THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Drought watch

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 11 2005 08:44 AM

In honor of the Chicago White Sox and the Houston Astros, both trying to end years of futility.

I'm a little surprised at how far down the first list the Cardinals are.

And if not for 1986, look how far down the Mets would be. They'd only be ahead of four teams.



Most years without a World Championship
1 yearsBoston Red Sox2004
2 yearsFlorida Marlins2003
3 yearsAnaheim Angels2002
4 yearsArizona Diamondbacks2001
5 yearsNew York Yankees2000
10 yearsAtlanta Braves1995
12 yearsToronto Blue Jays1993
14 yearsMinnesota Twins1991
15 yearsCincinnati Reds1990
16 yearsOakland Athletics1989
17 yearsLos Angeles Dodgers1988
19 yearsNew York Mets1986
20 yearsKansas City Royals1985
21 yearsDetroit Tigers1984
22 yearsBaltimore Orioles1983
23 yearsSt. Louis Cardinals1982
25 yearsPhiladelphia Phillies1980
26 yearsPittsburgh Pirates1979
51 yearsNew York (SF) Giants1954
57 yearsCleveland Indians1948
88 yearsChicago White Sox1917
97 yearsChicago Cubs1908



Never Won a World Championship
8 yearsTampa Bay Devil Rays1997
13 yearsColorado Rockies1992
29 yearsSeattle Mariners1976
37 yearsWashington Nationals (Montreal Expos)1968
37 yearsSan Diego Padres1968
37 yearsMilwaukee Brewers (Seattle Pilots)1968
44 yearsHouston Astros1961
45 yearsTexas Rangers (Washington Senators)1960



Most years without a League Championship
1 yearsBoston Red Sox2004
1 yearsSt. Louis Cardinals2004
2 yearsFlorida Marlins2003
2 yearsNew York Yankees2003
3 yearsAnaheim Angels2002
3 yearsSan Francisco Giants2002
4 yearsArizona Diamondbacks2001
5 yearsNew York Mets2000
6 yearsAtlanta Braves1999
7 yearsSan Diego Padres1998
8 yearsCleveland Indians1997
12 yearsToronto Blue Jays1993
12 yearsPhiladelphia Phillies1993
14 yearsMinnesota Twins1991
15 yearsCincinnati Reds1990
16 yearsOakland Athletics1989
17 yearsLos Angeles Dodgers1988
20 yearsKansas City Royals1985
21 yearsDetroit Tigers1984
22 yearsBaltimore Orioles1983
23 yearsMilwaukee Brewers1982
26 yearsPittsburgh Pirates1979
46 yearsChicago White Sox1959
60 yearsChicago Cubs1945



Never Won a League Championship
8 yearsTampa Bay Devil Rays1997
13 yearsColorado Rockies1992
29 yearsSeattle Mariners1976
37 yearsWashington Nationals (Montreal Expos)1968
44 yearsHouston Astros1961
45 yearsTexas Rangers (Washington Senators)1960

soupcan
Oct 11 2005 08:46 AM

I'm not getting the Red Buttons reference.

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 11 2005 09:01 AM

"Never got a dinner."

metirish
Oct 11 2005 09:02 AM

Great work Yancy....

Edgy DC
Oct 11 2005 09:12 AM

The comeback of our times:"Twenty-six world championships? Dude, let go of the second millenium already."

Also, I'd like to take this time to send a thumbs-down to Senator Chuck Shumer for this press release. I'm glad, I guess, that the Mets won Schumer some wine, but in boasting of New York City's baseball teams winning 27 world championships (now 28), he neglects to recall the five that had been won by the Giants and the one by the Dodgers. Not so good for an outer-borough guy.

Willets Point
Oct 11 2005 09:23 AM

It's nice to see the Mets ahead of the Braves in the Most years without a League Championship list. Maybe we've cursed both the Braves & Yankees? Not much of a curse though: "You will always do better than us,getting into the playoffs each year, but you'll never win it all! Mwah-ha-ha-ha!"

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 11 2005 11:19 AM

Another interesting tidbit:

There's a 75% chance that at the end of this postseason, we'll see our sixth different World Champion in the last six years. (Unless the Angels prevail.)

I'm pretty sure that's unprecedented. And if it happens, we can all root for the Mets to make it seven next year.

Willets Point
Oct 11 2005 12:23 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 11 2005 12:29 PM

1978-1987 is 10 seasons with a different WS champion each year.

1978 New York A.L. Los Angeles N.L. 4-2
1979 Pittsburgh N.L. Baltimore A.L. 4-3
1980 Philadelphia N.L. Kansas City A.L. 4-2
1981 Los Angeles N.L. New York A.L. 4-2
1982 St. Louis N.L. Milwaukee A.L. 4-3
1983 Baltimore A.L. Philadelphia N.L. 4-1
1984 Detroit A.L. San Diego N.L. 4-1
1985 Kansas City A.L. St. Louis N.L. 4-3
1986 New York N.L. Boston A.L. 4-3
1987 Minnesota A.L. St. Louis N.L. 4-3

That's a great decade for baseball, 13 of 26 teams won a pennant! No wonder why it seemed like every team had a chance when I was a kid.

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 11 2005 12:27 PM

Nice going. I had no idea.

Valadius
Oct 11 2005 12:41 PM

We're more recent NL Champions than the Braves. That means we're better... or something. In some small way.

Frayed Knot
Oct 11 2005 01:25 PM

]That's a great decade for baseball, 13 of 26 teams won a pennant! No wonder why it seemed like every team had a chance when I was a kid.


It's a shame how that new-fangled free agency ruined the competitive balance in MLB.
The '50s & '60s on the other hand, now those were egalitarian decades ... oh wait!




