SQL Utilities/Financial Utility

[Pat]

Yea, the numbers will be different depending on what you're looking for here. So, I'm sure one of those ways would say you're right.

If you go by teams that have made the playoffs (just for example), MLB is at a disadvantage because 8 teams make it a year. NBA has 16. NFL has 12.

There simply is more opportunity for those two leagues.

I'm not looking it up again and this may no longer be true since last season, but I thought I remembered that more teams have won a title in the MLB in the past 20 years than in the NBA or NFL.

Of course, it probably doesn't really matter because one major point people bring up is that most of the teams with the highest payrolls win a championship in MLB. Although, my only argument against that is MLB allows that to happen (which I agree is what people are arguing against). It's sort of unfair to compare it to the NBA or NFL in that case because those leagues have zero comparisons with their salary caps - keeping in mind I honestly have never looked at the math with the NBA champ and their salary above the luxury tax threshold.

Interesting take on the argument: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...l.460bc63.html

If in Spring Training of 2009, I had told you that the Phillies, Yankees, Dodgers and Angels were going to be the final four teams, you'd probably feel like that was a good bet Those four teams were all over $100,000,000 and probably four of the top like seven payrolled teams.

Here is my thinking about parity...it boils down to how many teams, year in, year out, actually have a shot at being a competitive team.

In the NFL, the longest suffering teams are the Browns, Bills, Lions and Texans. The latter, were an expansion team, and the last three seasons, they have been knocking on the door and most experts consider them a legit playoff contender this year. The Bills have suffered this decade but the previous, they were dominant. The Lions and Browns, over the last 20 years, have made the playoffs a combined nine times, but were never really a "contender" except for maybe one of the Lions seasons. So, that's basically two teams in the last 20 years that haven't really been competitive.

In the MLB, the Orioles have been a legit "contender" once, back in '97. The past 20 years besides that, they made the playoffs once, and have finished sub .500 the last 12 years. Besides this year, the Reds were in a decade long sub .500 stretch. They did have some competitive years in the 90's though, including a WS. I know the Rockies made the WS in 2007, but in their franchise history, since 1993, they have never finished 1st in their division. The Tigers have reached the playoffs once since 1988. The Royals won the WS in 1985 and have been awful the last 25 years. The Brewers have finished 2nd in their divison three times since 1983, and not once finished first during that span. Made the playoffs once, 2008. The Pirates have finished 2nd in their divison once, since 1993 and third only twice. Haven't made the playoffs during that stretch. The Rangers have made the playoffs three times since 1961, and prior to this year haven't even sniffed the playoffs since 1999. The Blue Jays finished 2nd in their division once since 1993, and wasn't even close to making a WC spot. Since the strike, the Expos/Nats have won more than 83 games once, 88 in '96.

I know, I know, the playoff format is completely different, but most of those MLB teams I listed, wouldn't sniff the playoffs in the NFL format. That's just how it is in baseball, there is a solid handful of teams, every year, that you know won't even sniff a .500 record.

[Andrew]

I never help run these tests but I can try when I'm away. I don't know if I'll have internet connection but I don't think I need any to run leagues in the background.

Also, couldn't we lower the average demand for each player in the league settings or is there something that could go terribly wrong by doing so?

You can lower average demand but it doesn't do any good if there's a ton of free cash/budget room in the league. I think our average demand for superstars is set around $16m and we routinely see demands for 20+.

[Andrew]

If we went with the latest idea, these would be the new market sizes:

The method I used to determine who moved up:
- Larger current market size got first priority
- In the event of a tie, larger current budget moved up a market size


