Really, Bud? We have competitive balance?

[MarquesJohnson2000]

The effect of an "unbalanced schedule" in the NFL has been dramatically reduced since the realignment into eight divisions as division opponents now play common opponents for all but two games each season (six division games, four games against one division from own conference, four games against one division from the other conference).

[Ennder]

The illusion of competitive balance in baseball has been created by killing the importance of a 162 game baseball season. No longer does a great regular season mean anything. Play above average for 6 months or just average as is the case for a couple of divisions each year and you are in the crapshoot called the Major League Baseball Playoffs.

 

I

 

Sorry but I don't buy this one bit. MLB has fewer playoff teams than any other major sport and a longer schedule to weed out the lucky teams. It is harder to make the playoffs in baseball than in any other sport. The biggest difference now is that you don't get penalized for being in the same division as the best team in the sport. The Red Sox missing the playoffs this season would not have made the playoffs worse and it didn't kill the importance of the 162 game season.

[Diskono]

I think the baseball playoffs are "less bad" than other American sports, but I still firmly believe that the World Series should always be played between the teams with the best records in each league.

 

That said, the other teams who aren't quite there should have something to play for. I have tons of crazy ideas and stupid propositions on this, one of which is to create a huge tournament with all major and minor league teams (and possibly even a few independent leagues), and schedule games throughout the regular season. Instead of having interleague weekends, we would set aside that time for the tournament. I actually sat down and figured out how all of the scheduling would break down - that's not terribly relevant to this thread, but something like this *could* work. Toward the end of the season, bad teams might be way out of the pennant race, but they still have a chance to win something.

[sbrylski]

I think the baseball playoffs are "less bad" than other American sports, but I still firmly believe that the World Series should always be played between the teams with the best records in each league.

 

That said, the other teams who aren't quite there should have something to play for. I have tons of crazy ideas and stupid propositions on this, one of which is to create a huge tournament with all major and minor league teams (and possibly even a few independent leagues), and schedule games throughout the regular season. Instead of having interleague weekends, we would set aside that time for the tournament. I actually sat down and figured out how all of the scheduling would break down - that's not terribly relevant to this thread, but something like this *could* work. Toward the end of the season, bad teams might be way out of the pennant race, but they still have a chance to win something.

 

You sound like you would enjoy OOTP...

[Crewin06]

Sorry but I don't buy this one bit. MLB has fewer playoff teams than any other major sport and a longer schedule to weed out the lucky teams. It is harder to make the playoffs in baseball than in any other sport. The biggest difference now is that you don't get penalized for being in the same division as the best team in the sport. The Red Sox missing the playoffs this season would not have made the playoffs worse and it didn't kill the importance of the 162 game season.

You must have missed the other part of my point. In baseball the odds of a better team beating a worse team are narrower. Like I said it is pretty much a coin flip once a team gets to the Playoffs. In Football the better team has home field advantage. In Basketball you can put the ball in the hands of your best player or players and have him or them carry your team like in the regular season. In baseball the bat can be taken out of your best players hands and the only home field advantage you get is one extra game.

 

Your also wrong with the biggest difference is that you don't get penalized for being in the same division as the best team in the sport. The biggest difference is that the wild card adds one more coin flip to the odds that the best team won't be the champion at the end of the year. Look at the past 7 years would you say that the best team in baseball any year won the world series? I mean you have 2 wild card teams winning and an 83 win team winning the championship. Before this season a wild card team has been in the World Series every single year for the past 6 years. Including 2 wild card teams in the World Series in 2002.

 

The Braves-backed by a cable station and with the deep pockets of Ted Turner won 15 straight division titles or something like that and had the best record in the NL 8 times during that run. For all their Greatness they won 1 World Championship during the Wild Card Era. Greatness is overrated nowadays. A 90 win season or in some divisions an 85 win season is just as good as a 105 win season.

 

Competetive Balance because of city size and tv markets is worse than ever. Just because more teams get into the playoffs and occasionally a small market team sneaks in does not mean that competitive balance is fixed. You want real competitive Balance. Have real revenue sharing like the NFL. Take control of the individual TV Contracts and disperse them evenly throughout the ball clubs.

 

In the Playoffs you want to emphasize the Regular season more give real home field advantage to the team with the better record. 4 home games in the divisional series. 5 home games for the LCS.

