There's No Parity in Baseball

[wang_chi7]

With Colorado winning an amazing game tonight 7 of the 8 playoff teams this year were sitting at home last October. Only the Yankees return to the postseason.

Many of the teams this year are small market teams (COL, CLE, AZ.) San Diego almost made it as another small market, as did Milwaukee.

I love this time of year, its my Christmas. Can't wait to root for the Cubbies. 99 years is enough waiting.

[wang_chi7]

Who ya got in the LCS's and World Series?

National League:
Colorado vs Chicago

American League:
Boston vs Cleveland

World Series:
Chicago vs Cleveland, neither team has won it in nearly 60 years (Chicago has to win this year to avoid a century of futility.) Chicago wins in 6.

OK, that was a homer pick; if I laid money on it I would probably pick Cleveland followed by Boston to win it all. But I have to pick Chicago.

[PurpleMustReign]

I like Cleveland along with Anaheim. I would say in that case Cleveland in 6.

I like Chicago and Philadelphia, with the Cubbies (in 5) making their first WS in many years.


Then, I like Cleveland in 7, only because The Cubs don't have the starting pitching the Indians have.

[Minniman]

Many of the teams this year are small market teams (COL, CLE, AZ.) San Diego almost made it as another small market, as did Milwaukee.

New York Yankees, #1 Payroll - $189,639,045 - #1 Market

Boston Red Sox, #2 Payroll - $143,026,214 - #7 Market

Los Angeles Angels, #4 Payroll - $109,251,333 - #2 Market

Chicago Cubs, #8 Payroll - $99,670,332 - #3 Market

Philadelphia Phillies, #13 Payroll - $89,428,213 - #4 Market

Cleveland Indians, #23 Payroll - $61,673,267 - #17 Market

Colorado Rockies, #25 Payroll - $54,424,000 - #18 Market

Arizona Diamondbacks, #26 Payroll - $52,067,546 - #12 Market

[wang_chi7]

Cleveland Indians, #23 Payroll - $61,673,267 - #17 Market

Colorado Rockies, #25 Payroll - $54,424,000 - #18 Market

Arizona Diamondbacks, #26 Payroll - $52,067,546 - #12 Market

As I said, 3 of the 8 teams are small market. And 7 of the 8 teams didn't make the playoffs last year. Arizona is a decent size population, but for a baseball market it is kind of small. Its much like south Florida where there's lots of old people who don't go to the games.

All three of those teams have very small payrolls.

[Minniman]

While three small market teams did get in, it isn't like the big market and big payroll teams have been shut out.

The four largest markets are represented, and having a majority of playoff teams represented by teams in the top seven markets doesn't quite say parity.

The Rockies and Indians are up in their series, so we'll see.

[wang_chi7]

While three small market teams did get in, it isn't like the big market and big payroll teams have been shut out.

The four largest markets are represented, and having a majority of playoff teams represented by teams in the top seven markets doesn't quite say parity.

The Rockies and Indians are up in their series, so we'll see.

So big market teams have to be shut out of the playoffs to mean something? Thats kind of ridiculous. When nearly half the teams are smaller markets it says something.

In the NFL last year both NY teams were in, a Boston team, Chicago, Philly, and Dallas. All big market teams.

I'm not trying to say that market size doesn't matter, it does. But its not nearly the problem that it is talked about. This year's playoffs show once again that its not a big discrepency and that there is turnover in playoff participants. I don't remember the NFL having 88% turnover in one year before,maybe they have?

It will be interesting if AZ, COL, and CLE all win their first rounds. Colorado has a 2-0 lead, AZ likely will by the end of the night. Cleveland spanked New York today.

I don't think you'll ever accept that there is a decent amount of parity in baseball, unless somehow the 8 smallest markets get in the playoffs. And of course that wouldn't actually be balanced either.

Besides where it counts, in championships, baseball has by far the best track record for parity. Even with the Yankees many championships there are almost never repeat champions. In the last 30 years there have been, count 'em, 2 repeat champions (well three because NY won 3 in a row.)

[Minniman]

So big market teams have to be shut out of the playoffs to mean something? Thats kind of ridiculous.

I didn't say that. I said it isn't like the largest market teams have been shut out. There is not an even distribution.

If we did a statistical analysis, it would certainly show that market size was a key factor.

Note here that the middle and small markets are generally less than one million people different, and that number can easily change just by redefining the market by adding or subtracting suburbs.

By 2006 numbers, Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the United States, and San Diego is 8th. Denver is 26th and Cleveland is 40th. The television metro market of Arizona is comparatively smaller though, because the rest of the state isn't as populated as many coastal metro areas.

The markets in Los Angeles and Chicago have a distinct advantage as their markets nearly double the smaller markets which have less variance in population numbers between them.

New York is the special case, because the city alone has a population of over 8 million, and the metro area is 22 million people strong. It is no wonder that, barring the major slide that the Mets took at the end of the season, both team were good enough to be playoff teams this year.

When nearly half the teams are smaller markets it says something.

The smaller teams rotate in and out as they develop better players and then often lose them to the large market teams. Large market teams develop players also, but they rotate in and out when going head to head with other large market teams and aquire better players via free agency or not.

In the long run, the small markets develop players for themselves and the large markets via free agency, but the large markets generally only develop players for themselves.

