I've upgraded to Vista... and I love it. No one is more surprised than me. After reading numerous Vista horror stories, I expected the worst. At the very least, I figured it would be like most Windows updates: increased functionality at the cost of speed and performance. In my experience, using a new version of Windows was always 2 steps forward and 1 step backward. In other words, it's always been a mixed bag and full of minor irritants. As a matter of fact, I would never bother upgrading Windows (that's what buying a new computer is for), but I happened to buy this laptop shortly before Vista came out. I specifically got it because it was Vista Premium Capable (or whatever it's called, it can run Aero), plus I got my copy of Vista at a significant academic discount.
I'm one of those people who reformats periodically to get rid of the crap that inevitably collects after a while. So, this time, I decided to try out Vista with Service Pack 1 out.
Well, for whatever reason, I haven't been able to download Service Pack 1 through Windows Update yet, but I love Vista all the same! It is a vast improvement over XP. So, why is it so great?
1. It's smooth. I don't know how else to describe it. I often found with XP that programs loaded slowly and it would often hang. Programs load quickly in Vista and I haven't experienced any system hanging. It is, of course, just after a reformat, but it's far smoother and snappier than I ever remember XP being.
2. It's pretty. It's stupid to say, but Vista looks great. Even before Aero was running, it looked nice. I don't really care about translucency or any of the whiz bang effects, but it just looks smooth (there's that word again) and polished.
3. It's well-designed. Anyone who has upgraded from 3.1 to 95 to 98 to XP knows that part of the upgrade process is learning how to get the new version of Windows to do the things you learned how to do for the previous version. There's very little of that with Vista. All of the settings are where you would expect them to be. The help is robust, seamless and no longer takes forever to index/load. It's also very intuitive and the automatic configuration works the first time. Networking, which could often be a pain with XP, is easy.
4. It's faster, really and truly. Since Windows 3.1, I have heard Microsoft promise better performance with each version of Windows. I have never found this to be the case. 95 was slower than 3.1. My Windows 98SE speed machine turned into a clunker under XP. Well, while I bought this computer to be Vista capable, I'm still pleasantly surprised by its performance. It is significantly faster than XP.
It's early yet, but my advice is to ignore the initial reviews of Vista. I've had no problems with hardware or software compatibility. All the drivers were installed seamlessley. No dreaded exclamation points. No downloading drivers directly from the manufacturer. I don't expect many people are going to be interested in purchasing Vista retail (with its hefty price tag), but if you're buying a new computer for personal use, you're crazy if you don't get Vista on it. And, if like me, you've had a Vista DVD ready to go for a while, but you've been holding off, now is the time. I bet you'll be pleased.
For the record, I'm running a Dell Inspiron E1405 with 1 gigabyte of RAM, a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo and an on-board Intel 945GM for video.
Oh, and one side note, changing your Windows environment to a different language (in my case French) is easier than ever before.
Just as I'm completing this post, Windows Update informed me that Service Pack 1 is available, so I'm going to install it. I'll put up another post if it changes my impressions.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Myth of Reagan
I was listening to John McCain on Meet the Press from January 27, 2007, and something he said caught my ear:
"I'm proud to have been one in the Reagan revolution where we not only cut taxes, which I'm proud to have supported and I have a record of it, but we restrained spending. "
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22867407/page/2/)
That rang false. Was spending indeed restrained under Reagan? No, not according to the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Here's the budget during the Reagan administration in millions of dollars:
(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist01z1.xls)
And to account for inflation, in constant 2000 dollars in billions of dollars:
(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist01z3.xls)
Both of these charts clearly show that rather than restraining spending, it nearly doubled during Reagan's two terms. Let's stop the mythmaking and face reality.
