Zulgad: Is MLB really making return about dollars and cents?

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 6/6/2020 at 12:30 AM, Mike Sixel said:

Even when articles are written with data, people argue against the actual point of the article and data, while supplying no data of their own.

 

Let’s talk about the author’s data, Mike. We are arguing the point of the article is absolutely absurd because to say the data is flawed would be horribly understated. The author uses every player with one day of service time to come up with the percentage of players that made less than $1M in career earnings. Just for starters, their careers are not over so to include them as a data point for career earnings is not just flawed, it’s extremely biased.

 

“Career Earnings” also strongly suggests someone was actively employed for a considerable length of time. The players who don’t stick do not belong in this calculation. The basis of this debate is how revenue should be distributed. Half of those 1453 players the author included will collectively receive less than 1% of total player compensation. In other words, this is another reason why the entire premise of this article is horribly flawed.

 

The average player who is actually good enough to retain a job makes over $4M. It’s really quite simple. The rest of the world answers the question … how much does someone make per year based people who actually work for a year. So, there’s your first data point. The average player makes $4.3M dollars.

Here is your next data point. The average MLB player makes roughly 100 TIMES the salary of the average adult male age 25-34.

 

The average MLB player makes 75X the average police officer.

 

MLB minimum salary for 1st year platers is 3X the amount of a 4-Star General. An average player makes 24X the salary of a 4-Star General. It general takes 30+ years to achieve this rank. Therefore, the average player will make as much in one year as the elite of the armed services will make over 30 years earning the rank of 4-Star General.

 

Here are some additional data points. Since 1990, the cost of living has doubled. Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have improved from 6-60% depending on specific demographic. There are numerous reports. Just google US Wage and Salaries. MLB player wages have increased by roughly 750%.

 

How could anyone think players should be expected to accept a 25% pay cut during a pandemic?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 6/10/2020 at 2:48 PM, Major League Ready said:

Let’s talk about the author’s data...

 

The average MLB player makes 75X the average police officer.

 

MLB minimum salary for 1st year platers is 3X the amount of a 4-Star General. An average player makes 24X the salary of a 4-Star General. It general takes 30+ years to achieve this rank. Therefore, the average player will make as much in one year as the elite of the armed services will make over 30 years earning the rank of 4-Star General.

 

Here are some additional data points. Since 1990, the cost of living has doubled. Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have improved from 6-60% depending on specific demographic. There are numerous reports. Just google US Wage and Salaries. MLB player wages have increased by roughly 750%.

Throughout this thread and others you have leaned on the description “free market”, but then choose to compare MLB players and public employees?

 

The major league minimum salary is more than the President of the United States.

 

So what?

 

If they want to make the big bucks, they should be MLB players too.

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 6/10/2020 at 5:40 PM, Sconnie said:

Throughout this thread and others you have leaned on the description “free market”, but then choose to compare MLB players and public employees?

The major league minimum salary is more than the President of the United States.

So what?

If they want to make the big bucks, they should be MLB players too.

 

Mike's position was basically two-fold. One was that the author provided data. Well, constructing the data they way the author did was either incompetent or bias showing. His position was that half of MLB players have not made millions so players (all players) should not be subject to a reduction in compensation. The problem with that position is that other half make 95% of the total compensation. Therefore, the appropriate solution is to exempt the players making the league minimum. Exempting every single one of them would require the rest of the players or ownership to make up for roughly 2% of total compensation. In a word, the content of that argument was absolute financial ignorance.

 

The second point or inference was that these players don't make big bucks. Your comeback is they should have been baseball players if they make big bucks. Your logic eludes me.

 

BTW ... The argument about MiLB bonuses should not be considered in the context of MLB salaries. If players live up to the expectations consistent with a big bonus, they are going to make life altering money. Of course, many do not live up to this expectation and other small bonus players become all-starts. So, why are prospects paid millions of dollars before they prove themselves? If we redistributed 75% of the bonuses to MiLB salary, we could give every MiLB player a 5K/month increase in compensation. To be clear, I am not saying we could pay them 5K/month, we could give them a 5K INCREASE in pay. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 6/10/2020 at 7:33 PM, Major League Ready said:

Mike's position was basically two-fold. One was that the author provided data. Well, constructing the data they way the author did was either incompetent or bias showing. His position was that half of MLB players have not made millions so players (all players) should not be subject to a reduction in compensation. The problem with that position is that other half make 95% of the total compensation. Therefore, the appropriate solution is to exempt the players making the league minimum. Exempting every single one of them would require the rest of the players or ownership to make up for roughly 2% of total compensation. In a word, the content of that argument was absolute financial ignorance.

 

The second point or inference was that these players don't make big bucks. Your comeback is they should have been baseball players if they make big bucks. Your logic eludes me.

