Comments on: Must-click link: Is it easier to buy wins today than it used to be?

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:51:34 +0000

Yeah, the heart of the issue is that money still buys wins. But it buys fewer wins than it used to. So that’s good, at least.

I’m not sure what Studeman was supposed to prove about the popularity of the sport. The fact that there’s more parity than there used to be is a good thing, and I don’t really care if more people watch football.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:48:01 +0000

Not sure if you’re replying to a commenter above or the article, but the article is about regular season wins. If spending money doesn’t guarantee you as many wins as it used to, that’s a good thing.

By: brewcrewfan54

brewcrewfan54 — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:36:58 +0000

Having different champions isn’t really a sign of parity to me. All that says to me is that once a team gets to the playoffs it is anybodys game. We have the wildcard to thank for that. The fact is its still the same teams that are making the playoffs on a regular basis. The big money teams will always have the advantage. Revenue sharing has closed the gap for the teams that use it correctly but it will never be an even playing field.

By: florida76

florida76 — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:33:19 +0000

Dave Studeman’s graphs just fail to capture the heart of the issue. No one has ever suggested revenue disparity is the sole reason for teams struggling to compete, but it’s reality of the issue. As we’ve seen countless teams, even small market teams with great decision making skills only have a small window of opportunity for serious contention. And that’s wrong.

Studeman data also fails to take into the account of the linkage between gaps in revenue and popularity of the sport. The opportunity of long term serious contention is definitely the gold standard, and is something the NFL has understood for decades. People love to talk about parity while the last two decades of World Series TV ratings have been poor, even with the Yankees involved.

By: bigleagues

bigleagues — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:46 +0000

I do believe it. I have even confessed that MLB parity is one of the good accomplishments under Selig and I think the new labor deal could further enhance that with the establishment of payroll minimum.

Most of the bottom teams are there, not exclusively because of revenue disparity, but largely because of poor decision making and leadership.

For all its Socialism, and perhaps more so than any other major team sport . . . Capitalism still has a place in MLB.

By: hammyofdoom

hammyofdoom — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:00:16 +0000

You know, I had a sneaking suspicion that baseball wasn’t as top heavy as some people had believed. The past 10 World Series Winners: Yankees 2 in a row, then Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, Red then White Sox, Cardinals, Red Sox, Phillies, Yankees, Giants, Cardinals. Meanwhile, look at the 70s… Orioles, Pirates, Athletics 3 in a row, Reds 2 in a row, Yankees in a row, then Pirates again. Teams with small payrolls will keep winning until teams like the Red Sox and yankees stop giving 80+ million dollars to the Burnetts and Lackeys of the world