baseball's falling popularity and its affect on our hobby

[t206trader]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Absolutely. Teams like the 2010 and 2012 WS champ Giants were definitely not built like major market (media market) powerhouses. They won mainly through pitching and defense (see Gregor Blanco and Brandon Crawford in 2012 WS), while having an only middle teir offense... but an offense with grit that got timely hitting and great execution (hit run, bunt, butcher play, etc). Some small market teams like the Rays, Reds, A's have consistently competed these past several years.. The A's almost embarrassingly so the last 2 years against the Angels who bought an All Star team... And some large market teams have consistently floundered like the Mets and Cubs.

Clearly major market teams have an advantage in that they can consistently sign big free agents (Hamilton/Pujols), take bigger risks (Tanaka), and have room to fail when those risks don't pan out. Whereas small market teams have much less margin for error and can be totally buried by a single mistake.. Very curious to see how M's do with Cano's contract. If he's a .280 / 15 HR hitter there, that team could be stuck for a long time.

Regardless, to me it's great watching the smaller market teams that can maneuver and make it work by drafting well and developing that talent... Then often locking that talent up eary and relatively cheap by signing extensions through arbitration and the first couple free agent years. I think baseball is actually more interesting for these inequities, and it also often gives the casual fan an easy underdog to root for come October. MLB and ESPN need to wake up and get on board now and work harder to promote great stories like the Pirates/A's/Rays.. Maybe this year the Royals, and ease up on their NY/Boston fetish.

Reds are actually a mid market team with a higher payroll than the Cubs or Mets (who actually have a rather small payroll). If we look at the 8 highest payrolls from last year we see that, in fact, larger payrolls do equal better and more likely championship teams.

N.Y. Yankees $230,401,445

Los Angeles Dodgers 214,830,909

Philadelphia 159,985,714

Boston 157,594,786

Detroit 150,471,844

Los Angeles Angels 141,896,250

San Francisco 138,042,111

Texas 128,714,475

None of the bottom 6 playoff teams in terms of payroll last season won a series past the wildcard. Parity isn't as good in baseball as some would like to think it is.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by t206trader

Reds are actually a mid market team with a higher payroll than the Cubs or Mets (who actually have a rather small payroll). If we look at the 8 highest payrolls from last year we see that, in fact, larger payrolls do equal better and more likely championship teams.

None of the bottom 6 playoff teams in terms of payroll last season won a series past the wildcard. Parity isn't as good in baseball as some would like to think it is.

Wasn't necessarily saying baseball has good "parity". I was more making the point that I like the plotlines/drama its salary inequities help create (just my opinion). That's not saying I think it's fair/balanced system, or that I don't get frustrated watching huge spenders (like the Yanks, Dodgers, Sox, etc) seemingly snatch up the top 2-3 major free agents each year, I do. However, I think most major sports make for better viewing when there are a few clear powers and a bunch of scrappy challengers nipping at their heals. I mean how fun was it to root for whoever was playing the early to mid 90's Duke teams come March, or the 90's Cowboys (or my Niners).. especially when your team is no longer in it.

Re team salaries- of the top 8 payroll teams you list, 3 made the playoffs in 2013. Of the 10 total play off participants, just as many teams (3) had bottom 3rd payrolls, and the other 4 teams were in the middle 3rd. That's a pretty even spread.. and just about any team that makes the postseason has a shot. Regardless of salary tier, if you have a strong 1-2 (-3-4) staff and a bit of hitting, you've got a chance. As was the case with 2010 Giants, their playoff rotation 1 thru 4, set up man, and closer were ALL homegrown, young and modestly paid (any team that drafts well has a shot to do this) and were the keys to their victory. Even though their $98 mill payroll was 10th in baseball, $31 mill of that hardly contributed to either their division championship or playoff/WS run (Zito was left off postseason roster, Rowand was the 4th outfielder). This to me means any well constructed team built on lower cost young home grown talent has a shot to get it done against the huge $$$ teams.

[glynparson]

but they do not have a shot year in and year out. It is also much tougher to have a kansas city chiefs type turnaround in one year in baseball. There are more baseball teams at the start of each season with absolutely 0 chance of winning it all then there are in football.

[t206trader]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Wasn't necessarily saying baseball has good "parity". I was more making the point that I like the plotlines/drama its salary inequities help create (just my opinion). That's not saying I think it's fair/balanced system, or that I don't get frustrated watching huge spenders (like the Yanks, Dodgers, Sox, etc) seemingly snatch up the top 2-3 major free agents each year, I do. However, I think most major sports make for better viewing when there are a few clear powers and a bunch of scrappy challengers nipping at their heals. I mean how fun was it to root for whoever was playing the early to mid 90's Duke teams come March, or the 90's Cowboys (or my Niners).. especially when your team is no longer in it.

Re team salaries- of the top 8 payroll teams you list, 3 made the playoffs in 2013. Of the 10 total play off participants, just as many teams (3) had bottom 3rd payrolls, and the other 4 teams were in the middle 3rd. That's a pretty even spread.. and just about any team that makes the postseason has a shot. Regardless of salary tier, if you have a strong 1-2 (-3-4) staff and a bit of hitting, you've got a chance. As was the case with 2010 Giants, their playoff rotation 1 thru 4, set up man, and closer were ALL homegrown, young and modestly paid (any team that drafts well has a shot to do this) and were the keys to their victory. Even though their $98 mill payroll was 10th in baseball, $31 mill of that hardly contributed to either their division championship or playoff/WS run (Zito was left off postseason roster, Rowand was the 4th outfielder). This to me means any well constructed team built on lower cost young home grown talent has a shot to get it done against the huge $$$ teams.

I agree that it makes for an interesting narrative. My point with the salary list was simply to illustrate that 7 of the last 8 championship squads were in roughly the top 7 in terms of payroll. The Cinderella story is interesting just like it is in college basketball, unfortunately it just doesn't ever pan out in either sport save for a very few rare occasions.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by t206trader

The Cinderella story is interesting just like it is in college basketball, unfortunately it just doesn't ever pan out in either sport save for a very few rare occasions.

For me, that's part of the appeal... if Cinderella teams were to actually win every other year, it's no longer as exciting. I was rooting hard for Butler during their recent tournement runs and the fact they came up short both times took little or nothing away from the fun. Had they won both years, or had VCU or George Mason won titles a few years earlier, these Villanova/NC State types of runs would cease being so exceptional. Too much parity often means there are no truly dominant teams... and you need dominant teams to make the David v Goliath matchups interesting. The BCS screwed up in so many ways, but those few times it pitted the Utahs/Boise States v the Alabamas/Oklahomas, it was AWESOME. MLB's current imbalance provides much opportunity each postseason for these types of matchups.