]Drought watch


aka; Who'll Start the Reign?

Edgy DC
Oct 11 2005 01:33 PM

]It's a shame how that new-fangled free agency ruined the competitive balance in MLB.


I don't think that's the claim. It's hard to argue that the notion of equal opportunity hasn't taken a hard hit since the early nineties.

Willets Point
Oct 11 2005 01:40 PM

I think Frayed was referring to the argument made against free agency in the 50's, 60's & 70's. Other factors have upset the competitive balance since then, I believe.

Frayed Knot
Oct 11 2005 01:44 PM

="Edgy DC"]I don't think that's the claim.


It was at the time - although admittedly I'm dredging up slogans from an old war here.


]It's hard to argue that the notion of equal opportunity hasn't taken a hard hit since the early nineties.


No question. But that problem started - beginning with the NYY/MSG deal in the late '80s - when the local TV money exploded but only in certain markets and MLB was too slow (or unwilling, or unable) to reach an agreement on spreading that money more equitably. Instead, they were still operating under the rules from the days when those differences were comparitively small.

Edgy DC
Oct 11 2005 01:46 PM

I can see clearly now.

mlbaseballtalk
Oct 15 2005 05:17 PM

My favorite fact from these rankings is that since the last time the Cubs, White Sox, Indians and Giants last won a World Series (1954) the Angels, Mets, Royals, Bluejays, Marlins and Diamondbacks have all been created and won world championships. With the Mets, Bluejays and Marlins double dipping.

Now THAT would be considered annoying if you were fans of the aforementioned teams with droughts!

Another great factoid is thinking about that year, and the next and if you want to take a dividing line to those years in terms of dominance of the NL in terms of global popularity, championships and noterity. Look at a list of the championship winners from 1903-1954. Then from 1955...

Actually I think the paradigms for the two franchises started to shift back in the early 1940's, but I'm sure 1947 might be a better cut off point in the fates of the premire NL and NYC baseball franchise from 1903-1954, the New York Giants, and that of, despite MLB, FOX and Frank McCourt's best efforts, the one of the premire NL, and even to this day (some 58 years since they last played a home game in the City limits) NYC baseball franchises the Los Angeles Dodgers

It truely is a facinating story about how the franchises kind of "changed roles" around that time

Steve

Zvon
Oct 15 2005 05:29 PM

awsum post Yancy.
Totally entertaining to browse thru those lists.
Thank you sir.

Did you create all that,.. is this a CPF exclusive?

You get my Riengold Poster Of The Year award dude. :)

Nymr83
Oct 15 2005 05:40 PM

free agency in the 70's may have CREATED parity in the 70's and 80's. that parity clearly left in the 90's and if baseball wants it back it will take 2 years of striking at least to impose a salary cap.

Iubitul
Oct 15 2005 06:10 PM

I love the Red Button reference - one of my all time fav's:
]Moses, who once said to God, 'Please, stop calling me Charlton', never got a dinner...

Zvon
Oct 15 2005 06:19 PM

Nymr83 wrote:
free agency in the 70's may have CREATED parity in the 70's and 80's. that parity clearly left in the 90's and if baseball wants it back it will take 2 years of striking at least to impose a salary cap.



......something has to be done.
Its a spiral that started upward and outward but has turned inward and downward (as far as the state of the game), imo.

I hate to compare it to slavery, the relationship between owners and players, but there are analogies, and I do believe that things were rebalanced at a point and ultimately overcompensated.

Players should be paid fairly and what they are worth. They are overpaid.
Owners should make money. They have to adjust prices to do it.
Its out of control and the players will never concede anything, which, to me, is a problem.
Of course, there was a time when the owners would not concede, but we are far past that point.

Nymr83
Oct 15 2005 06:49 PM

one thing that alot of people fail to realize is that the MLBPA is not your typical union (nor are baseball owners your typical business owners.) They're both filty rich and when they fight there is nobody to feel bad for but the fans.
an NFL style Salary Cap would be great, but i'd settle even for an NBA "soft cap" or greater revenue sharing (with minimum spending on payroll of twice what you're getting mandatory.)
The players get more andmore bullshit benefits every time and its bad for the game, but its also realy bad for he game when the owners in Tampa Bay, Kansas City, and elsewhere can get big fat checks for Steinbrenner, Wilpon, and Angelos and still not spend more money on players.
We'll probably never have NFL-like parity but we can dream.

Zvon
Oct 15 2005 07:00 PM

Nymr83 wrote:
They're both filty rich and when they fight there is nobody to feel bad for but the fans.


BINGO!

....unfortunately :(

And we love the game so much we really cant do anything about it.
We want the games to be played.
Maybe we are now the slaves.

Frayed Knot
Oct 16 2005 09:27 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 16 2005 09:56 PM

I'm not sold on the idea that salary caps are a magic elixer in these things.
In the words of Rod Serling; "Submitted for your approval":


Over the Last 10 years:
Champions:
MLB = 6 different teams (20% of the league)
NFL = 7 (21.9%)
NBA = 5 (17.2%)

Reaching the Finals:
MLB = 11 different teams (36.7%)
NFL = 11 (34.4%)
NBA = 12 (41.4%)

Failed to reach the league semis (league/conference championship):
MLB = 12 different teams (40%)
NFL = 10 (31.3%)
NBA = 10 (34.5%)



And over the last 20 years:
Different Champions:
MLB = 14 (46.7%)
NFL = 11 (34.4%)
NBA = 6 (20.7%) - that's right, only 6 franchises over 20 seasons!

