The key to everything in the NHL

I mentioned in the Links that the NHL has signed a new TV contract with NBC and Versus for the next 10 years. In the Toronto Globe and Mail's article on the subject was this line:

The anticipated loss of one or two U.S. franchises to Canada does not appear to have been an impediment to the new contract. Phoenix and Atlanta, both thought to be targets for Canadian relocation, are both in the top 12 American media markets. 

Aha. Now it becomes crystal clear. Gary Bettman has been extraordinarily reluctant to even suggest that one of those Sun Belt teams that is so frequently derided for their lack of fans could be moved north, and people generally couldn't quite wrap their head around why. But just like the Big Ten wants to expand into New York, and everyone wants to expand into Texas, it's about media markets. The more giant cities the NHL was in, the better chance for more money out of an American TV contract. The Canadian contract wouldn't gain much value with an additional team, because hockey would be watched their regardless.
Now that the teams in Phoenix and Atlanta (for example) have survived this long for the benefit of the league, the owners of those teams will no longer be left to twist in the wind. Finally, low revenue teams are going to be allowed to head back to Canada where they belong.

College whiners irk me.

For whatever reason, the idea of people selling jerseys of college teams has become quite the point of contention for people railing against the idea of not paying people to play college sports. Well, there have been a couple of sites that I saw the complaint on, namely The Big Lead, Barry Petchesky at Deadspin, and this post at Fanhouse by Kevin Blackistone.
Give me a break. Let's run down a few facts: most college athletes in the most profitable sports (football and basketball are the only two that are actually profitable, generally speaking) ARE paid. Do you know how much most college students would LOVE to be on a free ride at their school? Do you know how much the inclusion on a sports roster boosts one's notoriety and resume? Make no mistake, most of these athletes are paid upwards of 30k a year.
If you look up the typical pay of a meteorologist, you will see something in the 6 figures. The numbers are skewed because of the ones on TV and a few of the senior meteorologists at the National Weather Service. Most pro meteorologists make less than 30k a year. This would be about the same discrepancy between a college athlete and one in the NFL or NBA. It's not insane for someone to make 25k a year while other members of their profession make significantly more.  And for those that are upset they aren't getting that money in cash, then I say it's their fault if they are too stupid to parlay a free education into a successful career.
As for the millions the school rakes in, I need to remind you that those millions typically go to fund other programs. Were the schools to pay athletes, then the school starts losing money. Programs are dropped. And if there IS a profit, that goes back into the school. Most of these universities are non profit, so that extra cash goes back into courses, research professors and facilities. Remember? These are schools we're talking about, not the big bad NFL.
Blackistone made reference to the plight of one particular athlete. The problem with allowing one player an exception is that it's a slippery slope. If one athlete at Georgia is allowed to take money from the school on top of his scholarship (and that's what selling their property is), then what's to stop an athlete from a less privileged school, like, say, Idaho, from doing the same?
Now that I have talked about that, I can start in on the fallacy of a playoff being more fair than the present system. Perhaps another time.

Remember when?

The year was 1989. The Twins were two tears removed from the World Series title, the first major sports championship the state had ever seen. They had an all star center fielder, beloved by fans, charismatic, and in the prime of his career. They gave him a new contract, which featured the largest salary ever given. Yes, Kirby was making a whopping 3 million dollars a year.Perhaps we shouldn't be so critical of the Pohlads, considering how salaries have exploded over the past 20 years.

Also, Nick Punto now make 4 million dollars per annum. That's depressing.

At least someone is getting a raise.

Today is arbitration day in Minnesota. The Twins eligible for arbitration negotiated their new contracts so they didn't have to go to arbitration. As it turned out, every single one of those players got a raise. Hopefully I will be getting a raise this year too. Francisco Liriano nearly quadrupled his salary and is now making 1.6 million.
I would like to say that I'm complaining about professional athletes and their salaries but frankly, I'm more complainging about my job and how I'm not making 6 figures. And fans shouldn't worry about the Twins overpaying or anything. They are just following the rules the league has out there. What are you going to do?

Vegas Won't Be Calling Me Anytime

I’m sure most of you remember my stellar, well-thought out projections for the 2009 Major League Season (baseball is the only sport that can call their season by one year. Sure, football’s regular season all takes place in the same year, but the Super Bowl for that season takes place in a different year). For those that can’t quite remember whether I ranked the Blue Jays or the Red Sox higher, here’s the link

Sadly, my predictions weren’t accurate AT ALL! Shocking, since, as Ryan pointed out, I wrote them pretty much in reverse order of what all the other experts predicted.

In fact, I daresay that the only division that completely surprised me—and most of baseball—is the AL-Central, but we’ve covered that enough. The Yankees, for all their overspending, actually overspent on the right players this year. They were a well-oiled machine, so there’s really not much more to say. In many ways, they deserved their victory: they had, for the most part, the best players at every position. It’s not a guaranteed win, but it helps a whole lot when you don’t have weak players—either offensively or defensively—at a few positions.

But I’m going to get back to numbers, because I love them:

Here are the top ten spenders in baseball for the 2009 season*:

Yankees
Mets (23 games back)
Cubs(7.5 GB)
Red Sox (WC, 8 GB)
Tigers (1 GB)
Angels
Phillies
Astros (17 GB)
Dodgers
Mariners (12 GB)

Five of the top ten spenders didn’t make it to the playoffs.

