Kansas Crimson

2023
Champion: Texas Rangers
Payroll: $251.35 million
Last Place: Oakland Athletics
Payroll: $57.79 million

440% more.

2022
Champion: Houston Astros
Payroll: $184.55 million
Last Place: Oakland Athletics
Payroll: $48.8 million

385% more.


2021
Champion: Atlanta Braves
Payroll: $171.1 million
Last Place: Baltimore Orioles
Payroll: $41.3 million

398% more.


2020
Champion: Los Angeles Dodgers
Payroll: $124.9 million
Last Place: Pittsburgh Pirates
Payroll: $25.3 million

500% more.


2019
Champion: Washington Nationals
Payroll: $197.8 million
Last Place: Detroit Tigers
Payroll: $62.6 million

319% more.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:58 pm OK.

So now let's filter out the differences in money with a salary cap and now, if a team sucks, it sucks because it has made the wrong moves, has had the wrong coaches or the wrong players...instead of being outspent by 500%.

Isn't "choosing not to spend" a move? Isn't "choosing to hold a super-desirable asset that I can't or don't want to afford to manage right" a move?

Why let an owner off the hook for those moves, but not for other "wrong moves"?

That's all I'm saying.

A cap is a windfall to owners. We know this for lots of reasons, none more telling than just how badly the owners want it.

And I am just not seeing the evidence - the data, from other approaches in other sports/leagues - that supports confidence that the competitive result we would (both!) want would follow.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:04 pm 2023
Champion: Texas Rangers
Payroll: $251.35 million
Last Place: Oakland Athletics
Payroll: $57.79 million

440% more.

2022
Champion: Houston Astros
Payroll: $184.55 million
Last Place: Oakland Athletics
Payroll: $48.8 million

385% more.


2021
Champion: Atlanta Braves
Payroll: $171.1 million
Last Place: Baltimore Orioles
Payroll: $41.3 million

398% more.


2020
Champion: Los Angeles Dodgers
Payroll: $124.9 million
Last Place: Pittsburgh Pirates
Payroll: $25.3 million

500% more.


2019
Champion: Washington Nationals
Payroll: $197.8 million
Last Place: Detroit Tigers
Payroll: $62.6 million

319% more.

Seems like those last place teams - all of which are worth well north of a billion dollars and get >$200mm in central revenue each year and play, or are about to play, in taxpayer funded stadiums - should spend some more fucking money!

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:21 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:58 pm OK.

So now let's filter out the differences in money with a salary cap and now, if a team sucks, it sucks because it has made the wrong moves, has had the wrong coaches or the wrong players...instead of being outspent by 500%.

And I am just not seeing the evidence - the data, from other approaches in other sports/leagues - that supports confidence that the competitive result we would (both!) want would follow.

I've provided the evidence over and over in this thread.
Head in the sand my guy.

Be like the NFL.
Find a number like 50% of the leagues revenue divided by the teams. Make that the cap.
Force a floor - like you have to spend 90% of your cap every season.

No more direct link to spending 2, 3, 4 times more than others to making the playoffs.

Done.

Royals are on espn + tonight at Oakland. Gotta be the ugliest stadium in the majors.

Marsh had a great fastball tonight. Too bad he barely used it. Teams are teeing off on Royals breaking balls. I would say there must be a tell, but the location has been terrible. Garcia has been unable to hit a fastball for a month. Hampson still on the team. They teased us, but Massey is a must-have player on a light hitting team. And Q platooning Melendez. Sigh. Embarrassing. A's had lost nine in row until confronting a timid starter.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:44 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:21 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:58 pm OK.

So now let's filter out the differences in money with a salary cap and now, if a team sucks, it sucks because it has made the wrong moves, has had the wrong coaches or the wrong players...instead of being outspent by 500%.

And I am just not seeing the evidence - the data, from other approaches in other sports/leagues - that supports confidence that the competitive result we would (both!) want would follow.

I've provided the evidence over and over in this thread.
Head in the sand my guy.

Be like the NFL.
Find a number like 50% of the leagues revenue divided by the teams. Make that the cap.
Force a floor - like you have to spend 90% of your cap every season.

No more direct link to spending 2, 3, 4 times more than others to making the playoffs.

Done.

