Just by looking at these two graphs, it is clear that there is hardly any correlation between winning baseball games. Yet, there always, always are people who believe that is the case. It just so happens that this season, the Yankees, the most hated team in all of sports, collected the most wins and had the highest payroll. That was not the case last year, or the year before that.
“In truth, there will be no true underdogs this postseason, no party crashers like the Rays last October. The Twins would come closest, because of their low payroll, but they have reached the playoffs four times this decade. The Tigers beat the Yankees in 2006 en route to the A.L. pennant.”
Kepner points out the Twins could be considered underdogs, just based on their low payroll, while completely ignoring how the players on the team are performing. I don’t buy this idea one bit.
A powerful counterargument to my view was made last week by Sports Illustrated’s Jon Heyman.
“Never has payroll been such a determinative factor in making the playoffs as this season, and that’s especially true if the Tigers hold off the feisty, small-market Twins in the AL Central.”
Bud Selig looked past what he called “an aberration.”
“I’m fairly satisfied this year is an aberration,” baseball commissioner Bud Selig said by phone. “I still think the basic tenets we have in place will lead to the best competitive balance we’ve ever had.”
Selig and Heyman are right, in that 2009 has yielded a strangely high number of playoff teams from high-market cities. Do you think this idea of high-market teams making the playoffs is on the rise or on the decline? Or is this just an abnormality, like Heyman and Selig said?
The Brown/Jepsen article titled “The Impact of Team Revenues on MLB Salaries” made correlating arguments to Kepner, Heyman and Selig as well.
“Although a high team payroll does not guarantee playoff success, a low team payroll eliminates a team from contention. From 1995-1999, no team with a payroll in the bottom half of the distribution won a single playoff game” (Brown 193).
That last fact is true, but it does ignore the most recent history (for no particular reason). In fact, the 2003 Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series with a payroll over $100 million less than New York’s. Even if I surrender my first claim that wins does not correlate with team payroll, the highest payroll team has to win the postseason as well. What happens when a high payroll team like the Phillies run into a low payroll, but hot team, like the Colorado Rockies in 2007? The Rockies won 21 of their last 22 games to reach the World Series that year. No owner or general manager can buy “October magic,” but that is usually the difference when it comes down to it.
I understand when people say the Yankees pay their players too much. I happen to agree, and think that no player should be making over $20 million, let alone $10 million! However, as long as there is no salary cap for teams, these players’ salaries may continue to rise. That is why I have to ask you, should there be a salary cap put on teams? If so, how do you go about choosing the right amount? If not, why shouldn’t there be?
In response to your question I will say that there should not be a salary cap in baseball for one reason. I believe that it would take away from the "cinderella stories" we have seen in recent years such as the 2003 Marlins, the 2007 Rockies, and last year's Tampa Bay Rays. Last year's Rays ENTIRE team made less than the Yankees left side of the infield (Jeter and A-rod)! Now that is a great cinderella story.
ReplyDelete"Moneyball" (Brown and Jepsen, 192)talks about how Billy Beane made the A's into a contender despite the money issue. Proving that teams can have success using the draft and trading away players they can no longer afford and just starting the process all over again. It is proof that despite not having all the $ that the big market teams have, teams like the Twins, Marlins, and Rockies have been contenders more so lately than big market teams like the New York Mets.
-Nate Porter
I do not think that there needs to be a salaray cap in baseball. The reason being is because like the above comment, I think it will take away the idea of true underdogs. I also feel that by building a franchise team does not mean that you necessarily have to have the best players in the world. It is good to have role players or average players. In the article titled, "The Impact of Team Revenues on MLB Salaries," the first sentence of the entire article goes along with this point. It states, "The goal of a major league baseball (MLB) team is to win the World Series. To win the World Series, a team must qualify for the playoffs. The best way to make the playoffs is to win a lot of regular season games. MLB teams acquire players with the goal of winning games. (Brown/Jepsen 192). Although it is not always the case, the most talented team does not always win the World Series, or championship, or Super Bowl. Often time (and I know this is a cliche in sports) it is the team that has a good blend of talent and togetherness. If a group of individuals can all buy into the system and focus on one goal, that team will be successful. Although you can argue this, the Yankees have had one of the most talented teams in baseball throughout the last 5 or 6 years, yet they have not won a World Series in this time.