<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 297pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="396"><col style="width: 107pt;" width="142"> <col style="width: 74pt;" width="99"> <col style="width: 56pt;" width="75"> <col style="width: 60pt;" width="80"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 107pt;" x:str="Team " height="17" width="142">Team </td> <td style="width: 74pt;" x:str="Current Budget " width="99">Current Budget </td> <td style="width: 56pt;" x:str="Old Market " width="75">Old Market </td> <td style="width: 60pt;" x:str="New Market " width="80">New Market </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Virginia Colonials " height="17">Virginia Colonials </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="117158026" align="right">$117,158,026 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Washington Bats " height="17">Washington Bats </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="114576362" align="right">$114,576,362 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Baltimore Bulldogs " height="17">Baltimore Bulldogs </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="113502767" align="right">$113,502,767 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Dallas Snappers " height="17">Dallas Snappers </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="110202016" align="right">$110,202,016 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Syracuse Slammers " height="17">Syracuse Slammers </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="106790075" align="right">$106,790,075 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Sin City Gamblers " height="17">Sin City Gamblers </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="102197525" align="right">$102,197,525 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Los Alamos Bandits " height="17">Los Alamos Bandits </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="95267626" align="right">$95,267,626 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Pawtucket Patriots " height="17">Pawtucket Patriots </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="83887479" align="right">$83,887,479 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> <td x:num="" align="right">8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Maine Guides " height="17">Maine Guides </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="101928810" align="right">$101,928,810 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="California Kodiaks " height="17">California Kodiaks </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="100927990" align="right">$100,927,990 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Philadelphia Freedom " height="17">Philadelphia Freedom </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="100919633" align="right">$100,919,633 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Denver Bulls " height="17">Denver Bulls </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="92823058" align="right">$92,823,058 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Carolina Tobs " height="17">Carolina Tobs </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="91502548" align="right">$91,502,548 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Hyundai Dinos " height="17">Hyundai Dinos </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="89752209" align="right">$89,752,209 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Wilmington Wildcats " height="17">Wilmington Wildcats </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="88176895" align="right">$88,176,895 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Pittsburgh Millers " height="17">Pittsburgh Millers </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="76067904" align="right">$76,067,904 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Los Lunas Javelinas " height="17">Los Lunas Javelinas </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="89329298" align="right">$89,329,298 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">4</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Windy City Playboys " height="17">Windy City Playboys </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="87768054" align="right">$87,768,054 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">4</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Davenport Brawlers " height="17">Davenport Brawlers </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="86399626" align="right">$86,399,626 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">4</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Mississippi Storm " height="17">Mississippi Storm </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="81261758" align="right">$81,261,758 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">3</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Hartford Whalers " height="17">Hartford Whalers </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="77431952" align="right">$77,431,952 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">4</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Indianapolis Clowns " height="17">Indianapolis Clowns </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="72115106" align="right">$72,115,106 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">3</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Batavia Muckdogs " height="17">Batavia Muckdogs </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="69275090" align="right">$69,275,090 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">3</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" x:str="Morgantown Mohawks " height="17">Morgantown Mohawks </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="62258528" align="right">$62,258,528 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">3</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Carlos]

I agree. Andrew, I liked your initial proposal and was fine to move on with it. If its agreed that a 6-8 scale would be even better, then i'm for it.

And I agree, as long as there is extra cash floating around, FA demands will grow. Less cash, lower demands.

In the end, I don't think this is anything that can be solved with one decision, rather a series of steps taken to balance things out a bit.

I never help run these tests but I can try when I'm away. I don't know if I'll have internet connection but I don't think I need any to run leagues in the background.

Also, couldn't we lower the average demand for each player in the league settings or is there something that could go terribly wrong by doing so?

[Carlos]

Before I "check the numbers" what am I checking?

Teams that have made the playoffs in the last 20 years from each sport? Teams that have won titles over the last years? Teams that have made the SB/WS/Finals?

Yea, the numbers will be different depending on what you're looking for here. So, I'm sure one of those ways would say you're right.

If you go by teams that have made the playoffs (just for example), MLB is at a disadvantage because 8 teams make it a year. NBA has 16. NFL has 12.

There simply is more opportunity for those two leagues.

I'm not looking it up again and this may no longer be true since last season, but I thought I remembered that more teams have won a title in the MLB in the past 20 years than in the NBA or NFL.

Of course, it probably doesn't really matter because one major point people bring up is that most of the teams with the highest payrolls win a championship in MLB. Although, my only argument against that is MLB allows that to happen (which I agree is what people are arguing against). It's sort of unfair to compare it to the NBA or NFL in that case because those leagues have zero comparisons with their salary caps - keeping in mind I honestly have never looked at the math with the NBA champ and their salary above the luxury tax threshold.

[Ryan]

With that in mind, maybe a better approach would be to further narrow the gap between largest market and smallest market and not implement a hard cap.

The proposal I posted earlier had 6 teams at each market size level from 5-8. Maybe we should consider bumping it to 6-8 instead. This, along with revenue sharing, would give us some variety in market size but make the gap narrower.

Assuming the average media contract stays constant, raising the average market size won't create a large influx of cash into the league.

I liked the original thought of narrowing the gap between the market sizes, so squeezing them even more while still allowing for some diversity between club sizes sounds great to me.