"I'm proud to have been one in the Reagan revolution where we not only cut taxes, which I'm proud to have supported and I have a record of it, but we restrained spending. "
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22867407/page/2/)
That rang false. Was spending indeed restrained under Reagan? No, not according to the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Here's the budget during the Reagan administration in millions of dollars:
| Year | Total | ||
| Receipts | Outlays | Surplus or Deficit(−) | |
| 1981 | 599,272 | 678,241 | -78,968 |
| 1982 | 617,766 | 745,743 | -127,977 |
| 1983 | 600,562 | 808,364 | -207,802 |
| 1984 | 666,486 | 851,853 | -185,367 |
| 1985 | 734,088 | 946,396 | -212,308 |
| 1986 | 769,215 | 990,441 | -221,227 |
| 1987 | 854,353 | 1,004,083 | -149,730 |
| 1988 | 909,303 | 1,064,481 | -155,178 |
| 1989 | 991,190 | 1,143,829 | -152,639 |
| 1990 | 1,032,094 | 1,253,130 | -221,036 |
And to account for inflation, in constant 2000 dollars in billions of dollars:
| Fiscal Year | In Current Dollars | ||
| Receipts | Outlays | Surplus or Deficit(−) | |
| 1981 | 599.3 | 678.2 | -79.0 |
| 1982 | 617.8 | 745.7 | -128.0 |
| 1983 | 600.6 | 808.4 | -207.8 |
| 1984 | 666.5 | 851.9 | -185.4 |
| 1985 | 734.1 | 946.4 | -212.3 |
| 1986 | 769.2 | 990.4 | -221.2 |
| 1987 | 854.4 | 1,004.1 | -149.7 |
| 1988 | 909.3 | 1,064.5 | -155.2 |
| 1989 | 991.2 | 1,143.8 | -152.6 |
| 1990 | 1,032.1 | 1,253.1 | -221.0 |
Both of these charts clearly show that rather than restraining spending, it nearly doubled during Reagan's two terms. Let's stop the mythmaking and face reality.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Correlating Revenue Sharing and Market Size
So, now let's see if adding in some revenue sharing data will help to clarify things. The Revenue Sharing Plan is rather complex, but basically, it is designed to redistribute funds from wealthy teams to less wealthy ones. In other words, revenue sharing is supposed to provide some balance, so that even teams in small markets can compete with those with much larger resources. The base plan has every team pay 31% of its positive net local revenues into a central fund, which is then redistributed to teams with a negative net local revenue. The money that teams receive is supposed to be used "in an effort to improve its performance on the field" ("2007-2011 Basic Agreement," 112), and teams must report what they use their revenue sharing money on. In fact, the commissioner has the authority to impose penalties if teams do not use their revenue sharing funds to improve on-field performance. While I am focusing on local net revenue here, teams also receive money from the central fund based on MLB's revenue such as from national TV contracts and MLB Advanced Media. Also, it is important to note that the 2007 CBA changed the formula slightly from the 2002 CBA, but the basic system remains in place.
It is important to note that the amount a team receives is based on local revenues, not market size. Michael Lewis recently wrote an excellent op-ed piece that examines this issue (Michael Lewis, "Baseball's Losing Formula," The New York Times, 3 November 2007). He argues that the system disincentivizes success. He proposes basing revenue sharing "on a statistical analyses [sic] of teams’ payrolls, winning percentages and attendance." While Lewis does not elaborate at length on his formula (which is understandable since The New York Times is not the best place for statistical analyses), he focuses on rewarding teams that improve attendance.
I agree with Lewis's criticism, but let's see if that's born out in the data. Here's a table sorted by market size including 2005 revenue sharing income. Unfortunately, 2005 is the last year I can find a complete data set for. If you have more recent data or know where I can find it, please let me know: Revenue Sharing data comes from (Stefan Fatsis, "Playing Hardball," The Wall Street Journal, 28 April 2006)
Some observations:
1. The Philadelphia Phillies and Detroit Tigers received a large amount of revenue sharing funds, but this is likely due to the ability to incorporate debt service into their local revenue calculation.
2. The Toronto Blue Jays also received an unexpectedly large amount of revenue sharing funds, but this is likely due to the formerly weaker Canadian dollar (particularly since their payroll was in U.S. dollars). However, now that the Canadian dollar has reached parity, this shouldn't affect calculations in 2007
3. Despite being the 10th largest market, the Florida Marlins received the 3rd most in revenue sharing.
4. It's interesting to compare the revenue sharing data of the Oakland Athletics and San Francisco Giants. Despite sharing a very large market, the Giants have a relatively new stadium, and I would speculate, a larger fan base. It'll be interesting to see if the Athletics' planned new stadium will change the revenue sharing picture.