Reached the finals:
MLB = 19 (63.3%)
NFL = 19 (59.4%)
NBA = 15 (51.7%)

Did not reach the semis:
MLB = 5 (16.7%)
NFL = 4 (12.5%)
NBA = 6 (20.7%)

Frayed Knot
Oct 16 2005 09:55 PM

"Players should be paid fairly and what they are worth. They are overpaid."

They're being paid only what they're being offered by competing employers in an open market -- and even then it takes them a long while before they're allowed to exercise that right.


"Owners should make money. They have to adjust prices to do it."

And control expenses as well. The old reliable "invisible hand" of supply and demand take care of the prices.


"Its out of control and the players will never concede anything, which, to me, is a problem."

They made some concessions in the last negotiating session.


"Of course, there was a time when the owners would not concede, but we are far past that point."

And while the system is far from perfect, I don't think it's "broken" (see stats in above post). The parties are making (slow) progress and I believe that what's in place now puts the league as a whole in as good a place as it's been in many years.

Edgy DC
Oct 16 2005 10:25 PM

The players made consessions on drug testing and their contract wasn't even up.

Willets Point
Oct 16 2005 10:33 PM

This is Kasey Kasem counting down the most years without a League Championship. Moving up 22 spots on the charts to number one, from the Southside, the Chicago White Sox!

Edgy DC
Oct 16 2005 10:37 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 16 2005 11:34 PM

I'd hate an NFL-model salary cap.

Willets Point
Oct 16 2005 11:00 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote:

There's a 75% chance that at the end of this postseason, we'll see our sixth different World Champion in the last six years. (Unless the Angels prevail.)


It's now 100% that we'll see the six different World Champion in six years.

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 17 2005 07:06 AM

One of baseball's longest droughts has ended.

Most Years Without a League Championship
0Chicago White Sox2005
1Boston Red Sox2004
1St. Louis Cardinals2004
2Florida Marlins2003
2New York Yankees2003
3Anaheim Angels2002
3San Francisco Giants2002
4Arizona Diamondbacks2001
5New York Mets2000
6Atlanta Braves1999
7San Diego Padres1998
8Cleveland Indians1997
12Toronto Blue Jays1993
12Philadelphia Phillies1993
14Minnesota Twins1991
15Cincinnati Reds1990
16Oakland Athletics1989
17Los Angeles Dodgers1988
20Kansas City Royals1985
21Detroit Tigers1984
22Baltimore Orioles1983
23Milwaukee Brewers1982
26Pittsburgh Pirates1979
60Chicago Cubs1945

Edgy DC
Oct 26 2005 10:17 PM

Things just got a little dryer in Cleveland

Most years without a World Championship
0 yearsChicago White Sox2005
1 yearsBoston Red Sox2004
2 yearsFlorida Marlins2003
3 yearsAnaheim Angels2002
4 yearsArizona Diamondbacks2001
5 yearsNew York Yankees2000
10 yearsAtlanta Braves1995
12 yearsToronto Blue Jays1993
14 yearsMinnesota Twins1991
15 yearsCincinnati Reds1990
16 yearsOakland Athletics1989
17 yearsLos Angeles Dodgers1988
19 yearsNew York Mets1986
20 yearsKansas City Royals1985
21 yearsDetroit Tigers1984
22 yearsBaltimore Orioles1983
23 yearsSt. Louis Cardinals1982
25 yearsPhiladelphia Phillies1980
26 yearsPittsburgh Pirates1979
51 yearsNew York (SF) Giants1954
57 yearsCleveland Indians1948
97 yearsChicago Cubs1908



Never Won a World Championship
8 yearsTampa Bay Devil Rays1997
13 yearsColorado Rockies1992
29 yearsSeattle Mariners1976
37 yearsWashington Nationals (Montreal Expos)1968
37 yearsSan Diego Padres1968
37 yearsMilwaukee Brewers (Seattle Pilots)1968
44 yearsHouston Astros1961
45 yearsTexas Rangers (Washington Senators)1960



Most years without a League Championship
0 yearsChicago White Sox2005
0 yearsHouston Astros2005
1 yearsBoston Red Sox2004
1 yearsSt. Louis Cardinals2004
2 yearsFlorida Marlins2003
2 yearsNew York Yankees2003
3 yearsAnaheim Angels2002
3 yearsSan Francisco Giants2002
4 yearsArizona Diamondbacks2001
5 yearsNew York Mets2000
6 yearsAtlanta Braves1999
7 yearsSan Diego Padres1998
8 yearsCleveland Indians1997
12 yearsToronto Blue Jays1993
12 yearsPhiladelphia Phillies1993
14 yearsMinnesota Twins1991
15 yearsCincinnati Reds1990
16 yearsOakland Athletics1989
17 yearsLos Angeles Dodgers1988
20 yearsKansas City Royals1985
21 yearsDetroit Tigers1984
22 yearsBaltimore Orioles1983
23 yearsMilwaukee Brewers1982
26 yearsPittsburgh Pirates1979
60 yearsChicago Cubs1945



Never Won a League Championship
8 yearsTampa Bay Devil Rays1997
13 yearsColorado Rockies1992
29 yearsSeattle Mariners1976
37 yearsWashington Nationals (Montreal Expos)1968
45 yearsTexas Rangers (Washington Senators)1960

MFS62
Oct 27 2005 05:45 AM

Willets Point wrote:
This is Kasey Kasem counting down the most years without a League Championship. Moving up 22 spots on the charts to number one, from the Southside, the Chicago White Sox!


WP, that one stopped me in my tracks. I had to keep going back to this post, as though Kasey's voice was urging me to return. "And we have letter from a teenager in Oregon. She writes "Kasey, after my dad left me, mom and my twenty-seven brothers and sisters....... Can you please play his favorite song "Blue Suede Shoes?""