I agree. Andrew, I liked your initial proposal and was fine to move on with it. If its agreed that a 6-8 scale would be even better, then i'm for it.

And I agree, as long as there is extra cash floating around, FA demands will grow. Less cash, lower demands.

In the end, I don't think this is anything that can be solved with one decision, rather a series of steps taken to balance things out a bit.

[Pat]

This is an off-topic discussion, but check the numbers, Pat. Baseball has more parity than the NBA or the NFL.

Saying baseball has no parity is just a myth created by the ill-informed media. Really, look through the past 20 years in all three sports.

Before I "check the numbers" what am I checking?

Teams that have made the playoffs in the last 20 years from each sport? Teams that have won titles over the last years? Teams that have made the SB/WS/Finals?

[Carlos]

Really? There has been quite a bit of parity in the NFL the last 20 years. A lot "mid-market" teams have made the SB. That normally isn't the case in baseball.

This is an off-topic discussion, but check the numbers, Pat. Baseball has more parity than the NBA or the NFL.

Saying baseball has no parity is just a myth created by the ill-informed media. Really, look through the past 20 years in all three sports.

[Pat]

But why can Minn & Tampa compete? And must we mentioned the Cubs

Tampa is relatively "new" to competing. Three .500 seasons in 13 years. Plus, their payroll continues to increase by about $10,000,000 each of the past few seasons. Don't be surprised to see them in the upper half of MLB in a season or two. I think their payroll this year was something like $75,000,000. Now, that's not close to the top dogs, but that's still more than roughly 10 other teams. And a lot more than the $30-$40 million teams they were running out there from 1998 to about 2007.

Minnesota is kinda the same. The Twins had some success and then increased their budget. I think they broke the $100,000,000 payroll for the first time in franchise history this year. Pretty sure they have a top 10 payroll this year. Or very, very close.

The Cubs are cursed....duh.

[Pat]

Anyway, you set a cap in MLB and does KC and Pittsburgh suddenly compete? I say no. They are still tens of millions below the $90 MM mark - which I assume is where everyone would want the cap.

But that's a direct result to the system. Let's say, 20 years ago, MLB instituted a salary cap. Things wouldn't completely be different today. Other owners would own teams with the intentions of being competitive.

A hard cap would drive salaries down so the top teams can still sign the best players. Maybe not as many, but there's a hard cap in the NFL and the same teams still win the championship.

Really? There has been quite a bit of parity in the NFL the last 20 years. A lot "mid-market" teams have made the SB. That normally isn't the case in baseball.

[funclown]

No, they don't.

And teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee, etc, year in year out, don't even compete.

But why can Minn & Tampa compete? And must we mentioned the Cubs

[BradZ]

With that in mind, maybe a better approach would be to further narrow the gap between largest market and smallest market and not implement a hard cap.

The proposal I posted earlier had 6 teams at each market size level from 5-8. Maybe we should consider bumping it to 6-8 instead. This, along with revenue sharing, would give us some variety in market size but make the gap narrower.

Assuming the average media contract stays constant, raising the average market size won't create a large influx of cash into the league.

I liked the original thought of narrowing the gap between the market sizes, so squeezing them even more while still allowing for some diversity between club sizes sounds great to me.

[Andrew]

With that in mind, maybe a better approach would be to further narrow the gap between largest market and smallest market and not implement a hard cap.

The proposal I posted earlier had 6 teams at each market size level from 5-8. Maybe we should consider bumping it to 6-8 instead. This, along with revenue sharing, would give us some variety in market size but make the gap narrower.

Assuming the average media contract stays constant, raising the average market size won't create a large influx of cash into the league.

[Andrew]

Some very good points Carlos, some of which I didn't think of. Here's another potential issue that your post made me think of:

We know that the amount of cash available in the league will have an affect on FA demands. More cash/available budget, the higher demands are. So if we limit spending by the top teams by imposing a salary cap, it will mean more free cash/budget room will be available. If FA's don't take the salary cap into consideration, which I don't think they do, their demands will go way up.

The net effect would be the small market teams are no better off than they are now. The large market teams would get first pick of the FA's and the small market teams would get whoever is left when their demands go down during Spring Training.

[Plastic]

I am for the Cap for the same reasons that Pat just wrote a few posts ago.

Those of us that were in the WLB played with a cap and it worked pretty well IMO. But its certainly not a deal breaker for me either way... I hope to be in charge of Morgantown till you guys kick me out.