 

BTW ... The argument about MiLB bonuses should not be considered in the context of MLB salaries. If players live up to the expectations consistent with a big bonus, they are going to make life altering money. Of course, many do not live up to this expectation and other small bonus players become all-starts. So, why are prospects paid millions of dollars before they prove themselves? If we redistributed 75% of the bonuses to MiLB salary, we could give every MiLB player a 5K/month increase in compensation. To be clear, I am not saying we could pay them 5K/month, we could give them a 5K INCREASE in pay.

my point is your comparison is overly simplistic. Clearly there are market and bureaucratic forces at work to make a comparison of a pro athlete to a public servant a poor comparison.

 

From an owners perspective a sliding scale on a temporary wage reduction seems logical.

 

From a player standpoint, I wouldn’t be inclined to give ground now, for fear of losing leverage on the CBA fight.

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 6/10/2020 at 8:43 PM, Sconnie said:

my point is your comparison is overly simplistic. Clearly there are market and bureaucratic forces at work to make a comparison of a pro athlete to a public servant a poor comparison.

From an owners perspective a sliding scale on a temporary wage reduction seems logical.

From a player standpoint, I wouldn’t be inclined to give ground now, for fear of losing leverage on the CBA fight.

 

I could have used any number of private sector comparisons but these comparison have very little to do with the core points being made. His example was AAAA player that managed to log 2.5 years of service time. and was cut at age 31. The article suggested we should side with the guys making an average of $4M/year because some other guys don't make it. This is some really bias logic. Then, he tells the story of a 31 y/o player who could not stick. Sawchik reported his career compensation at 1.31M after logging 2 1/2 years service time. He failed to include a $110,000 signing bonus he received as a free agent. He also failed to include whatever he made with MiLB teams during his 7 years of pro ball. Since you want private sector examples, that equates to 33 years salary for the average American male age 25-34. It's still ridiculous to hold up guys that could not stick as logic for why players making huge money should not have to take less during a pandemic. The author then suggest we feel bad for a guy that made the equivalent to 33 years income for the average guy working a real job 12 months out of the year.

 

You have also managed to ignore the 95% that was most germane to the various posts being shared. Just in case it's not clear, the entire thought process was brutally flawed. If you want to make an argument that we should not consider the people making an average of over $4M/year extremely fortunate because a lot of guys only play a few games, have at it. The article was absolute nonsense written by someone unable to think past his fanaticism and bias.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 6/10/2020 at 10:45 PM, Major League Ready said:

I could have used any number of private sector comparisons but these comparison have very little to do with the core points being made. His example was AAAA player that managed to log 2.5 years of service time. and was cut at age 31. The article suggested we should side with the guys making an average of $4M/year because some other guys don't make it. This is some really bias logic. Then, he tells the story of a 31 y/o player who could not stick. Sawchik reported his career compensation at 1.31M after logging 2 1/2 years service time. He failed to include a $110,000 signing bonus he received as a free agent. He also failed to include whatever he made with MiLB teams during his 7 years of pro ball. Since you want private sector examples, that equates to 33 years salary for the average American male age 25-34. It's still ridiculous to hold up guys that could not stick as logic for why players making huge money should not have to take less during a pandemic. The author then suggest we feel bad for a guy that made the equivalent to 33 years income for the average guy working a real job 12 months out of the year.

 

You have also managed to ignore the 95% that was most germane to the various posts being shared. Just in case it's not clear, the entire thought process was brutally flawed. If you want to make an argument that we should not consider the people making an average of over $4M/year extremely fortunate because a lot of guys only play a few games, have at it. The article was absolute nonsense written by someone unable to think past his fanaticism and bias.

I don’t begrudge anyone for making a ton of money. They earned it, good for them. I want to make a lot of money too.

 

The players get paid a lot of money, more than I will ever make.

 

The owners have accumulated 1000x that in wealth. Not just earned a million, accumulated 1000 million. The average American retires with 100k in the bank. The owners have accumulated 10,000x that.

 

Why should I begrudge a person who makes 330x what I do, and not the person with 10,000x my savings?

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 6/11/2020 at 12:05 AM, Sconnie said:

I don’t begrudge anyone for making a ton of money. They earned it, good for them. I want to make a lot of money too.

The players get paid a lot of money, more than I will ever make.

The owners have accumulated 1000x that in wealth. Not just earned a million, accumulated 1000 million. The average American retires with 100k in the bank. The owners have accumulated 10,000x that.

Why should I begrudge a person who makes 330x what I do, and not the person with 10,000x my savings?

 

I am not suggesting you begrudge either side. Quite the opposite. I am asking people be fair and unbiased. I was raised with a very strong emphasis on being fair. Some folks here believe that the formulation for fair is a product of how much money someone has accumulated. Should a millionaire pay $100 for his kid’s happy meals?

 

It is obvious that some posters here make no attempt to understand the financials. They don’t care. The owners should pay because they have a lot of money. It’s bias to the point of prejudice. It’s certainly not approached with objectivity. Supporting this ridiculous article is a good example. A sophomore business student would look at this article and pick it part. It is absolutely a mess in terms of analytical methodology. I have seen similar conceptual flaws called out here before. The same posters here supporting this “data” would recognize how conceptually flawed it was if not for their prejudice.