ReplyDeleteI really do not think salary cap has an outcome on who wins championships. In an article regarding economics and sports from the Sports Studies Handbook it states, "There is still some controversy about the impact of salary cap. Quirk and Fort argue that the salary cap helps to equalize competition, as long as the cap is enforced" (Lavoie 165). I do think that if you have a team with multiple good players that you will win games based on the pure talent of your team. Winning a championship, on the other hand, requires more than having just talent. Like the lead blog mentioned, there are many factors like who is getting hot at the right time, what players are producing big numbers down the stretch. These factors combined with talent are what makes a champion. Money does not have an effect on this.
I don’t believe a salary cap is necessary in baseball. As proven by the graphs in Lenny’s blog, salary does not necessarily translate into wins, indicating that the playing field is generally even. Paying players a higher salary is a risk for franchises, and it doesn’t always pay off. If an organization like the Yankees is willing to spend more than 3 times the payroll of other organizations, it seems unfair on the surface. However, when you consider the fact that the same team has had the highest payroll for more than a decade and hasn’t won the championship since 2000, obviously a salary cap wouldn’t help anyone. According to the Marc Lavoie, a salary cap would cause “the overall revenues of the league [to] be reduced, since large market teams, with high marginal due to their large potential audience, would win less often than without the cap, thus generating less winning-elastic revenues” (165).
ReplyDeleteLavoie goes on to say a salary cap would actually cause the competition to be less equal, stating “some authors have noted that competition in baseball has been much more balanced between teams of small market and large market teams than it has been in basketball, despite the salary caps of the latter” (165). The Florida Marlins are the perfect example of a low payroll team that has been able win ball games. The team has been able to keep a low payroll for years, while still being able to win the World Series in 1997 and 2003. The Tampa Bay Rays of last year are another team with a low payroll that made it to the Fall Classic.
Even though I do believe a salary cap would do nothing to help the MLB, I do think there should be taxes on team salaries. I don’t believe teams should be able to spend as much as they want without any repercussions. Taxes would most likely be the best way to ward teams away from spending millions of dollars without completely limiting them. Although every now and then low market teams are able to win in the postseason, these teams are rarely able to repeat their success in the following years. In the examples I gave before, not one of those teams made the playoffs the following year. The Pittsburgh Pirates have had 17 consecutive losing seasons, and part of the reason is because they don’t spend the money to get players good enough to win. According to Kenneth Brown and Lisa Jepsen, “from 1995 to 1999, no team with a payroll in the bottom half of the distribution won a single playoff game” (193). There are certainly shot term examples that show that winning doesn’t necessarily mean you have to spend a lot of money, but when you look at the long run is it obvious that you must be willing to lay some money down.
First off, Lenny. Thanks. Thanks for reminding me the Mets spent through the nose this season and finished with a measly 70 wins.
ReplyDeleteAnyway...
No way, no how is there ever a salary cap in baseball. It's a pipe dream. Give it up.
But did we need this study to realize this?
Read this except from The Impact of Team Revenues on MLB Salaries:
By definition, free agents are free to
compete in a competitive market for their salaries. Teams with lower revenues must
outbid teams with higher revenues to acquire players. Thus, we would not expect
players on low-revenue teams to earn less than players on high-revenue teams, but
we would expect low-revenue teams to have fewer high salary players. Because the
winning salary bid may be only slightly higher than the next bid, high-revenue teams
may acquire many more free agents by outbidding low-revenue teams by small
amounts (Brown and Jespen, 202)
Is this not common sense? The teams with more money have more dough to spend on the free agents. Therefore, the "better" players (read: the more expensive ones) will go to the teams with more money. It's happened for years and will continue to do so.
Teams need to realize that they need to focus more and more on their farm system. They need to bring up players on their own and mold them into the players they need, especially because they will be under the teams control for a modest amount of money.
Or, you know, they could just sign away their stadium name.