[Ennder]

Best record doesn't mean best team though. The Cubs had the best record in the NL but probably would have been the 4th or 5th best team in the AL. You could even make a case for them being the 2nd best in the NL. If you wanted to just see the best 2 teams play we probably already saw that when the Rays beat the Red Sox.

[Invader3K]

one of which is to create a huge tournament with all major and minor league teams (and possibly even a few independent leagues), and schedule games throughout the regular season.

I remember a few years back (maybe like seven or eight years ago), a writer in SI proposed something like this. I think their idea was to have a tournament mid-season during the "lull time" of the year...like mid-May through right before the All-Star break. Basically, the games would have still counted as regular season games, but there would have been a "bracket" of 32 teams...I believe he suggested filling the final two spots with the minor league and college champion teams. The idea would be that the winners would gain a huge pot of money, or maybe even a guaranteed playoff spot. I can't remember if he suggested double elimination or single. Basically it would have been an "MLB Cup". Seemed like it could be a lot of fun, though I'm sure so many traditionalists would be turned off by the idea that it would never work. Plus the existence of the World Baseball Classic would sort of negate the novelty of it.

[Crewin06]

Best record doesn't mean best team though. The Cubs had the best record in the NL but probably would have been the 4th or 5th best team in the AL. You could even make a case for them being the 2nd best in the NL. If you wanted to just see the best 2 teams play we probably already saw that when the Rays beat the Red Sox.

And you are talking 2 different Leagues. They have had 2 different leagues since forever. If you want to discuss changing the American League vs National League concept that is an entirely different discussion.

 

As long as we are on the topic of the Cubs lets delve into them. They are a perfect example. Great/Dominating Regular Season then they get to the playoffs and they run into an 84 win team and get swept. Great Regular season battling the ups and downs for 6 months. Like you said the most grueling schedule in any sport. They grab the top spot and in 4 or 5 days their season is over. It happens more often than you think. Yes you could make an argument that they were not the best team in the NL. But the fact of the matter is that they were the 3rd highest payroll team in the NL ($200,000 behind the Dodgers) and they ended up with the best record in the N.L. Money Breeds Winning.

 

So lets look at where each of the playoff teams ranked this season in terms of payroll for their league

 

A.L.

Red Sox 3

Chi Sox 4

LAA 5

Devil Rays 14th

 

NL

Dodgers 2

Cubs 3

Phillies 6

Brewers 9

 

Out of 16 teams

 

Also you want to know one of the reasons the A.L. is the tougher League? Because 5 out of the top 6 teams in Payroll play in the American league.

 

Baseball's competitive balance compared to any other of the big 3 sports is a joke.

[kramnoj]

Just because more teams get into the playoffs and occasionally a small market team sneaks in does not mean that competitive balance is fixed.

 

Occasionally a small market team sneaks in? Doesn't a small market team make the playoffs just about every year? I guess it depends what you mean when you say small market.

 

Baseball's competitive balance compared to any other of the big 3 sports is a joke.

 

You've written a fair amount about baseball, but you really haven't compared it signigicantly to football and basketball. I think you should set the parameters for what you think competitive balance means, and then we can compare it over a longer period than one year. I think you would be hard-pressed to actually support the notion that baseball's balance is a "joke".

[Invader3K]

Occasionally a small market team sneaks in? Doesn't a small market team make the playoffs just about every year? I guess it depends what you mean when you say small market.

I think the term "small market" gets thrown around way too much. I mean, people call the Twins small market, when the Twin Cities metro area is absolutely huge. I've even heard the Cardinals called "small market", which is a joke.

[Crewin06]

Baseball's competitive balance compared to any other of the big 3 sports is a joke.

 

You've written a fair amount about baseball, but you really haven't compared it signigicantly to football and basketball. I think you should set the parameters for what you think competitive balance means, and then we can compare it over a longer period than one year. I think you would be hard-pressed to actually support the notion that baseball's balance is a "joke".

I didn't really want to do an extensive analysis compared to the other sports. It was just a off handed comment. But if you want me to compare.