Later

Willets Point
Oct 27 2005 05:56 AM

]Things just got a little dryer in Cleveland


Pencil 'em in for 2007.

MFS62 - if only you could hear me saying it, I do a pretty good Kasey Kasem impersonation (I listened to America's Top 40 religiously around the ages 6 to 9).

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 06:59 AM

Frayed Knot wrote:
Over the Last 10 years:
Champions:
MLB = 6 different teams (20% of the league)
NFL = 7 (21.9%)
NBA = 5 (17.2%)

Reaching the Finals:
MLB = 11 different teams (36.7%)
NFL = 11 (34.4%)
NBA = 12 (41.4%)

Failed to reach the league semis (league/conference championship):
MLB = 12 different teams (40%)
NFL = 10 (31.3%)
NBA = 10 (34.5%)



And over the last 20 years:
Different Champions:
MLB = 14 (46.7%)
NFL = 11 (34.4%)
NBA = 6 (20.7%) - that's right, only 6 franchises over 20 seasons!

Reached the finals:
MLB = 19 (63.3%)
NFL = 19 (59.4%)
NBA = 15 (51.7%)

Did not reach the semis:
MLB = 5 (16.7%)
NFL = 4 (12.5%)
NBA = 6 (20.7%)


I've seen similar stuff busted out whenever this argument comes up. But these percentages really don't tell the story. The story is that some teams will never make the playoffs under our current system. The same is not true in other sports, unless someone like Isiah comes along and ruins your franchise.

Edgy DC
Oct 27 2005 07:36 AM

The Mets are in the midst of the longest championship drought in their history.

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 27 2005 07:44 AM

That's a cheery thought.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 07:44 AM

It must suck to be a Cub fan today. I don't think they have the same animosity for the Pale Hose that we have for the Yanqs (there's no way White Sock fans could be as big a bunch of pricks), but in back to back years the only other two teams that had such amazingly long championship droughts won the WS, and one of those happens to reside in their city. Must suck.

Frayed Knot
Oct 27 2005 08:12 AM

] ...But these percentages really don't tell the story. The story is that some teams will never make the playoffs under our current system. The same is not true in other sports


Yet for 2 decades now it HAS been true in other sports - to the same extent if not moreso than in baseball. And my point isn't that MLB's system is perfect, it's that I don't see a salary cap system (hard, soft or otherwise) as a great solution.

The best 'Anti-MLB' argument is that they have a slightly higher pct of teams not to reach a league final over the last 10 years than the other 2 which one could argue is a result of the explosive yet uneven increase in local media money that started with the MFY contract w/MSG network - although that goes back about 17 years now and at least some of those effects have been partially remedied (at least theoretically) by the most recent labor agreement. In the interim, the success of the Twins & A's have been mixed in with the failures of the Orioles, Dodgers and ... oh hell the Mets.
So if the next 10 years produce marketly different results than the above numbers you may have an argument. But until then, wake me when the LA Clippers and Az Cardinals start winning consistently.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 08:29 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 08:33 AM

]Yet for 2 decades now it HAS been true in other sports


No, it HASn't.

It's definitely not in the NFL, a team can win 6 games and then win the Super Bowl the next year. Any team can afford to build a contender. (This is more a product of the way money is shared and because they only play 16 games a year, but it's still true.)

It's harder to say that the same is true in the NBA, but every team has enough money to get the players you need to win a championship. The problem there is more when moronic GMs pay for the wrong players and are stuck over the cap for 20 years.

Teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Minnesota will never win a WS because they can't afford the players. There's a reason why the Pie-rats traded Benson for Wigginton (though some longtime CPF posters think that losing Wigginton is one of the top 5 worst baseball decisions in MLB history).

A common counter-argument that Minny proves me wrong because they make the playoffs every year. I think that's wrong with the answer to one simple question: Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win ANY of the playoff series they played in?

Anyway, there are no such teams in the NFL or NBA. Any one of them could afford to build a contender.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 08:32 AM

]slightly higher pct of teams not to reach a league final over the last 10 years


No, the story is the number of teams who have no hope of ever winning a WS.

]the success of the Twins & A's have been

How many playoff series have these two teams won combined in the last ten years? Yes, I'd like the Mets to have had their recent history of playoff series, but I'd much rather have the Mets' budget than the execs that run those teams. I think most people would agree with me.

That's telling too. I think most fans would rather their team had a high budget instead of one of the most capable GMs in baseball. The same is not true in other sports *cough* *Isiah* *cough*.

Johnny Dickshot
Oct 27 2005 08:34 AM

]Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win a playoff series?


They already f-ing have.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 08:37 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
]Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win a playoff series?


They already f-ing have.

My question was, "Did you think they would win?" That means before the series.

I also meant after salaries started to sky rocket, so I'm not including the WS teams with Kirby, obviously.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 08:40 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 08:40 AM

I know that my argument is hard to believe or even consider, as baseball fans. But the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I can't imagine being as big a baseball fan as I am and living in, say, Pittsburgh, for example. That has to suck. Year in and year out, knowing your team will not make the playoffs.

sharpie
Oct 27 2005 08:40 AM

Seems to me the Marlins bought their first WS team and then, like so many Super Bowl contenders in recent years, couldn't afford their success and reverted to form.

NFL or NBA style salary caps make every fan into accountants -- do we have cap room to get player X? I think the current system with heavier penalties for going over the posted level where you pay the fine plus more revenue sharing is a better system for fans and is more palatable to the MLBPA.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 08:41 AM

I think the luxury tax will help too. George has got to be spending upwards of 300 million when all of that is taking into account. Could he really still be making a profit?

