It would be a great thing if we could wave a magic wand and come up with a system that’s fair to players, owners and fans. Realistically, there’s no chance we’ll see anything that considers the fans at all. At best, anything that works in the favor of fans is an unintentional accident. But if fans were part of the new collective bargaining negotiations, what would we want to get from the new agreement? Here’s a partial list:
Affordable seats available for every game, not just when the Marlins or Twins come to town.
More Saturday afternoon games
A new replay system with an emphasis on timeliness
Speed up the game with ideas that push both pitchers and hitters to get their act together
It’s hard to come up with more than that. Because fans are an even more diverse group than the owners. While my preference is to make implementing an automated strike zone the second it’s technologically practical – there are plenty of fans who don’t share that point of view. Other desires of mine – like to get rid of the zombie runner on second base in extra innings or eliminate Interleague play or to do away completely with blackout restrictions – fall into the same boat.
Conversely, there are no shortage of things that other people want to change or add that turn me off. The DH holds no charm for me. If you think that makes it a better game – there’s an entire league that plays that way. You can watch AL games if that’s your thing. Many people want to encourage a return to the artificial turf game of the 1970s with bunts and steals and triples. While watching Jose Reyes leg out a triple was great fun, bunting and steals don’t do a thing for me. And perhaps the thing that drives me crazy is when people want to change MLB to a salary cap league, to negate the influence of money on who makes the playoffs.
To me, this is a lot like thinking Wilmer Flores was a great clutch hitter. If all you remember are the handful of times when he came thru with a big hit – because he did have five or six memorable clutch moments – and not all of the times he failed to deliver, well that’s a less than good way to approach things. It’s no different than looking at both the playoff appearances and high payroll of the Yankees and Dodgers. If that’s the extent of your digging on the payroll/playoff issue, you’re going to have an incomplete answer.
It should be easy to compare a league with a salary cap to MLB and see if there is a difference in the diversity of teams that make the playoffs. If higher salary clubs have an easier path in MLB, there should be more clubs in MLB with high number of playoff appearances over a given number of years. If we look at a 10-year period, we might expect four or five teams with eight playoff appearances while there might be six or eight teams with zero or one playoff appearances. Those would be the teams without a chance to compete, if the theory is correct.
On the flip side, we’d expect fewer – or none – of the teams from a salary cap league to have eight or more playoff appearances in a 10-year span. And on the opposite end, we’d expect fewer teams to have zero or one playoff berth.
My expectation is that in the comparison that we’d find a good deal of apples and oranges in the salary cap league and MLB. Two that I was prepared for were the number of teams in the respective leagues and the number of teams from each league that made the playoffs. To combat the first one, let’s look at the NBA, which has the same number of teams as MLB.
What I wasn’t prepared for was leagues having different number of teams make the playoffs, an issue even more pronounced with the leagues’ response to Covid. So, for MLB we’re going to eliminate 2020, because eight teams made the playoffs that year. In 2021, MLB went back to five teams from each league making the playoffs. On the other end of things, MLB expanded the playoff format from four teams to five teams for the 2012 season. So, we can go 2012-2019 + 2021. Unfortunately, that’s only nine years. But we’ll use what we have. Here is the chart of how many playoff appearances teams made in that span, ranked from most to fewest:
| Team | Playoffs |
|---|---|
| Dodgers | 8 |
| Yankees | 6 |
| Cardinals | 6 |
| Red Sox | 5 |
| Astros | 5 |
| A’s | 5 |
| Braves | 5 |
| Nationals | 5 |
| Guardians | 4 |
| Cubs | 4 |
| Giants | 4 |
| Rays | 3 |
| Orioles | 3 |
| Tigers | 3 |
| Rangers | 3 |
| Brewers | 3 |
| Pirates | 3 |
| Blue Jays | 2 |
| Royals | 2 |
| Twins | 2 |
| Mets | 2 |
| Reds | 2 |
| Rockies | 2 |
| White Sox | 1 |
| Angels | 1 |
| D’Backs | 1 |
| Mariners | 0 |
| Phillies | 0 |
| Marlins | 0 |
| Padres | 0 |
This is fairly close to what those who think MLB needs to address competitive balance would expect to find. Big market clubs with a bunch of playoff appearances at top with a similar number of teams with zero or one playoff appearances. Now let’s look at the NBA. We have to ignore this year, since the season is still underway. And we have to dismiss last year, as more teams made the playoffs. But the NBA had the same number of playoff teams for each conference from the 2010-11 season thru the 2019-20 campaign, our preferred span of 10 years. Much like with the MLB chart above, here is the chart of how many playoff appearances NBA teams made in that span, ranked from most to fewest:
| Team | Playoffs |
|---|---|
| Celtics | 9 |
| Pacers | 9 |
| Spurs | 9 |
| Thunder | 9 |
| Clippers | 8 |
| Trail Blazers | 8 |
| Rockets | 8 |
| Heat | 7 |
| Hawks | 7 |
| Raptors | 7 |
| Warriors | 7 |
| Grizzlies | 7 |
| Bulls | 6 |
| Bucks | 6 |
| Mavericks | 6 |
| Nets | 5 |
| 76ers | 5 |
| Jazz | 5 |
| Nuggets | 5 |
| Wizards | 4 |
| Cavaliers | 4 |
| Magic | 4 |
| Lakers | 4 |
| Knicks | 3 |
| Pelicans | 3 |
| Hornets | 2 |
| Pistons | 2 |
| Timberwolves | 1 |
| Suns | 0 |
| Kings | 0 |
Well, this isn’t what we would expect to find at all. In a salary cap league, which is supposed to make things more competitive, we find just as many teams dominating in playoff appearances. And we still find teams with virtually no hope of making the playoffs. And that’s with more teams making the playoffs in the NBA.
