I am glad someone has finally addressed this. People keep saying that Baseball has no parity and say that NFL is the best model but look at the NFL, this is like the 100th time that the Pats have faced the Colts in the playoffs. Baseball's parity is very good in any division not named the AL East. People always harp on the lack of change in the East but if you look at every other division they are very closely fought races. By my count the NL West, NL Central, AL West, and AL Central are all 3 or more team races and the NL East could be if the Phillies step up.

There is some truth to that analysis although the system still has huge problems. Look at the AL East.

A team spending $50+m more than anyone in the sport is going to make the playoffs. They high spenders win the division every year and will likely to continue to do that every year as making up a $50m+ difference in payroll in the case of the Sox and a $100m+ in the case of the other AL East teams is almost impossible. Actually until I see it done, I believe it is impossible unless the Yankees management was incompetent which they aren't.

People point to the extreme examples in both sports and conclude that it's easier for a team like Saints to make it back to respectability than it is for a team like the Royals or Pirates. In football, it's easier to get rid of your mistakes and start over. I don't think a hard cap's all that it's cracked up to be. The real key of the NFL is non-guaranteed contracts. The lack of a salary cap in baseball just lets bad GM/ownership combos to keep on cashing checks on not putting quality product on the field, providing them with easy excuses and somehow blaming the fans (!) for not coming out to games. Imagine what non-guaranteed contracts would do for the game....Good luck getting that one by the union.

Strictly speaking, when examining which sport has more parity, I think starting at 1978 is a mistake for several reasons. First, it conveniently excludes the '77 Yankees from the sample. Secondly, it also ignores the major changes that both sports have gone through since then, like NFL salary cap, and expansion, realignment, and additional playoff teams and games in both leagues.

Personally, I feel that 1995 is probably the best year to start with. The NFL salary cap was instituted in 1994, but one can assume that it took about a year to for it to have signifcant impact. Meanwhile, baseball had just recently realigned to 3 divisions and added the wild card, bringing the number of playoff teams up to 8 total. Obviously, one can't use 1994 for baseball, since there was no postseason. So, 1995 makes the most sense.

Additionally, I don't think that looking at the champions is necessarily the best measure. I think most people can agree that the postseason results, in both sports, often amount to luck more than anything. So, it makes more sense to see how many different teams have made the postseason, and how many teams have made the postseason multiple times, while accounting for the fact that the NFL puts 12 teams into the playoffs compared to MLB's 8.

Every team in the NFL, except for the Houston Texans, who have been in existence for only 5 seasons, has the made playoffs at least once since 1995. By my count, there are 7 MLB teams that have failed to make the postseason even once since 1995.

In reference to the Patriots/Colts thing...I'd point out that before Manning and Harrison, Indy was awful; before Bill and Brady, NE was a league joke. Obviously those weren't the only factors were at play, but the point is that unlike other team sports, one or two individuals-one of them doesn't even have to be a player-can carry a football team. I don't think this is really the fault of the league...it's just the way the sport works. In that sense, these comparisons are pretty silly. Those baseball playoff stats show that it isn't nearly as one-sided as these writers would have us believe, and the two sports are night and day in terms of the way teams can find success.

Bluntly, when people make this argument, they're talking about the Yankees, and, to a lesser but increasing extent, the Red Sox. And in the last ten years, the Yankees have missed the playoffs exactly zero times, and have appeared in the World Series five times, winning three of those. (The Red Sox, despite playing in the same division as the Yankees, have been in the playoffs five times and won a single World Series -- and no Red Sox fan will let you forget the latter.) Even the Patriots have missed the playoffs three times in that period, despite the NFL's much more liberal playoff system.

Not surprisingly, that's pretty much the period in which the parity talk started to gather steam. So framing the debate around the '80s -- a decade in which the level of parity in baseball was historically high, and which featured one of the greatest NFL dynasties ever, the Montana/Rice 49ers, -- doesn't really do much to address the issue.

I don't agree with all of Phillip's premises and I definitely don't endorse his conclusion, but let's address the issue honestly: parity in the AL East is awful at the moment, and there is not presently any reason to expect it to get any better. If we're okay with that, we're okay with it, but talking about the the '80s as if they're relevant to the discussion is a mistake.