Vic Sage
Oct 27 2005 08:51 AM

]The Mets are in the midst of the longest championship drought in their history


Well, as far as Mets winning/losing cycles go, they've been pretty consistent:

1) 1962-1968 (7 seasons) = .347 winning% (57-105 avg)
Casey's loveable losers... can't anybody here play this game?

2) 1969-1976 (8 seasons) = .517% (84-78), 2 East Div., 2 NLC, 1 WS
a .500 era with 1 amazin' year, plus the 'ya gotta believes' lose the WS

3) 1977-1983 (7 seasons) = .407% (66-96)
the children's crusade, unloveable losers sold to Doubleday

4) 1984-1990 (7 seasons) = .587% (95-67), 2 Div, 1 NLC, 1 WS
the golden age, but fell short al but once

5) 1991-1996 (6 seasons) = .430% (70-92)
the worst team money could buy

6) 1997-2001 (5 seasons) = .554% (90-72), 2 WC, 1 NLC
Bobby Vee's boys don't go all the way, but play the 2nd best era of Mets ball.

7) 2002-2004 (3 seasons) = .436% (71-91)
the 2nd Worst Team money could buy

8) 2005 = 83-79
If this season ushers in the beginning of a new "up cycle", it could mark 2002-2004 as the shortest "down cycle" in team history.

As for post season play, we're a post-season team every decade or so (11-13 years).

1) 1969, 1973
2) 1986, 1988
3) 1999, 2000

If 2005 is indeed the beginning of a new cycle and not just a blip, the truncated 2002-2004 could indicate a shorter wait for the next post-season period. I'm thinking that by the 2008-2009 era, we should have a championship-caliber team.

Frayed Knot
Oct 27 2005 08:57 AM

You [Elster] keep saying that the chances of winning and competing are far less in baseball than in other sports yet these differences don't show up in the results. How does that work exactly?


]Teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Minnesota will never win a WS because they can't afford the players


The baseball teams in 3 of those cities - KC, Cincy & Minny - have won more recently than their NFL counterparts. In fact the Cincy & Minny teams have never won on the gridiron while the Reds & Twins have at least 3 each during that span - including one each in the '90s.



]I also meant after salaries started to sky rocket, so I'm not including the WS teams with Kirby, obviously.


OK, so then the 'last 10 years' numbers would diverge wildly. Yet - even with the recent run of NYY success mixed in (something that has become LESS common since prior to the draft/FA period) - they don't.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 09:05 AM

="Frayed Knot"]

]Teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Minnesota will never win a WS because they can't afford the players


The baseball teams in 3 of those cities - KC, Cincy & Minny - have won more recently than their NFL counterparts. In fact the Cincy & Minny teams have never won on the gridiron while the Reds & Twins have at least 3 each during that span - including one each in the '90s.

I mean in the most recent years since salaries in baseball started to skyrocket.


="Frayed Knot"]
]I also meant after salaries started to sky rocket, so I'm not including the WS teams with Kirby, obviously.


OK, so then the 'last 10 years' numbers would diverge wildly. Yet - even with the recent run of NYY success mixed in (something that has become LESS common since prior to the draft/FA period) - they don't.


My point is not so much "Who has won a championship?", but more, "Could they win a championship?" And it doesn't have much to do with, say the Steelers vs. the Pirates just because they're in the same city.

My point is, there are certain teams that will never win a title under the current system in baseball. The same is not true in the NFL or NBA. Most any of those teams can afford to pay the players they need, they just have to get them. With a team like Oakland, that has had the luck and the management to get the MVP caliber players like Giambi and Hudson, they have to trade them away because they can't afford them once free agency roles around.

And I for one, never thought Minnesota had a shot of winning anything. To me, they are lucky enough to built decent teams while playing in a division with a bunch of other teams that either: a) misspent the money they had, or b) were one of the poorer franchises. Once the Sox and Indians got their act together, they were quickly an afterthought in 3rd place. In fact, I think they are one of the best examples of my argument. An example of how a team with money can quickly pass by a team that was good but had less money.

Edgy DC
Oct 27 2005 09:23 AM
Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 11:09 AM

The argument isn't built around contrasting the current era with the pre-free agent era or the current era with the pre-draft era, but more anchored in contrasting the current era with the pre-expanded-broadcast-revenue era. It's not fair to reframe it otherwise.

The border isn't clear, but the strike of 1994 works as well as any. In 1990 and 1993, the Kansas City Royals both times went out and got the biggest prize in the free-agent market. For reasons unrelated to the fact that landing such big fishies is a hit/miss prospect, it has become unthinkable that the Royals --- or perhaps up to two thirds of all teams --- could make such a bold move today.

As FK has advocated, this could be largely, and fairly, offset by giving the losers a share in broadcast revenues.

Frayed Knot
Oct 27 2005 09:29 AM

]My point is not so much "Who has won a championship?", but more, "Could they win a championship?"


In other words; forget how it works in practice, how does it work in theory!!

]My point is, there are certain teams that will never win a title under the current system in baseball. The same is not true in the NFL or NBA.


Y'see what you're arguing here don't you?
You're opining that the system is bad that it's bound to result in big differences between the results of MLB & other leagues in the future even though it hasn't yet during the time it's been in effect.
Well get back to me when it does.



]Most any of those teams can afford to pay the players they need, they just have to get them. With a team like Oakland, that has had the luck and the management to get the MVP caliber players like Giambi and Hudson, they have to trade them away because they can't afford them once free agency roles around.


Yes, and they've dealt them for players who have (or they hope will) help them in the future. And again, the other systems offer alternatives which aren't necc an improvement. While MLB's system allows for player movement, the NFL's with it's hard cap requires it in many cases and so those good teams with good players are forced to jettison some of those players whether they can afford them or not! I don't see where that set-up is any better, particularly since the system is designed not to ensure parity (income levels are already largely stabilized) but to ensure owner profits.

