I talked about this last year during the MLB playoffs, discussing how the lack of salary cap is kind of a buzzkill for me - that I find the lack of a salary cap to be too much of an unfair advantage for the big market teams.
Since I often have this conversation with big baseball fans (in particular, Red Sox fans), I keep hearing about how this isn't a problem. The argument, it goes, is that money doesn't guarantee anything. That you can look and see the Tampa Bay Rays in the post season this year or the Houston Astros last. That you can look at the Yankees and Phillies this year (or the Red Sox last year). And you can say, "Money doesn't guarantee anything."
Let me be clear about what my argument is: I am NOT arguing that you can just buy championships and wins. I am NOT arguing that having no money means you are destined to just be terrible year in and year out. Obviously, high payroll teams miss the playoffs. And obviously, low payroll teams make the playoffs. But you can't look at the statistics and tell me that money doesn't matter. My entire argument is that having $120 million payrolls gives you an unfair advantage over smaller market teams that have $40-50 million payrolls. The more money you have, the deeper the team you can buy. The higher the payroll, the deeper your bullpen. This in turn increases your odds of winning in general, but especially in the post season.
This year was kind of the perfect example of what my argument actually is. This year was really refreshing. Of the 8 teams to make playoff series, 3 were in the 5 highest payrolls (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers) while 3 were in the 5 lowest payrolls (Rays, A's, Pirates). Then you had the Braves (a middle of the pack payroll) and the Cardinals (the 11th highest payroll, barely missing the top 10 by a mere $1 million - which sounds like a lot but is only 1% of their payroll).
So obviously, you can win in the regular season with a low payroll, but when you get to the playoffs, the lack of depth really becomes noticeable when they play top payroll teams. So this year, you've got 3 teams of the top 5 and 3 teams of the bottom 5. And ya know what happened? Can ya guess who won and advanced? The Red Sox, Tigers, and Dodgers. Go figure. The four teams with the lowest payrolls all got eliminated. And honestly? It wasn't even that close. So now we're left with 3 teams in the top 5 highest payrolls, and 1 team that is just outside the top 10.
Of course Red Sox fans don't have a problem with the lack of a salary cap. They've largely benefited from being in the top 5 highest payrolls! It's why they are able to so quickly go from a joke of a year to a World Series favorites! But teams like the Astros or Pirates don't have that luxury. They see limited success from great management specifically. (Great management is always important, of course. It's just a lot easier to win when you've got good management and $120 million.)
How can you say that it doesn't matter though? Here are the last 21 World Series winners and their ranking in terms of highest payrolls:
2012 - San Francisco Giants: $138 million (6th)
2011 - St. Louis Cardinals: $105 million (11th)
2010 - San Francisco Giants: $97 million (10th)
2009 - New York Yankees: $201 million (1st)
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies: $98 million (13th)
2007 - Boston Red Sox: $143 million (2nd)
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals: $88 million (11th)
2005 - Chicago White Sox: $73 million (13th)
2004 - Boston Red Sox: $125 million (2nd)
2003 - Florida Marlins: $63 million (20th)
2002 - Anaheim Angels: $61 million (15th)
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks: $81 million (8th)
2000 - New York Yankees: $92 million (1st)
1999 - New York Yankees: $89 million (1st)
1998 - New York Yankees: $64 million (2nd)
1997 - Florida Marlins: $48 million (7th)
1996 - New York Yankees: $53 million (1st)
1995 - Atlanta Braves: $46 million (3rd)
1993 - Toronto Blue Jays: $43 million (1st)
1992 - Toronto Blue Jays: $44 million (1st)
1991 - Minnesota Twins: $23 million (13th)
(Interesting to see the explosion of money spent on talent though. The Yankees went from spending the most in 1999 at $89 million to spending the most just ten years later in 2009 at $201 million!)
In the last 21 years, only one team has won a World Series in the bottom half of payrolls. Another way to break it down though? Teams in the top 10 highest payrolls account for 67% of World Series pennants. Teams in the middle 10 payrolls account for 33% of World Series wins. Teams in the bottom 10 payrolls? ZERO! And when you have only one team in that time frame in the bottom half (which means that 20 of 21 were in the top 15 highest payrolls), how can you sit there and say that it doesn't matter? No, I'm not saying you win based on your payroll, but I am saying that payroll does clearly matter.
To me, it's a lot like asking a kid in a wealthy suburb to take a standardized test, then asking a kid the same age in inner city Baltimore to take the same test. Who do you think is going to do better? Having more money is always going to create an advantage, whether or not that directly leads to specific success. Consider the Yankees, Phillies, Dodgers, and Red Sox the wealthy suburban sports teams while the Rays, Astros, and Marlins to be the inner city teams.
My argument is just that the lack of a salary cap does not put teams on even footing and as such gives certain high spending teams (or teams capable of spending a lot) a much more favorable chance at winning - not just in the regular season, but also in the post season. You can buy more depth because you can afford more depth. And that depth is what wins championships.
I just don't see how you can look at those numbers, see that no team in the bottom third has won in the past 22 years, that 14 of 21 winners (and in all honesty, likely 15 of 22 by the time this year is finished) were in the top 10, and then tell me that "it doesn't matter." Again, I'm not saying it means everything, but it obviously means something.
No comments:
Post a Comment