Does the Salary Cap make Leagues more Competitive?

[OzzyKP]

Does the Salary Cap Make Leagues More Competitive?

Last night's World Series win by the Chicago White Sox (their first since 1917) got me thinking. One often hears complaints about baseball, that its not as fair as leagues like the NFL or NBA where there is a salary cap. That in baseball major markets who can raise more money can afford to buy better players and thus create a situation where they are nearly unbeatable by smaller markets. Such people favor a system like the NFL has because it ensures a more level playing field and gives everyone the chance to win.

I've heard complaints like that about professional hockey too, which until this year never had a salary cap. Considering the NHL just made this big move, following the lead of basketball and football, will it create more competition in the league? Would baseball be better served if they adopted such a system as well?

One can suppose that if a salary cap makes a league more competitive then there would be a greater variety of teams winning that league's championship. Instead of a big market (like New York for example..(damn Yankees)) dominating year after year, a salary cap would produce a more diverse collection of teams crowned champion.

I crunched the numbers. The first of the big 4 sports to adopt a salary cap was the NBA in 1984. So from 1984 to 2005 I looked at who won the Superbowl, World Series, NBA Championship, and Stanley Cup. The NBA and NFL each had 22 champions, and the MLB and NHL had 21 (due to strikes/lockouts). The results are quite interesting.

Everybody's boogeyman, Major League baseball was actually the most competitive with 15 different winners in 21 seasons. 71% of World Series' during this time were won by a unique team. The worst, the league that had salary cap the longest, was the NBA with only 6 different winners in 22 seasons. Only 27% of the NBA Championships were won by unique teams. Rather than a few teams dominating a league without a salary cap, they seem more likely to do it with a salary cap. Between both those extremes is the NHL with 10 different winners in 21 seasons.

I think it can safely be said that judging purely from the standard of having an open and competitive league, the salary cap has been a stunning failure for basketball and not having a salary cap has been a great success for baseball.

The NFL is different though. They adopted a salary cap in 1994. So from 1984 to 1994 there were 6 winners of 11 Superbowls, and from 1995 to 2005 there were 8 winners of 11 Superbowls. An improvement since the cap. Percentage wise the last 11 seasons of football have been just a hair more competitive than baseball (72.7% unique in football vs. 71.4% unique in baseball) Not a very significant improvement.

Over all, putting all the salary cap leagues/years together and pitting them against the non-salary cap leagues/years, not having a salary cap seems to be more competitive. 58% of the championships were won by unique teams in non-salary cap leagues, vs. 42% of the championships won by unique teams in salary cap leagues.

Very interesting.

So will the salary cap make things more competitive in the NHL? It doesn't really look like it will. But the dynamics of every sport are different, so I'm not going to answer definitively. It did make for a small improvement in football. But I don't think it should be given the reverence many pay to it overall, it doesn't seem to do all that much good.

Plus its always more fun to hate those damn Yankees.

http://www.oneandfour.org/archives/2005/10/does_the_salary.html

[Arrian]

I think the real issue is REVENUE SHARING, not a salary cap. A salary cap would just depress salaries and mean more $$ for the owners as a group.

Another problem with MLB is the lack of competition within markets. The NY area could support another team or two, for instance. Look at the assraping the new Nationals took from the Orioles owner (Angelos) for the privilege of moving vaguely near his team.

-Arrian

[Japher]

I think the best solution is salary cap plus profit sharing amongst the team.

Also, I could care less about comparing winners of THE BIG GAME, I would like to see comparisons of those that even made it the division championships, and then scaled as a factor of how many teams make the play offs.

Comparing baseball to football to hockey is not a very good comparison.

[Asher]

I think it's been just awesome of the NHL so far, this is their first season with a cap and it's better than ever.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the best solution is salary cap plus profit sharing amongst the team.

Yep.

And I don't think it is the correct way to analyze the leagues by the champions of the league. A better way is to gauge the playoff teams and new teams involved in the playoffs. Though you run into trouble with that because the size of the playoff determines that. However, it is better than just showing who is champion because to show there isn't a elite group of teams that usually dominate the top of the standings.

For example, the Braves have been in the playoffs for 14 straight years, but one have one world championship. That says something about the competitiveness of baseball, but you wouldn't get it from the championship analysis.

[Flubber]

Interesting analysis but it is based on a false premise that a more competitive league will have a greater variety of champions and a second assumed premise that the sports are interchangeable. ie that there are no difference in the sports other than cap/no cap that would effect dynasties.


1. The sports are different. In basketball and hockey a single superlative player can be enough to be a champion year after year with a moderately talented supporting cast. Jordan or Gretzky could dominate their sports in a way no ballplayer ever could.

2. Championships alone are a poor indicator. A better indicator of competitiveness (but a lot more work) would be to do the same analysis for playoff teams. I think you would find in baseball the "money" teams make the playoffs a disproportionate number of times . . . ( Atlanta and Yankees anyone)

3. You ignore free agency rules. I know in hockey, it was tough to buy your way to the cup since the available talent was usually the much older veterans. Ask the new York Rangers and Toronto Maple Leafs how that strategy worked out.

4. You ignore management skill and ineptitude

etc etc

[flash9286]

what baseball needs is a new commissioner

Bud Selig

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Flubber
Interesting analysis but it is based on a false premise that a more competitive league will have a greater variety of champions and a second assumed premise that the sports are interchangeable. ie that there are no difference in the sports other than cap/no cap that would effect dynasties.


1. The sports are different. In basketball and hockey a single superlative player can be enough to be a champion year after year with a moderately talented supporting cast. Jordan or Gretzky could dominate their sports in a way no ballplayer ever could.

2. Championships alone are a poor indicator. A better indicator of competitiveness (but a lot more work) would be to do the same analysis for playoff teams. I think you would find in baseball the "money" teams make the playoffs a disproportionate number of times . . . ( Atlanta and Yankees anyone)

3. You ignore free agency rules. I know in hockey, it was tough to buy your way to the cup since the available talent was usually the much older veterans. Ask the new York Rangers and Toronto Maple Leafs how that strategy worked out.

4. You ignore management skill and ineptitude

etc etc

Exactly! you should be comparing football pre cap to football post cap etc...
Even then there are many uncontrollables variables.
It's not even close to as simple as OP makes it to be, although I do think the question is interesting.