that list has been int he playoffs and more different ones won the World Series than the NFL. It's not in spite of the system in baseball, either.

The parity issue in baseball lives in the AL East.I'm sure you're trying to add some value but all I hear is a Yankee fan saying "these teams won one year or made the play-offs once or sniffed the play-offs another... they should be happy and it proves MLB has parity. Sure, the Yankees have a bloated payroll and make the play-offs annualy BUT they don't always win the WS. That proves the system is fair".

I think its a huge rationalization to gloss over the "advantage" going into the season because other teams around the league make the play-offs with some regularity. Someone has to win the Central, right?

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Not sure how anyone can realisticly argue with this. This data is very compelling, and goes to show how misleading the data supporting parity really is. This data is simple and straightforward, untempered by "playoff appearances" or "WS wins". It's just regular season wins...and far more compelling.

These are some preliminary problems with the above analysis that, taken as a whole or individually, should dismiss the merits of its "compelling" conclusions:1. The object of baseball is more than just "winning a game".. but to win more games than your immediate competition (i.e. division rivals). A discussion about parity would have to have that in mind. For two reasons:

(i) if my team can do well on low payroll and low wins (because my rivals win even less), then how is that "unequal"? In the extreme, a low win team in a bad division can get in the playoffs more likely than a high-win team in a good one. If anything that is reverse inequality. I'm not suggesting this extreme case is common. But what I am suggesting that the above analysis presumes "wins" is a good metric for measuring parity. It may. It may not. Many of us have implicitly argued that looking at outputs like playoff births are a better metric for parity because they incorporate more information (i.e., they reflect this divisional dynamic);

(ii) I may end up winning less games by choice. It's not some constraint imposed on me by the league's economics, which is the connotation of inequality. It is the rational choice based on the actions of my immediate competitors. It produces a "good" outcome for our fans.

2. The "analysis" compares averages with a ranking which was based on a single observation -- terrible statistics any way you slice it.

3. The "analysis" completely ignores other differences between the teams, such as quality of farm system and quality of coaches, etc, which may be correlated with payroll, or uncorrelated. If they are uncorrelated, leaving them out may completely miss the real picture of what is going on. For instance, any correlation between payroll and wins may be purely coincidental; rather, its the strength of the farm system that drives team wins (e.g. the discussion regarding the great Yankee system, which affords them the luxury of signing stopgap free agents). Not saying this is necessarily the case, but the analysis above makes the presumption it is not, without any data supporting it. This doesn't get us anywhere.

4. Drawing conclusions about being in the top15 or bottom 15 is completely arbitrary. Has the author of this "analysis" explained why the 15th ranked spender is to be regarded as any different from the 16th ranked team? (i.e., why should we care if we are in the top half of payrolls, and not the top 20 percent, or top 60 percent? It may well be that just avoiding the bottom 20 percent makes all the difference in the world). If I kept the exact same nonsensical numbers, but divided it into quintiles (a more common breakdown for labor statistics, for instance), all of a sudden the conclusions change considerably. The spread looks far more random, with each quintile being represented among the winningest teams.

5. There is a massive endogeneity problem here. That is, it may be that a team's prospects drive their payroll... not the other way around. Teams often invest the off-season before they think they can "put it all together." Bad teams don't even bother investing in players because it is simply not worth it -- until they develop a nucleus of young talent, or good pitchers, it makes no sense to invest in a lot of stop-gap free agents. This decision to invest or not also brings into account the quality of the teams in your division. So money won't make a team good, but money can make a good team have better odds at making the playoffs. This is implicitly one of the arguments that was made for parity (and hence explains the appeal of playoff data).

[Another possible endogeneity problem is that high spenders may simply have some talents that are unobservable, like the ability to discern good free agents from bad ones. Thus it may not be the spending per se that is producing more wins, but GM's in high-win (well-run) organizations choose to spend more money in the offseason because their returns on their investment will be higher.]

I've argued here three things. First, the inherent presumption behind the analysis has already been implicitly contested in this thread (i.e. wins are not the best metric for measuring parity). Second, even if wins were decided upon as the best metric, the methodology used here is amateurish, which will butcher any accuracy of its findings. Third, if one sees a correlation between wins and payroll through all this, it is largely spurious: the conclusions reached are based on additional (tacit) presumptions which also have been previously contested in this thread.

It goes to show you how people see only the things they want to see.

If looked at objectively, this "analysis" just puts up a bunch of numbers, under which hide all the contested presumptions that have been discussed over the past few days, and thus adds zero to our understanding about the nature of parity in baseball.

I'll present an alternative analysis shortly, which addresses some of these shortcomings.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The parity issue in baseball lives in the AL East.

This is true. The Yankees are the emotional target for the debate and the Red Sox have joined in. As a result the Rays, Blue Jays and Orioles have a gripe and become the focal point for the discussion moreso than the Royals and Pirates. On the flip side, The Orioles were a long term contender in the 90's, the Blue Jays won two titles and the Rays have recently been in the Series. None of them are the Washington Senators.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Teams are listed in order of total regular season wins from 2000-2010. The left number is the 2010 team payroll ranking for each organization. To the left of each team is the team's number of regular season wins from 2000-2010. Green listings are teams in the top 15 in payroll for 2010. Red listings are in to bottom 15 for payroll in 2010.

1 New York Yankees 965

2 Boston Red Sox 920

11 St. Louis Cardinals 913

8 Los Angeles Angels 900

15 Atlanta Braves 892

27 Oakland Athletics 890

13 Minnesota Twins 863

10 Los Angeles Dodgers 862

7 Chicago White Sox 857

9 San Francisco Giants 855

4 Philadelphia Phillies 850

14 Seattle Mariners 837

12 Houston Astros 832

24 Cleveland Indians 816

5 New York Mets 815

25 Florida Marlins 811

3 Chicago Cubs 807

28 Arizona Diamondbacks 805

23 Toronto Blue Jays 805

26 Texas Rangers 776

16 Colorado Rockies 769

29 San Diego Padres 769

21 Cincinnati Reds 751

18 Milwaukee Brewers 741

6 Detroit Tigers 729

22 Washington Nationals 711

17 Baltimore Orioles 698

19 Tampa Bay Rays 694

30 Pittsburgh Pirates 681

20 Kansas City Royals 672

While not a perfect comparison for many reasons, including that it doesn't take into account yearly team payrolls - instead just slapping 2010's numbers on the whole thing - I think the numbers are still compelling. I think it can be argued that generally speaking, overall team salary "commitment" has remained relatively static over the last decade. If you disagree, please feel free to do so.