The data you have provided supports the conclusion that if you flatten spending (by giving all money over a certain amount to the owners), then you will weaken (down toward zero) the correlation between spending and winning.

Of course that is true; it's just math.

What is lacking, though, is data supporting the conclusion that if you weaken the correlation between spending and winning (down toward zero), the sport will be more competitive.

Somewhat like trickle-down economics, your theory sounds good: if the Yankees can't outspend the Brewers, then the Brewers would be competing on a more level playing field with the Yankees. Boom, parity.

But the data suggests that, like trickle-down economics, we shouldn't be so optimistic that it would work: you haven't identified a pro sports example that functions the way you want baseball to function, and is objectively more competitive than baseball. And money is a competitive tool, besides. Where, for example, would the Royals be this year if they couldn't choose to outbid teams for Lugo and Wacha?

The NFL has less diversity in winners than does baseball, and the byzantine system in the NBA (which is probably the closest analog for what you are seeking in baseball) has produced, among other things, a race to the bottom (because the draft is the only reliable way for all but a select handful of teams to ever attract the type of player that really drives winning).

Again, I absolutely 100% agree with you that baseball would improve if we narrowed the competitive distance between franchises. We just disagree on whether another massive handout to the owners would be effective to achieve this goal.

“ The NFL has less diversity in winners than does baseball…”

If you mean winning by complete champions then yes but we have gone over that twice on this thread.

In terms of winning seasons those can shift quite quickly. Look at the divisional playoffs from season to season or new wild card teams.

And finally, for the what, fourth time, ALL OF THE NFL TEAMS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MOVES TO GET THE PLAYERS THEY NEEDED TO MAKE A WINNING SQUAD AND DID NOT HAVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF OUTSPENDING ANOTHER TEAM BY TWO, THREE, FOUR OR FIVE TIMES.

ANYONE COULD HAVE DRAFTED MAHOMES OR BURROW OR ALLEN WITH SHREWD MOVES.

AGAIN MONEY IS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE THAT NOT ALL TEAMS HAVE.

“ Again, I absolutely 100% agree with you that baseball would improve if we narrowed the competitive distance between franchises.”

This is done with a cap maximizing big market teams and forcing smaller market teams to pay a minimum per year. Like the NFL does.

"In terms of winning seasons those can shift quite quickly. Look at the divisional playoffs from season to season or new wild card teams."

I'm trying to think, other than the shithole lolzboat Broncos and laughably run by maybe the worst owner in sports Carolina Panthers, have every other NFL team made the playoffs recently ( like last 5-6 years )?

It helps of course that the playoffs have expanded ( stupid ) but most of the teams that have made it have had winning records.

I mean...this has to correlate to no cap somehow, right?

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/mlb/1 ... ba-mlb-nhl

How could I forget the Jets.
OK, so 3 teams, and at least 2 have just made recent bad call over bad call ( Broncos and Panthers ) and that's why they aren't winning.

Salvy being thrown out at second on a standup double was sad. He should be pinch hitting only. Man is banged up. Royals hitting looks terrible so far. Hey Q, why don't you move Garcia from lead off? He makes Esky look like Ty Cobb right now. Witt should lead off or Isbel. Just awful.

If you are in the hunt for a wild card you should not be loosing to the As.

Beep Bop Boop.

Really need a better manager who can evaluate talent. Q is exhausting.

Still not hitting. But bleeding stopped a little

Q put Garcia at lead off again. Brought Schreiber in again whose super power is giving away the lead. 2-1 lead in 1/3 of an inning is 6-2 deficit. Terrible manager. He has no feel for relief pitching. At all. Salvy behind the plate again too. Pretty much a shell right now who needs some time to heal.

The Royals are reverting back to terrible habits and Q does nothing. Jeebus. Looking at the first pitch and falling behind. Guess what the scouting report says Q? Royal pitchers have given up home runs on breaking balls. Teams are waiting for them. Today, two for five runs. Mind you, playing four straight division leaders, then closing against the WS champs was special. MLB. Soul rending. The boys are currently ball-less.

The Royals "lucky" scheduling continues as Schertzer returns and the ump giving him an extra large strike zone. Sigh.
Worst hitting coaches on baseball. Why Renfro and Blanco are starting against Schertzer is anyone's guess. So ugly. And Marsh already had his WTF inning.