In the NFL last year both NY teams were in, a Boston team, Chicago, Philly, and Dallas. All big market teams.

New York, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Diego, St. Louis, Minnesota, Detroit, and Oakland.

Four teams, half of the teams, were from the top three markets and were also some of the largest payroll teams (1,4,5,6).

I'm not trying to say that market size doesn't matter, it does. But its not nearly the problem that it is talked about.

It is a problem of fairness.

This year's playoffs show once again that its not a big discrepency and that there is turnover in playoff participants.

The small markets turn over, but the large markets keep getting teams in. Of course, it is easier to have representation with two teams like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, but the point is still valid.

I don't think you'll ever accept that there is a decent amount of parity in baseball, unless somehow the 8 smallest markets get in the playoffs. And of course that wouldn't actually be balanced either.

That isn't a logical statement. It is an invalid point.

Besides where it counts, in championships, baseball has by far the best track record for parity. Even with the Yankees many championships there are almost never repeat champions. In the last 30 years there have been, count 'em, 2 repeat champions (well three because NY won 3 in a row.)

Who defines what counts? What counts, in my opinion, is an equal playing field with equal access to the championship which is clearly not the case in major league baseball. It is also becoming a problem in the NFL with stadium rights and local advertising not counted for revenue sharing.

The fact that the small markets turn over so often in baseball is further evidence of my point, because it means only the large market clubs can afford to pay their successful players in the long run. When young small market clubs do well, they often have major problems keeping their talent when free agency looms.

If MLB had better revenue sharing, a soft cap at $85 million, and a hard cap at $90 million (as an example), the playing field would be more fair.

On a side note, the Arizona team better win, because their young players are going to have huge salary increases over the next few seasons just from arbitration alone.

- Minniman

[wang_chi7]

I've shown you statistical analysis many times over the years. It shows market size does matter, but greatly.

Sure, the Yankees get in yearly. But thats an exception (Atlanta was too), not a rule. Philly hasn't been in the playoffs since 1993 IIRC, neither Chicago team has continual success, the Mets generally have sucked in their history and generally string together a good season about every 5-10 years. Anaheim was never a major player until this century, and that was more from good scouting than grabbing FAs. The Dodgers only make the playoffs every once and a while, and haven't won a ring since Orel Hershiser was the man. Boston does generally put together a good team anymore, but they did go nearly 9 decades without a ring. Detroit is a good sized market, yet for a number of years they were the worst team around.

The four teams with the sorriest pasts in the game up until a couple years ago were the two Chicago teams, Philly, and Boston. Two of those teams finally won their first rings since forever. The other teams are still basking in their filth.

The White Sox this year were 10 games under .500, the Mets missed the playoffs, as did the once mighty Atlanta. Last years champion is sitting at home. Both LAD and SF are at home also. The large market teams also shuffle in and out of the playoffs, if they didn't you wouldn't see 7 new teams in a year.

Baseball is a weird animal. Teams really are built for one year greatness (besides the Yankees and Red Sox perhaps.) When you know you have a shot you grab the extra player or two in a trade to get you over the hump. If you aren't going to make it you stock pile prospects for the future.

I've done lots of reading on the subject and every time the results are that size does matter, but only to an extent. Its not the big discrepancy that is believed. What does count is good scouting, development, management, and just plain getting it done on the field. I'd love to be shown the statistics that show otherwise, but haven't seen them. I've given you my proof in the past, where's yours?

[wang_chi7]

Stupid Diamondbacks. Ruined my season . Not that it was a surprise, but it still hurts. I guess I'll root for Colorado now, or Philly if they get passed Colorado.

100 years hopefully will be the charm.

[glg]

Stupid Diamondbacks. Ruined my season . Not that it was a surprise, but it still hurts. I guess I'll root for Colorado now, or Philly if they get passed Colorado.

100 years hopefully will be the charm.

Maybe I've become too cynical about the Cubs, but I gotta say I wasn't expecting too much. Cubs were way too dependent on the long ball in September and that can easily go dry for a few games. They're lucky it was still warm yesterday (though I'm worried about all the runners in the Chicago Marathon today), as the wind at Wrigley tends to blow out when the temps are hot and in when cold. Had they moved on, they might have had real trouble next week when it drops to the 60's.

[wang_chi7]

Maybe I've become too cynical about the Cubs, but I gotta say I wasn't expecting too much. Cubs were way too dependent on the long ball in September and that can easily go dry for a few games. They're lucky it was still warm yesterday (though I'm worried about all the runners in the Chicago Marathon today), as the wind at Wrigley tends to blow out when the temps are hot and in when cold. Had they moved on, they might have had real trouble next week when it drops to the 60's.

I totally agree. They rely on the long ball way too much, especially considering they don't hit many. They don't walk really at all either. Patience at the plate has been a problem for a few years now and is killing them. Grounding into 4 double plays yesterday didn't help either.

[jackal]

as long as the Yankees Lose I don't care

[wang_chi7]

as long as the Yankees Lose I don't care

No kidding, rooting against them is about as fun as actually rooting for a team.

I guess Torre's job is on the line if Cleveland wins the series. Maybe Mattingly will take over? I would almost have to like them then, almost.