Taking all of that into account, only two teams in the bottom half of the league in salary appear in the top half of the league in victories. Seems to me there is a very high correlation between payroll and success in MLB. That's not what parity looks like in my world, and it certainly doesn't have the look of a system that encourages parity.

*Edited to color-code the results for better clarity

Wow

NOt sure how anyone can realisticly argue with this.

Because in many ways its faults significantly outweigh it usefullness. It's far from compelling and rather useless.

 

[pollardsvision]

While "the list" appears compelling, it highlights a point that the MLB parity defenders haven't really disputed. Payroll is obviously a large factor in a team's success. Clearly, not the only factor, but certainly a factor.

The point, however, is that despite these payroll influences in MLB, they still somehow end up having parity on par with the NFL (except, possibly, for those that have now defined "parity" as "unpredictability").

The NFL has parity problems of it's own (if we make the bold assumption that parity is a good thing). It's just not as much payroll driven as it is in MLB.

It sounds like alot of people are saying that they don't care about the relative lack of parity in the NFL, just so long as that lack of parity isn't payroll driven.

I can see that.

I'm sure that makes long periods of stinking, which are just as frequent in the NFL as the MLB, much easier to stomach, knowing it's not payroll driven.

The AFC title game hasn't been won by a team outside of the Patriots, Steelers, or Colts 9 freakin' years, but in that time, many teams have been jockeying with each other to be the best of the mediocre. With so many teams making the playoffs and so many of them being in the hunt all year, it's very easy for a team's fanbase to feel like that year mattered, even if it didn't really.

You make a list of team wins by decade for the NFL and the differences will be just as stark, but payroll/revenue won't be such a factor. There are 4 NFL teams that won about 65% of their games or more and 5 teams that won less than 39% of their games.

Funny thing is, one of the things people love about the NFL, imo, is the main cause of this lack of parity. Good NFL players don't change teams that often in the NFL, especially QBs.

This system is fantastic for teams with great QBs and other players. But it certainly isn't good for teams without them.

There are about 10, maybe 12, QBs you can reasonably expect to win a SB with. In reality, this hurts parity, but it also gives a greater sense of parity in some ways. You may not have a great QB, but neither does 2/3rds of the league. This allows teams with no shot feel like they have a shot because they fight it out with other teams with no shot.

But I digress. The NFL does have issues with parity, but payroll isn't a factor. There are clearly other issues at play, but those issues don't seem to bother most people.

I get it and it makes perfect sense to feel that way.

On MLB's end, the payroll differences are drastic and the Yanks payroll can be unseemly, but they produce are certain level of parity despite it. A surprising amount, really. The nature of the sport allows for this. Poor teams can build great farm systems, hang on to those players until they are around 28 years old, and come up with enough money to sign a few free-agents when the prospects are ready. A very common trap that richer teams fall into is trading prospects overpaying for a bunch of FA's that are about to be past their primes only to miss their window and be hamstrung. The Yankees did this. The Astros did this. The Cubs did this. The Phillies are doing this as we speak. The Sox might be too.

MLB's system isn't perfect and it might not work in football, but it seems to work pretty well.

 

[pollardsvision]

The Phillies make for a good case study in the limited usefulness of that list. That list just shows them as a team with a huge payroll and a bunch of wins. The story's a bit more complicated than that though.

The Phillies began the decade with a tiny payroll, marred in decades of futility. How did they turn it around? They didn't sign a bunch of overpriced FA's. They built like crazy from within. They developed Utley, Howard, Victorino, Rollins, Hamels, Burrell, and Myers from within, while buying low on Werth and Lidge.

Now, they sell out every game and have a huge payroll. But it wasn't that way at the beginning of the decade. They built it and the fans came, giving them the ability to sustain it for a long time.

Even more interesting, they started shelling out big bucks to keep those guys around, which will, imo, be their downfall. They are about to have a very old, expensive team that in a couple of years, won't be able to compete.

They'll be chasing the Braves soon who, as always are building from within and will add the right FAs as they come up (but never the top dollar ones). The Marlins are also gearing up for a major run in the next couple of years. They won't have to worry about the Mets and their huge payroll though.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

The MLB system is patently unfair. If you want to do a results-oriented analysis of 'parity', I'm sure you can find stats to prove your thesis.

Frankly, I don't care about the 'lack of parity' in the NFL, because if there is a lack of parity, it is because some teams have better ownership/front office/coaches/management. These are all skills I value.

In baseball, if there is a lack of parity, it is because of those things AND payroll. I'm sorry if I don't value the good fortune of being in a large market and the ability to outspend your opponents. That is the kind of dis-parity we are talking about in reference to baseball.

 

[dparker713]

What you are saying states that the records are subjected to more "equality/parity" based upon the nature of the sport of baseball itself. Which I'm far more willing to buy into then MLB having more parity then the NFL. The sport may indeed, but the league does not.

No, what I was saying was that your data needs context because a .550 winning percentage in MLB and the NFL have very different values.Plus, its absurd to attempt to separate baseball and MLB in this discussion.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What you are saying states that the records are subjected to more "equality/parity" based upon the nature of the sport of baseball itself.

Which I'm far more willing to buy into then MLB having more parity then the NFL. The sport may indeed, but the league does not.

No, what I was saying was that your data needs context because a .550 winning percentage in MLB and the NFL have very different values.Plus, its absurd to attempt to separate baseball and MLB in this discussion.

You were the one that picked on the Seahawks 7-9 being an indicator of the leagues parities... I simply extrapolated each of their lowest playoff win-loss percentages. It was your data that needed context, it was your supposition. I simply stated/showed over 10 years the win-loss percentage of the lowest playoff team is far worse in pro baseball then it is pro football.