5. The Cardinals more than pay their share, undoubtedly in part to an extremely large fan base.
Limitations:
There are many:
1. I'm mixing different years' data. In each case, I tried to get the best and latest available, but I haven't been able to find it.
2. The market data is somewhat arbitrary. Some teams have fan bases that far exceed their home territories, and dividing shared markets in half is an approximation at best.
3. I don't have complete revenue data. Obviously, neither Major League Baseball nor its teams have an interest in letting the general public examine their books.
4. I am an amateur. I have no experience with statistical evaluation, and am not a trained economist.
5. There is no direct cause & effect relationship between payroll and winning.
Conclusions:
I don't think there's any strong, definitive conclusion that can be reached, but I do think this study points out that being a "small-market team" is too often an oversimplified excuse. The Phillies, Rangers, Astros, Braves, Marlins, Tigers, and Blue Jays all have home markets of over 5 million people. The Minnesota Twins are the 21st largest market, which puts them closer to the middle than the end. Obviously, there are many other factors that contribute to a team's revenues and its success. However, I think that we, as baseball fans, should be more critical when teams ask for taxpayer subsidies for a new stadium or when a team claims to be unable to keep a player because it is in a "small market." I would suggest that what limits a team's payroll is more the effective utilization of its resources and less its market, a point Michael Lewis made in Moneyball, and one worth repeating. Again, this is far from a definite study, but I think it may provide a little to think about.
For further reading:
1. Brown, Maury, " Interview - Andrew Zimbalist - New CBA," The Biz of Baseball, 19 November 2006, http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=470&Itemid=35 , Accessed 3 December 2007.
2. Brown, Maury, "The Upcoming CBA and the Battles Within it," The Hardball Times, 27 February 2006.
3. Gustafson, Elizabeth and Hadley, Lawrence, "Revenue, Population, and Competitive Balance in Major League Baseball," Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 25 No. 2, 250–261.
4. Lewis, Michael. Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.
5. Maxcy, Joel G, "Progressive Revenue Sharing in MLB: The Effect on Player Transfers," Working Paper Series, Paper No. 07-28, October 2007.
It is important to note that the amount a team receives is based on local revenues, not market size. Michael Lewis recently wrote an excellent op-ed piece that examines this issue (Michael Lewis, "Baseball's Losing Formula," The New York Times, 3 November 2007). He argues that the system disincentivizes success. He proposes basing revenue sharing "on a statistical analyses [sic] of teams’ payrolls, winning percentages and attendance." While Lewis does not elaborate at length on his formula (which is understandable since The New York Times is not the best place for statistical analyses), he focuses on rewarding teams that improve attendance.
I agree with Lewis's criticism, but let's see if that's born out in the data. Here's a table sorted by market size including 2005 revenue sharing income. Unfortunately, 2005 is the last year I can find a complete data set for. If you have more recent data or know where I can find it, please let me know: Revenue Sharing data comes from (Stefan Fatsis, "Playing Hardball," The Wall Street Journal, 28 April 2006)
| Market Size Rank | Revenue Sharing Income Rank | Team | Market Size | 2005 Revenue Sharing Income |
| 1 | 30 | New York Yankees | 10988112 | -76000000 |
| 2 | 26 | New York Mets | 10988112 | -24000000 |
| 3 | 21 | Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim | 8887992 | -11000000 |
| 4 | 25 | Los Angeles Dodgers | 8887992 | -20000000 |
| 5 | 29 | Boston Red Sox | 7465634 | -52000000 |
| 6 | 14 | Philadelphia Phillies | 6382714 | 5800000 |
| 7 | 18 | Texas Rangers | 6359758 | -35000 |
| 8 | 20 | Houston Astros | 5641077 | -11000000 |
| 9 | 19 | Atlanta Braves | 5478667 | -10000000 |
| 10 | 3 | Florida Marlins | 5463857 | 31000000 |
| 11 | 5 | Detroit Tigers | 5410014 | 25000000 |
