Joel? Is that you?
The good and bad Joel Sherman made another appearance this week, where he penned a thoughtful and well reasoned column (unlike this one) on competitive balance and the state of the game and then followed it up with some of the wildest, weirdest remedies imaginable. Then closes with something really insightful and worthwhile. Par for the course with Joel, he writes sports columns the way Mickelson plays golf. One minute you think he’s brilliant and the next thing you know he launches one that ends up on the LIE.
First I must address his original column on the topic, since his remedies ranged from good to unrealistic to bizarre. He started off by suggesting one of the Yanks or Red Sox change divisions, to separate the warring parties and lessen the need for both teams to overspend to keep up with the Jones’. Breaking up the Yank-Sox rivalry by sending one to the AL Central is ratings/attendance suicide, so neither team would welcome the move. The Red Sox have built their identity as a franchise as battling the ‘Evil Empire’, I doubt they can generate similar interest demonizing the Twins.
He goes on to suggest re-balancing the schedule, to help the O’s and Blue Jays compete. But that cuts both ways, the Yanks and Sox typically play each other to a standstill, so sending them to play weaker opposition will only serve to pad their respective records. Baseball is also very much a regional sport and always has been, and it goes beyond the Yanks-Sox. The Dodgers and Giants have a longstanding rivalry, as do the Mets and Phillies and the Cubs and St Louis. Players and media also like being home more and traveling less distance, so Joel doesn’t exactly have a big base off support for re-balancing the schedule.
I like his idea to add a Wild Card, but I would make it a play-in game. The post season is already too long and we don’t need another 3 game series. I don’t care about making things fair to the Wild Card, I want to put a premium on winning your division. Far too many Wild Card teams have coasted the last few weeks of the season, and it was supposed to add teams in pennant races that would fight each other for that playoff spot down the stretch. Making your entire season come down to 1 game seems like a good disincentive against coasting down the stretch to me. The division would be worth fighting for, and more games in September would mean something.
On to his column. I’m going to break it up an weigh in frequently, since there’s a lot to comment on. Here goes:
But, to me, that is not a huge problem because the Yanks are simply keeping their own players and the sport – all sports actually – has greater appeal when players are associated with teams for a long time and/or their whole careers.
The bigger problem that the Yankees pose to competitors is when they decide, like they did in the offseason after the 2008 campaign, to simply spend whatever is necessary to solve problems. They spent nearly a half a billion dollars to land CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira that offseason. The current luxury tax and draft pick compensation was not enough to deter them.
I’d remind Joel that the Yanks lowered payroll in 08, since they had so much money coming off the books. But his overall point stands, the Yanks were able to spend to fix their problems, that is indisputable.
And I am wondering if there is much that can deter them. Besides any change to the system will take collective bargaining with the Players Association, which will fight hard to resist any on salaries by further punishing the Yankees to the point where they consider not signing too many free agents.
Perhaps the answer then lies not in punishing the Yankees as much as helping the teams that lose premium free agents in a greater way than currently exists. What needs to be fixed first is the outdated system for ranking players. We need to get to a more limited Type-A classification that represents just the best of the best. In other words, CC Sabathia is a Type-A, but Juan Cruz (who was ranked as a Type-A two years ago) is not.
Right now, a team that loses a Type-A free agent must offer arbitration and – if the player does not accept – the team receives a first-round draft pick and a sandwich pick. The signing team, if it has among the 15 best records, loses its first-round pick. I would consider rewarding a team that loses a Type-A free agent with a first-round draft pick for every year that the player has been with the team. So Cleveland would be able to weigh if trading Sabathia to the Brewers is more valuable than as many as six high draft picks if the Indians did the more fan-friendly thing and kept him until his free agency. Also, there would probably have to be safeguards put in not to reward, say, playoff teams with top-10 payrolls so that the Red Sox (Jason Bay) or Angels (John Lackey) would not get the same benefits of multiple high draft picks.
You essentially want to give smaller-market teams reasons to hold onto their players for as long as possible and replenish quickly when they lose them for financial reasons.