As was written in A Stadium by any Other Name:
Despite the expense of $139.6 million over 20 years, Lincoln Financial officials
believe the purchase makes good business sense for the company (Bowen, 2002).
That precious money is money that can go to help improving the team, especially one that desperately needs it.
I would have loved to see this article include Citi Field and all the backlash it received after getting TARP funds this summer.
I think it would look a lot like the Mets winning percentage.
I’m going to have to agree with most people that have responded and said that there shouldn’t be a salary cap in major league baseball. I think that the biggest key in baseball is not spending the most money in the offseason, but it’s keeping your farm system well stocked. If you have a great farm system, with good scouts and good young players, then a low market team can compete with a big market team for at least a two year period. I made a list of the two teams in the World Series since 2000. The first team is the team that won and the second team is obviously the one that lost. In parenthesis is their position in payroll for the league for that season:
ReplyDelete2000 – Yankees (1) – Mets (6)
2001 – Arizona (8) – Yankees (1)
2002 – Angels (15) – Giants (10)
2003 – Marlins (25) – Yankees (1)
2004 – Red Sox (2) – Cardinals (9)
2005 – White Sox (13) – Astros (12)
2006 – Cardinals (11) – Tigers (14)
2007 – Red Sox (2) – Rockies (25)
2008 – Phillies (12) – Rays (29)
In bold are the teams that weren’t in the top ten for that year in total payroll. Half the teams on that list weren’t in the top 10 in that year in total payroll, and still made it to the World Series. The Angels won the World Series in 2002 with the 15th highest payroll. People forget that during this time the Angels were still owned by Disney, and were a middle of the pack payroll team. The Marlins won the next year with the 25th highest payroll and in 2005 and 2006 we had 4 teams in the World Series that weren’t in the top 10. In 2007 the Rockies made it with the 25th highest payroll, and in 2008 the Rays made it with the 29th highest payroll. It doesn’t go much lower than 29th, so people can’t say that low market teams have no chance of competing.
There’s one sentence in the “The impact of team revenues on MLB salaries” article by Kenneth H. Brown and Lisa K. Jepsen that I do not agree with. “Thus, it appears that higher revenue, as we would expect, simply allowed teams to purchase higher quantities of characteristics which should translate into more wins and an increased likelihood of making the post season.” (Brown and Jepsen, 202)
I’ll agree that higher revenue let’s you buy more expansive players, but I won’t ever agree to the fact that you can buy yourself wins or championships. In the list that I made above, the Yankees had the highest payroll in every single year. But how many championships did that get them? One. And how did the Angels and Marlins win with such a small payrolls, and how did the Rockies and Rays make it to the World Series with a payroll that ranked in the bottom half? Good farm systems. That’s the big key. If you have a good farm system, then you can avoid having buying the big free agents in the offseason, and you can spend your money wisely by plugging holes, getting veterans to help out the young guys, and maybe get a second level superstar.
I would have to agree with some people that said a salary cap would kill the Cinderella stories. Baseball is so much about getting hot at the right time. Someone mentioned the Rockies who won 21 out of 22. And the Rays were a Cinderella story last year. Those are the type of stories that we need, to make the postseason exciting. We need to be able to cheer for the underdog to upset the big guns.
One sentence from the handbook supports my claim on the salary cap issue. “Economists claim that under some circumstances the revenue-sharing schemes will not help to achieve a more competitive balance, and furthermore, that these schemes modify income distribution in favour of club owners, at the expanse of players.” (Lavoie, 164)
I don’t think a salary cap is needed. The best way to success is having a good farm system. Small market teams are usually the ones that have the best farm systems (look at the Twins, the Marlins, the Rays), and they have a chance to make the playoffs every year. This year the Twins (24th highest payroll), Rockies (18th highest payroll) and Cardinals (17th highest payroll) all made it into the playoffs without having high payrolls. Spending all your money like the Yankees do every year doesn’t help. You need to form a TEAM, not buy individual players.
ReplyDelete-Robin
(sorry it wouldn't let me submit all of it together.)
I do not feel that a salary cap in baseball is the answer. Would it even out the competitive balance? Possibly, but likely not. In the past six years, there have been three World Series teams with one of the six lowest salaries in Major League Baseball. Outspending everyone does not necessarily lead to wins. (Yeah, Omar. I'm talking about you.)
