Drought watch

[MFS62]

Willets Point wrote: This is Kasey Kasem counting down the most years without a League Championship. Moving up 22 spots on the charts to number one, from the Southside, the Chicago White Sox!

WP, that one stopped me in my tracks. I had to keep going back to this post, as though Kasey's voice was urging me to return. "And we have letter from a teenager in Oregon. She writes "Kasey, after my dad left me, mom and my twenty-seven brothers and sisters....... Can you please play his favorite song "Blue Suede Shoes?""


Later

[Willets Point]

]Things just got a little dryer in Cleveland

Pencil 'em in for 2007.

MFS62 - if only you could hear me saying it, I do a pretty good Kasey Kasem impersonation (I listened to America's Top 40 religiously around the ages 6 to 9).

[Elster88]

Frayed Knot wrote: Over the Last 10 years: Champions: MLB = 6 different teams (20% of the league) NFL = 7 (21.9%) NBA = 5 (17.2%) Reaching the Finals: MLB = 11 different teams (36.7%) NFL = 11 (34.4%) NBA = 12 (41.4%) Failed to reach the league semis (league/conference championship): MLB = 12 different teams (40%) NFL = 10 (31.3%) NBA = 10 (34.5%) And over the last 20 years: Different Champions: MLB = 14 (46.7%) NFL = 11 (34.4%) NBA = 6 (20.7%) - that's right, only 6 franchises over 20 seasons! Reached the finals: MLB = 19 (63.3%) NFL = 19 (59.4%) NBA = 15 (51.7%) Did not reach the semis: MLB = 5 (16.7%) NFL = 4 (12.5%) NBA = 6 (20.7%)

I've seen similar stuff busted out whenever this argument comes up. But these percentages really don't tell the story. The story is that some teams will never make the playoffs under our current system. The same is not true in other sports, unless someone like Isiah comes along and ruins your franchise.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The Mets are in the midst of the longest championship drought in their history.

[Benjamin Grimm]

That's a cheery thought.

[Elster88]

It must suck to be a Cub fan today. I don't think they have the same animosity for the Pale Hose that we have for the Yanqs (there's no way White Sock fans could be as big a bunch of pricks), but in back to back years the only other two teams that had such amazingly long championship droughts won the WS, and one of those happens to reside in their city. Must suck.

[Frayed Knot]

] ...But these percentages really don't tell the story. The story is that some teams will never make the playoffs under our current system. The same is not true in other sports

Yet for 2 decades now it HAS been true in other sports - to the same extent if not moreso than in baseball. And my point isn't that MLB's system is perfect, it's that I don't see a salary cap system (hard, soft or otherwise) as a great solution.

The best 'Anti-MLB' argument is that they have a slightly higher pct of teams not to reach a league final over the last 10 years than the other 2 which one could argue is a result of the explosive yet uneven increase in local media money that started with the MFY contract w/MSG network - although that goes back about 17 years now and at least some of those effects have been partially remedied (at least theoretically) by the most recent labor agreement. In the interim, the success of the Twins & A's have been mixed in with the failures of the Orioles, Dodgers and ... oh hell the Mets.
So if the next 10 years produce marketly different results than the above numbers you may have an argument. But until then, wake me when the LA Clippers and Az Cardinals start winning consistently.

[Elster88]

]Yet for 2 decades now it HAS been true in other sports

No, it HASn't.

It's definitely not in the NFL, a team can win 6 games and then win the Super Bowl the next year. Any team can afford to build a contender. (This is more a product of the way money is shared and because they only play 16 games a year, but it's still true.)

It's harder to say that the same is true in the NBA, but every team has enough money to get the players you need to win a championship. The problem there is more when moronic GMs pay for the wrong players and are stuck over the cap for 20 years.

Teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Minnesota will never win a WS because they can't afford the players. There's a reason why the Pie-rats traded Benson for Wigginton (though some longtime CPF posters think that losing Wigginton is one of the top 5 worst baseball decisions in MLB history).

A common counter-argument that Minny proves me wrong because they make the playoffs every year. I think that's wrong with the answer to one simple question: Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win ANY of the playoff series they played in?

