The baseball post-season has officially begun. Each year at this time I look at which teams made the playoffs, and then I do a comparison of the payrolls of all of the teams to see what kind of impact the payroll disparity in major league baseball has on overall team performance. But baseball teams, just like all other businesses, need to make sound decisions in a cost-effective manner. And whether a team adheres to the Oakland A's "Moneyball" stat-based philosophy or the Atlanta Braves "old-school" scouting philosophy (or a combination of both), all that really matters at the end of the day are results. Because baseball does not have a salary cap, it's really interesting to see at the end of the year which teams did and didn't get "the best bang for their buck".
Here is my summary for this year (using the USA Today salary database and rounded to the nearest million):
1. Most Valuable GM. The MVGM award this year goes to Mark Shapiro of the Cleveland Indians. With the fifth lowest payroll in all of baseball ($42M), the Indians finished second in the AL Central with a 93-69 record and came soooo close to making the playoffs. San Diego GM, Kevin Towers, gets the runner up award as his team has the lowest payroll ($63M) among the eight playoff teams.
2. Underpaid. The teams with the three lowest payrolls in all of baseball -- Tampa Bay ($30M), Kansas City ($37M) and Pittsburgh ($38M) -- finished last in their respective divisions.
3. Overpaid. Seattle, with the eighth-highest payroll ($88M), finished last in the AL West (26 games behind the first place Angels). The N.Y. Mets, with the third-highest payroll ($101M), finished only fourth in the NL East. Philadelphia spent $96M with no playoff spot to show for it. San Francisco ($90M) and the Dodgers ($83M) finished third and fourth, respectively, in the NL West. See also the Chicago Cubs and Baltimore in the next paragraph.
4. Made Good Use of Their Money. Milwaukee had a .500 record and finished third in the NL Central with only a $40M payroll (ahead of the Chicago Cubs with an $87M payroll). Toronto also finished third in its division with a $46M payroll (ahead of Baltimore with a $74M payroll).
5. Spent What Was Necessary. White Sox ($75M), Los Angeles Angels ($98M), Atlanta ($86M), St. Louis ($92M), Houston ($77M) and San Diego ($63M) -- all made the playoffs without breaking the bank.
6. Spent More Than Was Necessary. The Yankees spent a whopping $208M (plus a large chunk in luxury tax) to achieve a marginal first place finish over Boston ($124M), each with a 95-67 record (which was actually worse than the White Sox and Cards, and the same as the Angels).
From this data, it is apparent that a high payroll by no means ensures success. It appears that the teams listed in No. 5 above made the best business decisions of the year, and also that a team probably needs to spend about $60M-$80M to have a decent shot at the playoffs. Now, some of you may be thinking: "But it ain't over yet!" However, the fact of the matter is that each team that makes the playoffs has an equal chance of winning it all (e.g. the White Sox destroyed the Red Sox today with a $50M payroll disadvantage). What separates the winners from the losers in the playoffs has nothing to do with money, win-loss records, player statistics or box scores, but (lawyers and statisticians hate to hear this) has everything to do with strategy, confidence, chemistry, heart and a little bit of luck -- Just ask the Yankees. [Or maybe it would be better to ask the Angels (2002) and Marlins (2003) about that one.]
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Chicago Police Department Issues Investigative Alert to Question Tony Allen
The Chicago Police Department issued a special law enforcement alert yesterday to pick up and detain Boston Celtics guard Tony Allen for questioning in relation to a shooting that occurred at a Chicago restaurant five weeks ago. (Roman Modrowski, "Police Want to Ask Celtics About Restaurant Shooting," Chicago Sun Times, 10/4/2005). During that shooting, Allen is said to have directed a member of his entourage to "F--- him up," in reference to Marktwain Johnson, who was then shot in the arm and torso.
Importantly, an investigative alert is not an arrest warrant. What's the difference? An investigative alert means the police have probable cause to 1) stop Allen; 2) detain him for a reasonable period of time; and 3) question him about the shooting. An investigative alert is thus a mechanism to gather evidence from eye-witnesses (and typically witnesses that are not readily available or are somehow unwilling to cooperate). In contrast, had the Chicago Police Department issued an arrest warrant, it would have required a signed and sworn affidavit showing probable cause that Tony Allen committed at least one specific crime. In other words, an investigative report alert indicates that the Chicago Police Department does not (yet) have probable cause that Allen committed a crime. That may seem like good news for Allen, except that investigative reports often lead to arrest warrants, so this is not necessarily a positive turn of events for Allen.