 

[dparker713]

The MLB system is patently unfair. If you want to do a results-oriented analysis of 'parity', I'm sure you can find stats to prove your thesis.Frankly, I don't care about the 'lack of parity' in the NFL, because if there is a lack of parity, it is because some teams have better ownership/front office/coaches/management. These are all skills I value.In baseball, if there is a lack of parity, it is because of those things AND payroll. I'm sorry if I don't value the good fortune of being in a large market and the ability to outspend your opponents. That is the kind of dis-parity we are talking about in reference to baseball.

Kind of like having the ability to spend $5 mil a year on a coach, $1 mil for each coordinator, spending every last cent of the cap, and having plenty of cash flow to sign any FA you can fit under the cap? The financial disparity in the NFL is not as wide as MLB, but when you include all team expenses its much closer than it appears just based upon player salaries. Sure the NLF derives a majority of its income from shared revenue, but its what 45% based upon team ticket sales, concessions, etc. Do you really think that the Cowboys and their 100k seat stadium don't enjoy a considerable advantage over the Jags who have to tarp large sections of their stadium and still have blackout problems? Prefer one to the other, I don't care. But payroll of the entire team matters in football just like baseball - maybe not to the same degree, but it does matter.

 

[eoMMan]

The MLB system is patently unfair. If you want to do a results-oriented analysis of 'parity', I'm sure you can find stats to prove your thesis.Frankly, I don't care about the 'lack of parity' in the NFL, because if there is a lack of parity, it is because some teams have better ownership/front office/coaches/management. These are all skills I value.In baseball, if there is a lack of parity, it is because of those things AND payroll. I'm sorry if I don't value the good fortune of being in a large market and the ability to outspend your opponents. That is the kind of dis-parity we are talking about in reference to baseball.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But payroll of the entire team matters in football just like baseball - maybe not to the same degree, but it does matter.

Absolutely.And some teams could spend a ton on every facet and could continue to suck regardless of money spent.

 

[eoMMan]

The MLB system is patently unfair. If you want to do a results-oriented analysis of 'parity', I'm sure you can find stats to prove your thesis.Frankly, I don't care about the 'lack of parity' in the NFL, because if there is a lack of parity, it is because some teams have better ownership/front office/coaches/management. These are all skills I value.In baseball, if there is a lack of parity, it is because of those things AND payroll. I'm sorry if I don't value the good fortune of being in a large market and the ability to outspend your opponents. That is the kind of dis-parity we are talking about in reference to baseball.

Kind of like having the ability to spend $5 mil a year on a coach, $1 mil for each coordinator, spending every last cent of the cap, and having plenty of cash flow to sign any FA you can fit under the cap? The financial disparity in the NFL is not as wide as MLB, but when you include all team expenses its much closer than it appears just based upon player salaries. Sure the NLF derives a majority of its income from shared revenue, but its what 45% based upon team ticket sales, concessions, etc. Do you really think that the Cowboys and their 100k seat stadium don't enjoy a considerable advantage over the Jags who have to tarp large sections of their stadium and still have blackout problems? Prefer one to the other, I don't care. But payroll of the entire team matters in football just like baseball - maybe not to the same degree, but it does matter.

Yankess fan?Payroll in the NFL comes no where close to importance as it is in MLB in regards to parity.

 

[dparker713]

What you are saying states that the records are subjected to more "equality/parity" based upon the nature of the sport of baseball itself.

Which I'm far more willing to buy into then MLB having more parity then the NFL. The sport may indeed, but the league does not.

No, what I was saying was that your data needs context because a .550 winning percentage in MLB and the NFL have very different values.Plus, its absurd to attempt to separate baseball and MLB in this discussion.

You were the one that picked on the Seahawks 7-9 being an indicator of the leagues parities... I simply extrapolated each of their lowest playoff win-loss percentages. It was your data that needed context, it was your supposition. I simply stated/showed over 10 years the win-loss percentage of the lowest playoff team is far worse in pro baseball then it is pro football.

I did not pick the Seahawks as an indicator of league parity. I picked them as an example of a mediocre team that made the playoffs. I merely claimed that because 37.5% of the NFL makes the playoffs versus 26.7% in MLB that its easier for a mediocre team to make the playoffs in the NFL and provided the example of the Seahawks at 7-9. Stands to reason that even with the divisions preventing the best teams (by record) in both leagues from making the playoffs, a league with 37.5% of its participants making the playoffs will have more mediocre teams in the playoffs than a league with 26.7% merely by virtue of the percentage of playoff participants, despite divisional inequities.

And besides, beyond your data not being normalized to allow for a meaningful comparison of the data sets, the choice of data sets is fairly uninformative as it only looks at the teams with the lowest winning percentages to make the playoffs instead of examining all the teams that make the playoffs.

 

[dparker713]

The original article overlooks a pretty big fact. Since 2000, the Yankees have won it twice, so has Boston. They are first and second in payroll respectively. The Yankees have also lost twice in the WS in that time frame. So the top 2 payroll clubs have taken 27% of the available WS spots since 2000, and have won it 36% of the time.

Clubs that currently have payroll in the top 12 have won 9 of the last 11 titles, (81%), and have made up 17 of the 22 participants (77%).

Here's your outliers:

Arizona 2001 Champs. Schilling & Johnson

Florida 2003 Champs. Ironically thought of as a team that bought a championship.

Colorado 2007 WS Losers.

Tampa Bay 2008 WS Losers.

Texas 2010 WS Losers.

On top of that, imagine Peyton Manning spending most of his career with the NY Giants. By now, Ben Roethlisberger would be the QB of the Jets, and Philip Rivers would be QBing the Redskins, and of course Aaron Rodgers would be an upcoming FA being eyed up by Detroit, San Francisco, and one of the Chicago teams. That's the system baseball has in place.

Or let's imagine Albert Haynesworth not sticking with the Titans. Or Barry Zito going from Oakland (where he won the Cy Young) to the Giants (where he's so awful they left him off the playoff roster).We can look at Tampa extending Longoria. Or Oakland extending Eric Chavez. Teams extend stars all the time.