Analyzing these stats, it’s fairly clear that to be one of the top ten spenders, you have a 50% chance of making it to the playoffs, and a 40% chance of winning your division. If you fall in the middle ten, you’ve got a 20% chance of making playoffs—but only a 10% chance of winning your division. (The Rockies would’ve come in 18th in salary; the Cardinals 17th.) Whereas if you’re in the bottom ten teams in salaries, you have a 10% chance of winning your division, but no shot at the Wild Card (the Twins came in 23rd in salary).

This is called “Small Sample Size”. Looking at one year is not the way to analyze statistics. We’d need years of statistical analysis to get a good idea of the trend. I’m sure that we’d find plenty of outliers to the graph (teams that didn’t follow trends), but I’m equally sure that the trend would point to the fact that spending money can create wins, It is just as important to note that money is not a guaranteed win (money must be spent wisely, which is harder to analyze).

Simply spending money won’t get you anywhere. Part of it is spending the money in the right place—and sometimes it’s luck. The Mets were second only to the Yankees in spending, and came in 23 games back. The Athletics spent significantly less money (in fact, $87,063,987 less—which is more than 18 teams paid in salaries—in fact, if the Mets had paid as much as the Athletics in salary, they could’ve used the leftover money to pay for the entire salaries of the bottom two teams and they’d still have had $6,495,787 left). The Mets, however, had points in the season where not a single member of their starting line-up was on the field, due to injuries or poor play.

I’m not completely in favor of spending caps (they have their own issues), but I’d like some changes for the “luxury tax” and revenue sharing. For example, teams who built a new stadium get discounts on their luxury tax, so even though the Yankees outstripped all other teams in spending—both on their team AND on their stadium—they still were able to discount a significant portion of their luxury tax (according to an article I found, and lost the link, they were able to discount $84 million from their luxury tax, based on their new stadium). It’s really a once in a lifetime occurrence, I’m not sure anything really needs to be done about the stadium clause. I do think that the luxury tax money should go to the teams that spend less, and a certain percentage either spent on players, or put into savings for future player salaries. (For example, if a team has a young player/rookie they’re confident will become great, they can put aside the salary to pay him in the future, and the money could be put aside for that player’s future salaries.) There should be a cap on the number of years it can be saved, however (I’ll give it five).

But, anyway, congrats to the Yankees. As much as it pains me to admit it, you did deserve to win. You were the best team in baseball this year. Even if you had to buy it.

*Note: I found conflicting data on the payrolls of teams. Here’s ESPN’s version: 2009 MLB Salaries

Timberwolves update: After last week’s great post wherein the Timberwolves had a 100% winning percentage, they’ve dropped. They’re now at 1-4, or a 20% winning percentage. While I don’t follow the Timberwolves, from my Twitter updates, it seems as if they’ve been playing well.

My question about basketball is how Utah is considered the NORTHwest, and Miami is considered the SouthWEST. I know, sometimes dividing the teams doesn’t work equally, but you have to admit that it’s still funny.

Wild Update: The Wild are improving, winning their first game in regulation last Friday—because I was there and Gaby was injured—and winning their first road game (also in regulation) on Saturday against the defending Stanley Cup winners. Their record is 5-9-0, for a 35.7% winning percentage.

Roger Goodell is excellent at diverting attention

Roger Goodell, NFL commissioner recently came out to say that he thought rookie contracts were outrageous, or, in his terms, "ridiculous". This was lauded by players and fans alike. After all, rookies are yet to perform on the field, and what of players who have been out there, busting their butts to earn their money? What if the player never pans out? People have wondered on this subject for years, and Goodell's statement certainly didn't fall on deaf ears, however it only deflects attention away from the most significant problem with NFL salaries.
Now, the NFL is the most profitable of the sports leagues and certainly, the money is there. The problem with the rookie salary is that it's being diverted from other players because of the salary cap. The real reason that players like Matt Ryan are getting huge contracts, comparable to proven players like Peyton Manning is that as time progresses, the cap goes up and teams have more to spend. It's not so much that Ryan is getting an unfair contract as it relates to other players in the league, he just got the newest contract, and with inflation, it happens to be nearly at the rate of those who signed before him.
But that's not the point. The rookie contract is the most important of the player's career, because it could be the only time they receive any money. Let's say that instead of playing 11 games last year, and recording 13 tackles for the Houston Texans, rookie Zach Diles ruptured his Achilles in training camp and he was cut. Sure, Diles never played a down in the NFL, but at the same time, the sport will now have affected his life forever. All he will take away from the game is the signing bonus of nearly $57,000 that he accepted. The rest of his $1.72 million dollar deal is forever lost. Other players later in their career are sometims not guaranteed any money for new contracts, despite the risk they take every time they step on the field.
Fortunately for Mr. Diles, he did not rupture his Achilles and will assume the role of starting strong side line backer for the Texans next year, having fought his way through one tough season in the NFL. Now, of course, he won't be making as much money as, say Paul Posluszny who was about as productive as Diles last season, but frankly, I'm OK with that. People who perform better in college get better jobs in every profession, and football is no different. The problem is that at any point, one of these players could get injured and their contracts would be thrown out.
Think of the signing bonus and guaranteed money then as insurance. If the player somehow gets himself injured, it's a small sum against the total he could have earned, had he maximized his earnings. Any smart NFLer should know that their NFL career is not guaranteed, even if they sign a contract. That's why, until those careers can be guaranteed, rookies should make as much as the owners will give them. (By the way, the picture is Diles making a tackle. Finding an action shot is tough. He's an elusive fellow.)