For that reason, don't be surprised if Tony Allen is charged with a crime in the near future. Possible charges may include armed assault with intent to murder, aggravated assault, and felony battery with serious bodily injury. However, even if he is charged, he is obviously innocent until proven guilty, and given the murkiness of what occurred at 3 AM that morning, a prosecutor may encounter great difficulty proving that Allen committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
See 10/20/2005 Update: Tony Allen Charged with Aggravated Battery
See 9/24/2005 Past Coverage: The Tony Allen Story: Gunshots, Punches, and Mysterious Knee Injuries
Importantly, an investigative alert is not an arrest warrant. What's the difference? An investigative alert means the police have probable cause to 1) stop Allen; 2) detain him for a reasonable period of time; and 3) question him about the shooting. An investigative alert is thus a mechanism to gather evidence from eye-witnesses (and typically witnesses that are not readily available or are somehow unwilling to cooperate). In contrast, had the Chicago Police Department issued an arrest warrant, it would have required a signed and sworn affidavit showing probable cause that Tony Allen committed at least one specific crime. In other words, an investigative report alert indicates that the Chicago Police Department does not (yet) have probable cause that Allen committed a crime. That may seem like good news for Allen, except that investigative reports often lead to arrest warrants, so this is not necessarily a positive turn of events for Allen.
For that reason, don't be surprised if Tony Allen is charged with a crime in the near future. Possible charges may include armed assault with intent to murder, aggravated assault, and felony battery with serious bodily injury. However, even if he is charged, he is obviously innocent until proven guilty, and given the murkiness of what occurred at 3 AM that morning, a prosecutor may encounter great difficulty proving that Allen committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
See 10/20/2005 Update: Tony Allen Charged with Aggravated Battery
See 9/24/2005 Past Coverage: The Tony Allen Story: Gunshots, Punches, and Mysterious Knee Injuries
Monday, October 3, 2005
The BCS System: Could it be an illegal restraint on trade?
First, I would like to thank Greg and Mike for inviting me to speak this week in Greg's absence. I'm an avid reader of the Sports Law Blog, and these guys provide a great service to the sports law community.
Well, we're right in the thick of the college football season. Two weeks from now, the BCS football rankings will be revealed and the quest officially begins for the two best college football teams that will compete for the national championship -- that is, according to the system devised by the BCS conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC). USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg recently wrote an interesting article ("BCS: Boon or bust?" 9/23/05), in which he highlighted some of the arguments for and against the BCS system that combines several polls and rankings of schedule strength. Wieberg pointed out some of the system's inherent flaws, including the games "it didn't get right":
--One championship-game qualifier (Florida State in 2000) nudged out another contender to which it lost (similarly once-beaten Miami, Fla.).
--In 2001, Nebraska didn't even win its conference title, getting blown out 62-36 in its regular-season finale.
--And there was nothing like 2003, when Southern California finished the regular season atop both the coaches' and media polls and didn't make the two-team cut.
I'm a skeptic when it comes to the use of statistics in sports, and I personally would like to see some sort of a playoff system devised for college football. I just can't get comfortable with polls and computers determining the top two teams that should compete for the national title. Look at the results this past weekend based upon the most recent USA Today poll:
--No. 5 Florida was demolished by No. 16 Alabama
--No. 12 Michigan State (which beat Notre Dame earlier this year) lost to unranked Michigan (which lost to Notre Dame earlier this year). And today, Michigan is ranked five spots lower than MSU, and Notre Dame is ranked seven spots higher than MSU. It's confusing, I know.
--No. 18 Virginia lost to unranked Maryland.
--No. 19 Minnesota lost to unranked Penn State.
--Oh, and No. 1 Southern Cal had two relatively close come-from-behind victories the past couple of weekends.
From a legal standpoint, an interesting question is whether the BCS could be subject to an antitrust attack under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that seek to destroy or limit competition. Under the BCS system, six of the eight available slots in the elite bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange) go to the champions of the six BCS conferences and one of those bowl games determines the national championship. A non-BCS school may get one of the other two remaining slots if it is ranked in the top six as determined by the BCS computer ranking system. So in other words ladies and gentlemen of the jury: The six largest athletic conferences got together and agreed that the teams in their conferences have the toughest schedules and should, therefore, have a greater opportunity to compete for a national title to the exclusion of an undefeated team that simply does not compete at their level according to them (such as a Tulane in 1998 or a Utah in 2004), and they devised a system to accomplish those ends.
