Cup of Coffee

October 24, 2017: Global Sequence

58 Comments

It may not be the exact matchup those fatcats down in Washington wanted, but I think we've got some good baseball in front of us.

I want ____ to win the World Series

  • Astros (85%, 17 Votes)
  • Dodgers (15%, 3 Votes)

Total Voters: 20

Loading ... Loading ...

58 thoughts on “October 24, 2017: Global Sequence”

    2. I want 7 quality games of baseball and the Astros winning it (because they have never won a WS). But won't be down if the Dodgers win (because Kershaw)

  2. As I said a few days ago, I'm rooting for the Dodgers because of my memories of the great Dodger teams when I was growing up (even though they beat the Twins in the series--I was only six then, so it didn't affect me that much). But if the Astros win, that's fine with me, too. As dw said, I really just want there to be seven really good base ball games.

    1. I want Dodgers in 4, humiliating the Astros, and helping to establish that $$$ is a problem in baseball. This Series is a means to an end...

      1. I’ve been thinking about your position on this, and I think it’s made me even more adamant that I want to see MLB use its capital with MLBPA to fix the game’s equity/money problem before addressing something as comparatively insignificant as realignment or expansion.

        2. Fixing the money problem should definitely be the first priority. Whether you call it a cap or revenue sharing, teams need similar resources to compete.

        3. You think we got problems now? The Yankees have "only" been to 11 World Series in the last 50 years. In the 50 years before that, they went to 29. Of course, the draft has had a lot to do with that since the Yankees could no longer outbid everybody for the best young talent. The problem right now with getting MLB to make revenue-sharing changes is the Twins just made the playoffs. If a "small market" team like the Twins can go from 103 losses to the playoffs, MLB will see no reason to make changes. Most seasons, anybody that's around .500 going into September can cling to hope of a playoff berth. When the same teams keep making the playoffs every year, that's when fans will begin to really complain about inequity. It's hard to imagine the Yankees, Red Sox, Astros and Indians won't make the playoffs next year. Same goes for Dodgers, Cubs and Nats in the NL.

          1. How many teams have averaged 94 wins/year over the last 25 years? You are also not accounting for expansion--for most of those first 50 years, there were only 16 teams in MLB. Adding in the chanhes in playoff format, I'm not convinced the Yankees are any less dominant than they used to be.

      2. I bet you a good steak dinner that if the Dodgers destroy the Astros, absolutely nothing will happen. No one seems to see them as the Yankees.

          1. Luxury tax was implemented in 2002 (there was a minor version of it from '97 - '99, but a total of ~$30 mil was paid those 3 years combined, so... not a lot). The fact that it wasn't a complete fix doesn't mean nothing changed. Movement in the right direction is movement in the right direction.

        2. That's my point. This year no one sees them that way, because they haven't won it all yet. Once they do, that'll change (see: Cubs, Chicago). Then we'll have another prime example of the problem, and when they repeat next year people will be super sick of them.

          1. Ah, the long con.

            I still don't think it'll work. As Cheaptoy mentions, even the Yankees couldn't change things, and it's shocking to me how few people were irritated about the Yankees even this year other than generic Yankee fatigue.

            People dislike repeat winners, they don't necessarily dislike anyone but the Yankees when it comes to "buying" teams. If the A's miraculously pulled off three of the next four World Series wins (basically impossible, but bear with me), I think you'd have nearly the same fatigue that you saw with the Cubs this year.

            1. I think the only thing that will help is a long stretch of Yankee/Red Sox wins. I know it'll get me to stop watching the postseason.

              1. But because the playoffs are so random, this scenario is unlikely. And because fans care more about playoff results than regular season results, and because mediocre teams can make the playoffs now, I just don't see fans being that up in arms about it.

                1. But the playoffs aren't all that random. I mean, they are somewhat random, but, generally speaking, the better teams win series. The Dodgers and the Astros are playing in the World Series. The Astros were just one game behind the Indians. You'd have expected Dodgers and Astros/Indians looking at the standings. Last year the Cubs and the Indians (one game off of the Rangers) made sense too. 2015, the Royals had the best AL record (Mets were a wild card). 2014 was an off year. 2013 had the best team in each league.

                  It's not random. It's not a pure reflection, but it's not random. Not even close.

                2. I think we underrate how much people care about the regular season. Nothing is more soul-crushing than following a truly bad baseball team during the regular season.

                  But fans generally consider that a local problem, not a global problem--they blame it on poor management, etc. Which always has some degree of truth to it, but having fewer resources means they'll look worse than they actually are.