Wow, that’s batshit crazy. 6 first round picks to sign Carl Crawford? That would be such a deterrent that many teams simply wouldn’t bid, and salaries would plummet as a result. The MLBPA would go on strike for 5 years before they would ever agree to something like that. A hard salary cap would be less damaging to the free agent market.
2. Also be careful not to make the mistake of making all judgments about current payrolls. After all, salaries reflect where a player is in his career rather than true value.
For example, the Rays will have about a $70 million payroll in 2010. But imagine if all of their players were free agents, the actual value of those players would produce a payroll much closer to the Yankees’ $200 million than $70 million. Who would get the longer, richer contract if they were both free today: Evan Longoria or Alex Rodriguez? Sabathia still might be the most expensive pitcher off of either team, but the next four might be Matt Garza, James Shields, David Price and Wade Davis because of their talent and youth combination. Carl Crawford likely would be the most expensive outfielder on either team.
Here Joel redeems himself. Excellent, insightful point and 100% on the mark. Reading Joel Sherman is like digging for gold, you have to wade through a load of mud and muck to find the occasional gem.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
18 Responses to Sherman on competitive balance
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
And where is his point on how OWNERS NEED TO SPEND MONEY!!!
Instead of pocketing it and cry about the other teams’ high payroll. If the team actually spends money, more fans will go see the games.
Steve… Re the idea of adding an additional wild-card team, I’m curious what you think of this conversation from the RAB comments:
http://riveraveblues.com/2010/03/a-complex-solution-to-a-modest-problem-24911/#comment-799204
(For anyone that doesn’t want to click through, the idea being discussed is to add a WC team and then have the 2 WC teams play a best-of-three series over 2 days – a doubleheader on the first day and then a third and deciding game on the second day, if necessary.)
I think it is awesome. Of course, you then need to balance the schedule and allow teams to play someone from their own division, because seeding becomes important.
Do you need to allow teams to play someone from their own division? In the WC 3-game series, sure… But once we have one WC team remaining, can’t we ship that team off to play the second seed in the DS if the top seed is from the WC team’s division? Just for the sake of clarity I think I’d be ok either way – I don’t think I’d care if we allowed teams to play teams from their own division in the DS round… I’m just not sure we need to allow the WC team to play a team in its own division, beyond possibly in the short WC series, because of this type of plan.
I really haven’t thought this through, please point out if I’m missing something here.
I’m thinking I just didn’t think about this at all and I really just re-stated what you said, in different (more confused) words. I should think before I type. Talk about comments you wish you could take back.
The team playing the last WCteam standing has an advantage of playing a team that just had to play a playoff series. If the Yanks win the best record, they should be able to have that advantage, no matter what division the WC comes from.
Agreed. I’m actually fine with the top-seed playing the WC team today (even if they’re from the same division), and I’d also be fine with it (and agree that it’s even more preferable) under this proposed plan.
What is the reasoning behind cordoning off teams from the same division until the LCS round, anyway? I haven’t thought about this in a while… But I can’t really come up with a persuasive rationale right now. Wouldn’t more series between geographic rivals be a good thing for baseball, as opposed to something we want to avoid?
They want the rivalries to be later, in more meaningful contexts. As you say, it seems silly, because they could be guaranteed a Yanks-Sox matchup every time both make the playoffs if the rule was abolished.
Eh, I guess I see the trade-off. If you allow them to play in the DS, you get more of those matchups, but you never get one in the LCS.
But… Under the 2 WC teams, 3 games in 2 days plan… That’s not so. You can have, under that plan, a WC team and a division winner from the same division that wouldn’t meet until the LCS, without stepping in and changing the seeding just to keep those teams apart the way they do now. Chalk up another point for the new plan.
I think it’s awesome. Of course, you then need to balance the schedule and allow teams to play someone from their own division, because seeding becomes important.
HCM, see below for the answer.
In response to our Honorable friend, I really like his idea if it’s going to be a 3 game series. But I don’t think it will for some of the reasons mentioned in that link and others. One team will have to get all 3 games, an off day with travel is pretty absurd for a 3 game series, even for a final game which may not be played. Also, people don’t realize but the logistics of coordinating an extra playoff series are hard enough, adding an off day and another city is more trouble than it’s worth, especially for 1 game.