People can think Florida bought a championship in 2003 but their payroll was in the bottom 10. I didn't do a breakdown of every team but I know the Angels weren't top 10 when they won their WS.

The Yankees had an incredibly dominant team in the late 90's/early 2000's. They had numerous all star players/hall of famers. Many were home grown. When you combine that with playing in a weak division (until recently no team outside the Yankees in that division did a good job developing talent) it equaled a gimmie playoff berth every year. Now that the other teams have caught up, you're seeing Tampa go toe to toe despite having a tiny payroll. Baltimore and Toronto have a great core and should contend in the next few years as well. This will soon be the toughest division in baseball.

Let's talk about those "home grown" players. Here's some realities unique to baseball. Players often fall in the draft due to signability issues. Small market teams picking near the top of the draft have passed on more talented players because they feared not being able to sign them. (See Scott Boras). This doesn't happen in football.

Some foreign players are not part of the MLB draft. They are free to sign with any team they wish. The good ones are always signed by the big market teams. No such thing exists in football.

Teams like the Yankees are able to employ a much larger scouting dept than small market teams. This is made even more important by the fact that baseball prospects come from High Schools, Colleges, the Dominican Republic etc. NFL teams have far fewer avenues that need to be scouted.

Honestly, I am Brewers and Packers fan. Here are the realities of both those situations as I see them:

The Packers just won a Superbowl, and will likely be able to keep every member of that team that they truly want to around for a long time. Most notably players like Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Clay Matthews, Nick Collins etc.

The Brewers went to the playoffs a few years ago on the back of a good offense and CC Sabathia. Despite repeatedly saying he didn't want to go to the Yankees, Sabathia did after they outbid everyone else by nearly 40 million. The Brewers could make another run this year, because once again they have "rented" another pitcher. Once this season is over however, they will lose their cleanup hitter (Prince Fielder), then they will likely lose Zack Greinke the year after that. They won't lose those players for any other reason other than financial ones, which in turn makes baseball an inferior product.

While some large market teams used to dominate spending in the Rule IV draft, this is no longer the case as many small market teams have focused their spending on acquiring talent through the draft and international signings, instead of wasting money on middle of the road FAs. Yes, there are some players that still slip due to signability issues because some teams attempt to stick to the slotting system the commissioner's office has tried to propogate, but those players generally fall because many teams don't believe those players are worth the investment for which they are seeking. But whereas those players would realistically only wind up with a handful of teams, now there are several more teams willing to spend well over slot. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox now have competition from the Pirates, Rays, Nationals and others.Also, the foreign player market is not dominated by the big spending clubs anymore. The biggest foreign signee of the last several years was Aroldis Chapman, and the Reds signed him. Small market teams regularly compete to sign the best international amatuers, winning their fair share of the negotiations.

You also realize that NFL teams lose players due to financial reasons, right? Teams have to stay under a salary cap, so yes while its easier to keep a core together throughout the life of their useful careers, how big is that core really? 5-10 guys maybe? And how long does a player contribute at a high enough level to be considered a core player, outside of QBs its what 2-3 years generally? As for your example of Fielder and the Brewers, they could afford to pay him whatever he's seeking, just as they could of afforded to pay CC, but instead they choose Braun and Hart and Weeks as their core. They're on a budget, just like the Red Sox, just like the Packers, just like the Cowboys, just like the Bills, just like the Yankees. When you're on a budget you make choices how to allocate your resources. This year the Brewers will likely lose Fielder because they've chosen to devote resources in other places and because the team and the player do not agree on what the player is worth. Thats no different from how those decisions are made in the NFL.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

The original article overlooks a pretty big fact. Since 2000, the Yankees have won it twice, so has Boston. They are first and second in payroll respectively. The Yankees have also lost twice in the WS in that time frame. So the top 2 payroll clubs have taken 27% of the available WS spots since 2000, and have won it 36% of the time.

Clubs that currently have payroll in the top 12 have won 9 of the last 11 titles, (81%), and have made up 17 of the 22 participants (77%).

Here's your outliers:

Arizona 2001 Champs. Schilling & Johnson

Florida 2003 Champs. Ironically thought of as a team that bought a championship.

Colorado 2007 WS Losers.

Tampa Bay 2008 WS Losers.

Texas 2010 WS Losers.

On top of that, imagine Peyton Manning spending most of his career with the NY Giants. By now, Ben Roethlisberger would be the QB of the Jets, and Philip Rivers would be QBing the Redskins, and of course Aaron Rodgers would be an upcoming FA being eyed up by Detroit, San Francisco, and one of the Chicago teams. That's the system baseball has in place.

Or let's imagine Albert Haynesworth not sticking with the Titans. Or Barry Zito going from Oakland (where he won the Cy Young) to the Giants (where he's so awful they left him off the playoff roster).We can look at Tampa extending Longoria. Or Oakland extending Eric Chavez. Teams extend stars all the time.

People can think Florida bought a championship in 2003 but their payroll was in the bottom 10. I didn't do a breakdown of every team but I know the Angels weren't top 10 when they won their WS.

The Yankees had an incredibly dominant team in the late 90's/early 2000's. They had numerous all star players/hall of famers. Many were home grown. When you combine that with playing in a weak division (until recently no team outside the Yankees in that division did a good job developing talent) it equaled a gimmie playoff berth every year. Now that the other teams have caught up, you're seeing Tampa go toe to toe despite having a tiny payroll. Baltimore and Toronto have a great core and should contend in the next few years as well. This will soon be the toughest division in baseball.

Let's talk about those "home grown" players. Here's some realities unique to baseball. Players often fall in the draft due to signability issues. Small market teams picking near the top of the draft have passed on more talented players because they feared not being able to sign them. (See Scott Boras). This doesn't happen in football.

Some foreign players are not part of the MLB draft. They are free to sign with any team they wish. The good ones are always signed by the big market teams. No such thing exists in football.

Teams like the Yankees are able to employ a much larger scouting dept than small market teams. This is made even more important by the fact that baseball prospects come from High Schools, Colleges, the Dominican Republic etc. NFL teams have far fewer avenues that need to be scouted.