 

Super Bowl Winners in the 1980's pre revenue sharing

1980- Oakland Raiders

1981-San Francisco

1982-Washington Redskins

1983- LA Raiders

1984- SF 49ers

1985-Chicago

1986-NYG

1987-Washington Redskins

1988-SF 49ers

1989-49ers

1990-NY Giants

1991-Washington

1992- Cowboys

1993-Cowboys

1994-49ers

1995- Cowboys

1996-Green Bay

1997- Denver

1998- Denver

1999- St. Louis

2000-Baltimore

2001- New England

2002- Tampa

2003- New England

2004- New England

2005- Pittsburgh

2006-Indianapolis

2007- New York Giants

 

Actually never mind if you call yourself a Green Bay Fan or just a fan of the NFL in general and you cant see how money or market size played a huge factor in the 1980's and pre revenue sharing and now it doesn't play a factor at all- I don't really want to have a discussion with you anyways. No teams are perpetually bad because of an inherent financial disadvantage. The only disadvantage a team in the NFL has is a disadvantage that plagues teams in any sport- horrible management. If you want examples look at the Chicago Cubs or the Los Angelos Clippers.

 

As for the NBA- it is a different beast. A Great Player generally makes a great team. Because of the draft, player control, the controling team being able to offer the first and most money and the salary cap- movement of great players doesn't happen alot. Tim Duncan on San Antonio makes them great, Chris Paul on New Orleans makes them good, just as in a big market Kobe and Pau on LA makes them very good. Again if you can't see competitve balance between small (San Antonio) and Big (Los Angelos) market clubs then I don't know what to tell you.

 

There I discussed it. I didn't really want to on a baseball forum but there it is.

[Crewin06]

I think the term "small market" gets thrown around way too much. I mean, people call the Twins small market, when the Twin Cities metro area is absolutely huge. I've even heard the Cardinals called "small market", which is a joke.

Actually I shouldn't really say "Small Market" I should say "Small Revenue".

 

But I agree with your overall point The Cardinals are always one of the higher spending teams in the N.L. because they have a comparitively decent market and good fans.

[Crewin06]

I think its important to look how the control of players is structured in baseball, the true tenor of sports equality. Sacrificing first and second round draft picks is an incredibly stiff penalty.

If Draft Picks mattered as much in Baseball as they do in Basketball or Football I would agree with you. However I would bet that less than 50% of the first round picks in the baseball draft ever make it to the Pros. I bet that number is closer to 25% when you talk about low first round picks that would be surrendured during a FA aquisition. And of those low first round picks I don't really even want to guess what the percentage is that goes on to become an all-star type player. Sacraficing picks is tough but to aquire a player of CC's calibur or most type A Free Agents, I think it is a minor inconvenience if anything.

[kramnoj]

Actually never mind if you call yourself a Green Bay Fan or just a fan of the NFL in general and you cant see how money or market size played a huge factor in the 1980's and pre revenue sharing and now it doesn't play a factor at all- I don't really want to have a discussion with you anyways.

 

Again if you can't see competitve balance between small (San Antonio) and Big (Los Angelos) market clubs then I don't know what to tell you.

 

You seem to have become agressive while being asked to explain something. I don't think anyone is saying that the framework for competetitive balance doesn't exist in the NBA and NFL, and I certainly didn't say that. I'm asking you to support the idea that balance in baseball is a joke compared to those sports. I'm not sure what your goal is what that list. Are you saying that the NFL is better post 1980 than it was before? That's not what the current discussion is. Are you saying that the NFL has more balance post 1980 than MLB does now? I don't see how that list does that. In both sports there are multiple winners from some teams. In both sports small market teams have won championships. What specific point were you trying to make, and how is the NFL so much better in this regard that the balance in MLB is a joke?

[Ennder]

The only disadvantage a team in the NFL has is a disadvantage that plagues teams in any sport- horrible management. If you want examples look at the Chicago Cubs or the Los Angelos Clippers

 

This simple isn't true at all. Location, winning atmosphere, market size, endorsements still play huge roles in NFL football. The Patriots and Cardinals are not on equal terms at all in the NFL.

 

Baseball still needs to do a little bit of work but some silly salary cap isn't the answer. The game would have to be redesigned from the ground up to make a salary cap even work with the minor leagues. In the end I doubt the competitive balance would even be any better overall as teams still flock to the teams that give them the best chance to make money on the side or the teams that give them the best chance to win a championship.