 

Just to be clear, my problem is the fanatical bias being shown here. When people starting using players that don't make it as evidence the players who do make it don't make a lot, that's not likely a lack of education in finance / quantitative methodology.  It's just not that complicated. Virtually every poster here knows the average player make over $4M/year. Therefore, it makes sense to conclude its extreme bias.

[laloesch]

 

  On 5/28/2020 at 11:01 PM, The Wise One said:

What risk for the owners? National TV contract, local contract tv money from other teams. There is very little risk,

You still have to fill the stadiums.  You have to provide a playing environment and fan environment that is safe, appealing, etc.  That all costs A LOT of money. 

[laloesch]

 

  On 6/11/2020 at 12:05 AM, Sconnie said:

I don’t begrudge anyone for making a ton of money. They earned it, good for them. I want to make a lot of money too.

The players get paid a lot of money, more than I will ever make.

The owners have accumulated 1000x that in wealth. Not just earned a million, accumulated 1000 million. The average American retires with 100k in the bank. The owners have accumulated 10,000x that.

Why should I begrudge a person who makes 330x what I do, and not the person with 10,000x my savings?

Why begrudge either person? It's a business.

[Number3]

I've had it with these whiny players who are more concerned with getting their "fair share" than getting paid plenty to play a game. You would think that they would be happy to simply get back on the field because they are ball players first and foremost but instead, yes, its only about the money. I absolutely could not care less about any baseball this year, or next for that matter. I'm surprised they didn't complain about not getting a stimulus check. The virus should not have any effect on future attendance. No one should show up regardless. So updated answers to 2 other threads....Would you attend a game? NO.

Is it really about the money? Obviously YES and ONLY YES. Baseball is finished thanks to the players union who must think they are steel workers.

[The Wise One]

 

  On 6/16/2020 at 1:22 PM, laloesch said:

You still have to fill the stadiums.  You have to provide a playing environment and fan environment that is safe, appealing, etc.  That all costs A LOT of money. 

Tampa Bay  did  not draw many fans yet made 68 million dollars. Baseball might make more profit without fans

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 6/17/2020 at 12:27 AM, The Wise One said:

Tampa Bay  did  not draw many fans yet made 68 million dollars. Baseball might make more profit without fans

 

If you had any interest in presenting an accurate portrayal of TB's profitability you would have chosen to user a larger sample size than 1 year. Their average profit for the last 10 years is 21.7M even after having by far their most profitable season last year. Do you not understand using a single data point, especially one that is an anomaly, is misleading or do you just not care as long as it supports your position? 

[The Wise One]

 

  On 6/17/2020 at 1:22 PM, Major League Ready said:

If you had any interest in presenting an accurate portrayal of TB's profitability you would have chosen to user a larger sample size than 1 year. Their average profit for the last 10 years is 21.7M even after having by far their most profitable season last year. Do you not understand using a single data point, especially one that is an anomaly, is misleading or do you just not care as long as it supports your position? 

Do you realize that the team is essentially the same as last year's. That is what that makes it relevant. If you had any interest in portraying any accuracy in a one year sample to look for the year before. What changed? from last year. Not much. What has changed over 10 years.? TV money. That is why you wouldn't do 10 years, unless you need for your statistical analysis.

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 6/19/2020 at 2:43 PM, The Wise One said:

Do you realize that the team is essentially the same as last year's. That is what that makes it relevant. If you had any interest in portraying any accuracy in a one year sample to look for the year before. What changed? from last year. Not much. What has changed over 10 years.? TV money. That is why you wouldn't do 10 years, unless you need for your statistical analysis.

 

Nothing changed? Their new TV deal started in 2019. An objective view does not put much weight on a single data point, especially with a huge anomaly  (TV Deal) present. If you want to assess the relative profit of the Rays, it makes far more sense to look at the previous decade. If you want to compare that income to players, an objective view would be to look at how many individual players were scheduled to make roughly the same amount as the Rays had been making. There are 40 players that would have made 21M or more if not for Covid-19. If you prefer to a wider view, The top 100 2020 contracts  averaged 20.7M. In other words, the top 100 players earned within $1M of the Rays income over the past 10 years. 

 

It would appear you are looking for data points that supports your position instead of looking at the data in order to form a position. 

[The Wise One]

 

  On 6/19/2020 at 6:33 PM, Major League Ready said:

Nothing changed? Their new TV deal started in 2019. An objective view does not put much weight on a single data point, especially with a huge anomaly  (TV Deal) present. If you want to assess the relative profit of the Rays, it makes far more sense to look at the previous decade. If you want to compare that income to players, an objective view would be to look at how many individual players were scheduled to make roughly the same amount as the Rays had been making. There are 40 players that would have made 21M or more if not for Covid-19. If you prefer to a wider view, The top 100 2020 contracts  averaged 20.7M. In other words, the top 100 players earned within $1M of the Rays income over the past 10 years. 

 

It would appear you are looking for data points that supports your position instead of looking at the data in order to form a position. 

So Tampa has a new contract which brings them more money. They still have a a payroll similar to the earlier years you cited. Hmm. More money every year from different sources, about the same payroll and you can't see that they will be more profitable as time goes on with that philosophy