Rotblatt
Oct 27 2005 10:30 AM

I totally disagree with your assessment of Minnesota. Hunter, Mauer & Morneau all spent significant time on the DL this year and Morneau surprisingly vanished after he DID get healthy. Throw in the fact that Kubel went down before the season started, and it's just plain silly to argue that the Twins faded because CLE & CWS got good.

And while yes, they have benefited from a weak ALC, they've averaged ~89 wins per season over the last 5 years, better than every AL team but NYY, BOS & OAK, and better than every NL team but ATL, STL & SFG.

If the Mets were the 7th best team in baseball over a five-year period and made the playoffs 3 times during that span, I'd be pretty fucking happy.

I suspect the Twins will be back next year and better than ever. They've got some young ace-like pitchers in the pipeline in Baker & Liriano to complement Santana and an aging Radke. Kubel's healthy, Torii should be by Spring, and if Morneau gets his swing back, they'll probably be back in the playoffs next year.

In short, the Twins are built to be competitve every year on the strength of a ridiculously strong farm system and relatively smart GM'ing.

And by the way, they beat OAK in the first round of the 2002 playoffs, so I've no idea what you meant by this:

]Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win ANY of the playoff series they played in?


And of COURSE they were the underdogs against the Yankees in 2003 & 2004--every team is an underdog against them.

The Twins ARE a success, as everyone who's followed them the last couple years could tell you.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 10:59 AM
Edited 4 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 11:09 AM

="Frayed Knot"]
]My point is not so much "Who has won a championship?", but more, "Could they win a championship?"


In other words; forget how it works in practice, how does it work in theory!!


Not at all. I'm not describing what I mean correctly, I guess.

="Frayed Knot"]
]My point is, there are certain teams that will never win a title under the current system in baseball. The same is not true in the NFL or NBA.


Y'see what you're arguing here don't you?
You're opining that the system is bad that it's bound to result in big differences between the results of MLB & other leagues in the future even though it hasn't yet during the time it's been in effect.
Well get back to me when it does.


It already has. I don't know how else to explain what I mean. Certain teams will never win a WS under the current structure. I don't belive that tallying up the number of teams that have won a league pennant is a counterargument to what I'm saying. I'm not sure how to objectively measure it.

="Frayed Knot"]
]Most any of those teams can afford to pay the players they need, they just have to get them. With a team like Oakland, that has had the luck and the management to get the MVP caliber players like Giambi and Hudson, they have to trade them away because they can't afford them once free agency roles around.


Yes, and they've dealt them for players who have (or they hope will) help them in the future. And again, the other systems offer alternatives which aren't necc an improvement.


So you're telling me that Oakland dealt those players because they wanted to, and not because they couldn't afford to resign them?

]For reasons unrelated to the fact that landing such big fishies is a hit/miss prospect, it has become unthinkable that the Royals --- or perhaps up to two thirds of all teams --- could make such a bold move today.

This is what I'm trying to argue. Edgy put it succinctly.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 11:02 AM

]If the Mets were the 7th best team in baseball over a five-year period and made the playoffs 3 times during that span, I'd be pretty fucking happy.


Like I already said, sure this would make for some exciting baseball. But the ultimate hope of mine as a fan is for the Mets to win the big prize. I don't see Minnesota doing this anytime soon. But it's true, I don't know a lot about them.

Frayed Knot
Oct 27 2005 12:43 PM

]It already has [affected the success rate] ... I don't know how else to explain what I mean. Certain teams will never win a WS under the current structure.


But those teams have been competing for them and winning them despite the inequalities in the system - and have been doing so at a rate at least comparable to that of the other systems that MLB's critics demand be adopted as a fix.
That's been the argument all along.


]I don't belive that tallying up the number of teams that have won a league pennant is a counterargument to what I'm saying. I'm not sure how to objectively measure it.


Which is sort of like saying that you know player A - because he has a smaller strike zone and is faster - is going to have a better future OBA than player B ... even though there's many years of actual data showing otherwise.



]So you're telling me that Oakland dealt those players because they wanted to, and not because they couldn't afford to resign them?


Not at all. Just saying that there are different paths to succeed (or try to) within a system and that the NFL & NBA cap plans are putting up different limits on how a team can keep talent. The results of these different systems have been - despite claims to the contrary - remarkably similar in the way championships have been distributed and in the pct of teams that have been shut out.

Edgy DC
Oct 27 2005 12:48 PM

Can we discuss the alleged inequities teams have in competitive opportunities without assuming that the only alternatives are those modeled by thte NBA and NFL?

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 01:15 PM

="Frayed Knot"]
]It already has [affected the success rate] ... I don't know how else to explain what I mean. Certain teams will never win a WS under the current structure.


But those teams have been competing for them and winning them despite the inequalities in the system - and have been doing so at a rate at least comparable to that of the other systems that MLB's critics demand be adopted as a fix.
That's been the argument all along.


I added the bold to emphasize the particular sentence. When did what you say in that bolded sentence happen? Who has been competing and winning? Minnesota? Oakland? They never won a WS. I think we're arguing two different things.

My argument is simply this: A team like Pittsburgh, or Cinicinnati, or Minnesota, will not win a WS without some kind of salary cap because they can't afford to put a team together that is capable enough. There is no way for me to prove this. I can't look at the past 11 years (I agree with Edgy, the strike is a good cutoff) and say, "See I'm right", because the sample size isn't big enough. There is not really a way to objectively measure this. And I don't know what this means:
]even though there's many years of actual data showing otherwise.
What data are you referring to? The percentages of teams that get to the LCS and WS?