Typically, the focus of the antitrust laws is whether the consumer (the fan) is harmed by the restraint. Wieberg disclosed the results of a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll in which 453 college football fans were asked to opine on the BCS system, 45% said their opinion was at least somewhat negative and 40% at least somewhat positive. I wouldn't call that a "ringing" endorsement from the consumer. Throw in the fact that, as Wieberg notes, the BCS has evolved into one of the most recognizable brands in sports, paying out more than $120 million annually, and I think it would be difficult for a judge not to send the case to a jury.
Well, we're right in the thick of the college football season. Two weeks from now, the BCS football rankings will be revealed and the quest officially begins for the two best college football teams that will compete for the national championship -- that is, according to the system devised by the BCS conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC). USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg recently wrote an interesting article ("BCS: Boon or bust?" 9/23/05), in which he highlighted some of the arguments for and against the BCS system that combines several polls and rankings of schedule strength. Wieberg pointed out some of the system's inherent flaws, including the games "it didn't get right":
--One championship-game qualifier (Florida State in 2000) nudged out another contender to which it lost (similarly once-beaten Miami, Fla.).
--In 2001, Nebraska didn't even win its conference title, getting blown out 62-36 in its regular-season finale.
--And there was nothing like 2003, when Southern California finished the regular season atop both the coaches' and media polls and didn't make the two-team cut.
I'm a skeptic when it comes to the use of statistics in sports, and I personally would like to see some sort of a playoff system devised for college football. I just can't get comfortable with polls and computers determining the top two teams that should compete for the national title. Look at the results this past weekend based upon the most recent USA Today poll:
--No. 5 Florida was demolished by No. 16 Alabama
--No. 12 Michigan State (which beat Notre Dame earlier this year) lost to unranked Michigan (which lost to Notre Dame earlier this year). And today, Michigan is ranked five spots lower than MSU, and Notre Dame is ranked seven spots higher than MSU. It's confusing, I know.
--No. 18 Virginia lost to unranked Maryland.
--No. 19 Minnesota lost to unranked Penn State.
--Oh, and No. 1 Southern Cal had two relatively close come-from-behind victories the past couple of weekends.
From a legal standpoint, an interesting question is whether the BCS could be subject to an antitrust attack under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that seek to destroy or limit competition. Under the BCS system, six of the eight available slots in the elite bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange) go to the champions of the six BCS conferences and one of those bowl games determines the national championship. A non-BCS school may get one of the other two remaining slots if it is ranked in the top six as determined by the BCS computer ranking system. So in other words ladies and gentlemen of the jury: The six largest athletic conferences got together and agreed that the teams in their conferences have the toughest schedules and should, therefore, have a greater opportunity to compete for a national title to the exclusion of an undefeated team that simply does not compete at their level according to them (such as a Tulane in 1998 or a Utah in 2004), and they devised a system to accomplish those ends.
Typically, the focus of the antitrust laws is whether the consumer (the fan) is harmed by the restraint. Wieberg disclosed the results of a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll in which 453 college football fans were asked to opine on the BCS system, 45% said their opinion was at least somewhat negative and 40% at least somewhat positive. I wouldn't call that a "ringing" endorsement from the consumer. Throw in the fact that, as Wieberg notes, the BCS has evolved into one of the most recognizable brands in sports, paying out more than $120 million annually, and I think it would be difficult for a judge not to send the case to a jury.
Props to Wyc Grousbeck, Boston Celtics Managing Partner
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is often heralded--and deservedly so--for directly interacting with fans. I can attest to that. We have exchanged very lengthy, substantive e-mails in regards to age limits for the NBA Draft. Though we don't agree on the subject, I greatly admire him for taking the time to converse with me. It's not like I am a fellow NBA owner or someone of any wealth or power (and unfortunately, being a law professor is probably not a good track to becoming a fellow NBA owner). Cuban just likes the debate, and he doesn't care who he is debating with, so long as that person brings substantive points to the table. His blog, Blog Maverick, further evidences that point.
But Mark Cuban isn't the only owner like that. Meet Boston Celtics Managing Partner Wyc Grousbeck. I met Wyc at a Harvard Business School function last spring, as Professor Stephen Greyser and the Business of Sports Club hosted him. I couldn't believe how much of a regular guy he seemed, and how willing he was to answer any question, and to be candid and critical of his own team. So it is not surprising that Grousbeck has been answering fan e-mail on Celtics Blog, and doing so in an equally honest way. Check it out -- I wish more sports team owners were like Mark Cuban and Wyc Grousbeck: accessible, thoughtful, sincere, and down-to-earth.