Honestly, I am Brewers and Packers fan. Here are the realities of both those situations as I see them:

The Packers just won a Superbowl, and will likely be able to keep every member of that team that they truly want to around for a long time. Most notably players like Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Clay Matthews, Nick Collins etc.

The Brewers went to the playoffs a few years ago on the back of a good offense and CC Sabathia. Despite repeatedly saying he didn't want to go to the Yankees, Sabathia did after they outbid everyone else by nearly 40 million. The Brewers could make another run this year, because once again they have "rented" another pitcher. Once this season is over however, they will lose their cleanup hitter (Prince Fielder), then they will likely lose Zack Greinke the year after that. They won't lose those players for any other reason other than financial ones, which in turn makes baseball an inferior product.

While some large market teams used to dominate spending in the Rule IV draft, this is no longer the case as many small market teams have focused their spending on acquiring talent through the draft and international signings, instead of wasting money on middle of the road FAs. Yes, there are some players that still slip due to signability issues because some teams attempt to stick to the slotting system the commissioner's office has tried to propogate, but those players generally fall because many teams don't believe those players are worth the investment for which they are seeking. But whereas those players would realistically only wind up with a handful of teams, now there are several more teams willing to spend well over slot. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox now have competition from the Pirates, Rays, Nationals and others.Also, the foreign player market is not dominated by the big spending clubs anymore. The biggest foreign signee of the last several years was Aroldis Chapman, and the Reds signed him. Small market teams regularly compete to sign the best international amatuers, winning their fair share of the negotiations.

You also realize that NFL teams lose players due to financial reasons, right? Teams have to stay under a salary cap, so yes while its easier to keep a core together throughout the life of their useful careers, how big is that core really? 5-10 guys maybe? And how long does a player contribute at a high enough level to be considered a core player, outside of QBs its what 2-3 years generally? As for your example of Fielder and the Brewers, they could afford to pay him whatever he's seeking, just as they could of afforded to pay CC, but instead they choose Braun and Hart and Weeks as their core. They're on a budget, just like the Red Sox, just like the Packers, just like the Cowboys, just like the Bills, just like the Yankees. When you're on a budget you make choices how to allocate your resources. This year the Brewers will likely lose Fielder because they've chosen to devote resources in other places and because the team and the player do not agree on what the player is worth. Thats no different from how those decisions are made in the NFL.

The difference between the NFL and MLB lies in exactly this case however. If the Packers had a player the same caliber as Fielder, they would never lose him due to financial constraints. He would be deemed a core player and not be lost.

"Core" players have been lost in the NFL, (Haynesworth as and example), but its generally because the team decided he wasn't worth the risk of the financial burden. Its also much more rare that "core" players are lost in the NFL.

Others in this thread have made the point I totally agree with. Parity doesn't exist in MLB because of two main reasons. First and foremost are financial reasons, and second because of player procurement. If parity is lacking in the NFL its because the front office/ownership is lacking. I'd much rather be a fan of a league where an organizations skill from top to bottom matters more than their ability to collect revenues due to the size of their market.

For the record, the Brewers have been drawing +/- 3 million fans for the last few years. When I go to the games, Brewer jerseys/shirts are everywhere, and people are spending money on concessions etc. Fan support is strong here. The problem lies in market size. Milwaukee's population is less than 1 million. New Yorks' is greater than 8 million. I'm sure once you consider the surrounding areas, the difference is even more exaggerated.

 

[DropKick]

The parity issue in baseball lives in the AL East.

This is true. The Yankees are the emotional target for the debate and the Red Sox have joined in. As a result the Rays, Blue Jays and Orioles have a gripe and become the focal point for the discussion moreso than the Royals and Pirates. On the flip side, The Orioles were a long term contender in the 90's, the Blue Jays won two titles and the Rays have recently been in the Series. None of them are the Washington Senators.

Yes, the Orioles and Jays were once dominant. But they would have to catch lightening in a bottle to win that division now or anytime soon... The business of baseball has changed. I don't see either team backing off the spend rate - not with cable ratings at stake. No surprise if NY & Boston are paired in the ALCS with the winner playing Philly. Give me the the 70-80's when the Reds, Athletics, Pirates, Royals, Orioles and others won the WS. I was thrilled by a Rangers/Giants pairing! I measure parity by fairness of the system. If you insist on focusing only on results... the NFC has sent 10 different teams to the SB in the last decade. Can't get more varied than that folks...

Green Bay

New Orleans

Arizona

NYG

Bears

Seahawks

Eagles

Panthers

Bucs

Rams

In the same time, The AFC has sent 4 with repeat appearances by New England (4), Pittsburgh (3) and Indy (2). Over this decade, Manning and Brady were considered the top QBs in the game. A team's dominance - especially over a short period of time is not unusual - and it's certainly NOT evidence of a lack of parity.

 

[DropKick]

The original article overlooks a pretty big fact. Since 2000, the Yankees have won it twice, so has Boston. They are first and second in payroll respectively. The Yankees have also lost twice in the WS in that time frame. So the top 2 payroll clubs have taken 27% of the available WS spots since 2000, and have won it 36% of the time.

Clubs that currently have payroll in the top 12 have won 9 of the last 11 titles, (81%), and have made up 17 of the 22 participants (77%).

Here's your outliers:

Arizona 2001 Champs. Schilling & Johnson

Florida 2003 Champs. Ironically thought of as a team that bought a championship.

Colorado 2007 WS Losers.

Tampa Bay 2008 WS Losers.

Texas 2010 WS Losers.

On top of that, imagine Peyton Manning spending most of his career with the NY Giants. By now, Ben Roethlisberger would be the QB of the Jets, and Philip Rivers would be QBing the Redskins, and of course Aaron Rodgers would be an upcoming FA being eyed up by Detroit, San Francisco, and one of the Chicago teams. That's the system baseball has in place.

Or let's imagine Albert Haynesworth not sticking with the Titans. Or Barry Zito going from Oakland (where he won the Cy Young) to the Giants (where he's so awful they left him off the playoff roster).We can look at Tampa extending Longoria. Or Oakland extending Eric Chavez. Teams extend stars all the time.

