2026 MLB Thread

[TallTitan34]

Correct.  And they have ZERO chance of beating the Dodgers this year.  Just like they did last year.

Hence the problem in baseball.

Might as well bet your house on the Dodgers to win it all since it's a done deal.

[wadesworld]

Might as well bet your house on the Dodgers to win it all since it's a done deal.

Agreed!  Should've taken my guarantee last year, I would've won you a second house.  And then you could've bet your second house on them to win it this year.  You'd have a third house by November!

[TallTitan34]

Also, maybe the Brewers could try actually improving their team at the deadline instead of standing pat. 

[wadesworld]

Also, maybe the Brewers could try actually improving their team at the deadline instead of standing pat. 

Brewers are doing just fine.  No addition they could reasonably make was making them better than the Dodgers.  They made it as far as they could.  Same story this year.

[MU82]

Seriously, wades, if I were as 100% certain about anything as you are about the Dodgers winning this year's World Series, I would bet well into six-figure territory on it.

I've never been that certain about anything in sports - or in life, really - so I haven't made such a bet. Then again, as an oldster, I've seen lots and lots of things that one might have thought impossible.

[wadesworld]

Seriously, wades, if I were as 100% certain about anything as you are about the Dodgers winning this year's World Series, I would bet well into six-figure territory on it.

I've never been that certain about anything in sports - or in life, really - so I haven't made such a bet. Then again, as an oldster, I've seen lots and lots of things that one might have thought impossible.

You'd be rich if you had taken my guarantee last year!  Take it this year!

[Pakuni]

But if we want to compare sports, each of the last 10 World Series champions were defined as large-market (15 largest media markets) clubs.  The NFL has had 4 "small market" champions (3 by the Chiefs), the NBA has had 4 "small market" champions, and the NHL has had 7 "small market" champions (Penguins and Panthers each twice in there) in the last 10 years.

So champions from "small markets" over the last decade: NHL 70%, NBA and NFL 40%, MLB 0%.

Over the last decade, the MLB is the only major sport of the 4 major professional leagues in the US that sees the teams in the top 5 markets outperform teams in the bottom 5 markets in regular seasons.  MLB's top 5 markets have a win percentage .043 better than bottom 5 teams, NHL's top 5 markets have a win percentage .008 worse than bottom 5 markets, NBA top 5 market teams have a win percentage .048 worse than bottom 5 markets, and NFL top 5 market teams have a win percentage .088 worse than bottom 5 markets.

More goalpost shifting. Instead of first competitive balance and then titles and three-peats, now we're now talking about market sizes.

How exactly are you defining small market vs big market?
Your "small market" Florida Panthers play in the 6th largest market in the NHL.

Who besides the Bucks and OKC, are your small market NBA champs? Toronto is the 9th largest market in the NBA. Denver is 16th.

The NFL numbers are skewed by the Chiefs. And even then, KC is more of a medium sized market than small (middle third of the league). Who's your fourth small-market winner? I assume not the Patriots, Eagles or Rams. Seattle and Tampa rank 12th and 13th, respectively, in market size.

Besides all this, these dynamics existed pre-cap in these leagues.
The small-market Packers were the dominant NFL team in the 60s. The small-market Steelers and Raiders (and you could throw in the Vikings) were the best teams in the 70s.

The NHL was dominated in the 1970s by Montreal and in the 1980s by teams from Long Island and Edmonton.

All this pre-cap.

And what happened after the NBA introduced a cap in 1984-85? 12 of the next 14 titles were won by four large-market teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets).

[Uncle Rico]

More goalpost shifting. Instead of first competitive balance and then titles and three-peats, now we're now talking about market sizes.

How exactly are you defining small market vs big market?
Your "small market" Florida Panthers play in the 6th largest market in the NHL.

Who, besides the Bucks and OKC, are your small market NBA champs? Toronto is the 9th largest market in the NBA. Denver is 16th.

The NFL numbers are skewed by the Chiefs. And even then, KC is more of a medium sized market than small (middle third of the league). Who's your fourth small-market winner? I assume not the Patriots, Eagles or Rams. Seattle and Tampa rank 12th and 13th, respectively, in market size.

Besides all this, these dynamics existed pre-cap in these leagues.
The small-market Packers were the dominant NFL team in the 60s. The small-market Steelers and Raiders (and you could throw in the Vikings) were the best teams in the 70s.

The NHL was dominated in the 1970s by Montreal and in the 1980s by teams from Long Island and Edmonton.

All this pre-cap.

And what happened after the NBA introduced a cap in 1984-85? 12 of the next 14 titles were won by four large-market teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets).