My idea of a play-in game is the simplest and I think most captivating, which will therefore generate the most interest. It’s a great way to kick off the playoff season of October, the drama of elimination games can’t be beat, and frankly I don’t care about being fair to the WC. I want a premium placed on winning divisions and an even higher premium on best record.Getting one extra home game for a short series devalues the regular season to me, and Baseball has the longest season of any sport. I do a WC play-in game, schedule it on the off day(s) between the season and the playoffs. Let the 2 WC teams have their season come down to 1 game, use their best pitcher(s) to extend the season, and have to play in 3 different cities in 3-4 days. That’s plenty of drama for us fans, and plenty of disincentive for the WC teams.
BTW-If you read the Sherman link, he spoke to an AL exec who thinks there’s “an 80% chance” the Wild Card gets expanded somehow in the next CBA. Reading into that a bit, it tells me early word has it that the Union isn’t overly opposed to the idea, since they would have to sign off on it.
“One team will have to get all 3 games, an off day with travel is pretty absurd for a 3 game series, even for a final game which may not be played. Also, people don’t realize but the logistics of coordinating an extra playoff series are hard enough, adding an off day and another city is more trouble than it’s worth, especially for 1 game.”
No, that’s not the way it’d be set up in my idea (see the link above to the discussion at RAB). They’ll play the doubleheader in one city, then if necessary travel overnight or the next morning and play the third game that next night. No off-day, just 2 days and 3 games (or 1 day and 2 games).
“My idea of a play-in game is the simplest and I think most captivating, which will therefore generate the most interest.”
Simplest, yes. Most captivating… That’s just, like, your opinion, man. I think the doubleheaders would be more captivating, MLB would rule those days in the sports media. It would be a unique set-up unseen before in the world of sports. We’ve seen play-in games before, they happen every so often. In my system you have an all-day affair with teams on the brink, and each day that baseball is played in that WC phase of the playoffs is a possible elimination day. IMO, that’s much more captivating and would generate more interest.
“… and frankly I don’t care about being fair to the WC. I want a premium placed on winning divisions and an even higher premium on best record.”
I agree with this sentiment, and my system serves the purpose of putting the WC team at a disadvantage and, I think I can argue pretty persuasively, would put the WC team at a significantly greater disadvantage than your play-in game idea would. In your system, the WC team has to burn pitching in one game, and you count this as a disadvantage, while in my system the WC team has to burn its pitching in a doubleheader and possibly even in a third game the following day. The team that gets through that gauntlet then gets to play the well-rested top-seed in the DS. The WC team in my scenario is put at a greater disadvantage than the WC team in your scenario, and there’s also significantly more disincentive in my scenario for teams to decide to cruise into WC position instead of going all out to win their division. I agree with wanting to put the WC team(s) at a disadvantage and wanting to provide incentives for teams to play for the division instead of the WC, and I think my system pretty clearly accomplishes those two goals better than yours.
-Not sure where we part ways here. I have your plan as double header in one city, travel and play game 3 in another city. Again, the logistics of adding one extra city is hard enough, 2 cities for 3 games is just a nightmare. Players and media will hate it, and even fans will bitch with all the last minute scheduling involved. If the race goes down to the last day of the season, you have to sell out the building in one day, find hotel rooms for 2 teams, their staffs and the local/national media, travel, set up and play a game. All in about 24 hours. Then do it all again the next day for another city. It’s just a nightmare.
-Oh come on, there’s nothing like elimination Baseball. That’s as good as it gets. The tension builds with every pitch. One misplay ends a season. Fans remember stuff like that as long as they live. I’m just not crazy about the double header idea. I get what you’re trying to do, but there’s a fatigue factor involved with that much Baseball for players and fans. Especially these days with 4 hour games with 8 pitching changes per game. After 5-6 hours of Baseball, even playoff Baseball, TV sets will be clicking off all over the country. It’s just too much. You or I may watch every second, but were not typical fans.