Anyway, there are no such teams in the NFL or NBA. Any one of them could afford to build a contender.

[Elster88]

]slightly higher pct of teams not to reach a league final over the last 10 years

No, the story is the number of teams who have no hope of ever winning a WS.

]the success of the Twins & A's have been

How many playoff series have these two teams won combined in the last ten years? Yes, I'd like the Mets to have had their recent history of playoff series, but I'd much rather have the Mets' budget than the execs that run those teams. I think most people would agree with me.

That's telling too. I think most fans would rather their team had a high budget instead of one of the most capable GMs in baseball. The same is not true in other sports *cough* *Isiah* *cough*.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

]Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win a playoff series?

They already f-ing have.

[Elster88]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win a playoff series? They already f-ing have.

My question was, "Did you think they would win?" That means before the series.

I also meant after salaries started to sky rocket, so I'm not including the WS teams with Kirby, obviously.

[Elster88]

I know that my argument is hard to believe or even consider, as baseball fans. But the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I can't imagine being as big a baseball fan as I am and living in, say, Pittsburgh, for example. That has to suck. Year in and year out, knowing your team will not make the playoffs.

[Guest sharpie]

Seems to me the Marlins bought their first WS team and then, like so many Super Bowl contenders in recent years, couldn't afford their success and reverted to form.

NFL or NBA style salary caps make every fan into accountants -- do we have cap room to get player X? I think the current system with heavier penalties for going over the posted level where you pay the fine plus more revenue sharing is a better system for fans and is more palatable to the MLBPA.

[Elster88]

I think the luxury tax will help too. George has got to be spending upwards of 300 million when all of that is taking into account. Could he really still be making a profit?

[Vic Sage]

]The Mets are in the midst of the longest championship drought in their history

Well, as far as Mets winning/losing cycles go, they've been pretty consistent:

1) 1962-1968 (7 seasons) = .347 winning% (57-105 avg)
Casey's loveable losers... can't anybody here play this game?

2) 1969-1976 (8 seasons) = .517% (84-78), 2 East Div., 2 NLC, 1 WS
a .500 era with 1 amazin' year, plus the 'ya gotta believes' lose the WS

3) 1977-1983 (7 seasons) = .407% (66-96)
the children's crusade, unloveable losers sold to Doubleday

4) 1984-1990 (7 seasons) = .587% (95-67), 2 Div, 1 NLC, 1 WS
the golden age, but fell short al but once

5) 1991-1996 (6 seasons) = .430% (70-92)
the worst team money could buy

6) 1997-2001 (5 seasons) = .554% (90-72), 2 WC, 1 NLC
Bobby Vee's boys don't go all the way, but play the 2nd best era of Mets ball.

7) 2002-2004 (3 seasons) = .436% (71-91)
the 2nd Worst Team money could buy

8) 2005 = 83-79
If this season ushers in the beginning of a new "up cycle", it could mark 2002-2004 as the shortest "down cycle" in team history.

As for post season play, we're a post-season team every decade or so (11-13 years).

1) 1969, 1973
2) 1986, 1988
3) 1999, 2000

If 2005 is indeed the beginning of a new cycle and not just a blip, the truncated 2002-2004 could indicate a shorter wait for the next post-season period. I'm thinking that by the 2008-2009 era, we should have a championship-caliber team.

[Frayed Knot]

You [Elster] keep saying that the chances of winning and competing are far less in baseball than in other sports yet these differences don't show up in the results. How does that work exactly?

]Teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Minnesota will never win a WS because they can't afford the players

The baseball teams in 3 of those cities - KC, Cincy & Minny - have won more recently than their NFL counterparts. In fact the Cincy & Minny teams have never won on the gridiron while the Reds & Twins have at least 3 each during that span - including one each in the '90s.

]I also meant after salaries started to sky rocket, so I'm not including the WS teams with Kirby, obviously.

OK, so then the 'last 10 years' numbers would diverge wildly. Yet - even with the recent run of NYY success mixed in (something that has become LESS common since prior to the draft/FA period) - they don't.