[pitchleague]

I remember a few years back (maybe like seven or eight years ago), a writer in SI proposed something like this. I think their idea was to have a tournament mid-season during the "lull time" of the year...like mid-May through right before the All-Star break. Basically, the games would have still counted as regular season games, but there would have been a "bracket" of 32 teams...I believe he suggested filling the final two spots with the minor league and college champion teams. The idea would be that the winners would gain a huge pot of money, or maybe even a guaranteed playoff spot. I can't remember if he suggested double elimination or single. Basically it would have been an "MLB Cup". Seemed like it could be a lot of fun, though I'm sure so many traditionalists would be turned off by the idea that it would never work. Plus the existence of the World Baseball Classic would sort of negate the novelty of it.

The only problem with this idea is, what do the teams that are knocked out of the tournament do? They can't really schedule any other games because if they win a matchup they were "supposed" to lose, a scheduled game would have to be canceled. So, do teams that lose their first round game get a week off or something? Doesn't that almost make you a "winner" in the MLB regular season (owing to getting a week off for your players to get rested, healthy, etc.)?

[nate82]

Super Bowl Winners in the 1980's pre revenue sharing

1996-Green Bay

2000-Baltimore

2002- Tampa

2006-Indianapolis

Of the teams that you listed I can only find 4 that would be considered "small market" or "small revenue" teams. Do "small revenue" teams have as much of a chance in the NFL as the "big revenue" teams do? I'm going to have to say no on this. If you look at the list you provided 23 out of the 27 last super bowls have been won by "big revenue" teams. I don't consider that being parity or so more balanced than baseball is.

 

I'm going to guess here but I believe the Cowboys, Giants, Patriots, and other high revenue teams probably spend more money on scouts, facilities, and other amenities for free agent players that lower revenue teams in the NFL can even dream about. The big time free agents still look at the big revenue teams for contracts more so than they look at the smaller revenue teams. It all boils down to good management over the amount of money you can spend on free agents.

 

The similarity between the 90's Cowboys and the 90's Braves is the management not the amount of money they spent on their players. Having good management will always win you more games than just buying a team in free agency. Look how successful the Yankees have been since they have just been gobbling up free agents. Not a single championship since they have been spending more and more and more. When the Yankees were successful in the late 90's and early 2000 they were winning not because of their huge payroll but because of the talent they brought up through the minor league system. The management then was leaps and bounds better than what it is now. Good management will always win over just going out and getting the best free agent possible.

[Roderick]

2) ........A hard cap means you'll never see a Sabtahia trade again.

I don't agree. If there was a salary cap it would probably be put at $150M or something like that. The Brewers (and many teams) would have been under that and would have the room to trade for a CC.

 

The key is how high would the salary floor be. The NFL sold a salary cap because there was also a floor/minimum that teams had to spend. Otherwise the Cincy Bengals would never have spent the money.

[squambaum]

Super Bowl Winners in the 1980's pre revenue sharing

1980- Oakland Raiders

1981-San Francisco ...

The similarity between the 90's Cowboys and the 90's Braves is the management not the amount of money they spent on their players.

I think you bring up a good point that good management will usually trump high payroll but I think your list might not tell the whole story. I don't know what your criteria was for selecting small market but I wonder how many teams would qualify as small market. Also I think if you look at which small market teams have been able to field consistently competitive teams I think the NFL's track record would be better than MLB. I have no stats to go off of just gut intuition, you may prove me wrong.

 

You're NFL list would seem to suggest that big market teams can afford better facilities and staff and thus win via better management and I see no reason why that would not also apply to baseball, only in MLB there is no salary cap to prevent them from also out spending everyone on the best free agents. I just don't see any way an uneven playing field can be seen as a positive.

[nate82]

I think you bring up a good point that good management will usually trump high payroll but I think your list might not tell the whole story.

I was arguing that good management will win you more games than going out and getting the best free agent available every year will do. Of course good management plus that will do that for you also but I don't see a single team in MLB, NFL, or NBA doing that. Most teams that go out to spend just to spend usually spend their money on players at the peak of their primes and thus are stuck with them when they start to decline.

 

MLB, NFL, NBA, or even the NHL it doesn't matter what the sport is. Salary cap or no salary cap. Teams will win and lose with the management. In MLB it is your scouting department and your GM that will make your team good or great. In the NFL it is the scouting department. In the NBA well that is a crap shoot since you need an elite player to be competitive. The NHL you need your scouts again.