-Oh, I don’t disagree at all. Your idea would be much harder for the participants involved. But mine has sufficient disincentives while keeping it nice and simple. I know Bud has seen the ratings and interest generated by the play-in games of recent years, and has been pleased with the results. So I think that’s the direction this is going, and I agree with it.
“Not sure where we part ways here.”
You said above that you don’t like this plan because of the travel day between the doubleheader and the possible third game, and I replied by correcting that assumption – as we discussed in that RAB thread, the plan would be to play the doubleheader and then the third game the next day, so there’s no extra travel-day in between the doubleheader and the possible third game.
“Players and media will hate it, and even fans will bitch with all the last minute scheduling involved.”
I’m a fan and I wouldn’t bitch about last-minute scheduling. You’re looking for ways to argue against this plan, but to do so I don’t think the best tact is to make assumptions about the way very large groups of people would react. Would players love it? I’m sure they would prefer not to play a possible 3 games in 2 days, but if you ask them if they prefer to allow two additional teams per season to make money through their postseason shares and have a chance to advance into the playoffs but tell them they can only expand the system that way by agreeing to this plan, I think they’d choose the 3 games in 2 days route. So, if MLB wanted to do this plan, the players would probably acquiesce. The media? Not my concern, honestly. If they don’t want to travel to cover the games, their competitors can get the stories. They’ll travel and work the games though, they’re not going to choose not to. Their choice, as always. And, I’ll note, that the majority of the time, the scheduling wouldn’t be last-minute. There would certainly be seasons in which the race would go down to the last day, but that wouldn’t happen every season.
“If the race goes down to the last day of the season, you have to sell out the building in one day, find hotel rooms for 2 teams, their staffs and the local/national media, travel, set up and play a game. All in about 24 hours.”
Just like when we have a play-in game now, right? Except if this was the plan nobody would be taken totally by surprise by the whole thing or find it to be a uniquely difficult situation and, like I said above, the “surprise” situation wouldn’t occur every season. This is all very doable. If a traveling secretary has to work overtime during the last week of the season, then so be it, I can live with that.
“Then do it all again the next day for another city. It’s just a nightmare.”
They wouldn’t have to first sell the tickets and make all the travel arrangements on the spot after the doubleheader, all of that would be done when the arrangements for the doubleheader were made. You’re trying to create problems where they don’t really exist in order to support your predetermined conclusion.
“Oh come on, there’s nothing like elimination Baseball. That’s as good as it gets. The tension builds with every pitch. One misplay ends a season. Fans remember stuff like that as long as they live.”
This would be a relevant response to me if I had argued that my plan was better because it provides less elimination baseball, but I argued and will argue again the exact opposite, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to persuade me that elimination baseball is a good thing. My plan provides the possibility for more elimination baseball than does yours. With my plan, you have a guarantee of elimination baseball on day 1, just like in your plan. This is where your plan ends, on day 1. But in my plan, if the team on the ropes wins that game 2, you have even more elimination baseball the following day in game 3. So… I totally agree, more elimination baseball is a good thing. My plan has, at the very least, the same amount of elimination baseball as your plan, and it also has the certainty of providing more elimination baseball than your plan. Every series won’t go to 3 games, but some certainly will.
“I’m just not crazy about the double header idea. I get what you’re trying to do, but there’s a fatigue factor involved with that much Baseball for players and fans. Especially these days with 4 hour games with 8 pitching changes per game. After 5-6 hours of Baseball, even playoff Baseball, TV sets will be clicking off all over the country. It’s just too much. You or I may watch every second, but were not typical fans.”
This point is fine, these are valid concerns. I happen to disagree, for the following reasons: I want (like you do) the WC team to be at a disadvantage in the DS, and I think the benefit of providing this sort of a unique and exciting experience and the other benefits it provides (advantage for division winners, incentive to go for the division title) outweigh the concern with tiring out the participating WC teams. I think you raise a valid concern here, but I think that concern is outweighed by the many potential benefits.
And I’m glad you admitted you just don’t like the idea instead of continuing this charade and acting like all these arguments your throwing against the wall are valid.
“I know Bud has seen the ratings and interest generated by the play-in games of recent years, and has been pleased with the results.”
