Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SABR/Sports Econ update

Expand Messages
  • Dean Oliver
    ... Baseball ain t going belly-up. Another of the sessions was about what baseball will be like in 20 years. Some think there will be 45 teams. But only one
    Message 1 of 52 , Jul 30 11:38 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
      > wrote:
      > > My god, does baseball have a lot of researchers,...
      >
      > So if baseball goes belly-up, we can expect some of these people to
      > jump into basketball ?
      >
      >

      Baseball ain't going belly-up. Another of the sessions was about what
      baseball will be like in 20 years. Some think there will be 45 teams.
      But only one dissenter said it would be less popular.


      > Meanwhile, it looks like shuffling hasn't levelled the playing field
      > this coming year. More power to the West, and particularly those
      > Lakers.
      >

      Hard to bring good teams down in the NBA. Easier to move bad teams up
      to mediocre. The Lakers are a classic case, though this year is a bit
      ridiculous.

      >
      > > ... most of their study of basketball has been on race.
      >
      > Any noticeable concern about the lack of good white players from the
      > US ?
      >

      Not evident in the summary. That would be a more sociological thing
      than an economic thing, though. There might be some introductory
      paragraphs in the docs that talks about it or maybe extensions of
      conclusions. I'd have to get the references.

      >
      > > ...the health of a
      > > league matters more than the profit of the owners.
      >
      > It SHOULD matter more, but "it's still a business". So unless
      > owners Love the Game, they can ruin the game as easily as a rich
      > East Coaster can buy a timber company in Oregon, cut all the trees,
      > and leave.

      It's often hard to show that owners behave this way or behave very
      greedy. Economists have to spend a lot of time refining their
      questions to really address the important stuff.

      >
      > In either instance, the key word might be 'sustainability'. Whether
      > the owner orders the coach to play a guy 40 minutes, or shows
      > loyalty and patience (to players and fans), there are good and bad
      > owners (and coaches).

      Some have shown that the effect of the baseball strike in 1994 was
      almost none on attendance, even though fans said they'd never go back.
      One paper actually looked at fans as addicts. It suggests that we
      are addicted even if we don't like greedy owners and greedy players.

      >
      > > ...I seem to need
      > > to torture myself with academic exercises).
      >
      > Did you get in some hiking?

      I was supposed to, but it didn't happen. Unless you count hiking the
      stairs at Coors Field up to the top row of the upper deck.

      DeanO
    • igor eduardo küpfer
      ... From: Gary Collard To: APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update ... That
      Message 52 of 52 , Aug 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:13 PM
        Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] SABR/Sports Econ update

        Jim Armstrong wrote:
        >
        > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:00:38PM -0500, Gary Collard wrote:
        > > I'm not sure why that was so controversial.  The concept of market size in
        > > the NFL is pretty much meaningless, since most league revenue is shared
        > > equally.  The reason that a Yankees in baseball have such an advantage is
        > > that they have local TV revenues that are an order of magnitude or more
        > > greater than most (all?) of the other teams and is significant compared to
        > > national revenue, thus they can afford to have a payroll that is 60%
        > > greater than any other team even before they pay the luxury tax as they do
        > > in 2003.  In the NFL, there is no local TV at all, and (over a period of
        > > years, letting spikes in bonus payments wash out) little payroll deviation,
        >
        > Actually, if you look at the distribution of team player payrolls, the NFL
        > and the NBA are quite comparable (see standard deviation in data below).

        That is why I specifically said "over a period of years, letting spikes in
        bonus payments wash out" in the case of the NFL.  The one year payroll
        numbers you listed are meaningless to my point, do you have the data to run
        them for the last 5 years or more?  That will tell you who has the "harder"
        cap.

        --
        Gary Collard
        Maybe the coefficient of variation (SD / Mean * 100) is a more apt measure for comparing the variation of payrolls for different sports across seasons.
         
        Year     NHL     NFL     NBA     MLB
        1994    28.3     8.7    15.2    26.6
        1995    26.6    12.7    24.1    27.7
        1996    43.3    11.9    21.9    31.4
        1997    #N/A    15.3    28.9    33.0
        1998    #N/A    12.1    27.0    37.4
        1999    33.4    12.0    23.0    43.1
        2000    37.4    13.8    23.6    38.3
        2001    31.1    13.5    24.6    38.3
        2002    33.0    18.1    20.6    36.6
        2003    35.9    #N/A    24.0    38.9
         
        On this measure, NBA teams show less variation in payroll than baseball and hockey teams, but the NFL teams are more level than any of them.

        Data from Rodney Fort's excellent resource: http://users.pullman.com/rodfort/SportsBusiness/BizFrame.htm
         
        ed
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.