While I usually don't post much about sports, a column at the ESPN Page 2 site by the Page 2 lead editor David Schoenfield compelled me to respond.
Essentially he argues that competitive balance in baseball, for the most part, is no worse than the NFL or the NBA despite the latter two having salary caps and baseball not having one. While this may be in fact the case, I believe he clearly is missing point, and in the process seems to be defending the absence of a salary cap.
Well, being a bitter ex-Expos fan who no longer watches MLB (loved the WBC though), that was more than I could take. So I fired off the following letter.
Mr Schoenfield;
You can trot out all the meaningless stats you'd like (of course who wins the championship means very little when considering the relationship bewtween money and winning) There is only one question; is there a positive correlation between payroll and winning. That is it. Competitive balance can be effected by a host of factors. (Obviously this isn't to say that competitive balance isn't effected by payroll, just it isn't the only factor).In essence, you are right to complain about the very specific understanding of the term competitive balance, but in doing so, you are irrationally (perhaps unconsciously, perhaps not) defending a system without a salary cap. Because when you consider the NFL and the NBA, leagues with a salary cap and thus very little difference in what is spent by teams, there is obviously no correlation between winning and how much money you spend. Compared to a league without a salary cap they all spend, more or less, the same.
So the Cardinals suck because they don't play well, don't draft well, don't coach well ... take your pick.... But football things!
And the Devil Rays, while not impossible for them to win (See George Mason), don't compete - as you admit - on the same playing field for reasons that have very little to do with baseball.
This is why I quit watching baseball - this and the fact I was a huge Expos fan. (Actually that's not true, I enjoyed the WBC). Because there is far too much of a connection between what you spend and how much you win .... ie non baseball things!
What we need to do is consider some professional numbers that directly relate to what is really the only issue here; does money effect your chances of winning. Just taking the year 2004 (from a study posted at Slashdoc):
"A coefficient of determination of 0.31 shows the amount of total variance in wins explained by the payroll variance. As expected, the regression equation has a positive slope, meaning that every additional $1,000,000 spent results in approximate 0.26 wins."
See how simple. The more you spend the more likely you will win. Because we understand that correlation is not the same as causation, which unfortunately your weak article seemed to confuse.
To put this into perspective; considering the most extreme examples you could expect that if the New York were to post a 100-63 record then Tampa Bay would be somewhere around 63-100 simply due to money alone (based on 2005 payrolls) Looking at a little less dramatic example you could expect that if a team like the Dodgers or Phillies were to go 90-73 a team like the Rockies or Blue Jays would finish somewhere around 76-87 simply because of their payroll. (Of course this doesn't always occur. We are human. It just occurs on average).
And some conclusions from an exhaustive study in 2004 (PDF):
A single equation regression model found the effect of payroll disparity on wins disparity in the post free agency period to be positive and significant. The increasing disparity in payrolls since the mid 1990s, particularly in the American League, suggests that the luxury tax has been ineffectual and that greater performance disparity can be expected in the near future....
The estimated parameter of IDP is positive and significant at the 99% confidence.level. This indicates that greater payroll disparity across teams in Major League Baseball leads to greater win disparity or greater competitive imbalance in Major League Baseball...
This means that at the current average level of payroll disparity in the American League, every 1% increase in payroll disparity will result in a .66% increase in win disparity...
Why is this so important? Because baseball, football, basketball are sports, not - despite what those soulless cynics say - businesses. You find me one fan who celebrates when their team is profitbable.
well we didn't make the play-offs but our owner made money!! BOO-YAH!!!Perhaps you agree with me already. Unfortunately that is not clear in your article. Moreover you almost appear to be defending a system with a salary cap. If this is the case, I couldn't disagree more. If it isn't the case, then you should make that clear in a follow up article.
Sincerely
Brian Hunter
Comments