| 12 | 2 | Toronto Blue Jays | 5113149 | 31000000 |
| 13 | 28 | Chicago Cubs | 4862658.5 | -32000000 |
| 14 | 23 | Chicago White Sox | 4862658.5 | -18000000 |
| 15 | 17 | Baltimore Orioles | 4105606.5 | 2000000 |
| 16 | 16 | Washington Nationals | 4105606.5 | 3900000 |
| 17 | 12 | Arizona Diamondbacks | 4039182 | 13000000 |
| 18 | 27 | Seattle Mariners | 3876211 | -25000000 |
| 19 | 22 | San Francisco Giants | 3614474 | -14000000 |
| 20 | 9 | Oakland Athletics | 3614474 | 19000000 |
| 21 | 8 | Minnesota Twins | 3502891 | 22000000 |
| 22 | 15 | San Diego Padres | 2941454 | 5700000 |
| 23 | 10 | Colorado Rockies | 2927911 | 16000000 |
| 24 | 13 | Cleveland Indians | 2917801 | 6000000 |
| 25 | 24 | St. Louis Cardinals | 2858549 | -19000000 |
| 26 | 1 | Tampa Bay Rays | 2697731 | 33000000 |
| 27 | 5 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 2462571 | 25000000 |
| 28 | 11 | Cincinnati Reds | 2147617 | 16000000 |
| 29 | 4 | Kansas City Royals | 2034796 | 30000000 |
| 30 | 7 | Milwaukee Brewers | 1706077 | 24000000 |
1. The Philadelphia Phillies and Detroit Tigers received a large amount of revenue sharing funds, but this is likely due to the ability to incorporate debt service into their local revenue calculation.
2. The Toronto Blue Jays also received an unexpectedly large amount of revenue sharing funds, but this is likely due to the formerly weaker Canadian dollar (particularly since their payroll was in U.S. dollars). However, now that the Canadian dollar has reached parity, this shouldn't affect calculations in 2007
3. Despite being the 10th largest market, the Florida Marlins received the 3rd most in revenue sharing.
4. It's interesting to compare the revenue sharing data of the Oakland Athletics and San Francisco Giants. Despite sharing a very large market, the Giants have a relatively new stadium, and I would speculate, a larger fan base. It'll be interesting to see if the Athletics' planned new stadium will change the revenue sharing picture.
5. The Cardinals more than pay their share, undoubtedly in part to an extremely large fan base.
Limitations:
There are many:
1. I'm mixing different years' data. In each case, I tried to get the best and latest available, but I haven't been able to find it.
2. The market data is somewhat arbitrary. Some teams have fan bases that far exceed their home territories, and dividing shared markets in half is an approximation at best.
3. I don't have complete revenue data. Obviously, neither Major League Baseball nor its teams have an interest in letting the general public examine their books.
4. I am an amateur. I have no experience with statistical evaluation, and am not a trained economist.
5. There is no direct cause & effect relationship between payroll and winning.
Conclusions:
I don't think there's any strong, definitive conclusion that can be reached, but I do think this study points out that being a "small-market team" is too often an oversimplified excuse. The Phillies, Rangers, Astros, Braves, Marlins, Tigers, and Blue Jays all have home markets of over 5 million people. The Minnesota Twins are the 21st largest market, which puts them closer to the middle than the end. Obviously, there are many other factors that contribute to a team's revenues and its success. However, I think that we, as baseball fans, should be more critical when teams ask for taxpayer subsidies for a new stadium or when a team claims to be unable to keep a player because it is in a "small market." I would suggest that what limits a team's payroll is more the effective utilization of its resources and less its market, a point Michael Lewis made in Moneyball, and one worth repeating. Again, this is far from a definite study, but I think it may provide a little to think about.
For further reading:
1. Brown, Maury, " Interview - Andrew Zimbalist - New CBA," The Biz of Baseball, 19 November 2006, http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=470&Itemid=35 , Accessed 3 December 2007.
2. Brown, Maury, "The Upcoming CBA and the Battles Within it," The Hardball Times, 27 February 2006.
3. Gustafson, Elizabeth and Hadley, Lawrence, "Revenue, Population, and Competitive Balance in Major League Baseball," Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 25 No. 2, 250–261.
