The parity myth?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
1 New York Yankees $208,306,817
2 Boston Red Sox $123,505,125

3 New York Mets $101,305,821
4 Los Angeles Angels $97,725,322
5 Philadelphia Phillies $95,522,000
6 St. Louis Cardinals $92,106,833
7 San Francisco Giants $90,199,500
8 Seattle Mariners $87,754,334
9 Chicago Cubs $87,032,933
10 Atlanta Braves $86,457,302
11 Los Angeles Dodgers $83,039,000
12 Houston Astros $76,779,000
13 Chicago White Sox $75,178,000
14 Baltimore Orioles $73,914,333
15 Detroit Tigers $69,092,000
16 San Diego Padres $63,290,833

I know this is just one season, but all eight playoff teams came from the 16 biggest payrolls, and 10 of 16 had a chance at the playoffs going into the final week of play. Revenue sharing schmevenue sharing?

Also, I can't believe Seattle's payroll is that high.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Monday, 3 October 2005 04:42 (fourteen years ago) link

Oh, and 6 of the top 7 were in contention in the last week, obviously.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Monday, 3 October 2005 04:43 (fourteen years ago) link

Bottom 12

30 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $29,363,067
29 Kansas City Royals $36,881,000
28 Pittsburgh Pirates $38,133,000
27 Milwaukee Brewers $39,934,833
26 Cleveland Indians $41,502,500
25 Toronto Blue Jays $45,719,500
24 Colorado Rockies $48,155,000
23 Washington Nationals $48,581,500
22 Oakland Athletics $55,425,762
21 Texas Rangers $55,849,000
20 Minnesota Twins $56,186,00
19 Florida Marlins $60,408,834


j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 3 October 2005 05:03 (fourteen years ago) link

call it a hunch: the yanks and giants and cardinals of yore had higher payrolls than the senators and browns and phillies.

j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 3 October 2005 05:11 (fourteen years ago) link

NBA, to thread

Jimmy Mod wants you to tighten the strings on your corset (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Monday, 3 October 2005 05:19 (fourteen years ago) link

call it a hunch: the yanks and giants and cardinals of yore had higher payrolls than the senators and browns and phillies.

I definitely am not under the illusion that things used to be different, I just am not convinced that revenue sharing is doing much to affect the major competitive balance issues in the league. The counterargument is that a balanced league means boring parity, but I enjoy watching the NFL and deeply respect the teams that have managed to stay highly competitive despite a mostly level playing field (Patriots, Green Bay until this year, St. Louis, Denver, Indy, etc.).

And of course I deeply respect what the Beanes and Ryans and Shapiros of the world have been able to accomplish, but I would be more impressed to see what they could do with a more level playing field.

polyphonic (polyphonic), Monday, 3 October 2005 05:34 (fourteen years ago) link

1. About half of the teams in the bottom 12 were playoff contenders for most of the year. About two-thirds of the teams in the top 12 were playoff contenders for most of the year. Where's the huge imbalance?

2. A more important point: almost all of the teams in the bottom 12 are either rebuilding, or have been for years. Cleveland 26th place ranking has zero to do with revenue sharing, it's because they tore the team apart a few years ago and started rebuilding from scratch -- all before the present deal was in place. If they start letting all of their young (=cheap) crop walk in a couple of years in order to retain a $40M payroll, then we can talk.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 3 October 2005 06:00 (fourteen years ago) link

it should be noted too that the bottom three teams make no effort at all to win and make no effort at all to hide this. tampa basically only spent 9 million dollars of it's own money on player salaries last year. the nfl is also able to have true revenue sharing cuz all of it's tv revenue is national network - no equivalent of the yes network, etc., everybody's getting a piece of the pie and there's only one pie. plus the draft is MUCH MUCH more important in football than baseball - higher injury rate with much more serious injuries, shorter careers, plus higher roster turnover due to cap and no guaranteed contracts = you HAVE to draft well or it will catch up to you very quickly with ramifications more serious than 'we can't make a deal cuz our farm system is so depleted'. even in football with the cap and the understanding that pretty much everyone's payroll is gonna be hovering near it - the vikes aren't nearly as egregious as the drays or royals - you still have teams sinking money (and capspace, which is the real ball and chain) in bad deals, clueless owners that would rather have it their way than win (for the longest time this described most of the league doormats - atlanta certainly, cinci for most of the 90s, new england maybe?, the cardinals until maybe now, some might argue the raiders belong here now)(the saints probably fall into both of these categories, with their jackass scumbag owner and blinking into comitting heavily to aaron brooks), but yeah this is a pretty parity friendly era for the nfl, albeit not quite as much as that stretch after the last broncos superbowl thru the first pats superbowl when no superbowl champion appeared on mnf the season they won the superbowl (ie. no superbowl champion was expected to be very good before the season started). even so, last year's superbowl was basically the equivalent of yanks-braves.

j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 3 October 2005 06:38 (fourteen years ago) link

It should also be pointed out that the fourth-to-last place Milwaukee Brewers finished at .500 for the first time in 12 years. Just sayin'.

The Obligatory Sourpuss (Begs2Differ), Monday, 3 October 2005 12:45 (fourteen years ago) link

This kinda piggyback's MIR's post, but: not even two weeks ago, two of the following teams - #1, #4, and #13 - would be unbolded, w/ #26 and #22 in their place. That #1 is even in the playoffs is IN SPITE of their payroll: about $15M of their buxxx this year went to two newly-signed turks that (surprise surprise) came up lame, which caused the team to scramble in panic and bring in the two guys (Small & Chacon) that would, in essence, save their season.

Seattle's payroll = THANK YOU RICHARD SEXTON & HARRIDAN BELTRAY! (And Evie Day Eduardo.)

David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 3 October 2005 13:17 (fourteen years ago) link

Don't forget MSSR. BRETTISHE BOONE.

gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 3 October 2005 18:18 (fourteen years ago) link

DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK (next year).

David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 3 October 2005 18:20 (fourteen years ago) link

Joe Sheehan in Prospectus:

Oh, yeah, the Yankees and Red Sox are both in the playoffs, as are four other teams who played in the 2004 postseason. Wasn't this the kind of thing that Bud Selig railed against five years ago? Where is the outcry today about how so few teams have hope and faith? It couldn't be that "competitive balance" is merely a canard, a catchphrase brought out during negotiating periods that really means, "the players make too much money," could it? It couldn't be that as long as there are controls on labor costs and mechanisms that funnel money down the competence pyramid, the powers that be couldn't give a damn what the standings look like?

Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is there is just as much stagnation atop the standings and in the playoffs as there was in the previous CBA, but we don't hear about how increased revenue sharing and agreements to restrict the labor market…well, don't have much effect on the game on the field. Perhaps now we can get some honest coverage of baseball's economics as we head into the next round of CBA negotiations.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 3 October 2005 18:38 (fourteen years ago) link

eleven years pass...

is parity receding?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/is-baseballs-age-of-parity-over/

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Monday, 28 August 2017 11:29 (two years ago) link

two years pass...

we're gonna end up with four 100-loss teams and three-to-five 100-win teams

what are the records for such things?

mookieproof, Saturday, 21 September 2019 18:12 (two months ago) link

Four 100 win teams would be a record, the first time ever. The Twins, A's, and Braves still have a chance to win 100. Still, six 95 win teams is probably a record too.

NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 22 September 2019 06:09 (two months ago) link

The Indians and Rays might win 95 as well. Eight 95 win teams!

NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 22 September 2019 06:11 (two months ago) link

!n 2002 there were four 100-loss teams and three 100-win teams.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 22 September 2019 14:06 (two months ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.