The NBA was rigged during the Jordan era

[Pakuni]

The NBA was rigged during the Jordan era

True. If David Stern didn't give Jordan a secret two-year suspension, the Bulls would have won eight straight.

[Uncle Rico]

True. If David Stern didn't give Jordan a secret two-year suspension, the Bulls would have won eight straight.

He had no choice after Jordan got his dad killed over his gambling debts

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You make some fair points, and some I strongly disagree with (you may want to check out the goaltending of Stanley Cup champs over the past couple decades).
But rather than quibble, let me ask ... Have we shifted the discussion away from competitive balance and to ... dynasties and hypothetical three-peats?

And, had Miguel Rojas popped out, would everything be OK?

I made the comment I did because three-peats and dynasties were being discussed at the moment. Also because logic like this:

17 different MLB teams have won titles since 2000.
16 different NHL teams have won titles since 2000.
14 different NFL teams have won titles since 2000.
14 different NBA teams have won titles since 2000.
14 different WNBA teams have won titles since 2000.
13 different MLS teams have won titles since 2000.

Often gets trotted out as proof that salary caps aren't effective. Personally, I find that logic flawed because of the reasons in my last post (though I'm admittedly unfamiliar with MLS so maybe that is a good comparator).

My overall reason for being pro-salary cap is very simple. Having a larger payroll is an unquestionable advantage available for some teams and not others. The right salary cap/floor system could help mitigate that advantage. I think that is a good thing. Others don't think it's a good thing and that's a reasonable take too.

[wadesworld]

More goalpost shifting. Instead of first competitive balance and then titles and three-peats, now we're now talking about market sizes.

How exactly are you defining small market vs big market?
Your "small market" Florida Panthers play in the 6th largest market in the NHL.

Who besides the Bucks and OKC, are your small market NBA champs? Toronto is the 9th largest market in the NBA. Denver is 16th.

The NFL numbers are skewed by the Chiefs. And even then, KC is more of a medium sized market than small (middle third of the league). Who's your fourth small-market winner? I assume not the Patriots, Eagles or Rams. Seattle and Tampa rank 12th and 13th, respectively, in market size.

Besides all this, these dynamics existed pre-cap in these leagues.
The small-market Packers were the dominant NFL team in the 60s. The small-market Steelers and Raiders (and you could throw in the Vikings) were the best teams in the 70s.

The NHL was dominated in the 1970s by Montreal and in the 1980s by teams from Long Island and Edmonton.

All this pre-cap.

And what happened after the NBA introduced a cap in 1984-85? 12 of the next 14 titles were won by four large-market teams (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets).

What goal posts are shifting here?  Just took the information off of this.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-competitive-balance-issue-explained

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

17 different MLB teams have won titles since 2000.
16 different NHL teams have won titles since 2000.
14 different NFL teams have won titles since 2000.
14 different NBA teams have won titles since 2000.
14 different WNBA teams have won titles since 2000.
13 different MLS teams have won titles since 2000.

Also just because I enjoy pointing out issues with stats like this, the following is also true:

18 different NHL teams have won titles since 1993.
17 different MLB teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different NFL teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different NBA teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different MLS teams have won titles since 1996 (12/14 of the teams that haven't won a title have existed for 15 years or less).
12 (not sure where you got 14) different WNBA teams have won titles since 1997 (There have only been 21 franchises, 6 of them lasted less then 6 years or haven't existed for 6 years yet, so 12/15 of the franchises with at least 6 years).

[Pakuni]

What goal posts are shifting here?  Just took the information off of this.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-competitive-balance-issue-explained

A writer for the official MLB site writes an opinion piece that supports ownership's position? No way.

Anyhow, what he's written there is at times provably false (i.e. the Panthers being a small market team) and he's bad at math (he includes 2016 NFL, NBA and NHL championships as having occurred in the past decade ... which would make a decade 11 years long).

But also, you and he are creating two tiers of teams ... large market and small market, which ignores the huge middle. But it also helps the argument when more than half the teams in a league can be labeled as "small market teams." Hence, the Bucs play in a large market with 3.2 million people, but the Broncos are in a small market at 3 million.

[Pakuni]

Also just because I enjoy pointing out issues with stats like this, the following is also true:

18 different NHL teams have won titles since 1993.
17 different MLB teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different NFL teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different NBA teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different MLS teams have won titles since 1996 (12/14 of the teams that haven't won a title have existed for 15 years or less).
12 (not sure where you got 14) different WNBA teams have won titles since 1997 (There have only been 21 franchises, 6 of them lasted less then 6 years or haven't existed for 6 years yet, so 12/15 of the franchises with at least 6 years).

