And that's why, when using winning percentage, I used data for 10 years in one, and all of franchises histories in the other, so that the sample size wouldn't skew the information.
So they don't have closer winning percentages, and they have less turnover in champions. But they have more parity, and it's a fact. But I have to ask, how?
having a salary cap would hurt the smaller market teams?
if bigger market teams that always spend a high amount can no longer spend a high amount, I would think that would mean more players are not going to be an option for these teams. a team like the Yankees rather than spending whatever it takes on multiple free agents would either have to bring up players from the minors or trade for players who don't make as much.
spending whatever a team can hasn't helped some teams. but that's not because of the spending. that's because of management. there's stupid high spending and then smart high spending.
no one can argue that a high payroll has not helped the Yankees.
Ah, I missed the "not" in your sentence, my bad.
I'm posting from my phone, if you really need evidence I'll provide it later. I don't even really like the NFL, it's just so obvious.
Mainly because any proposed salary cap comes with the idea that there needs to be a salary floor, correct?
All a salary floor does is force spending on bad players to reach the salary floor, and it takes away revenue sharing, which small market teams rely on.
These players are not going to trickle down to them because larger market teams just can't sign them any longer. Top free agents will still sign with the best teams, like they do in the NBA for example. They will just all team up to play where they want for the best chance to win, and has the best marketing opportunities for them to get more cash.
a third of the league wouldnt be able to even reach the low cap, so the only way i could see a cap happening would be if there was no min, which i dont think will happen. and honestly since the jays just started spending money i dont really want a cap.
Blue Jays 2013 world champs, just watch
how good of a GM do you need to be when you can spend infinity on payroll?
I think Sabathia is an example of this. when he was a free agent. if I remember correctly other teams that were making offers to him/interested in him were offering something like $100 million contracts. the Yankees come along and blow everyone away offering $161 million. no one else was even close. that's the ability the Yankees had, and then they could still overpay on other free agents with high contracts too.
no team can compete with that in salary.
this is what I mentioned on the bottom of the 1st page.
a salary floor is what is ridiculous. this is what will cause stupid spending. imagine a team like Pittsburgh or Kansas City NEEDING to increase their payroll. so instead of doing so wisely, they simply overpay one or more players. so now you have player X making more than he deserves. problem is then you have player Y on another team who feels he is better than player X but making less, so he now wants to be paid more. it turns into dominos because multiple players want to make more than the one player who was overpaid JUST to get that team above the salary floor.
[QUOTE=Jeffy25;24387536]Here are the main points
1. MLB has the greatest parity of any other sport by a huge margin
It is quite obvious that you have ZERO idea of what the word parity means.
Baseball has by far the worst Parity in ML sports.
Spending does not equate to winning in baseball,
The best players will still go to teams like the Yankees because they want to win. Not because they get paid the most. .
Uhhh spending does indeed equate to winning. Not all teams that spend will win mind you but it sure gives them one heckuva chance.
For example. In 2008 the Yankees for the seventh year in a row get knocked out of the playoffs. They decide that they are going all in in 2009. They sign not the top 1, not the top 2, but the top THREE free agents in baseball to humongous insane deals. Mark Texiera was the Number one bat on the market, CC Sabathia was the number one starter and AJ Burnett was number 2. Those three players pushed the 2008 yankees to a 2009 championship, bought and paid for. To see it any other way is foolish.
If the Phillies had signed those three...they would have won back to back rings. had the Red Sox signed them....WS champs, had the top ten teams in MLB signed all thee anyone of them could have won the 2009 WS. But the Yankees would not have won it without signing them. $$$$$$
You cant tell me that the Yanks and sox, embroiled in spending frenzies for decades dont win because they pay for it. Since 1995 the Yankees have made the playoffs.....17 times in 18 years.
lets take a look at some other teams.....KC Royals, Pittsburgh Pirates, Houston Astros, Rockies, Orioles, Jays, Tigers, white sox, Indians, lets add up all the times they went to the playoffs since 1995...all together....probably doesnt add up to 17.
Some teams (mets) spend and dont get there, some teams (A's) get there every so often by bucking the system, but it is not the norm. in baseball, you spend you win.
Salary cap? Look at what happened to the Toronto Maple Leafs after 04-05 lockout
Screw caps, rich cities deserve the best teams screw this fair ****.
Look at football in europe. Like **** we pay so much money to watch these games we deserve championships.