For sure. And just imagine the ratings and interest generated by a doubleheader+1 WC series. They’d be higher.
PS: Let me put this whole thing to you another way… Take away all these questions about logistics since, in the end, we really have no idea if MLB would go for these logistics or not. Maybe they’d like the idea enough to ask everyone to make it work, or maybe they wouldn’t. We can argue about that stuff but really we don’t have any answers on that front. So all that aside… Assuming MLB says they want to go for it and that they can make it work… Which plan would be better? Which would create more excitement and be more fun? I’m not sure how anyone, answering the question this way, could choose the one-game option over the doubleheader+1 option.
HCM, you’re way too dismissive of the logistics concerns, which I think are real. The MLB office fields complaints about that stuff all the time with the current system. Also, Baseball isn’t as popular in other cities as it is in the northeast. If the Atlanta Braves had to sell out a building in a day, the place would be half empty. They’ve had trouble selling out playoff games in advance. If the games fall on a Sunday during Football season, many other cities would have trouble as well. Both of those can happen with my 1 game scenario as well, but you’re doubling the likelihood.
“HCM, you’re way too dismissive of the logistics concerns, which I think are real. The MLB office fields complaints about that stuff all the time with the current system.”
I’m not being dismissive of the logistics concern, I’m saying that since you and I have no way to know whether logistics are actually a problem or not, take them out of the equation for a moment and tell me which plan is cooler. The moment MLB said “we don’t think we could do this, logistically,” I’d end the argument, but until that moment we, as fans, should want whichever plan we like more, logistics aside, right? So, logistics aside since we’re not talking about implementation but just which plan we want, here… Which plan would be we, as fans, prefer?
I give you the following choice: Tomorrow you could (a) watch a one-game playoff game or (b) watch the first two games of a best-of-three playoff series in a doubleheader, with a possible third game to decide the series, if necessary, scheduled for the following day… Which option would you choose?
“Also, Baseball isn’t as popular in other cities as it is in the northeast. If the Atlanta Braves had to sell out a building in a day, the place would be half empty. They’ve had trouble selling out playoff games in advance. If the games fall on a Sunday during Football season, many other cities would have trouble as well.”
For one thing, you’re assuming, again, that every one of these series will have to be planned at the last minute, and that just isn’t true.
And another thing on that note… Every single time one of my three-game series has to be planned at the last minute, your one-game playoff will also have to be planned at the last minute. There’s not nearly as big a difference between your plan and my plan in that regard as you seem to think there is. Yes, under my plan the team hosting the game on the first day will have to issue tickets to two games and not one, and then the teams will (maybe) have to travel once and play another game the following day… So, basically, the difference is we’d be asking MLB teams to travel and play a baseball game the next day. Quelle horreur!
All that aside, yes, sometimes these series will have to be planned quickly (as will yours). If some teams can’t or don’t sell-out the day portion of a doubleheader they host, I don’t care. Plenty of fans will show up for that first game, have no doubt about that. If there are some empty seats, I don’t really think anyone would care in the least. And if you’re making a “why would the teams want to have games that aren’t sold-out instead of only sold-out games” argument, that argument fails because that extra game during the day is free money to the teams, since in your plan they only get one game and in mine they get two (and possibly a third on the following day). From a team’s standpoint, financially, a non-sellout is not as good as a sellout, no doubt… But a non-sellout is better than no game at all.
And again… You’re falling back to a logistics argument. See above.
“Both of those can happen with my 1 game scenario as well, but you’re doubling the likelihood.”
You just made that figure (“doubling the likelihood”) up. How am I doubling the odds of having a game be less than sold-out? The non-traditional baseball cities and Sunday during NFL season arguments are completely irrelevant since they apply equally to any baseball game, not just the games in my plan.
Again… After all of this… Simple question: Since we have no control over nor really enough knowledge of MLB’s decision-making process regarding the logistics of this type of plan… Would you prefer, as a fan, to (a) watch a one-game playoff game or to (b) watch the first two games of a best-of-three playoff series in a doubleheader, with a possible third game to decide the series, if necessary, scheduled for the following day?