 

MLB and the NFL are very similar in terms of what needs to be done to establish a winning team. Teams like the Brewers, Royals, Marlins, Rays, etc. need great management to win. While teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, etc. need only good management to win. Now lets look at the NFL it is nearly the same teams like the Packers, Bengals, Browns, etc. need great management to win. Teams like the Cowboys, Giants, and Patriots need only good management to win. Why? Because like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs the Cowboys, Giants and Patriots are teams that free agents are willing to go there. Why? Because they offer a higher exposure in the media the more exposure for a free agent the more money they are able to make. This shouldn't be a reason why especially in the day and age that we live in. You can watch and even listen to your home team even if you are across the world from them when in the past you would have to wait for the newspaper to report what the team did. This excuse shouldn't be used anymore especially with the current technology.

[danzig6767]

Of the teams that you listed I can only find 4 that would be considered "small market" or "small revenue" teams.

Look at that list of teams and the biggest key among them IMO isn't money, it's having a very high quality quarterback. There are a few exceptions, but exceptions are just that, exceptions. Once a NFL team gets a franchise QB, all they need to do is put together a good defense and they are a contender each year that the QB stays healthy.

 

The Patriots are a prime example, they pretty much stunk for about 20 years. Then they found Brady in the 6th round and have been great since he became the starting QB. They put together a good defense to surround Brady, a dynasty followed. He gets hurt this year, bam, their Super Bowl hopes likely vanished with the injury. The Colts get Manning, won a ring and they've been a contender every year since. Denver went to five Super Bowls and won two rings with Elway, haven't been back since. The 49ers were great for over a decade, largely because they had Montana and Young. Cowboys great years were when they had Staubach and Aikman at quarterback. The Packers rise to being good again happed after getting Farve. The 49ers and Cowboys haven't won a playoff game since Young and Aikman retired, much less a title.

 

Nothing in the NFL comes close in importance to winning all the time than a franchise QB does.

[nate82]

Look at that list of teams and the biggest key among them IMO isn't money, it's having a very high quality quarterback....

 

Nothing in the NFL comes close in importance to winning all the time than a franchise QB does.

You are right but if you want to compare apples to apples there is only one thing you can compare MLB and the NFL with and that is management.

[Ennder]

Super bowl winners vs world series winners seems like an odd way to prove balance. I mean you have to make the playoffs and win 3-4 games to win a super bowl and any team that loses 1 game has no shot. In baseball you have to win a best of 5 and two best of 7's and you could lose as many as 8 games and still make it. WIth the longer schedule and deeper playoff schedule it is much harder for the bad teams to luck into a world series victory than an NFL team doing it for a super bowl.

 

Of course then there is the 83 win STL team that shows that you still can luck into it~.

[danzig6767]

Yea i agree that title winners is probably a to strident criteria, but i still think NFL teams are on a more equal footing than baseball teams are overall when it comes to money. If anything, the NFL has a quarterback imbalance because it's not just Super Bowl winners who need them. If you were to look every year at the teams who make the NFL playoffs and who don't, the majority but not all of the teams who make the playoffs will have at least a solid to very good QB and those that miss out will more times than not have subpar QB play. Obviously, having a quality defense factors in quite a bit also.

 

In baseball though, more than the NFL or NBA, one great player can't have the same profound impact over 162 games. Legit MVP winners in baseball can come from teams who barely finish above .500, in the other sports, dominant players almost always lead their teams to the playoffs. Tampa won 97 games without a single hitter with a .900 OPS or higher or without a dominant starting pitcher. You generally need to build a pretty good all around team to win in baseball and having more money can really help in that cause. Of course it's not required as evidenced by Tampa and the Brewers to a lesser degree, but baseball more than the other sports makes it much harder for a sizable group of teams to not be able to resign their top players and also blocks those teams from competing for top players in free agency. It's certainly better though now than in the past, but all it's done is lessened the imbalance some.

 

That said, the sports are different. Baseball will never get a massive national TV contract like football has, which makes it easier to split that money. At least now teams like Milwaukee have a fair shot given the revenue sharing in place.

[jhart05]

Maybe someone already said this, I didn't feel like reading thru all the posts...

 

To be fair, he did say "We have more competitive balance than we've ever had,".

 

Which is probably true.