[Elster88]

="Frayed Knot"] ]Teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Minnesota will never win a WS because they can't afford the players The baseball teams in 3 of those cities - KC, Cincy & Minny - have won more recently than their NFL counterparts. In fact the Cincy & Minny teams have never won on the gridiron while the Reds & Twins have at least 3 each during that span - including one each in the '90s.

I mean in the most recent years since salaries in baseball started to skyrocket.

="Frayed Knot"] ]I also meant after salaries started to sky rocket, so I'm not including the WS teams with Kirby, obviously. OK, so then the 'last 10 years' numbers would diverge wildly. Yet - even with the recent run of NYY success mixed in (something that has become LESS common since prior to the draft/FA period) - they don't.

My point is not so much "Who has won a championship?", but more, "Could they win a championship?" And it doesn't have much to do with, say the Steelers vs. the Pirates just because they're in the same city.

My point is, there are certain teams that will never win a title under the current system in baseball. The same is not true in the NFL or NBA. Most any of those teams can afford to pay the players they need, they just have to get them. With a team like Oakland, that has had the luck and the management to get the MVP caliber players like Giambi and Hudson, they have to trade them away because they can't afford them once free agency roles around.

And I for one, never thought Minnesota had a shot of winning anything. To me, they are lucky enough to built decent teams while playing in a division with a bunch of other teams that either: a) misspent the money they had, or were one of the poorer franchises. Once the Sox and Indians got their act together, they were quickly an afterthought in 3rd place. In fact, I think they are one of the best examples of my argument. An example of how a team with money can quickly pass by a team that was good but had less money.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The argument isn't built around contrasting the current era with the pre-free agent era or the current era with the pre-draft era, but more anchored in contrasting the current era with the pre-expanded-broadcast-revenue era. It's not fair to reframe it otherwise.

The border isn't clear, but the strike of 1994 works as well as any. In 1990 and 1993, the Kansas City Royals both times went out and got the biggest prize in the free-agent market. For reasons unrelated to the fact that landing such big fishies is a hit/miss prospect, it has become unthinkable that the Royals --- or perhaps up to two thirds of all teams --- could make such a bold move today.

As FK has advocated, this could be largely, and fairly, offset by giving the losers a share in broadcast revenues.

[Frayed Knot]

]My point is not so much "Who has won a championship?", but more, "Could they win a championship?"

In other words; forget how it works in practice, how does it work in theory!!

]My point is, there are certain teams that will never win a title under the current system in baseball. The same is not true in the NFL or NBA.

Y'see what you're arguing here don't you?
You're opining that the system is bad that it's bound to result in big differences between the results of MLB & other leagues in the future even though it hasn't yet during the time it's been in effect.
Well get back to me when it does.

]Most any of those teams can afford to pay the players they need, they just have to get them. With a team like Oakland, that has had the luck and the management to get the MVP caliber players like Giambi and Hudson, they have to trade them away because they can't afford them once free agency roles around.

Yes, and they've dealt them for players who have (or they hope will) help them in the future. And again, the other systems offer alternatives which aren't necc an improvement. While MLB's system allows for player movement, the NFL's with it's hard cap requires it in many cases and so those good teams with good players are forced to jettison some of those players whether they can afford them or not! I don't see where that set-up is any better, particularly since the system is designed not to ensure parity (income levels are already largely stabilized) but to ensure owner profits.

[Guest Rotblatt]

I totally disagree with your assessment of Minnesota. Hunter, Mauer & Morneau all spent significant time on the DL this year and Morneau surprisingly vanished after he DID get healthy. Throw in the fact that Kubel went down before the season started, and it's just plain silly to argue that the Twins faded because CLE & CWS got good.

And while yes, they have benefited from a weak ALC, they've averaged ~89 wins per season over the last 5 years, better than every AL team but NYY, BOS & OAK, and better than every NL team but ATL, STL & SFG.

If the Mets were the 7th best team in baseball over a five-year period and made the playoffs 3 times during that span, I'd be pretty fucking happy.

