A fan of the Yankees, Red Sox, and large sample sizes.

 
A TRIP TO THE MARKET SIZE

The local sports talk guys were discussing market size on my drive home today. I've always been amazed at how willy-nilly the terms "large market" and "small market" get thrown around. They're always used as antonyms, but the meanings change more often than an Oakland closer. Sometimes it's "successful" versus "unsuccessful". Sometimes it's "high-payroll" versus "low payroll". Sometimes it's "holy" versus "evil". And sometimes it's "open-pocket owner" versus "spend-thrift owner". But rarely do people use the terms to describe what they should - the fact that some teams have a large population of local people to support their teams and some have a small population off which to feed. As Derek Zumsteg points out in this fine article, there are other factors (like general interest in baseball and per capita income) that affect how much money can be gleaned from a metropolitan area, but in general, it's the population that matters. (Another great series of articles to check out are Doug Pappas' Behind the Numbers pieces. Here's a link to the seventh article, which has links to the six previous articles. There's supposed to be an eighth, but I can't seem to find it on Google.)

Following is a table from the Zumsteg article (which you really should read), resorted in decreasing order by adjusted population. (Adjusted population divides the LA, NY, and SF markets in half for each team.)

Team	MSA size	Adj MSA	Revenues
New York Yankees	20196649	10098325	215000000
New York Mets	20196649	10098325	169000000
Los Angeles Dodgers	16036587	8018294	143000000
Anaheim Angels	16036587	8018294	103000000
Baltimore Orioles	7359044	7359044	133000000
Philadelphia Phillies	5999034	5999034	94000000
Boston Red Sox	5667225	5667225	152000000
Detroit Tigers	5469312	5469312	114000000
Texas Rangers	4909523	4909523	134000000
Toronto Blue Jays	4881400	4881400	91000000
Houston Astros	4493741	4493741	125000000
Chicago Cubs	8885919	4442960	131000000
Chicago White Sox	8885919	4442960	101000000
Atlanta Braves	3857097	3857097	160000000
Florida Marlins	3711102	3711102	81000000
Seattle Mariners	3465760	3465760	166000000
San Francisco Giants	6873645	3436823	142000000
Oakland Athletics	6873645	3436823	90000000
Montreal Expos	3326510	3326510	63000000
Arizona Diamondbacks	3013696	3013696	127000000
Cleveland Indians	2910616	2910616	150000000
Minnesota Twins	2872109	2872109	75000000
San Diego Padres	2820844	2820844	92000000
St. Louis Cardinals	2569029	2569029	123000000
Colorado Rockies	2417908	2417908	129000000
Pittsburgh Pirates	2331336	2331336	108000000
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	2278169	2278169	92000000
Cincinnati Reds	1960995	1960995	87000000
Kansas City Royals	1755899	1755899	85000000
Milwaukee Brewers	1648199	1648199	108000000

This analysis has been presented many many times by many many people. But it's even a good kick in my pants each time I see it. The order of this list is not what most people would guess off the tops of their heads. We should not be penalizing teams for spending lots of money. Revenue sharing should be based on market size. If you're in a big market and spending lots of money, good for you. Just share some of it. If you're in a small market and spending next to nothing, you shouldn't be rewarded for having a crappy team. It's the small-to-mid markets who are spending money and succeeding on the field that should get the most money from revenue sharing. MLB should reward the teams that are doing everything they can to win, and not the owners that spend nothing and just pocket the revenue sharing money coming their way.

Posted by Sky at 7:15 PM | 0 comments