People can think Florida bought a championship in 2003 but their payroll was in the bottom 10. I didn't do a breakdown of every team but I know the Angels weren't top 10 when they won their WS.

The Yankees had an incredibly dominant team in the late 90's/early 2000's. They had numerous all star players/hall of famers. Many were home grown. When you combine that with playing in a weak division (until recently no team outside the Yankees in that division did a good job developing talent) it equaled a gimmie playoff berth every year. Now that the other teams have caught up, you're seeing Tampa go toe to toe despite having a tiny payroll. Baltimore and Toronto have a great core and should contend in the next few years as well. This will soon be the toughest division in baseball.

Let's talk about those "home grown" players. Here's some realities unique to baseball. Players often fall in the draft due to signability issues. Small market teams picking near the top of the draft have passed on more talented players because they feared not being able to sign them. (See Scott Boras). This doesn't happen in football.

Some foreign players are not part of the MLB draft. They are free to sign with any team they wish. The good ones are always signed by the big market teams. No such thing exists in football.

Teams like the Yankees are able to employ a much larger scouting dept than small market teams. This is made even more important by the fact that baseball prospects come from High Schools, Colleges, the Dominican Republic etc. NFL teams have far fewer avenues that need to be scouted.

Honestly, I am Brewers and Packers fan. Here are the realities of both those situations as I see them:

The Packers just won a Superbowl, and will likely be able to keep every member of that team that they truly want to around for a long time. Most notably players like Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Clay Matthews, Nick Collins etc.

The Brewers went to the playoffs a few years ago on the back of a good offense and CC Sabathia. Despite repeatedly saying he didn't want to go to the Yankees, Sabathia did after they outbid everyone else by nearly 40 million. The Brewers could make another run this year, because once again they have "rented" another pitcher. Once this season is over however, they will lose their cleanup hitter (Prince Fielder), then they will likely lose Zack Greinke the year after that. They won't lose those players for any other reason other than financial ones, which in turn makes baseball an inferior product.

While some large market teams used to dominate spending in the Rule IV draft, this is no longer the case as many small market teams have focused their spending on acquiring talent through the draft and international signings, instead of wasting money on middle of the road FAs. Yes, there are some players that still slip due to signability issues because some teams attempt to stick to the slotting system the commissioner's office has tried to propogate, but those players generally fall because many teams don't believe those players are worth the investment for which they are seeking. But whereas those players would realistically only wind up with a handful of teams, now there are several more teams willing to spend well over slot. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox now have competition from the Pirates, Rays, Nationals and others.Also, the foreign player market is not dominated by the big spending clubs anymore. The biggest foreign signee of the last several years was Aroldis Chapman, and the Reds signed him. Small market teams regularly compete to sign the best international amatuers, winning their fair share of the negotiations.

You also realize that NFL teams lose players due to financial reasons, right? Teams have to stay under a salary cap, so yes while its easier to keep a core together throughout the life of their useful careers, how big is that core really? 5-10 guys maybe? And how long does a player contribute at a high enough level to be considered a core player, outside of QBs its what 2-3 years generally? As for your example of Fielder and the Brewers, they could afford to pay him whatever he's seeking, just as they could of afforded to pay CC, but instead they choose Braun and Hart and Weeks as their core. They're on a budget, just like the Red Sox, just like the Packers, just like the Cowboys, just like the Bills, just like the Yankees. When you're on a budget you make choices how to allocate your resources. This year the Brewers will likely lose Fielder because they've chosen to devote resources in other places and because the team and the player do not agree on what the player is worth. Thats no different from how those decisions are made in the NFL.

The difference between the NFL and MLB lies in exactly this case however. If the Packers had a player the same caliber as Fielder, they would never lose him due to financial constraints. He would be deemed a core player and not be lost.

"Core" players have been lost in the NFL, (Haynesworth as and example), but its generally because the team decided he wasn't worth the risk of the financial burden. Its also much more rare that "core" players are lost in the NFL.

Others in this thread have made the point I totally agree with. Parity doesn't exist in MLB because of two main reasons. First and foremost are financial reasons, and second because of player procurement. If parity is lacking in the NFL its because the front office/ownership is lacking. I'd much rather be a fan of a league where an organizations skill from top to bottom matters more than their ability to collect revenues due to the size of their market.

For the record, the Brewers have been drawing +/- 3 million fans for the last few years. When I go to the games, Brewer jerseys/shirts are everywhere, and people are spending money on concessions etc. Fan support is strong here. The problem lies in market size. Milwaukee's population is less than 1 million. New Yorks' is greater than 8 million. I'm sure once you consider the surrounding areas, the difference is even more exaggerated.

MLB players have a strangle hold as well. Guaranteed contracts and their inherent risk make it very difficult for a lesser revenue team to offer a long term deal.

 

[dparker713]

The original article overlooks a pretty big fact. Since 2000, the Yankees have won it twice, so has Boston. They are first and second in payroll respectively. The Yankees have also lost twice in the WS in that time frame. So the top 2 payroll clubs have taken 27% of the available WS spots since 2000, and have won it 36% of the time.

Clubs that currently have payroll in the top 12 have won 9 of the last 11 titles, (81%), and have made up 17 of the 22 participants (77%).

Here's your outliers:

Arizona 2001 Champs. Schilling & Johnson

Florida 2003 Champs. Ironically thought of as a team that bought a championship.

Colorado 2007 WS Losers.

Tampa Bay 2008 WS Losers.

Texas 2010 WS Losers.

On top of that, imagine Peyton Manning spending most of his career with the NY Giants. By now, Ben Roethlisberger would be the QB of the Jets, and Philip Rivers would be QBing the Redskins, and of course Aaron Rodgers would be an upcoming FA being eyed up by Detroit, San Francisco, and one of the Chicago teams. That's the system baseball has in place.

Or let's imagine Albert Haynesworth not sticking with the Titans. Or Barry Zito going from Oakland (where he won the Cy Young) to the Giants (where he's so awful they left him off the playoff roster).We can look at Tampa extending Longoria. Or Oakland extending Eric Chavez. Teams extend stars all the time.

