Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk
I'm not a fan of baseball either, but he throws out several facts to support his claim. How is he wrong exactly?
|
Just got around to this, that SF game set me back a few days.
He focuses on "repeat playoff appearances" and "playoff turnover." Doesn't say much.
So one year you have the Yanks, Rangers, Angels, Cards, Braves.... the next you have the Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, Phillies, Tigers. All these teams are in top half of the league payrolls, how does this show parity?
Some other points:
Does money really buy World Series titles? | Washington Times Communities
"Seventeen of the last 18 World Series winners have had a payroll in the top 15. In the last 18 years, only one team has been able to win the World Series without being ranked in the top 15 for payroll. That team was the 1997 Florida Marlins. They ranked 25th out of 28 teams.
Now, let’s see where the loser of the World Series ranked in payroll over the last 18 years. Fifteen of the losing teams were ranked in the top 15 in baseball. Only three teams ranked outside of the top 15 in player salary have managed to make it to the World Series and then lose."
Another point involves "player parity". In the NFL a star like Peyton or Favre can stay with the same team for their whole career, even in small markets like Indy and Green Bay. If Peyton played baseball, there is basically zero chance he would stay with a small market team his whole career. He would undoubtedly "graduate" to the Yanks or the Sox after a few years.
I know baseball is trying to improve its parity with revenue sharing etc. and I commend them for that. But to suggest the overall competitiveness of baseball and football are similar is quite a stretch IMO.