                  I do agree that no single team could change things, but if you had 3-4 teams that consistently won over a 6-7 year period, you might negatively impact enough teams that they would take some half-measure. Getting a relatively hard cap or meaningful revenue sharing would probably take a lockout at the least--the players would fight it the whole way.

                  1. I've seen it suggested that the players would maybe go for it if they were guaranteed a percentage of revenue. I haven't checked sources, but I've also seen it indicated that MLB players get a smaller percentage of league revenue than other major sports.

                    1. That would be great if it was the case, but I am skeptical. The player's association has been defending the Yankees' ability to spend for so long now that I think it would take something extreme for them to really change their stance.

            2. But the Yankees did move the needle. And I think people will get awfully sick of the Dodgers buying teams, because they're doing it at a level even higher than Yankees-West. $242 million vs. $201 for the Yankees. That's 20% higher than the Yankees! It is nearly double the Astros (#18 team). It is nearly 4 times higher than the lowest (Brewers). If you look at active rosters the Dodgers are six times higher than the Padres. That's insane.

              People will notice, Ray. People will most definitely notice.

              1. I agree that it's insane. I just remain skeptical that any team other than the Yankees and MAYBE the Red Sox can do it without heavy, sustained boredom.

                I mean, the Red Sox won three times within ten years! People got sick of the Red Sox, but I didn't hear a whole lot about how "we really need to fix this market inequality thing" from the average fan.

                1. You might be right about that. Of course, the Red Sox were more in line with the league (despite being 2nd, 2nd, and 4th) than the Dodgers are. But yeah, people might not notice right away. There's a reason I'm banging this drum.

              2. I don't even think they really moved the needle, more like just bumped the gauge and shook it slightly. I mean, the entire narrative when they were winning World Series was how they were just buying them, and yet, all we got was a relatively ineffectual luxury tax and an even wider payroll gap.

                1. Well, I mean, it works pretty well against all but 3 teams. Outside of Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox the luxury tax has been imposed just 6 total times in 16 years.

                  A steeper tax should probably help. There are also increasing punishments for consecutive years violated, which actually means that those 3 teams have had work-arounds to help them lower the tax rate, by just being relatively cheap for one year out of a longer block. Getting rid of that loophole should help too.

                  1. 'Well, I mean, it works pretty well against all but 3 teams."

                    But, doesn't that prove my point? If 27 teams are trying to stay under a tax while three teams are trying to spend as much as possible, doesn't that mean the payroll gap is widening? And that even loopholes like you mention exist means the tax was a half measure of a half measure. (that's a quarter measure for you math nerds) So, basically, all the hand-wringing about buying championships changed absolutely nothing.

                    1. No, it proves it wasn't effective. They did something, just not enough. The fact that they did something at all is incredibly relevant. It makes it easier for them to do more now.

                    2. At this point, 29 teams are trying to stay under/at the luxury tax. A bigger problem might be this:

                      noting that the players have gone from receiving just over 56% of MLB’s revenues in 2002 to around 38% today.

                      Team revenues have exploded and all of the owners have decided to pocket the money. Some teams, in part because they already earn so much, pocket the rest rather than "lose" it via the tax. Those big spenders drove spending league-wide and that's stopped. Other owners decide to pocket the extra money and so they pay less of revenue to the players too. Attitudes changed from the owners and the MLBPA hasn't caught up.

                      The luxury tax doesn't do any redistribution to the teams, so the penalties aren't helping the lower revenue teams. I think there needs to be redistribution of existing penalties to low revenue teams.

                  2. The Yankees have been trying to under the luxury tax limit for years now. Their spending is relatively flat because of that. The Dodgers blew past it, but only very recently.. The loophole was likely added by the union to in theory let teams go over in a "win now" phase. I doubt that's happened. They'd be better served by a X times over in last Y years. Let teams go over, but still strictly punish those that are over 80% of the time.

                    I've been going by this site for payroll history. I think this might explain why the Dodgers don't have the same feeling as the Yankees to many. In 2011, the Twins had a higher payroll than the Dodgers. In 2012, they were still only a bit higher than the Twins. In 2013 though, they added over $100 million (still second to the Yankees) and did another $70 million between 2014 and 2015. The Yankees meanwhile topped $200 million in 2005, and this was after a lot of postseason success. It's just going to take longer. They also aren't as far ahead of the other big spenders. The Yankees were so far ahead of everyone else until ~2010.

