The reason your comparision is worthless is because it does not have relative weights for each of the payrolls. The importance is the payroll relative to the rest of the competition and the long term effects on competitive balance.
Since 2000, MLB has more different champions with less playoff teams. The long term effects of the baseball economic model when compared to the NFL are better when it comes to giving different teams rings.
7 years is hardly a long term study. And championships involve a high amount of luck in a game like baseball. However, making the playoffs over the course of a 162 game season helps to minimize the luck factor. Plus, your statistics using the top 12 baseball teams just dont have any relevance. I realize you're trying to normailze with the NFL, but it just doesnt work that way. First off, MLB has 30, not 32 teams. Also, I know of no sport where narrowly missing the playoffs is a goal.
All your statistics show is that everyone has a shot at the playoffs. In some ways, the large number of teams to make the playoffs in the recent past is to be expected. The poorer teams in general are not going to be able to sustain success. Success will generally come in short bursts, and once they flame out, another less well funded team can make the playoffs. However, over the long haul, a team with significantly greater financial resources than the rest of the league will make the playoffs far more than their share.
So, it's to be expected that teams can make the playoffs, their success may be for a long period of time or not, but if one fails another will be there? Isn't that what we want?
Actually, what many people want is a more level playing field, so that the offseason spending doesnt nearly lock up a playoff spot before the season begins
Its really not the number of different clubs that make the playoffs, its the clubs that repeatedly make the playoffs and the corrolation between those teams and payroll. You've presented no facts that the Yankees or Sox do not benefit, only that the league as a whole has high turnover in the playoffs.
I've never said that they don't benefit. But people like to make a league wide argument using one team as an example and you simply can't do that. If your complaint is that baseball has no parity, you are wrong. It does in every sense we measure the NFL with. If your complaint is that Tampa Bay is screwed because both of these teams are in their division, you have a point to a degree. Of course money helps. But it's not a given that anything happens. If it was, the Yankees wouldn't have sucked in the early 90's, the Mets would have won their division this year, and the Tigers would have been contracted before they made the World Series.
Again, you're using short term variability to equate to parity. They're just not the same thing. Teams with higher payrolls have a better chance to make the playoffs year in and year out. Sure, small market teams with superior front office and coaches can break that pattern to an extent, but its an uphill climb.
Thats not at all surprising given that there are only 1-2 teams that truly can spend in their own class and have no peers. There is no way you can claim parity in the MLB when the Yankees have an 80% chance or greater of making the playoffs every year before the first pitch is thrown in spring training.
Yes, I can. And your number cannot be proven. In spring training every team has the exact same chance to make the playoffs. Some may have better odds, but the chance they make it is the same. This is why a 100 loss team that people wanted to contract and use as the prime example of the Yankee payroll killing the sport can make the World Series.
2007 Payroll (sans Clemens)New York Yankees $ 189,639,045
Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214
New York Mets $ 115,231,663
Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333
Chicago White Sox $ 108,671,833
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 108,454,524
Seattle Mariners $ 106,460,833
Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332
Detroit Tigers $ 95,180,369
Baltimore Orioles $ 93,554,808
St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823
San Francisco Giants $ 90,219,056
Philadelphia Phillies $ 89,428,213
Houston Astros $ 87,759,000
Atlanta Braves $ 87,290,833
Toronto Blue Jays $ 81,942,800
Oakland Athletics $ 79,366,940
Minnesota Twins $ 71,439,500
Milwaukee Brewers $ 70,986,500
Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980
Texas Rangers $ 68,318,675
Kansas City Royals $ 67,116,500
Cleveland Indians $ 61,673,267
San Diego Padres $ 58,110,567
Colorado Rockies $ 54,424,000
Arizona Diamondbacks $ 52,067,546
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833
Washington Nationals $ 37,347,500
Florida Marlins $ 30,507,000
Tampa Bay Devil Rays $ 24,123,500
Philadelphia 89 73 .549 - NY Mets 88 74 .543 1.0 Atlanta 84 78 .519 5.0 Washington 73 89 .451 16.0 Florida 71 91 .438 18.0Now, the Mets certainly outspent the Philies considerably in 2007, but neither they nor the Braves were out classed like the Nationals or Marlins, and that reflected in the final standings. This is only one years worth of data, but its fairly illustrative on that division, with the occassional Marlins run to the playoffs. As for better odds but the same chance, thats non-sense. Each team comes into the year with the same record, but wildly different levels of skill. Baseball's free agency allows for teams to purchase skill to an extent, and over the long run that allows teams with greater financial resources to make the playoffs more frequently. What other team could have paid Carl Pavano and Jason Giambi that much money for that little production and still make the playoffs every year?
ETA - Dont forget that the Mets didnt make the playoffs because of a historic collapse. Hardly a result that you would expect to repeat in successive years.
That and they don't want to be seen as a team that buys their place in the playoffs. The idea that money plays no factor in how good a team is is ridiculous.
:
Responding to YankeeFan here is like arguing with larryboy in the old dragon threads. Not even worth the time.
Responding to YankeeFan here is like arguing with larryboy in the old dragon threads. Not even worth the time.