4. Lewis, Michael. Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.
5. Maxcy, Joel G, "Progressive Revenue Sharing in MLB: The Effect on Player Transfers," Working Paper Series, Paper No. 07-28, October 2007.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
And just for fun...
The amount spent per win:
| Team | Market Size | Payroll | $/person | Wins | $/win | |
| 1 | Tampa Bay Rays | 2697731 | 24123500 | 8.94214 | 66 | 365507.58 |
| 2 | Florida Marlins | 5463857 | 30507000 | 5.58342 | 71 | 429676.06 |
| 3 | Washington Nationals | 4105606.5 | 37347500 | 9.09671 | 73 | 511609.59 |
| 4 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 2462571 | 38537833 | 15.64943 | 68 | 566732.84 |
| 5 | Arizona Diamondbacks | 4039182 | 52067546 | 12.89062 | 90 | 578528.29 |
| 6 | Colorado Rockies | 2927911 | 54424000 | 18.58800 | 90 | 604711.11 |
| 7 | Cleveland Indians | 2917801 | 61673267 | 21.13690 | 96 | 642429.86 |
| 8 | San Diego Padres | 2941454 | 58110567 | 19.75573 | 89 | 652927.72 |
| 9 | Milwaukee Brewers | 1706077 | 70986500 | 41.60803 | 83 | 855259.04 |
| 10 | Minnesota Twins | 3502891 | 71439500 | 20.39444 | 79 | 904297.47 |
| 11 | Texas Rangers | 6359758 | 68318675 | 10.74234 | 75 | 910915.67 |
| 12 | Cincinnati Reds | 2147617 | 68904980 | 32.08439 | 72 | 957013.61 |
| 13 | Kansas City Royals | 2034796 | 67116500 | 32.98439 | 69 | 972702.9 |
| 14 | Toronto Blue Jays | 5113149 | 81942800 | 16.02590 | 83 | 987262.65 |
| 15 | Philadelphia Phillies | 6382714 | 89428213 | 14.01100 | 89 | 1004811.38 |
| 16 | Atlanta Braves | 5478667 | 87290833 | 15.93286 | 84 | 1039176.58 |
| 17 | Oakland Athletics | 3614474 | 79366940 | 21.95809 | 76 | 1044301.84 |
| 18 | Detroit Tigers | 5410014 | 95180369 | 17.59337 | 88 | 1081595.1 |
| 19 | St. Louis Cardinals | 2858549 | 90286823 | 31.58484 | 78 | 1157523.37 |
| 20 | Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim | 8887992 | 109251333 | 12.29202 | 94 | 1162248.22 |
| 21 | Chicago Cubs | 4862658.5 | 99670332 | 20.49709 | 85 | 1172592.14 |
| 22 | Houston Astros | 5641077 | 87759000 | 15.55714 | 73 | 1202178.08 |
| 23 | Seattle Mariners | 3876211 | 106460833 | 27.46518 | 88 | 1209782.19 |
| 24 | San Francisco Giants | 3614474 | 90219056 | 24.96049 | 71 | 1270690.93 |
| 25 | New York Mets | 10988112 | 115231663 | 10.48694 | 88 | 1309450.72 |
| 26 | Los Angeles Dodgers | 8887992 | 108454524 | 12.20237 | 82 | 1322616.15 |
| 27 | Baltimore Orioles | 4105606.5 | 93554808 | 22.78709 | 69 | 1355866.78 |
| 28 | Boston Red Sox | 7465634 | 143026214 | 19.15795 | 96 | 1489856.4 |
| 29 | Chicago White Sox | 4862658.5 | 108671833 | 22.34823 | 72 | 1509331.01 |
| 30 | New York Yankees | 10988112 | 189639045 | 17.25856 | 94 | 2017436.65 |
MLB Market Data
It has become a common refrain of sportswriters and others to bemoan the fate of small market teams. Their argument, to summarize, is that the financial system of Major League Baseball is fundamentally unequal, and that certain teams possess resources that other teams cannot. I intend to explore this argument through a combination of market and financial data.