But Mark Cuban isn't the only owner like that. Meet Boston Celtics Managing Partner Wyc Grousbeck. I met Wyc at a Harvard Business School function last spring, as Professor Stephen Greyser and the Business of Sports Club hosted him. I couldn't believe how much of a regular guy he seemed, and how willing he was to answer any question, and to be candid and critical of his own team. So it is not surprising that Grousbeck has been answering fan e-mail on Celtics Blog, and doing so in an equally honest way. Check it out -- I wish more sports team owners were like Mark Cuban and Wyc Grousbeck: accessible, thoughtful, sincere, and down-to-earth.
Welcome Rick Karcher
The Sports Law Blog welcomes Professor Rick Karcher as a guest-blogger this week. Rick is Director of Florida Coastal School of Law's Center for Law and Sports. He received his A.B. in Health Policy Studies in 1994 from the University of Michigan-Dearborn and J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law in 1997. In law school, he was a managing editor of the Michigan State Law Review and editor-in-chief of the entertainment and sports law journal. But most importantly (at least for us Braves fans), Rick also played three seasons as a first baseman in the Atlanta organization, during which time he was a teammate of current Braves third baseman Chipper Jones.
Rick will be posting with Mike as I take a two-week hiatus. In theory, I will return well-rested and possibly even married.
Rick will be posting with Mike as I take a two-week hiatus. In theory, I will return well-rested and possibly even married.
Bush Nominates M.L. Carr to U.S. Supeme Court
Well, no, earlier this morning President Bush did not nominate former Boston Celtics player/coach/general manager M.L. Carr to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. Carr, as you might remember, was general manager of the Celtics in the mid-90s, during which time he conducted an "exhaustive" search to a find a new head coach for the team. Over a three-month period, Carr intrepidly traveled the country and interviewed a number of persons (and sometimes multiple interviews of the same person) in his quest to discover the best candidate. And after all that "work," whom did he select to become the new Celtics coach? Himself. It wasn't a great choice, as M.L. Carr the coach led the Celtics to a 48-116 record between 1995 and 1997.
Hopefully White House Counsel--and Chairperson of the White House Search Committee for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement-- Harriet Miers will have greater success as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice than M.L. Carr did as Celtics head coach. The President nominated her this morning to replace Justice O'Connor. As we did with John Roberts, we will research her background and speculate how she might shape the future of sports law. As an initial point of concern, and particularly in the wake of the patronage scandal at FEMA, it should be noted that Miers was Bush's personal lawyer in Texas before he was elected president, and is considered a long-time loyal friend. She has held a number of political posts in the Bush Administration. She has no experience as a judge, and a quick LexisNexis search on my part revealed no law review publications. Obviously, none of those are disqualifying qualities (William Rehnquist, for instance, was not a judge before becoming a Justice), although they appear to amplify the belief that President Bush rewards people more for loyalty than for merit. But to Miers' credit, and apparently to the President's admiration, "Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave." Wow. That seals the deal for me. Forget legal acumen and the ability to effectively shape the future of American law; we need punctuality from our Justices!
Of course, this isn't the first time that a person chosen by Bush to head a search committee "looked in the mirror and found the best person for the job." Haliburton CEO Dick Cheney was entrusted by Bush to lead his Vice Presidental Nominee Search Committee in 2000.
Oh well. At least Bush didn't pick Michael Brown this morning. We hear "Brownie did a heck of a job" as FEMA Director.
Hopefully White House Counsel--and Chairperson of the White House Search Committee for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement-- Harriet Miers will have greater success as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice than M.L. Carr did as Celtics head coach. The President nominated her this morning to replace Justice O'Connor. As we did with John Roberts, we will research her background and speculate how she might shape the future of sports law. As an initial point of concern, and particularly in the wake of the patronage scandal at FEMA, it should be noted that Miers was Bush's personal lawyer in Texas before he was elected president, and is considered a long-time loyal friend. She has held a number of political posts in the Bush Administration. She has no experience as a judge, and a quick LexisNexis search on my part revealed no law review publications. Obviously, none of those are disqualifying qualities (William Rehnquist, for instance, was not a judge before becoming a Justice), although they appear to amplify the belief that President Bush rewards people more for loyalty than for merit. But to Miers' credit, and apparently to the President's admiration, "Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave." Wow. That seals the deal for me. Forget legal acumen and the ability to effectively shape the future of American law; we need punctuality from our Justices!