ReplyDeleteLooking at those three teams, the '08 Rays, '07 Rockies, and '03 Marlins, they were able to compete with modestly-priced home grown talent. Also, if you look at some of the large market teams from the past few years' World Series, they also had a strong collection of home grown talent leading them to championships.
Michael Lewis's "Moneyball" (Brown/Jepsen 192) spotlights the Oakland A's, and general manager Billy Beane. Many other GMs have adopted Beane's philosophy of building up the farm system, and focusing more on Jamesian statistics and formulas to build a contender. The philosophy has become so popular in baseball circles, and among fans, that the book was developed into a screenplay, with Brad Pitt playing Beane. The production is currently on hold.
Teams like the A's, Rays, Rockies, and this year's Twins have shown a playoff run is possible without a large budget. And unless you're a stereotypical Red Sox or Yankee fan who enjoys watching your team throwing money around, it makes October more exciting.
I think there will never be a salary cap in baseball, and it's definetly not the answer. Over the past few years, true talent has outshone payrolls when it comes to the MLB post-season. The Yankees are the highest paid team in baseball, yet the last time the Bronx saw a World Series win was in 2000. So money definetly doesn't get the results one wants. As long as they play, they get paid.
ReplyDeleteThere are teams that can hardly keep their heads above water while trying to keep up with other teams. "Seven teams with the lowest payrolls each had TEAM payrolls that were less than the combined salaries of the New York Yankees' top three PLAYERS." (Brown/Jepsen 193) This quote shows how unbalanced the budgets for these teams are. It makes me wonder how the Yankees can afford their roster and their new stadium, while other teams can hardly afford new players. In the end, I know my season tickets and $8 for each beer at the game are paying for it. I just hope fans of the A's, for example, aren't being ripped off as badly as I am.
Putting a salary cap on the game would not do much good. All you would get is a bunch of guys pissed off and probably make a big deal out of it. Even without salary caps we still see things such as players fighting organizations over deals, resulting in players not showing up for training camps and things like that(sports in general).
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the fact that it is not about spending all the money you have in order to produce wins. There are many cases all over sports where teams are looking silly for all their purchases and not producing. If we look in to the English Premier League, you would hear about how the owner's of Manchester City would literally hand out a blank check to a targeted player, telling him to put whatever he would like on it. With the amount of money they spent this year, and the players they were able to obtain, you would think for sure they would be top of the table. That is not the case. Obviously I have a soccer bias here, but I think this goes for all sports, baseball included.
There should not be a salary cap in Baseball. The Yankees can pay their players obscene amounts of money, because they take in an obscene amount of money. The Steinbrenners also put all of the money they make through the Yankees back into the organization. However, what is interesting is that the players that made up those magical late 90's teams were not the overpriced players that have made up the yankee teams that have choked in the playoffs the last few years.
ReplyDeleteOnly two organizations have ever won the World Series with a payroll over 100 million dollars, the Red Sox in 2004 and 2007 and the Philadelphia Phillies in 2008.
Yes the teams with huge payrolls tend to make the playoffs and make valuable revenue from those games, but look at the New York Mets, the second highest payed team in baseball. They are terrible. It shows that proper management can beat overpriced players every time.
A salary cap is also not needed because of the teams that win without huge payrolls. The Twins are almost always in the playoff hunt, yet not too long ago they were facing being bought by major league baseball. The San Francisco Giants are likely going to be one of the top teams in the National League next year because of their outstanding young pitching staff, yet they're in the middle of the pack as far as team salaries go.
This is all because baseball is changing into a much less offensive game. Baseball now is all about pitching. Because of this improved pitching, Baseball teams have replaced On Base Percentage for Batting Average. This is the key to Moneyball. Billy Beane recognized this and built very successful teams. (Brown and Jepsen, 192)
Also, the farm systems in Baseball have become a bigger part of an organization's future. Even the Yankees have been playing more home grown players to save money. Imagine how much they would have to pay for a second basemen that produces numbers comparable to Robinson Cano?