We picked the NBA to have a league with the same number of teams as MLB. But we’re still not at an equal comparison because of the difference in number of teams that make the playoffs. But what if we go back and have eight teams make the playoffs each year in MLB, to bring it on par with the NBA. How would the teams look then? This allows us to use 2020 for MLB, giving us a sample of the years 2012-2021 or 10 full seasons.
I went back and added the three teams in each league with the best record that didn’t make the playoffs in reality and gave them a playoff appearance in this exercise. If there was a tie, I gave the mythical playoff spot to the team with the better head-to-head record. There were four such cases – Philadelphia-Arizona in 2012, San Diego-San Francisco in 2013, Cleveland-Baltimore in 2015 and a three-way tie for two spots in 2018 among Washington, San Diego and Arizona.
So, now there are 160 teams in both the NBA and MLB with playoff appearances. Here’s how the leagues stack up:
| Team | Playoffs | Team | Playoffs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Celtics | 9 | Yankees | 10 |
| Pacers | 9 | Cardinals | 10 |
| Spurs | 9 | Dodgers | 10 |
| Thunder | 9 | Nationals | 8 |
| Clippers | 8 | Rays | 7 |
| Trail Blazers | 8 | Guardians | 7 |
| Rockets | 8 | A’s | 7 |
| Heat | 7 | Braves | 7 |
| Hawks | 7 | Brewers | 7 |
| Raptors | 7 | Red Sox | 6 |
| Warriors | 7 | Astros | 6 |
| Grizzlies | 7 | Cubs | 6 |
| Bulls | 6 | Giants | 6 |
| Bucks | 6 | Angels | 5 |
| Mavericks | 6 | Rangers | 5 |
| Nets | 5 | Blue Jays | 4 |
| 76ers | 5 | Orioles | 4 |
| Jazz | 5 | Tigers | 4 |
| Nuggets | 5 | Royals | 4 |
| Wizards | 4 | Twins | 4 |
| Cavaliers | 4 | Mariners | 4 |
| Magic | 4 | Mets | 4 |
| Lakers | 4 | Reds | 4 |
| Knicks | 3 | Pirates | 4 |
| Pelicans | 3 | D’Backs | 4 |
| Hornets | 2 | White Sox | 3 |
| Pistons | 2 | Phillies | 3 |
| Timberwolves | 1 | Marlins | 3 |
| Suns | 0 | Padres | 2 |
| Kings | 0 | Rockies | 2 |
The top five teams in the salary cap league combined for 44 playoff appearances. The top five teams in MLB combined for 45 playoff berths. You can’t get any closer than that. The bottom five NBA teams combined for five playoff appearances. The bottom five MLB teams combined for 13 playoff appearances. Two NBA teams did not make the playoffs in this 10-year look. Every MLB team made the playoffs at least twice, if there was as many teams making the playoffs in baseball as basketball.
If we put playoff appearances on an equal basis, with eight teams making the postseason in MLB just like in the NBA – what we find is parity between the two leagues at the top among teams that dominate in trips to the playoffs. And we find more hopelessness at the bottom in the NBA, teams that just couldn’t compete for whatever reason.
The NBA’s illusion of greater competitiveness is entirely a product of an expanded playoff format, not anything based on their economic model.
You see a group of high-dollar MLB clubs at the very top of the chart. But after those first four teams come four teams that don’t finish regularly among the top spending teams. And at the bottom of the list are big-market clubs like the Mets and White Sox. And the Padres, tied for last in this look at playoff appearances, last year had the eighth-highest payroll in the game, according to Sportrac.
A quick glance shows the Yankees and Dodgers dominating playoff appearances in MLB, while the NBA has outposts like Oklahoma City and Indianapolis near the top in playoff berths over a 10-year period. But you’ve got to look at the whole picture. And when you do, there’s not just compelling evidence that there are more teams relegated to being non-competitive in MLB compared to a salary-cap league.