To continue with my previous post:

Of the 31 NFL teams that have reached the post-season at least once since 1995, only 3 have only the one appearance, and one of those are the Browns, who were not in existence from 1995-1998 (The other two are the Bengals and Cardinals). MLB also has just 3 teams with the 1 appearance (Reds, Rockies, and Tigers) and both the Reds and Rockies had their lone appearance in 1995.

The Colts, interestingly enough (I would not have guessed that), come in with the most playoff appearances in the NFL since 1995 with 9, while two MLB teams have topped 10 playoff appearances in the same time period: The Yankees and Braves with 12 and 11, respectively.

16 NFL teams have at least 5 postseason appearances, while 7 MLB teams have gotten in at least 5 times.

Anyways, just some food for thought.

"parity in the AL East is awful at the moment, and there is not presently any reason to expect it to get any better."

I think the Jays might have something to say about that this season. Their team scares me a bit as a Sox fan, though their pen did get notably worse with Speier's departure. And I'm glad F-Cat's gone...he always killed Boston.

I'd also point out that the O's are consistantly vying for the title of "worst run team in baseball," (Not to beat a dead horse, but Miguel Tejada is not worth more than Ervin Santana and Erik Aybar) which has almost as much to do with their continued failure as anything related to money. There's a reason Baltimore fans hate Peter Angelos.

While there may be parity in MLB as a whole, teams like Baltimore, Toronto and Tampa Bay have nowhere near an equal opportunity to get to the playoffs as anyone in the NFL does.

Regardless of how well run Toronto, Tampa Bay or Baltimore they aren't going to overcome a > $100m payroll disparity. It hasn't happened and the only way it could happen is if the NYY FO was incompetent which they are not.

Baseball has more parity than football. Football has more regression to the mean than baseball.

Every team in the NFL has a good shot to win their division if they make good decisions and are a well run franchise.

The same cannot be said of MLB. No matter how well run Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto are they have no chance to win their division without some seriously bad decision making from the NYY front office. I don't see how that is good for the sport.

Man, there have been a lot of goog arguments and points made in these comments.

I am an O's fan, a part of the AL East's also ran, and I have to disagree with John Gibson and say that I don't believe the O's have no chance. Mostly I just think that the O's and DRays, inparticular, have been run very poorly. The Blue Jays did finish ahead of the Sox last year.

How would Oakland or Minnesota fair in the AL East? My belief is that they would do just fine despite the unbalanced schedule.

I agree that is seems unfair that the Yankees (and Red Sox) are able to spend so much. But, really, what is stopping other owners from doing more spending themselves. I mean it is obvious that MLB is making enormous amonts of money each year, and all of these owners are personally very wealthy, I mean, isn't Carl Pohlad (sp?) the owner with the most personal wealth in MLB? I'm sure he could afford to put a lot more into the Twins if he chose to.

I don't know, is it just me or do you never hear the side of baseball being argued for in ANYTHING compared to the NFL, when it comes to the main stream media? Whether it be steroids or parity, NFL good, MLB bad, even though good cases can be made for MLB's parity and it's obvious that the has NFL always had and always will have a bigger PED problem then MLB. Most fans, it seems, sight parity and steriods for reasons they don't/no longer watch baseball. Although, truly, I just think people just like the gambling and violence the most when it comes to the NFL.

Regardless of how well run Toronto, Tampa Bay or Baltimore they aren't going to overcome a > $100m payroll disparity. It hasn't happened and the only way it could happen is if the NYY FO was incompetent which they are not.

This is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

Why do Baltimore, Toronto, and Tampa Bay suck? Because they are run by morons. If your standard is that a team should be able to decide that, yes, Royce Clayton is the man for them at shortstop and still deserves to content for a division title against smarter teams, then I think you're smoking something stronger than tobacco. And Baltimore and Tampa Bay have been watchwords for baseball management futility for a decade or more. How do you see your way clear to blaming the teams in the AL East that aren't run by idiots for the failings that they have no control over? Should Epstein and Cashman not curb stomp the Orioles every chance they get, just to be sporting?

Everyone is focusing on Tampa Bay, Baltimore, and Toronto. Yep, they'll have a tough time making the playoffs but what about all of the other teams in the majors?

The only teams I see having little chance to make the playoffs are the Pirates and Nats and those teams' fates are due to mismanagement in my opinion.