People can think Florida bought a championship in 2003 but their payroll was in the bottom 10. I didn't do a breakdown of every team but I know the Angels weren't top 10 when they won their WS.

The Yankees had an incredibly dominant team in the late 90's/early 2000's. They had numerous all star players/hall of famers. Many were home grown. When you combine that with playing in a weak division (until recently no team outside the Yankees in that division did a good job developing talent) it equaled a gimmie playoff berth every year. Now that the other teams have caught up, you're seeing Tampa go toe to toe despite having a tiny payroll. Baltimore and Toronto have a great core and should contend in the next few years as well. This will soon be the toughest division in baseball.

Let's talk about those "home grown" players. Here's some realities unique to baseball. Players often fall in the draft due to signability issues. Small market teams picking near the top of the draft have passed on more talented players because they feared not being able to sign them. (See Scott Boras). This doesn't happen in football.

Some foreign players are not part of the MLB draft. They are free to sign with any team they wish. The good ones are always signed by the big market teams. No such thing exists in football.

Teams like the Yankees are able to employ a much larger scouting dept than small market teams. This is made even more important by the fact that baseball prospects come from High Schools, Colleges, the Dominican Republic etc. NFL teams have far fewer avenues that need to be scouted.

Honestly, I am Brewers and Packers fan. Here are the realities of both those situations as I see them:

The Packers just won a Superbowl, and will likely be able to keep every member of that team that they truly want to around for a long time. Most notably players like Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Clay Matthews, Nick Collins etc.

The Brewers went to the playoffs a few years ago on the back of a good offense and CC Sabathia. Despite repeatedly saying he didn't want to go to the Yankees, Sabathia did after they outbid everyone else by nearly 40 million. The Brewers could make another run this year, because once again they have "rented" another pitcher. Once this season is over however, they will lose their cleanup hitter (Prince Fielder), then they will likely lose Zack Greinke the year after that. They won't lose those players for any other reason other than financial ones, which in turn makes baseball an inferior product.

While some large market teams used to dominate spending in the Rule IV draft, this is no longer the case as many small market teams have focused their spending on acquiring talent through the draft and international signings, instead of wasting money on middle of the road FAs. Yes, there are some players that still slip due to signability issues because some teams attempt to stick to the slotting system the commissioner's office has tried to propogate, but those players generally fall because many teams don't believe those players are worth the investment for which they are seeking. But whereas those players would realistically only wind up with a handful of teams, now there are several more teams willing to spend well over slot. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox now have competition from the Pirates, Rays, Nationals and others.Also, the foreign player market is not dominated by the big spending clubs anymore. The biggest foreign signee of the last several years was Aroldis Chapman, and the Reds signed him. Small market teams regularly compete to sign the best international amatuers, winning their fair share of the negotiations.

You also realize that NFL teams lose players due to financial reasons, right? Teams have to stay under a salary cap, so yes while its easier to keep a core together throughout the life of their useful careers, how big is that core really? 5-10 guys maybe? And how long does a player contribute at a high enough level to be considered a core player, outside of QBs its what 2-3 years generally? As for your example of Fielder and the Brewers, they could afford to pay him whatever he's seeking, just as they could of afforded to pay CC, but instead they choose Braun and Hart and Weeks as their core. They're on a budget, just like the Red Sox, just like the Packers, just like the Cowboys, just like the Bills, just like the Yankees. When you're on a budget you make choices how to allocate your resources. This year the Brewers will likely lose Fielder because they've chosen to devote resources in other places and because the team and the player do not agree on what the player is worth. Thats no different from how those decisions are made in the NFL.

The difference between the NFL and MLB lies in exactly this case however. If the Packers had a player the same caliber as Fielder, they would never lose him due to financial constraints. He would be deemed a core player and not be lost.

"Core" players have been lost in the NFL, (Haynesworth as and example), but its generally because the team decided he wasn't worth the risk of the financial burden. Its also much more rare that "core" players are lost in the NFL.

Others in this thread have made the point I totally agree with. Parity doesn't exist in MLB because of two main reasons. First and foremost are financial reasons, and second because of player procurement. If parity is lacking in the NFL its because the front office/ownership is lacking. I'd much rather be a fan of a league where an organizations skill from top to bottom matters more than their ability to collect revenues due to the size of their market.

For the record, the Brewers have been drawing +/- 3 million fans for the last few years. When I go to the games, Brewer jerseys/shirts are everywhere, and people are spending money on concessions etc. Fan support is strong here. The problem lies in market size. Milwaukee's population is less than 1 million. New Yorks' is greater than 8 million. I'm sure once you consider the surrounding areas, the difference is even more exaggerated.

Fielder is an above average first baseman that will probably need to be a DH in a few years seeking a top 10 player in the game contract. This is precisely the type of player that any team with a budget should let go. And you failed to see my point about 'core' players. An NFL roster has 53 players and 25 starters or so. MLB has 25 players, 8 everyday starters and 5 starting pitchers. Also, NFL players have shorter careers and shorter primes. So, an NFL core should be larger than an MLB core, but turnover more quickly.

EVERY team in MLB can afford to keep 1 player in perpetuity. Its generally a bad idea, but every team can afford to pay Alex Rodriguez plus 24 guys at the minimum. It's a recipe for disaster, but it can be done. Teams instead generally don't spend more than a quarter of their payroll on any one player because payroll flexibility has its advantages. Expand a baseball core to 2 players, and generally teams could keep those players in one uniform for their entire careers. Expand it to 3 and it becomes much harder for some teams, but, if you're only concerned about keeping guys during their primes than most every team can keep every one of their players during their prime. They might miss out on a year or two occassionally for a late bloomer, but nearly all players primes occur during their cost controlled and arbitration years.

A team like the Brewers gets the best of Fielder, Gallardo, Braun, Hart, Weeks, and McGahee. Sure, they need to reload their core, but they don't need to do it nearly as fast as the Packers will. On that list of names, all of them were core members of the Brewers 3 years ago, and all but 1 will be a core member of the Brewers next few years. For various reasons, there's almost no chance that your list of Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Clay Matthews, Nick Collins, etc will still be the core of the Packers in 4 years - atleast not if they want to keep winning. Rodgers is likely still around and elite, but Jennings? Matthews? Raji? Woodson?