I suspect the Twins will be back next year and better than ever. They've got some young ace-like pitchers in the pipeline in Baker & Liriano to complement Santana and an aging Radke. Kubel's healthy, Torii should be by Spring, and if Morneau gets his swing back, they'll probably be back in the playoffs next year.

In short, the Twins are built to be competitve every year on the strength of a ridiculously strong farm system and relatively smart GM'ing.

And by the way, they beat OAK in the first round of the 2002 playoffs, so I've no idea what you meant by this:

]Did anyone ever really think Minnesota had a shot to win ANY of the playoff series they played in?

And of COURSE they were the underdogs against the Yankees in 2003 & 2004--every team is an underdog against them.

The Twins ARE a success, as everyone who's followed them the last couple years could tell you.

[Elster88]

="Frayed Knot"] ]My point is not so much "Who has won a championship?", but more, "Could they win a championship?" In other words; forget how it works in practice, how does it work in theory!!

Not at all. I'm not describing what I mean correctly, I guess.

="Frayed Knot"] ]My point is, there are certain teams that will never win a title under the current system in baseball. The same is not true in the NFL or NBA. Y'see what you're arguing here don't you? You're opining that the system is bad that it's bound to result in big differences between the results of MLB & other leagues in the future even though it hasn't yet during the time it's been in effect. Well get back to me when it does.

It already has. I don't know how else to explain what I mean. Certain teams will never win a WS under the current structure. I don't belive that tallying up the number of teams that have won a league pennant is a counterargument to what I'm saying. I'm not sure how to objectively measure it.

="Frayed Knot"] ]Most any of those teams can afford to pay the players they need, they just have to get them. With a team like Oakland, that has had the luck and the management to get the MVP caliber players like Giambi and Hudson, they have to trade them away because they can't afford them once free agency roles around. Yes, and they've dealt them for players who have (or they hope will) help them in the future. And again, the other systems offer alternatives which aren't necc an improvement.

So you're telling me that Oakland dealt those players because they wanted to, and not because they couldn't afford to resign them?

]For reasons unrelated to the fact that landing such big fishies is a hit/miss prospect, it has become unthinkable that the Royals --- or perhaps up to two thirds of all teams --- could make such a bold move today.

This is what I'm trying to argue. Edgy put it succinctly.

[Elster88]

]If the Mets were the 7th best team in baseball over a five-year period and made the playoffs 3 times during that span, I'd be pretty fucking happy.

Like I already said, sure this would make for some exciting baseball. But the ultimate hope of mine as a fan is for the Mets to win the big prize. I don't see Minnesota doing this anytime soon. But it's true, I don't know a lot about them.

[Frayed Knot]

]It already has [affected the success rate] ... I don't know how else to explain what I mean. Certain teams will never win a WS under the current structure.

But those teams have been competing for them and winning them despite the inequalities in the system - and have been doing so at a rate at least comparable to that of the other systems that MLB's critics demand be adopted as a fix.
That's been the argument all along.

]I don't belive that tallying up the number of teams that have won a league pennant is a counterargument to what I'm saying. I'm not sure how to objectively measure it.

Which is sort of like saying that you know player A - because he has a smaller strike zone and is faster - is going to have a better future OBA than player B ... even though there's many years of actual data showing otherwise.

]So you're telling me that Oakland dealt those players because they wanted to, and not because they couldn't afford to resign them?

Not at all. Just saying that there are different paths to succeed (or try to) within a system and that the NFL & NBA cap plans are putting up different limits on how a team can keep talent. The results of these different systems have been - despite claims to the contrary - remarkably similar in the way championships have been distributed and in the pct of teams that have been shut out.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Can we discuss the alleged inequities teams have in competitive opportunities without assuming that the only alternatives are those modeled by thte NBA and NFL?

[Elster88]

="Frayed Knot"] ]It already has [affected the success rate] ... I don't know how else to explain what I mean. Certain teams will never win a WS under the current structure. But those teams have been competing for them and winning them despite the inequalities in the system - and have been doing so at a rate at least comparable to that of the other systems that MLB's critics demand be adopted as a fix. That's been the argument all along.

