Why is it that the MLB union makes the owners bend over while the NFL union assumes the position? If it was the NFL or NBA owners vs MLB union who would win?
Marvin Miller, basically. There's more unity among MLB players, partly because they remember the sacrifices that players have made in the past to get them the system they have now. Also, with the shorter careers and greater profits of the NFL, I think the mentality of the players is a bit different.
The MLB isn't concerned about parity or small markets. If the other leagues let the teams that have the ability to pay big, pay big, then you'd see the same thing in those leagues.
Is this a joke? Being ironic? What would you see in the NBA if they "let the teams that have the ability pay big, pay big" like you presumably see in baseball? If the MLB was like basketball, you'd have 8 different world series winners since 1990. Reality, 13 different teams have won the WS since 1990 vs 8 NBA champions and 13 Superbowl champions. In MLB, only one team has won more than 2 titles since 1990 (Yankees with 5) and four teams have won 2. In the NBA the Lakers have won 5, Spurs have won 4, Bulls won 6. In the NFL the Patriots have won 3, the Cowboys have won 3. The Giants, Steelers, Packers,Broncos, and 49ers have all won 2. MLB Small Market WS teams: Toronto Florida Marlins Minnesota Twins Cincinnati Reds NFL Small Market SB teams: Green Bay Packers Indy Colts? Tampa bay NBA Small Market NBA Champions: San Antonio Spurs
And baseball is slowly dying because of the disparity, their numbers are way down in TV ratings, a good indicator as to the direction the sport is heading. DD
Ratings are down compared to what? All sports ratings are down except the NFL because there's tons more choices and there are internet options now. Revenues for baseball are killer right now, nearly matching NFL's, and a lot of that is how they've seized the internet market. And compared to what other sports? Compared to the NBA? Really? Wanna compare World Series v. NBA Finals ratings over the last 10 years or so? No one comes close to the NFL. It's not just the most popular sport in America..it's the most popular TV show in America. It beats virtually everything. When they post the 10 most watched TV programs for the year, roughly 8 are NFL football games. In no way is baseball dying. They've broken attendance records time and time again...and they're making an assload of money that's beaten only by the NFL, which is pure gold. For the week it was concluding, the World Series was still the most watched TV program. (Game 7 was number one that week; Game 6 was number three that week; NFL game was #2)
This is a bit distorted due to the nature of the leagues, though. The NFL, because of it's single-game-elimination, and MLB, because of it's higher element of randomness, are much more likely to have variation in the playoff results. If you re-ran the MLB playoffs 10 times in a given year, you'd have a bigger variety in the winners than if you re-ran the NBA playoffs 10 times. So a good part of the reason that you have less variance in the NBA is simply that the best team wins more often; and because of the star-focused nature of the NBA, the best team tends to stay the best team for a longer period of time, which is why you have so many more repeat champions. With bigger rosters (both MLB and NFL) and less focus on individual talent (NFL), it's harder to keep an MLB or NFL team at the very top. Those issues, however, have nothing to do with salary cap or payroll. In the NBA, if there was no salary cap, the richest teams could easily sign 3 or 4 of the top 10 players and immediately become one of the top teams. We saw that last year even with a salary cap, but any team could do it any year without one. The NBA has much higher correlation between signing good players and actually being good than does the NFL (see Philly) or MLB.
I think ratings in the WS were actually up this year, so I don't know why DD would say that, other than the fact that he just says things that aren't true. To Major's point, I don't get your point. The post I responded to said that the NBA would be like baseball if the leagues didn't care about the small markets or parity. So I replied, in what way? More diverse champions? More teams making the playoffs? More small market teams winning titles? Consistent playoff team turnover? For all the talk about parity and stuff due to salary caps, the NBA and the NFL don't exactly prove that point. Guess what? The big market teams in the NFL and the NBA still get the players they want and they still keep the players they want to keep. The cap only serves as a restriction on finances when teams want it to. You still have your perennially good teams, and surprise surprise, the big markets tend to be good in all the sports except when they are poorly run. The competitive "imbalance" that allegedly exists in baseball manages to produce more small market champions than the other two "parity" driven salary cap leagues. The only teams that don't have chances in MLB are the Pirates and the Royals and that isn't because of payroll (their divisions are not high payroll divisions) it is because of terrible management consistently since the 1990s that has destroyed their systems. Both are now trying to make a comeback. Another complaint about MLB's system is small market teams only get a small window before they have to rebuild. I'm open for the argument that NBA doesn't have a "small window" problem as well for teams not named the Lakers. You get your team built and you have a small window before they are old and eat up your salary cap. The only league that has a big advantage over the other two in my mind is the NFL and that is because of the quick turnaround potential. Baseball can't duplicate that however because they don't have the talent feeder that the NFL has in college football. Or that basketball has in college basketball. College baseball is a totally different game and college players are 99% of the time unable to compete in the majors for multiple years out of college. That is the real reason it is difficult for baseball teams to turnaround quickly. There is no method by which to inject cheap talent into your team at the major league level on a yearly basis.
Sorry, I was talking about the regular season numbers, got my info from Colin Cowherd on ESPN. Clearly the WS was up, it was a good one... However, in popularity, it has begun to decline. DD
Attendance went up from 2010 to 2011. ESPN's baseball viewership was also up across the board. MLB's doing fine.
World Series victories are a bad metric because of the randomness inherent to baseball in small sample sizes. It would be interesting to see average regular season records of MLB teams over that time period.
Its not a joke. If you think the MLB system promotes equal opportunity more so than the NFL you're crazy. I don't care how many different teams have won a title, the fact is, some teams simply don't have the ability to spend at the level other teams do. And that does not promote parity. If the NBA had no cap the Heat could add Paul and/or Howard. In the MLB, it doesn't work as well when Yankees do it, but if any other league was setup that way it'd be a joke.
of course, you have to have enough regular season success to qualify for the playoffs before you can win a world series. and it's not like the NBA where more teams make the playoffs than don't.
It isn't even about winning titles. It's about year to year competitiveness (or patheticness). Comparing the number of teams that won the title each season to paint a picture of a 10-20 year period of time is misleading. Baseball people have been using that metric as a smokescreen for years.
wait...if year to year, you have different champions...and you have to be competitive (to say the least) to be a champion...how is it a smokescreen? i don't understand how it's not relevant when talking about parity. as a fan, i want my team to win a championship or play for a championship....that's far more of revolving door and far more likely in baseball for the average team than it is in the NBA.
Back to answering the OPs question. Exactly. And I've also thought it was about player resolve. MLB players clearly have more resolve...maybe because their careers are so much longer. Compare the success of the MLB Strikes to the NFL strikes NFL Strikes have been glorious failures. MLB Strikes have generally always gone the players way...especially the 1994-95 one. That was a devastating defeat to the owners. I think the MLB owners fear player strikes, based on history; whereas, the NFL owners do not fear player strikes. NBA players don't really strike; they get locked out. So MLB player unions have the most power, because they fought the most for it.