                    1. If you adjusted teams' W/L by payroll, using $10M/win (I'm not sure what the latest value is exactly), the playoff picture would have been:

                      AL East champ: Boston (87 wins)
                      AL Central champ: Cleveland (103 wins)
                      AL West champ: Houston (102 wins)
                      AL Wild Card: Minnesota (88 wins)
                      AL Mild Card: Tampa Bay (87 wins)

                      NL East champ: Nationals (94 wins)
                      NL Central champ: Milwaukee (93 wins)
                      NL West champ: Arizona (97 wins)
                      NL Wild Card: Dodgers (94 wins)
                      NL Mild Card: Cubs (89 wins)

                      Not huge changes in the field this year, except you do get more playoff games in smaller markets--New York loses out entirely, one of the Dodgers and Cubs only gets a single game, either Minnesota or Tampa gets a playoff series, Milwaukee gets to be in the playoffs, Arizona gets a playoff series.

              3. I'm with the others that I don't think people will notice enough to make any changes.

                This issue also makes me think of international soccer. Many of the major soccer leagues have two maybe three big, rich teams that win practically every year (Ger - Bayern M, Borussia Dortmund; Spain - Real Madrid, Barcelona, Athletico Madrid; Italy -- Juventus, Inter Milan; France -- PSG, Marseilles). England is a little different in that it has 5-6 big teams, but still that's out of 20 premier league teams.

                The reason these soccer leagues aren't hurt by this or there is any real effort to change is that the international market is so huge, and the international market can't focus on all 20 teams in a soccer league but can concentrate on a few big, rich, successful teams. I think this is the reason the NBA isn't too concerned about a few super teams being formed, it helps its focus attention internationally. Football has international aspirations as well but I think roster turnover is so huge, we will never see a super team, even without a salary cap.

                If baseball wants to increase its international exposure, having a few rich teams loaded with stars and always vie-ing for championships is one way to do it.

                1. What you're describing is also a danger for, say, the EPL or the Bundesliga. The superteams are so big and powerful that they could potentially break off and start their own league. If they did that, the national leagues would lose a ton of money and interest.

                  I think the problem with MLB or the NBA relying on superteams for their success is that eventually you run out of Washington Generals to kick around (that's how the Cosmos killed the North American Soccer League anyway). They are entrenched enough that they can get by that way for a while, but I think they are at the least leaving a lot of money on the table by focusing so much on allowing a few teams to dominate. I don't think they would really lose money on international bandwagon fans--those fans have already shown that geography doesn't matter for them, it's just as easy for them to switch to the Timberwolves from Golden State or whoever. This isn't the '90s where you would want the Cubs and Braves to do well because they are on WGN and TBS and have bigger television reach.

                  1. Good point about super teams breaking away from EPL or Bundesliga. The Champions League helps relieve that pressure, however.

                2. If baseball wants to increase its international exposure, doesn't it first have to get people interested in the sport? I would imagine that MLB plays pretty well in Latin America, Japan, Korea, and maybe Taiwan. But it doesn't matter how superstar-laden the top teams are to building a presence in India, Indonesia, China, Africa, or Europe. This parts of the world just don't care.
                  Maybe there is a shot in China. But we don't have baseball's Yao Ming yet.

                  1. It's heartening to recognize that, of the Big Four leagues, the NFL has the least robust international infrastructure & interest, and likely is the most resource intensive and inefficient to establish.

    1. I hope they can do this in a sustainable manner. They have lots of free VC money now, but I'm not enthused by using that long-term. At some point they need to have subscription dollars ahead of writer costs.

      1. Still waiting for a sign that Twins baseball content will be regular enough to justify subscribing. Seems like that won’t happen until February, if it does at all.

        1. Since I added Cleveland as a comparison, their content continued almost the same after elimination. There were still at least four or five posts a week. The Twins have had four since elimination. Checking the Cubs and it's the same. I'll let people know once Twins content picks up again.

        2. I think you'll see Mike Berardino leave the PiPress and cover the Twins for The Athletic. His feature story blend good writing, good reporting, and statistics, just like the site wants.

            2. Yes. Cubs and Indians have more than one writer. There are definitely three for Cleveland and I think I've seen a fourth.

            3. They have Britt Robson and now Jonny K both covering the Wolves so I image multiple writers for the Twins. But then again, they only have 1 Vikings guy (Krawcyznski). *shrug*

  5. I want the Astros to win, but I want seven games so that we get four games of a ballpark with an organist.

Comments are closed.