I think so many people are fixating on the 3 teams that reside in the AL East and think it's a problem throughout both leagues - it's not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; John Brattain had the last word on this subject back in early 2005 over at The Hardball Times.

What Bud and the owners say: "The Yankees and Red Sox payrolls make it impossible for other teams to compete."
What they mean: "We need more free money."

What Bud and the owners say: "Our small markets need faith and hope."
What they mean: "We need more free money."

What Bud and the owners say: "A new stadium is vital to make [insert team name] a viable franchise."
What they mean: "We need more free money."

What Bud and the owners say: "Salaries are out of control."
What they mean: "We need more free money."

What Bud and the owners say: "Competitive balance is something we're striving to achieve."
What they mean: "We need more free money."

What Bud and the owners say: "We lost several million dollars this year."
What they mean: "We need more free money."

Despite publicly girding his loins with sackcloth (I never felt sorry for sackcloth until just now) and placing ashes on his head, competitive balance isn't the problem it's been made out to be. Since the strike, the contraction candidate Florida Marlins have won two World Series and the Anaheim Angels won one. The contraction candidate Minnesota Twins just three-peated in the AL Central, the Oakland A's just missed their fifth straight post season appearance, the one-time pitiable Cleveland Indians (remember the Major League movies) won six division titles and two pennants, the one-time equally pathetic Seattle Mariners won three division titles and qualified for the playoffs once via the wild card. The Yankees, the team you'll recall that wins the World Series every year before they start the season, haven't won since 2000.

So when Bud and the owners are saying: "Baseball needs to become more competitive." What they're really saying is? Class?

"We need more free money."

Baltimore, Tampa Bay and to a lessor extent Toronto have been far from optimally run. But even if they were how can they possibly make up a $100m talent deficit w/o some seriously incompetent management on the part of the NYY front office?

Until Toronto, Baltimore, and Tampa Bay decide to actually put some effort into playing winning baseball, I see no reason to put the burden of fixing the system onto New York.

IMHO, the imbalances created by the foolishness with which many teams are run vastly outweigh the imbalances created by payroll.

John,

Again, how would Oakland and/or Minnesota do in the AL East? Their payrolls are less then the O's. They would compete in the AL East. And I'm sure there are other examples out there as well.

Tito, they might competetive but I don't think they'd be a threat to win the division. Until proven otherwise I don't think it's possible for a team spending $50-60m more than any other team in the sport and 2-3x the average spending team to not make the playoffs.

In other words, unless Cashman and the FO suddenly become ridiculously incompetent a ~$200m payroll guarantees the Yankees a playoff spot.

The Yankees are an injury to Wang, age-related decline from Mussina, and normal age-30+ decline from the rest of their roster away from being an 88 win team. Seriously, you're overrating them badly.

If they are struggling or suffer that kind of injury it's not a big deal, they can go buy a replacement, i.e. what they did when they lost their RF last year when they bought Abreu to step in for an injured Sheffield.

John,

Thanks for the reply. I happen to disagree with you about the A's, Twins, etc., but thanks. Technically, the Yanks traded for Abreu, they didn't buy him. Although, I'm sure you'll counter with an argument that only the Yankees would have been able to make that trade becasue they took on so much of Abreu's salary. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but it shouldn't be the case. I don't think baseball's system keeps owners from improving their teams. I think the owners and weak GMs have the most impact.

I happen to agree with you about weak GMs and owners having the most impact. I'd prefer MLB to go back to a balanced schedule so that there is no inherent divisional advantage to winning the wildcard. Baltimore, Toronto and Tampa Bay if they ever get better results from the FO can then compete for a wildcard even though the NYY will continue to win the division every year if they continue to get competent FO management.

I believe the Abreu trade was a salary dump which is why a player of his caliber wasn't in play for more teams. But even if I'm wrong there are plenty of situations where being willing to take on salary severly limits the number of teams able to acquire a particular player making it easy to buy what they need. I consider it buying talent when the biggest return in a particular trade is taking on salary rather than the quality of players exchanged which I believe was the case w/Abreu.

Hey, if this article intersted you, you can read more articles at zamwi.com/sports. My buddy and I also have a podcast on sundays on talkshoe. Tune in if you are interested.