Peter Gammons, in his latest blog entry, summarizes the perceived problem of inequality in baseball well:
"It doesn't matter how much luxury tax the Yankees pay or how much Steinbrenner money goes to Kansas City, Minnesota or Tampa Bay. Hank Steinbrenner is going to use his AmEx to win. He gets a year's grace from some of the taxation because of the new stadium that opens in 2009, but if you're out there in a small market, how scary is this winter, with the realization that the Yankees and Mets are both about to open new revenue-cow ballparks?"
(Peter Gammons, "The Rich Get Richer," http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=gammons_peter subscription required, Accessed 1 December 2007)
Gammons and others argue that teams in the largest markets, defined by them as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York have an inherent advantage. Let's look at some data to see how big these markets are relative to others.
The Baseball Almanac has already done an analysis based on 2000 Census Data (Al Streit, "Baseball Markets," Baseball Almanac, http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml , Accessed 1 December 2007)
Unsurprisingly, New York and Los Angeles are far and away the largest markets, followed by:
Chicago, Baltimore/Washington, Oakland/San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, and Texas (presumably Dallas/Fort Worth).
First, let's update Streit's data with the 2006 population estimates (only MLB markets included):
Some initial observations:
1. There is a massive disparity in market size among the top 8 teams and between the top 8 and other 22 teams.
2. Boston is the largest single team market
3. The Minnesota Twins could best be described as a mid-market team.
I thought it might be useful to divide the dual markets in half so that I could look at a team by team listing. This is obviously very rough, though of course, the home markets themselves are rough (just look at the reach of the Braves, Cardinals, Red Sox, and Yankees). Then, I used the team payroll data from (CBS Sportsline, "MLB Salaries," Accessed 1 December 2007), and divided the amount spent by the number of people in the home market. The results are below:
Of course, the value of this data is limited, since it doesn't take into account revenue sharing. My next post will attempt to correlate market/payroll data with revenue sharing. In the meantime, I hope this provides some food for thought.
Peter Gammons, in his latest blog entry, summarizes the perceived problem of inequality in baseball well:
"It doesn't matter how much luxury tax the Yankees pay or how much Steinbrenner money goes to Kansas City, Minnesota or Tampa Bay. Hank Steinbrenner is going to use his AmEx to win. He gets a year's grace from some of the taxation because of the new stadium that opens in 2009, but if you're out there in a small market, how scary is this winter, with the realization that the Yankees and Mets are both about to open new revenue-cow ballparks?"
(Peter Gammons, "The Rich Get Richer," http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=gammons_peter subscription required, Accessed 1 December 2007)
Gammons and others argue that teams in the largest markets, defined by them as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York have an inherent advantage. Let's look at some data to see how big these markets are relative to others.
The Baseball Almanac has already done an analysis based on 2000 Census Data (Al Streit, "Baseball Markets," Baseball Almanac, http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml , Accessed 1 December 2007)
Unsurprisingly, New York and Los Angeles are far and away the largest markets, followed by:
Chicago, Baltimore/Washington, Oakland/San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, and Texas (presumably Dallas/Fort Worth).
First, let's update Streit's data with the 2006 population estimates (only MLB markets included):
(U.S. Census, www.census.gov, Accessed 1 December 2007)
| Rank | Combined Statistical Area | 2006 Population Estimate |
| 1 | New York (Mets, Yankees) | 21976224 |
| 2 | Los Angeles (Angels, Dodgers) | 17775984 |
| 3 | Chicago (Cubs, White Sox) | 9725317 |
| 4 | Baltimore/Washington (Nationals, Orioles) | 8211213 |
| 5 | Boston (Red Sox) | 7465634 |
| 6 | Oakland/San Francisco (Athletics, Giants) | 7228948 |
| 7 | Philadelphia (Phillies | 6382714 |
| 8 | Dallas-Ft. Worth (Rangers) | 6359758 |
| 9 | Houston (Astros) | 5641077 |
| 10 | Atlanta (Braves) | 5478667 |
| 11 | Miami (Marlins) | 5463857* |
| 12 | Detroit (Tigers) | 5410014 |
| 13 | Toronto (Blue Jays) | 51131491 |
| 14 | Phoenix (Diamondbacks) | 4039182* |
| 15 | Seattle (Mariners) | 3876211 |
| 16 | Minneapolis/St. Paul (Twins) | 3502891 |
| 17 | San Diego (Padres) | 2941454* |
| 18 | Denver (Rockies) | 2927911 |
| 19 | Cleveland (Indians) | 2917801 |
| 20 | St. Louis (Cardinals) | 2858549 |
| 21 | Tampa Bay (Rays) | 2697731* |
| 22 | Pittsburgh (Pirates) | 2462571 |
| 23 | Cincinnati (Reds) | 2147617 |
| 24 | Kansas City (Royals) | 2034796 |
| 25 | Milwaukee (Brewers) | 1706077 |
*No Combined Statistical Area defined, so Metropolitan Statistical Area used
1. Census Metropolitan Area data used from Statistics Canada
Some initial observations:
1. There is a massive disparity in market size among the top 8 teams and between the top 8 and other 22 teams.
2. Boston is the largest single team market
3. The Minnesota Twins could best be described as a mid-market team.
I thought it might be useful to divide the dual markets in half so that I could look at a team by team listing. This is obviously very rough, though of course, the home markets themselves are rough (just look at the reach of the Braves, Cardinals, Red Sox, and Yankees). Then, I used the team payroll data from (CBS Sportsline, "MLB Salaries," Accessed 1 December 2007), and divided the amount spent by the number of people in the home market. The results are below:
| Rank | Team | Market Size | Payroll | $/person |
| 1 | Milwaukee Brewers | 1706077 | 70986500 | 41.60803 |
| 2 | Kansas City Royals | 2034796 | 67116500 | 32.98439 |
| 3 | Cincinnati Reds | 2147617 | 68904980 | 32.08439 |
| 4 | St. Louis Cardinals | 2858549 | 90286823 | 31.58484 |
| 5 | Seattle Mariners | 3876211 | 106460833 | 27.46518 |
| 6 | San Francisco Giants | 3614474 | 90219056 | 24.96049 |
| 7 | Baltimore Orioles | 4105606.5 | 93554808 | 22.78709 |
| 8 | Chicago White Sox | 4862658.5 | 108671833 | 22.34823 |
| 9 | Oakland Athletics | 3614474 | 79366940 | 21.95809 |
| 10 | Cleveland Indians | 2917801 | 61673267 | 21.13690 |
| 11 | Chicago Cubs | 4862658.5 | 99670332 | 20.49709 |
| 12 | Minnesota Twins | 3502891 | 71439500 | 20.39444 |
| 13 | San Diego Padres | 2941454 | 58110567 | 19.75573 |
| 14 | Boston Red Sox | 7465634 | 143026214 | 19.15795 |
| Avg. | Mean Average | 4878178.23 | 82633066.23 | 19.05252 |
| 15 | Colorado Rockies | 2927911 | 54424000 | 18.58800 |
| 16 | Detroit Tigers | 5410014 | 95180369 | 17.59337 |
| 17 | New York Yankees | 10988112 | 189639045 | 17.25856 |
| 18 | Toronto Blue Jays | 5113149 | 81942800 | 16.02590 |
| 19 | Atlanta Braves | 5478667 | 87290833 | 15.93286 |
| 20 | Pittsburgh Pirates | 2462571 | 38537833 | 15.64943 |
| 21 | Houston Astros | 5641077 | 87759000 | 15.55714 |
| 22 | Philadelphia Phillies | 6382714 | 89428213 | 14.01100 |
| 23 | Arizona Diamondbacks | 4039182 | 52067546 | 12.89062 |
| 24 | Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim | 8887992 | 109251333 | 12.29202 |
| 25 | Los Angeles Dodgers | 8887992 | 108454524 | 12.20237 |
| 26 | Texas Rangers | 6359758 | 68318675 | 10.74234 |
| 27 | New York Mets | 10988112 | 115231663 | 10.48694 |
| 28 | Washington Nationals | 4105606.5 | 37347500 | 9.09671 |
| 29 | Tampa Bay Rays | 2697731 | 24123500 | 8.94214 |
| 30 | Florida Marlins | 5463857 | 30507000 | 5.58342 |
Of course, the value of this data is limited, since it doesn't take into account revenue sharing. My next post will attempt to correlate market/payroll data with revenue sharing. In the meantime, I hope this provides some food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
