Hacker News Reader

Comment by lesuorac | Hacker News Reader

Salary caps aren't there to make teams competitive, it's to limit player expenses.

They also don't have the secondary effect of making the teams competitive.

Take a look at World Series Champions (MLB -- no salary cap) [1]; everybody memes that the Yankees win all the time but they haven't won since 2009 and before that 2000. There have also been 16 different winners in the past 23 years.

Take a look at Superbowl Champions (NFL -- has salary cap) [2]; 14 different winners in the past 23 years.

Take a look at Stanley Cup Champions (NHL -- has salary cap) [3]; 13 different winners in the past 23 years.

Only the league without a salary cap has the most different winners.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_champions

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions#S...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stanley_Cup_champions#...

View on HN

https://champsorchumps.us/records/most-mlb-wins-since-2000

https://www.fueledbysports.com/mlb-payrolls/

I think the salary cap does make it possible for any teams to be more competitive. The teams with the most wins since 2000 are the Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinals, Red Sox, and Braves. Three of those teams are the three biggest spenders in the league year after year. I think we can say with high confidence these three teams will have a better record over the next 20 years than the Pittsburgh Pirates or Detroit Tigers.

The salary cap doesn't mean that there is more parity, but overall it decouples the size of the city and the "luck" pretty well. The Chiefs are the best team in the NFL now - despite the fact they have a small market and an owner with little resources outside of owning the team.

They will be hard to catch up with because other teams aren't allowed to get ahead. That said, I think fans are more accepting of that because the reason is they drafted an exceptional player, rather than the Yankees who are hard to catch up with because they can continually spend on new players.

MLB has a soft salary cap (“luxury tax”). You definitely see teams like the Yankees and Red Sox make moves to reduce paying it.

Somebody mentioned the "luxury" tax. I will just add that in the days before any of this was dreamt of, the Yankees won 10 World Series from 1947 to 1962, and 13 pennants.

MLB uses a tax instead of a cap. "Competitive Balance Tax".

And the NBA, with the strictest cap, has had eight different champions this century.

There must also be something to having just a small roster in the NBA, that makes some of the best incredibly more impactful - such as Lebron or Curry. In the NFL the QB position has such an effect on the game (Brady, Mahomes). Mike Trout is one of the best players we will ever see in the MLB and they struggle to make the playoffs each year. Just spitballin'.

I agree, NBA is absolutely about putting two super stars together that will score 80% of your team points and giving them a supporting cast of low cost players. The game is just more about individual talent.

In the NFL QBs play and outsized role, but really the NFL is more about organization leadership. The well led teams with good owners hire good GMs who hire good coaches and draft well. It is an incredibly fair league because of the salary cap and draft process. Successes tend to be true organizational successes versus a single individuals incredible play.

Small market MLB teams have learned that they can make a run by losing year after year and building a pipeline of high draft picks, trade for a few key players, and try to make a playoff run before the young players rookie contracts expire and the music stops.The Yankees of the World have struggled to adapt to this because their fans expect them to be competitive every year. So they never get the high draft picks and are forced to pay multiple times the amount small market teams pay players to remain consistently competitive. It is predictable if you pay attention to where teams are in the rebuild / tear it down cycle.

Correction: 11; I misread the Wikipedia page.

It’s a false analogy. Baseball has way more variance than the other sports.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com