I added the bold to emphasize the particular sentence. When did what you say in that bolded sentence happen? Who has been competing and winning? Minnesota? Oakland? They never won a WS. I think we're arguing two different things.

My argument is simply this: A team like Pittsburgh, or Cinicinnati, or Minnesota, will not win a WS without some kind of salary cap because they can't afford to put a team together that is capable enough. There is no way for me to prove this. I can't look at the past 11 years (I agree with Edgy, the strike is a good cutoff) and say, "See I'm right", because the sample size isn't big enough. There is not really a way to objectively measure this. And I don't know what this means:

]even though there's many years of actual data showing otherwise.

What data are you referring to? The percentages of teams that get to the LCS and WS?

And, again, my main problem is feeling sympathy for some poor sap who loves baseball but lives in Pittsburgh. He is fucked under MLB's system. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

[Elster88]

]Just saying that there are different paths to succeed (or try to) within a system and that the NFL & NBA cap plans are putting up different limits on how a team can keep talent.

I agree that it's not like the systems that the NFL or NBA employ are light years better. But I'd contend that every team in those leagues has a hope of winning it all under one of those systems. I don't think the same is true in baseball.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I have to say I disagree with salary caps in principle.

Much better alternatives, in accord with our free-market system:

1) Allow visiting teams to share in broadcast, as well stadium, revenues, as they are part of the attraction.

2) Remove MLB's anti-trust exemption, thereby allowing teams to compete for the larger markets in more densely populated areas.

[Frayed Knot]

"When did what you say in that bolded sentence happen?"

Inequalitites? There have been those in the system since the dawn of time. You think the Yanx just happened to win all those pennants in the '40s & '50s because they were pure of heart? Or believe that the Cardinals and their 20-something farm teams weren't at an advantage over teams (like the Phils) that had none? In many ways things are better now than they were back "in the good old days".


"Who has been competing and winning? Minnesota? Oakland? They never won a WS."

But they've been in hot competition for one, in some cases more often than other supposedly well-heeled teams. You're making a bit of a leap by treating the lack of a WS as proof that one can not and will not happen.



"What data are you referring to? The percentages of teams that get to the LCS and WS?"

Sure.
You're assuming that a cap system will produce better results while dismissing the data which shows that the leagues that already have cap systems are not better and, by some measures, are worse.

[Guest Rotblatt]

]My argument is simply this: A team like Pittsburgh, or Cinicinnati, or Minnesota, will not win a WS without some kind of salary cap because they can't afford to put a team together that is capable enough.

I think you're just plain wrong. Anaheim in 2002 had a payroll around $60M (~30% less than SFG). And Florida in 2003? They were at around $50M--about a third of the Yankee's--and LESS than Minnesota's 2003 payroll (~$60M).

And as for capability, I think most people would say that a team who wins, say, 100 games or more in the regular season (as OAK did in 2001 & 2002) are plenty capable of winning the WS.

I mean, look at the 2000 ALDS between OAK & NYY. Oakland, with their $35M payroll, outscored, outhit & outpitched the $100M Yankees. Yes, they lost the series in 5, but that series could easily have gone either way.

In 2001, same story. The Yankees got marginally better pitching, (2.20 ERA to 2.86 ERA), but Oakland outhit them once again.

I don't see how you could watch those two series and come away thinking that Oakland would have had no chance in the World Series those years.

[Elster88]

Well, those numbers are basically torpedoing my thoughts. Some more of them:

I still say it sucks to be a Pirate fan.

I consider Anaheim and Florida to be large budget teams.

Minnesota and Oakland are the exceptions, not the rules when it comes to small-market, small-payroll teams. I'd say it's a lot harder to build a team that way then to build one with a huge budget. Maybe that's the crux of what I am trying to get at. Teams with more money have a HUGE advantage over the smaller market teams. It's very hard for a Minny or an Oaktown to emerge and compete with the New Yorks, Bostons, and Atlantas.

I think I'll go with this: Teams with more money have a HUGE advantage over the smaller market teams. Not fair to Royal-fans.

Please continue to destroy what I am saying.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 135) Mackey Sasser