But what about teams that spend the most having a competitive advantage? Here’s a thought – if you want to be competitive, you should spend competitively. Why do we pretend that owners should be rewarded for not doing everything in their power to put the best team on the field that they can? When the Pirates go two decades without making the playoffs, isn’t that what should happen when all they do is bring in guys who are past their prime and who weren’t very good to start with?
Wikipedia lists the “notable transactions” for the 1999 Pirates as signing Dale Sveum as a free agent and trading José Guillén and Jeff Sparks to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays for Joe Oliver and Humberto Cota. We need a word beyond underwhelming to describe these blockbusters. If that’s all the effort you’re putting into improving your club – why should you make the playoffs?
Anyway, let’s look and see how many of the teams in the top 10 in payroll made the playoffs each year in MLB. Like before, we’ll use the payroll numbers for Sportrac in this analysis.
2021 – 6
2020 – 5 – and 16 teams made the playoffs
2019 – 5
2018 – 4
Sportrac salary data goes beyond a paywall. We’ll use The Baseball Cube numbers from now on
2017 – 5
2016 – 6
2015 – 3
2014 – 5
2013 – 3
2012 – 4
There’s an advantage to spending money. If things were random, there would be between 3-4 clubs each year in the top 10 in payroll to make the playoffs. Instead, we see it as 4.6 clubs per year.
But to me, this is good. We don’t want things to be random. It’s good that there’s an incentive to try and improve your club. And at the same time, simply spending more money doesn’t guarantee success. If you just throw money around, it doesn’t ensure that you’re going to out-perform a team like the Rays or A’s.
In my mind, MLB is living in the sweet spot of competitiveness in their current structure. There’s an undeniable advantage to spending money, with the 10 biggest spenders getting one extra playoff spot than random, but not one so big that it makes it hopeless for the other 20 teams in the league.
If there is a problem with competitiveness with the current structure, it’s that there’s not enough reason for teams to go the extra mile. Clubs don’t need to make the playoffs and have extra home games to make a decent amount of money. That’s great for the 30 MLB owners. We all want guaranteed profits. It’s not so great for fans of teams with owners who only give lip service to how important winning is to them.
My opinion is that if your goal is to make a league more competitive, the answer is to make owners work harder to make a profit. It’s not to restrict how much money a team can spend by imposing a salary cap/floor or to give teams money for being in a small market. How much money did the Kings and Suns’ owners rake in over that decade when they didn’t make the playoffs once, despite 16 teams advancing to the postseason each year in the NBA?
That’s the real issue here.
There was a time that I would argue with my friends who are fans of the Yankees who opined that the real reason they continue to make the playoffs was that they had a better general manager, better scouting, and a better minor-league system. To the contrary, I stated that making the playoffs 14 out of 15 consecutive years had much more to do with being able to spend money and buy free agents than anything else. Well the Mets are certainly a big market team, but their ownership did not spend that way. Instead, they banked the profits. The luxury tax that is paid by teams that exceed the salary cap, that is spread amongst the other teams, was intended to be spent by those teams to improve their major league clubs. In numerous occasions those teams banked the money and did not spend it on improving the clubs. There is no doubt that some teams have better management and can do more with less, as evidenced by the Oakland A’s and their numerous playoff appearances despite an anemic payroll. It seems that in the NBA and in the NHL, all you have to do is be breathing to make the playoffs. If eight teams make it from each conference, that far exceeds what MLB can accomplish.
I too dislike the DH rule, which clearly comes from me being a lifetime National League fan. Clearly, a DH will hit much better than a pitcher, but I always loved the strategy that a national league manager needed to take, and the toughest part was needing to take out a pitcher who was generally pitching well but needed to be hit for if their team was behind. In the AL, there was never a reason to remove your starting pitcher regardless of the score. In 2020 we all saw the value of the DH in the National League but then in 2021 that rug was pulled out from us. With the way we hit last year, I would welcome the DH, despite my reservations, in the hopes that an extra hit here and there would produce runs and allow our team to win games. There will always be teams in smaller markets who have a harder time fielding a more competitive team regardless of the sport we are talking about. Even if MLB had a salary cap there would still be the haves and have nots. I can’t hide my enjoyment of finally bring a have under our new ownership and the ability to spend money to improve our club. But you still need good management to make that happen and I hope we are on on our way to accomplishing that.
Certainly is interesting. One thing about basketball (and football), is that a single player can make the entire difference between winning and losing a season. We only need to look as far as far as Curry, or LeBron, or Kobe, or Jordan in basketball, and Brady in football. The fact is in baseball no one player or contract can impact the team to that degree. We could have Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani on the same team, vying fro MVP and CY and still stink, wait….