Great points brought up here by lots of you (and a few suspect ones....), but I have to go back to what I feel are the two main ingredients for this situation: Bad baseball management and guaranteed contracts. Baseball's economic structure is like socialism, even though it masquerades as capitalism. Small market owners continuously play the market and stadium cards to bilk taxpayers for new stadiums, citing competitive balance. Then they get handouts in the form of revenue sharing and the luxury tax from teams like Boston and the Yanks. So they pay twice for their desire to win, while crappy owners like those mentioned above continue to line their pockets.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a team that was ever made more competitive directly by getting a new stadium. Any Milwaukee or Pittsburgh fans want to disagree with me?

Regarding guaranteed contracts, is there anyone here who honestly believes that contracts such as the one Soriano signed this winter is going to look good seven years down the road? Would the owners trade a year or two of arbitration eligibility for non-guaranteed deals? I'm not sure, but I'd sure love to see it. A minimum cap and a hard maximum cap. It'd be so much better for the game. This is our money that owners are pissing away on the likes of Russ Ortiz, etc. That'd bring true parity, imho.

Coolio,

I don't mind the players making the money. If the money is there, the money is there, right? I mean I'd rather the players get paid then the owners keep the money.

It's not the fault of the MLBPA that players in the NFL get the shaft.

John G.,

I agree that Abreu was a salary dump. But I don't think that the Yankees are the only, or even only one of a few teams capable of taking on Abreu's salary. Now, maybe they are only one of a few willing to do so. But willing and capable are completly different, and that is my point.

The problem with this is that virtually everyone here is missing the point. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, et al are major corporations. They can stake out anywhere they like, can afford to build in any way that they like. The fact that the Yankees build like Google and the Cubs build like Wal-Mart is germaine only to the financial bracket that they are in. Think of the Marlins of 1997 as Enron and you can kind of get the picture.

On the other hand, the A's, Twins, Royals, Pirates, etc are run like small businesses. The smart owner of a small business (A's/Twins) can parlay his small financial successes into a mini-fortune that pays off handsomely if invested well. Now if the small owner takes his profits and invests them in a jacuzzi and a bunch of lottery tickets (Pirates/Royals) he will not be successful. But again, that's not the argument.

Especially now the disparity is even greater, and I don't really care for the revenue sharing either. The fact of the matter is that the Yankees are in NEW YORK and the Pirates are in PITTSBURGH. I love both cities but there is an obvious disparity in the potential cash flow between the two. Plus I live in the DC area, and I still get more Yankees and Red Sox games on TV than Nationals or Orioles games. And don't even talk about the slew of Cubs and Braves gaems on their networks. I think that the revenue sharing, while purporting to be a salary equalizer, is in fact a concession to all of the smaller market teams that never get national TV exposure, and therefore cannot market their teams to the same degree as the teams getting constant media coverage.

And remember, that when the salary structure was more level (in the 80s), the Yankees sucked and everybody wanted Steinbrenner's head on a plate. And the Red Sox were the Red Sox. It was only after the 1994 strike that things got really out of hand, and the larger market teams realized that by blowing up the salary structure they could win virtually every year. Probably that year that Albert Belle made $11 mil and the Pirates and Expos TEAMS made less (1997).

A friend of mine who's Scottish and a soccer fan noted that the structure of American pro sports is akin to socialism while the structure of pro soccer in Europe, oddly enough, is more capitalistic. The difference, as he put it, was that the leagues in Europe proceed from the teams, whereas the teams in the US proceed from the leagues.

The soccer clubs formed independently and then formed leagues to provide a structure to play in. If they have a horrible season, they get relegated to a lower league. Conversely, a lower division team that wins gets put into the next higher league.

The 1800s saw more league-switching, but since then the direction of pro baseball has come from the leagues. An antitrust exemption is a powerful thing. They control when teams can join, and teams can be lousy for years but still be guaranteed certain levels of income, never have to worry about losing their position (unless they really WANT to be contracted), etc. The structure of the lower leagues is locked into place by the major league teams. When AAA teams are successful enough to draw big crowds and show an interest in baseball in a city, they're rewarded not by being boosted up to the next level, but by being replaced by a major league franchise and having to move their own franchise somewhere else.

It's an interesting observation, but that in itself doesn't make the European system better. If anything, the top soccer clubs in Europe can dominate over a wider field even more than teams like the Yankees can in baseball.

And, of course, they play a boring game like soccer instead of the great game of baseball!

I am trying to send Tito Landrum an e-mail. Can anyone help me?