And, again, my main problem is feeling sympathy for some poor sap who loves baseball but lives in Pittsburgh. He is fucked under MLB's system. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 01:21 PM

]Just saying that there are different paths to succeed (or try to) within a system and that the NFL & NBA cap plans are putting up different limits on how a team can keep talent.


I agree that it's not like the systems that the NFL or NBA employ are light years better. But I'd contend that every team in those leagues has a hope of winning it all under one of those systems. I don't think the same is true in baseball.

Edgy DC
Oct 27 2005 01:38 PM

I have to say I disagree with salary caps in principle.

Much better alternatives, in accord with our free-market system:

1) Allow visiting teams to share in broadcast, as well stadium, revenues, as they are part of the attraction.

2) Remove MLB's anti-trust exemption, thereby allowing teams to compete for the larger markets in more densely populated areas.

Frayed Knot
Oct 27 2005 01:42 PM

"When did what you say in that bolded sentence happen?"

Inequalitites? There have been those in the system since the dawn of time. You think the Yanx just happened to win all those pennants in the '40s & '50s because they were pure of heart? Or believe that the Cardinals and their 20-something farm teams weren't at an advantage over teams (like the Phils) that had none? In many ways things are better now than they were back "in the good old days".


"Who has been competing and winning? Minnesota? Oakland? They never won a WS."

But they've been in hot competition for one, in some cases more often than other supposedly well-heeled teams. You're making a bit of a leap by treating the lack of a WS as proof that one can not and will not happen.



"What data are you referring to? The percentages of teams that get to the LCS and WS?"

Sure.
You're assuming that a cap system will produce better results while dismissing the data which shows that the leagues that already have cap systems are not better and, by some measures, are worse.

Rotblatt
Oct 27 2005 02:13 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 02:16 PM

]My argument is simply this: A team like Pittsburgh, or Cinicinnati, or Minnesota, will not win a WS without some kind of salary cap because they can't afford to put a team together that is capable enough.


I think you're just plain wrong. Anaheim in 2002 had a payroll around $60M (~30% less than SFG). And Florida in 2003? They were at around $50M--about a third of the Yankee's--and LESS than Minnesota's 2003 payroll (~$60M).

And as for capability, I think most people would say that a team who wins, say, 100 games or more in the regular season (as OAK did in 2001 & 2002) are plenty capable of winning the WS.

I mean, look at the 2000 ALDS between OAK & NYY. Oakland, with their $35M payroll, outscored, outhit & outpitched the $100M Yankees. Yes, they lost the series in 5, but that series could easily have gone either way.

In 2001, same story. The Yankees got marginally better pitching, (2.20 ERA to 2.86 ERA), but Oakland outhit them once again.

I don't see how you could watch those two series and come away thinking that Oakland would have had no chance in the World Series those years.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 02:16 PM
Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 02:25 PM

Well, those numbers are basically torpedoing my thoughts. Some more of them:

I still say it sucks to be a Pirate fan.

I consider Anaheim and Florida to be large budget teams.

Minnesota and Oakland are the exceptions, not the rules when it comes to small-market, small-payroll teams. I'd say it's a lot harder to build a team that way then to build one with a huge budget. Maybe that's the crux of what I am trying to get at. Teams with more money have a HUGE advantage over the smaller market teams. It's very hard for a Minny or an Oaktown to emerge and compete with the New Yorks, Bostons, and Atlantas.

I think I'll go with this: Teams with more money have a HUGE advantage over the smaller market teams. Not fair to Royal-fans.

Please continue to destroy what I am saying.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 135) Mackey Sasser

Edgy DC
Oct 27 2005 02:20 PM

You know (and for some reason I'm being ignored in this discussion), logic would suggest that just because some teams succeed despite being forced to play under a more restrictive set of rules doesn't mean that it's OK to continue to force them to.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 02:21 PM

Edgy DC wrote:
You know (and for some reason I'm being ignored in this discussion), logic would suggest that just because some teams succeed despite being forced to play under a more restrictive set of rules doesn't mean that it's OK to continue to force them to.


YES!!!! Why couldn't I have put it that way? Edgy how much to hire you to regularly take an incoherent set of five pages of thoughts and sum them up in one sentence?

Willets Point
Oct 27 2005 02:23 PM

And can we split off this parity discussion into another thread from the Drought Watch? We have the power, I just want permission.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 02:23 PM
Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 02:29 PM

]Oakland, with their $35M payroll, outscored, outhit & outpitched the $100M Yankees. Yes, they lost the series in 5, but that series could easily have gone either way.


Of course, that $35 payroll included Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, Mulder and Zito (and Foulke?). It's pretty damn near impossible to get 5 players like that for under 40 million, let alone a team to play with them. That's again speaking right to my point. You have to have an extremely good (or lucky) fromt office to get a team with that talent for that little cash. And three years later they will all be gone.

That's why I consider teams like that to be the exception for the small-budgeters, not the rule.

Edgy DC
Oct 27 2005 02:24 PM

Forty-four grand plus a half a dozen Met games.

Mezz seats. I've fallen for crap before.

Rotblatt
Oct 27 2005 02:46 PM

Elster88 wrote:
Of course, that $35 payroll included Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, Mulder and Zito (and Foulke?). It's pretty damn near impossible to get 5 players like that for under 40 million, let alone a team to play with them. That's again speaking right to my point. You have to be extremely good (or lucky) to get a cheap team with talent like that. And three years later they will all be gone.


Sure, but so long as small market teams draft (and trade for) and develop players well, they'll always have a pool of good young talent to draw from.