Brian,
Nice analysis. I concur with your hypothesis/conclusion. However, as Chris points out, the comparison is a bit apples and oranges due to the nature of basketball as well as the behavior of the elite basketball free agents…one or two guys make a huge difference on winning an losing, and given that there is quite a bit of “collaboration” between the big boys, and “choosing” of destinations, the cap doesn’t help the “have nots” as much as it does in the NFL, and potentially MLB. But, as I said, I basically agree with you if I understand your position – baseball doesn’t need a balanced payroll spend/cap in order for the league to have enough competitiveness. And, as extension, the next agreement needs to be more of an evolution/refinement than a revolution of the economic issues. The bigger problem, as is usually the case with management/labor issues, is much more human nature and much less “difficult problems”.
I am a believer of raise the payroll floor to kill the “tanking”, and heavily luxury taxing the super rich then spreading the tax money to lower payroll clubs in order to balance the range of payrolls (and hence make going anywhere possible and reasonably attractive).
That said, I am keenly aware of the purgatory of the “middle 10” clubs that do not make the playoffs, nor finish poorly enough to get top drafts. The present CBA encourages “tanking” whether that be for real (over-aged, low-salary FA-laden teams, or unload the best players and hand the team over to the 22 year olds to see of they are good). I stated many time here that rebuilding a club is an essential process to go through. I completely disagree with the notion a team cant rebuild in NY – essentially that’s about all the Mets have done in the dark years of the Alderson regime even though every spring we hear this is a “90 win club,” only to find that is 70s win club.
In the present game which values youth, and certainly we see the amount of WAR put up by the kids (Acuna, Alonso, Padres guy, Blue Jays guy), the best way to get there is through very high draft picks and thus getting young amazing players, is by means losing. Being in the middle 10 clubs is terrible.
A structure that rectifies the lopsided-ness of youth generating vast WAR but being paid peanuts needs to be found.
Instituting a floor above just paying everyone minimum wage isn’t going to discourage tanking. That just becomes the price of tanking. In reality, all that’s going to do is ensure a few mediocre guys get overpaid. And the big picture is that this proposal takes money out of the pockets of the players and puts it into the hands of the owners. I’m not against owners making money. But I’d rather cap the money that owners can make than cap the money that players can make. I watch to see players not owners.
The owners proposed paying a limited subset of players based on what they actually produced I was shocked that the players rejected this out of hand. This “pay for performance” has the potential to solve a lot of problems if instituted on a wide scale. Worried about young guys not getting paid? This solves that. Worried about older players not getting paid what they’re worth? This solves that. It would take a ton of negotiation to make it work. But my assumption is that’s no different than any potential solution.
I agree that a a salary cap doesn’t do anything if the highest spending team still can outspend the lowest team by >2x, likewise with a floor. For cash not to be a factor in building teams, you need a narrow range.
Of course the union would never go for this, but if we’re throwing out idealistic ideas, maybe a narrow team spend range + pay for performance could be utilized.
Say every team has to spend $120m +/- 10% (so $108m to $132m) in base salaries, and then every player has the same bonuses in their contract (and they could use a variety of metrics including basic ones such as hits, rbi, ba, and not just MVP/Cy Young), which would be paid for by the revenue sharing pool, which gives young good players from all teams the chance to earn more money and a chance for superstars who continue to be good to well outearn their peers.
Or they could make the base salary spend very small, say $50m +/- 20%, and then make the bonus pool really really large, and tied to revenue since the players seem to gripe about getting a smaller and smaller share of an ever growing pie
Chris,
Interesting guys that you cite as top young talent getting paid peanuts for big WAR. Poor compensation issue yes. Tanking issue no. Alonso was a 2nd round pick. I believe Tatis Jr, Acuna, Vlad Jr, and for that matter Soto were all international free agent signings…and I believe those signings have essential equal budgets for all teams. Somehow Tatis Jr was traded by the White Sox. Additionally, Trout, the best player in the game, was a low 1st rounder. DeGrom was a low rounder. Scherzer #11. It appears to be very rare that top 5 picks become elite players and champions with the team that drafted them…Strasburg and Correa exceptions.
Despite the differences between the NBA and MLB, which I agree, it still should highlight the difference a salary cap doesn’t make. I think the NFL is more akin to the NBA.
Until there is an “earnings cap”, I don’t see any reason the players should have to save the owners from themselves. And let’s be clear, all MLB ownership groups have the money; the complaints are about just how much profit an owner is or isn’t making.
As in society at large, MLB has an income inequality problem. The super rich get enormous contracts, yet the annual average pay rate has gone down. An elimination of the “middle class,” if you will. I’d think the player’s association would want to address that — and the owners wouldn’t. Comes down to arbitration rules.