And just because I enjoy pointing out issues with stats like this...
The NHL didn't have a cap until the 2005-06 season, so what happened over the 12 years prior (there was no 2004-05 season) probably isn't relevant to this discussion.

But, in those 12 years prior, there were seven different Stanley Cup winners.
In the 12 years after the imposition of a cap, with the creation of competitive balance, there were seven different Stanley Cup champions.

[TallTitan34]

My overall reason for being pro-salary cap is very simple.

I'm pro-salary cap/floor.  I'm also pro-contracting the Brewers but neither one is likely to happen.

[The Sultan]

I'm pro-salary cap/floor.  I'm also pro-contracting the Brewers but neither one is likely to happen.

Cubs get to win the division somehow right?

[TallTitan34]

Also just because I enjoy pointing out issues with stats like this, the following is also true:

18 different NHL teams have won titles since 1993.
17 different MLB teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different NFL teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different NBA teams have won titles since 1993.
16 different MLS teams have won titles since 1996 (12/14 of the teams that haven't won a title have existed for 15 years or less).
12 (not sure where you got 14) different WNBA teams have won titles since 1997 (There have only been 21 franchises, 6 of them lasted less then 6 years or haven't existed for 6 years yet, so 12/15 of the franchises with at least 6 years).

Even using your 1993 numbers, it shows MLB doesn't have a problem.

(Good catch on the WNBA titles.  Should be 12 going back to 2000.  I forgot to change it when I copied the line above.)

[TallTitan34]

Cubs get to win the division somehow right?

Would certainly be helpful, but I'm confident they could still blow it even without the Brewers present.

[The Sultan]

I'm pro-salary cap/floor.  I'm also pro-contracting the Brewers but neither one is likely to happen.

I think the owners should share more revenue versus cutting payroll.

[Pakuni]

I think the owners should share more revenue versus cutting payroll.

Exactly.
Only one thing is stopping the owners from putting all their revenue in a pot and sharing it equally: the owners.

[TallTitan34]

I think the owners should share more revenue versus cutting payroll.

I'm good with this.

[MU82]

You'd be rich if you had taken my guarantee last year!  Take it this year!

I'd make the bet if I agreed - and I'd definitely make it if I felt 100% sure, like you do.

If I were 100% sure of anything the way you are 100% certain the Dodgers will win the 2026 World Series, I'd bet on it. For example, if there were a forum for me to bet $100K that I would still be married to my current wife a year from now, I would make that bet. (I checked; Kalshi's not offering such a wager, darn it.)

So again, wades, wondering why you don't take the sure thing.

Finally, as for the necessity for an MLB salary cap:

1. This:

Only one thing is stopping the owners from putting all their revenue in a pot and sharing it equally: the owners.

2. And this: A salary cap is simply not gonna happen. So all of this is fun ... but it is, as Lou Piniella would say, a "mute" point.

[wadesworld]

I'd make the bet if I agreed - and I'd definitely make it if I felt 100% sure, like you do.

If I were 100% sure of anything the way you are 100% certain the Dodgers will win the 2026 World Series, I'd bet on it. For example, if there were a forum for me to bet $100K that I would still be married to my current wife a year from now, I would make that bet. (I checked; Kalshi's not offering such a wager, darn it.)

So again, wades, wondering why you don't take the sure thing.

Finally, as for the necessity for an MLB salary cap:

1. This:

2. And this: A salary cap is simply not gonna happen. So all of this is fun ... but it is, as Lou Piniella would say, a "mute" point.

My confidence would've won you a lot of money last year.  It will again this year.  I don't really air my betting on MUScoop (or to anyone, especially my wife).  Feel free to take my guarantee to the bank.  Again, would've paid you handsomely last year if you put 6 figures on the Dodgers to win the WS.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Even using your 1993 numbers, it shows MLB doesn't have a problem.

(Good catch on the WNBA titles.  Should be 12 going back to 2000.  I forgot to change it when I copied the line above.)

I don't think it shows anything of the sort.
1. WNBA/MLS has had a much higher% of their franchises win title (once you factor in how new many of the franchises).
2. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it should be harder to put together dynasties in baseball than it is in other sports. They shouldn't be level with other sports, they should be more varied.

But I'll go back to my thesis. Having a higher payroll is unquestionably an advantage that only some teams have access to.  Having a well thought out salary cap/floor system helps mitigate that advantage, making the game more fair. I think that's a good thing. I understand why others don't.