Oakland won 102 games in 2001, 103 in 2002 (without Giambi), 96 in 2003, 91 in 2004 (without Tejada) & 88 in 2005 (without Hudson or Mulder).

Meanwhile, they've got Street, Haren, Blanton, Harden & Crosby ushering in the new era, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them be in the mid-90's in wins again next year. Time will tell, I suppose . . .

]You know (and for some reason I'm being ignored in this discussion), logic would suggest that just because some teams succeed despite being forced to play under a more restrictive set of rules doesn't mean that it's OK to continue to force them to.


Sure, I don't have a problem with trying to establish a little more equity in payrolls. I just didn't want my favorite AL team getting their good reputation tarnished by Elster88. ;-)

It's a source of pride for most Twins fans that they've been successful despite a cheap-ass owner who pockets the Twin's revenue-sharing money. They probably want more equity in payroll, but I'm pretty sure they want a new owner--one who would pony up for a new stadium on his own dime--more.

Elster88
Oct 27 2005 02:50 PM

Rotblatt wrote:
="Elster88"]Of course, that $35 payroll included Giambi, Tejada, Hudson, Mulder and Zito (and Foulke?). It's pretty damn near impossible to get 5 players like that for under 40 million, let alone a team to play with them. That's again speaking right to my point. You have to be extremely good (or lucky) to get a cheap team with talent like that. And three years later they will all be gone.


Sure, but so long as small market teams draft (and trade for) and develop players well, they'll always have a pool of good young talent to draw from.

Oakland won 102 games in 2001, 103 in 2002 (without Giambi), 96 in 2003, 91 in 2004 (without Tejada) & 88 in 2005 (without Hudson or Mulder).

Meanwhile, they've got Street, Haren, Blanton, Harden & Crosby ushering in the new era, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them be in the mid-90's in wins again next year. Time will tell, I suppose . . .

All true. Again, it's only the A's and Twins who seem able to do this. There's some schmuck in Tampa that wants his team to win.


Rotblatt wrote:
]You know (and for some reason I'm being ignored in this discussion), logic would suggest that just because some teams succeed despite being forced to play under a more restrictive set of rules doesn't mean that it's OK to continue to force them to.


Sure, I don't have a problem with trying to establish a little more equity in payrolls. I just didn't want my favorite AL team getting their good reputation tarnished by Elster88. ;-)

Haha. Hey, I respect Minnesota a lot. I don't think it's fair that their forced to play under this system, and I just thought that they were playing over their heads the past few years.

Rockin' Doc
Oct 27 2005 08:07 PM

Elster88 - "Edgy how much to hire you to regularly take an incoherent set of five pages of thoughts and sum them up in one sentence?"

Well, he is an editor. I would expect him to be articulate.

Willets Point
Oct 27 2005 08:18 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 27 2005 08:38 PM

Rockin' Doc wrote:

Well, he is an editor. I would expect him to be articulate.


And at the end of a day of great editing, all the writers gather around and throw Edgy in the air in celebration.

On Edit: Damnit, I need an editor.

Edgy DC
Oct 27 2005 08:36 PM

Damn it, I love baseball.

Frayed Knot
Oct 27 2005 10:11 PM

"I still say it sucks to be a Pirate fan."

Agreed. Partially that's because of MLB's system but also partially because they've been run poorly over recent years.


"You know (and for some reason I'm being ignored in this discussion), logic would suggest that just because some teams succeed despite being forced to play under a more restrictive set of rules doesn't mean that it's OK to continue to force them to"

Also true. I'm not suggesting that the current system is where it should be -- just that I don't believe that the 'cap' alternatives are the answer especially when they've shown themselves to be no better at spreading the titles around or keeping the bottom feeders from consistently being bottom feeders.



"I think I'll go with this: Teams with more money have a HUGE advantage over the smaller market teams."

Of course they do and things would shirley be better it if incomes were more uniform throughout, although part of the differences in income is that some teams have been better at creating income by marketing and investing in their product better.
Point is that not only are the leagues w/caps not producing better results, but that the whole point of the salary cap has nothing to do with parity, it has to do with artificially holding down salaries across the entire league in order to ensure profit levels.

MFS62
Oct 28 2005 08:11 AM

The idea of a team having a $35 million salary budget makes my blood boil.

I may have posted this before, but please bear with me.

A few years ago (it may have been the Spring of 2003 or 2004), Selig testified before Congress about the financial state of Major League Baseball. He was trying to show how all but a handfull of teams lost money. On that day, USA Today printed a copy of the spreadsheet/ books he presented into evidence. I have tried several times to find a link to that spreadsheet, but have been unable to locate it. But I do remember one significant number.

Each major league club receives a total of $42.8 million per year from national tv and radio rights and royalties from MLB branded merchandise.
Let me repeat that number, $42.8 million per year.

That is before a single fan parks a car, buys a ticket, yearbook, scorecard or souvenir, or stops at the concession stand for some overpriced food and drink. And that does not include individual team revenues from local tv radio, or ballpark and scorecard advertising.

The fact that a baseball team can have a salary budget of less than that, and claim that they have lost money, is hubris.

I believe that each team's payout of the annual shared revenues should be established as a salary floor. And it should be mandatory that they use all of it each year, or they will lose their portion of the luxury tax payout. Maybe that will force some of the "smaller market" teams to be competitive when trying to acquire talent, in order to put a better prioduct on the field. It may not solve all the ills of competitive balance, but it would at least be a start.


Thoughts?
Later

Elster88
Oct 28 2005 08:41 AM

]The fact that a baseball team can have a salary budget of less than that, and claim that they have lost money, is hubris.

Baseball teams do incur other expenses besides salaries.

Edgy DC
Oct 28 2005 08:59 AM

I don't go for salary caps or floors either.