Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

...and the idea that 60M or 80M somehow mimics MLB more closely is a fantasy.

A team that wins 5 of 9 is a 90 game winner. A team that loses 5 of 9 is a 90 game loser. Following is the percentage of teams falling within 4-5 (.4444) and 5-4 (.5556).

[code:1:5cb799f0b6]
pct teams
AL&NL History 48.3% 2484
AL&NL since 1995 55.6% 504
ATG 200M 65.0% 7308
ATG 140M 67.9% 3948
ATG 100M 71.2% 22416
ATG 80M 72.7% 21840
ATG 60M 75.1% 1872
[/code:1:5cb799f0b6]

Essentially half of the rest are above 90 wins (.5556) and the other half are below.

Only 12.5% of teams in 60M leagues are over 90 wins. Since 1995, 21.6% of MLB teams are over 90 wins.

Also, I used the Lahman database that only goes through 2010 for AL & NL History. AL & NL since 1995 includes 2011. The rest of the data is from Diamond Dope actuals.

I don't think that is what people are actually claiming.
60-80 forces cards to come closer to their carded numbers (I don't know that this is true, but that seems to be the claim).

The competitive balance will always be better in capped leagues, as everyone is spending the same. No Yankees and no Athletics.

Point taken.

The A's have only had 1 season under .444 since 1995.

The Pirates have been below .500 since 1993 and still going strong!!! Just glad to know the Pirates are helping other NL teams.

Sincerely,
Delivery Boy...

[quote:fdb4c241b1="PotKettleBlack"]I don't think that is what people are actually claiming.
60-80 forces cards to come closer to their carded numbers (I don't know that this is true, but that seems to be the claim).

The competitive balance will always be better in capped leagues, as everyone is spending the same. No Yankees and no Athletics.[/quote:fdb4c241b1]

so why do you think the MLB balance is better since 95?

It might be due to revenue sharing that has been in place.

The interesting thing I find about these numbers is the apparent increased competitiveness as the cap levels increase. Wonder how the 200x games fare in this regard?

Thanks for putting in the effort and putting this thread up.

Might be interesting to see MLB broken down by league as well as pre and post 95.

[quote:bba4e40494="macnole"][quote:bba4e40494="PotKettleBlack"]I don't think that is what people are actually claiming.
60-80 forces cards to come closer to their carded numbers (I don't know that this is true, but that seems to be the claim).

The competitive balance will always be better in capped leagues, as everyone is spending the same. No Yankees and no Athletics.[/quote:bba4e40494]

so why do you think the MLB balance is better since 95?[/quote:bba4e40494]
Revenue sharing, statistical revolution, better scouting, better development. Increase in top contract values essentially handicaps the teams that sign them from hoarding more of the top talent (consider, ARod's best season was 11 wins above replacement... it takes more than a couple guys to win a lot of games, so signing one limits your ability to sign others, for all teams save the Yankees). Expanded revenue streams (Boston in particular).

As to Valen's question... increased competitiveness at higher caps... lower cap competition is driven by "hidden gems" and value players more than higher caps. I suspect that higher caps rely less on value players and more like avoiding crappy players that don't play to card.

Interesting stats.

One factor that contributes to the difference: strat teams are mostly
every year for itself. There are several MLB teams in rebuilding mode
every year, whose objective is to compete better down the road and
not so much in the present year.