As for your two reasons that parity doesn't exist in MLB, no one has contended that payroll is irrelevant, merely that some level of parity exists despite such payroll issues (especially outside the AL East). And the only issue with player procurement is the allocation of FAs, amateurs both here and abroad are distributed primarily based upon scouting and development - hence the Royals currently having the best farm system and the Rays having the best farm system of the past several years.

And as I've pointed out several times, market size matters in football too. Teams derive all of their non-shared revenue locally. The markets of Dallas, New York, Chicago and Boston generate significantly more revenue for the teams than do the markets of Buffalo, Jacksonville, Charlotte and Nashville. These revenues allow for teams to spend more money to attract the better management, though thats on the ownership to spend those advantages wisely.

"I'd much rather be a fan of a league where an organizations skill from top to bottom matters more than their ability to collect revenues due to the size of their market." - Sounds like you should be a Rays fan.

 

[DropKick]

The NFC has sent 10 different teams to the SB in the last decade; Green Bay, New Orleans, Arizona, Giants, Bears, Seahawks, Eagles, Panthers, Bucs, Rams.

I'll add to this.. of the NFC teams who haven't been in the SB in that time, the Falcons appeared just 12 years ago and the 49ers, Cowboys, Redskins and Vikings have, collectively, appeared in 21 of 48 SBs.That leaves the Lions who, despite their historical struggles, went 6-10 last season and appear headed in the right direction.

So, if this is your measure of "parity", its fair to say the wide-open NFC lacks nothing in the way of parity.

In the 1970s, The Cowboys (5), Redskins (1) and Vikings (4) appearing in all 10 SBs - A feat actually surpassing the recent AFC run of the Patriots, Steelers & Colts. Only the Redskins got back to a SB in the 80s. Teams do dominate for a short run - but it's easy to envision two teams taking the mantle from the Patriots and Colts.

 

[Insomniac]

Playoffs

Yankees 15 in 16 0 losing seasons

Braves 12 in 16 2 losing seasons

Red Sox 9 in 16 1 losing season

Cardinals 8 in 16 4 losing seasons

Indians 7 in 16 6 losing seasons

Dodgers 6 in 16 3 losing seasons

Astros 6 in 16 4 losing seasons

Angels 6 in 16 5 losing seasons

Twins 6 in 16 7 losing seasons

Giants 5 in 16 6 losing seasons

Athletics 5 in 16 7 losing seasons

DBacks 4 in 13 6 losing seasons

Phillies 4 in 16 7 losing seasons

Mariners 4 in 16 7 losing seasons

Cubs 4 in 16 8 losing Seasons

Rangers 4 in 16 9 losing seasons

Padres 4 in 16 9 losing seasons

White Sox 3 in 16 6 losing seasons

Mets 3 in 16 7 losing seasons

Rockies 3 in 16 10 losing seasons

Miami 2 in 16 10 losing Seasons

Rays 2 in 13 10 losing seasons

Reds 2 in 16 11 losing seasons

Orioles 2 in 16 14 losing seasons

Tigers 1 in 16 12 losing seasons

Brewers 1 in 16 13 losing seasons

Blue Jays 0 in 16 8 losing seasons

Nationals 0 in 16 12 losing seasons

Royals 0 in 16 15 losing seasons

Pirates 0 in 16 16 losing seasons

=================================================

Indy 13 in 16 3 losing seasons

New England 11 in 16 2 losing seasons

Green Bay 11 in 16 2 losing seasons

Philadelphia 11 in 16 4 losing seasons

Pittsburgh 10 in 16 2 losing seasons

Minnesota 8 in 16 4 losing seasons

Dallas 8 in 16 6 losing seasons

Denver 7 in 16 3 losing seasons

Miami 7 in 16 5 losing seasons

NYJ 7 in 16 5 losing seasons

Baltimore 7 in 15 6 losing seasons

NYG 7 in 16 6 losing seasons

Seattle 7 in 16 6 losing seasons

Tampa Bay 7 in 16 6 losing seasons

Tennessee 6 in 16 5 losing seasons

Jacksonville 6 in 16 7 losing seasons

Atlanta 6 in 16 8 losing seasons

SF 6 in 16 9 losing seasons

San Diego 5 in 16 5 losing seasons

Kansas City 5 in 16 7 losing seasons

St Louis 5 in 16 10 losing seasons

New Orleans 4 in 16 8 losing seasons

Buffalo 4 in 16 9 losing seasons

Carolina 4 in 16 9 losing seasons

Chicago 4 in 16 10 losing seasons

Washington 3 in 16 8 losing seasons

Oakland 3 in 16 9 losing seasons

Arizona 3 in 16 11 losing seasons

Detroit 3 in 16 12 losing seasons

Cleveland 2 in 13 10 losing seasons

Cincy 2 in 16 10 losing seasons

Houston 0 in 9 6 losing seasons

I'm basing this since the 1994 MLB strike. There's at least the perception that things changed in MLB after that.

Since the NFL has more teams in the playoffs the playoff numbers should be compared to "expected" appearances. If there was "true parity" each NFL team had an expectation of about 6 playoff appearances and MLB teams had an expectation of 4 appearances.

If you're looking at playoff appearances only. the quick conclusion is that it shows slightly less parity for MLB than the NFL. Only 1 NFL team made the playoffs twice as often as "expected" while 4 MLB teams did. Still 2 of the top 5 in playoff appearances are the small market Cards and Indians.

The losing season data is more convincing to me. There's too many teams that had losing seasons 75% of the time. Most, but not all, are small market teams that typically are near the bottom in payroll. OTOH some of the big money teams haven't had much success.( Cubs 1908 World Champions ) It's an advantage to have a higher payroll but it isn't anywhere near as decisive as commonly believed.

 

[daveR]

Here's an obvious example of MLB "parity"...

Every off-season, the Yankees are expected to add the best free agent available and people are shocked (see Cliff Lee) when they don't.

Every off-season, the Indians lose someone new. (Though, to be honest, they've started doing it early these days.)