The Chasm

I've been thinking about the separation between the haves and the have-nots of the sporting world. In leagues with salary caps, the NHL, the NBA and the NFL for instance, the gap between the big fish and the little fish is not as large. The rich are still better off than everyone else, but they don't wield an overwhelming competitive advantage. Does that make these sports more enjoyable to follow? Is it more interesting to watch the same five or six teams compete for a title every season, or would a rotating cast of contenders offer better entertainment? Any answer depends greatly on one's perspective. I'm sure every Yankees fan in the world is pretty happy with the current sports hierarchy, and that every Royals fan thinks it's terrible, but those are just two opinions. Thus, I will try my best to differentiate between the enjoyment of fans of specific teams and the enjoyment of fans of the sport. I will focus on whether it's a good thing for the talent to be concentrated on a small number of teams, or whether it makes for better viewing if it is spread more evenly throughout the league.


The Best Game You've Ever Seen:

The result of allowing teams to spend as much, or as little, as they choose is an uneven distribution of the available talent. I should preface this by saying that not all major free agent signings work out as they should, and that the teams with all the money don't always win. However, the successful small-market team is an exception, not the rule. Inevitably, even the best-assembled, youth-oriented small market teams fall to shambles. Big market teams with more resources at their disposal will attract the best free-agent talent and, usually, will be more talented because of this.

This has the tendency to make the regular season something of a joke. The teams with the massive financial advantage, and therefore usually the massive talent advantage, beat up on everyone else. I think this is a major negative for sports fans in general. Watching two unevenly matched teams is not very thrilling (assuming there is no possibility of elimination for the losing team). Furthermore, the overall level of play tends to be low. The teams that are adversely affected by a free-spending system will often put very poor products on the field. It's not just that they lose a lot of games, it's that these teams tend to be bad at playing the games. Why would anyone ever subject themselves to a Pirates-Diamondbacks game unless they were a die-hard fan of either team?

Now, if the regular season is the weakness of a free-spending system, then the playoffs are most certainly the strength. As the weaker teams are eliminated, the overall level of play is heightened, and it's not just because "It's the playoffs, everyone magically plays harder now! Woo platitudes without any in-depth analysis!". Now all the bad players on the bad teams are out of the equation, and only the good teams remain. A high calibre game of any sport requires two skilled teams, and the more skilled players you get on each team, the more likely it is that the game will be played well. The best game you will ever see, not necessarily the closest, but the one played at the highest level, will almost certainly be between two teams with skilled players. In a free-spending system, this is more likely to occur than in a system in which the talent is more evenly distributed. Sure it's possible for two mediocre teams to suddenly play well beyond their normal means, but it's far less likely.


Love of the Sport Versus Love of the League:

If you love following Major League Baseball, and you're not a fan of the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers or Mets, you're probably somewhat disenchanted with the division between the rich and the poor. You are witness to the same storyline about the big market teams succeeding where everyone fails every year. There's a rotating cast of upstarts (see: Tampa Bay Rays), but they come and go every couple of years. Some don't even last that long. By mid-season, your interest and early enthusiasm have certainly waned. It's just not fun to watch every one else act as professional farm teams.

But if you love baseball, not MLB, but baseball, you probably are at least indifferent to the chasm between the rich and the poor, and you might even like it. During the regular season, you will occasionally be treated to high profile games between two good teams, and when the playoffs roll around, the level of play is through the roof. If the talent was diluted, there's no way the games themselves would be played so well. And as a fan of the game, don't you want to see the very best play at the very highest level possible?


I find myself vacillating between the two positions. Some of the excitement of following sports comes from the unpredictability of it, and knowing at the beginning of every season that some teams will be there at the end and some won't certainly takes away from that. Yet, when the playoffs roll around, I never cheer for an upset. I always want the stronger team to win because I want the game to be played at the highest level possible, and the better team is more likely to do that. And in a playoff bracket of four teams, if the two best teams win their match-ups, then the following series should provide even better play.

I guess I'm saying I secretly love the Yankees and Red Sox and their money-grubbing, talent hoarding ways.

Oh god.