Of course, this isn't the first time that a person chosen by Bush to head a search committee "looked in the mirror and found the best person for the job." Haliburton CEO Dick Cheney was entrusted by Bush to lead his Vice Presidental Nominee Search Committee in 2000.
Oh well. At least Bush didn't pick Michael Brown this morning. We hear "Brownie did a heck of a job" as FEMA Director.
Sunday, October 2, 2005
Sunday Sports Law Notes & Sports Court Radio Show
The posts earlier this week on Eddy Curry (9/28 and 9/26) and Tony Allen (9/24) have generated excellent feedback from other blogs, especially those that more closely follow the athletes in question:
* Henry Abbott of True Hoop (which was recently named by Forbes Magazine as one of the best blogs) discusses the Eddy Curry saga and analyzes how Curry might be stigmatized by this whole affair.
* Matt Bernhardt of Blog a Bull has two timely posts on the Eddy Curry saga. It is useful to read analysis from someone who closely follows the Bulls and who understands their team culture and player/management dynamics. That adds a great deal of context to any legal analysis.
* Harlan Schreiber of Hoops Analyst discusses the importance of Eddy Curry being a restricted free agent, rather than an unrestricted free agent, and how we should not automatically assume that the lack of league interest in his services pertains to his heart condition. Harlan's post provides important supplemental material to my legal analysis (I only mentioned Curry's restricted free agent status in passing, and it deserves far more attention).
* Deadspin and BBallBlog each give their spin on Eddy Curry, and how both Curry and the Bulls have morally-defensible positions; it isn't as if there is a "bad guy" and "good guy" in this debate.
* Jeff of Celtcs Blog gives his take on the matter of Tony Allen and his now regrettable decision to say "F--- him up!" during a recent heated debate with another patron of a Chicago bar, especially when he said it someone who had a gun.
Some other posts of interest:
* Kimberly A. Brown of NBA Blog analyzes my law review article Illegal Defense: The Irrational Economics of Banning High Players from the NBA Draft.
* Attorney David Giacalone--a former FTC antitrust lawyer--at his Legal Ethics and Haiku Blog discusses a new article by Bruce Fein of the Washington Lawyer about baseball's antitrust exemption and related harm to DC baseball fans.
Also, for those interested in excellent sports law discussion on the radio, Sports Court, a weekly show hosted by attorneys David Frank and Scott Gilefsky of 1510 The Zone Sporting News Radio Boston, has a great program scheduled for tonight (7 PM to 9 PM). The guests will include:
* Shawn Peters, a columnist on the Remy Report and Sports Page 43.
* Amanda Martin, Assistant District Attorney of Suffolk County (Massachusetts) and supervisor of Roxbury District Court (she will discuss the prosecution of ticket scalping cases for individuals arrested for selling outside of Fenway Park).
* David Thomas, an attorney at the Boston law firm Gilman and Pastor (he will discuss the lawsuit he filed in Massachusetts Superior Court this past week that challenged the questionable business practices of several local ticket agents.)
Sports Court can be heard live at this link from 7 PM to 9 PM tonight. It should be another great show.
* Henry Abbott of True Hoop (which was recently named by Forbes Magazine as one of the best blogs) discusses the Eddy Curry saga and analyzes how Curry might be stigmatized by this whole affair.
* Matt Bernhardt of Blog a Bull has two timely posts on the Eddy Curry saga. It is useful to read analysis from someone who closely follows the Bulls and who understands their team culture and player/management dynamics. That adds a great deal of context to any legal analysis.
* Harlan Schreiber of Hoops Analyst discusses the importance of Eddy Curry being a restricted free agent, rather than an unrestricted free agent, and how we should not automatically assume that the lack of league interest in his services pertains to his heart condition. Harlan's post provides important supplemental material to my legal analysis (I only mentioned Curry's restricted free agent status in passing, and it deserves far more attention).
* Deadspin and BBallBlog each give their spin on Eddy Curry, and how both Curry and the Bulls have morally-defensible positions; it isn't as if there is a "bad guy" and "good guy" in this debate.
* Jeff of Celtcs Blog gives his take on the matter of Tony Allen and his now regrettable decision to say "F--- him up!" during a recent heated debate with another patron of a Chicago bar, especially when he said it someone who had a gun.
Some other posts of interest:
* Kimberly A. Brown of NBA Blog analyzes my law review article Illegal Defense: The Irrational Economics of Banning High Players from the NBA Draft.
* Attorney David Giacalone--a former FTC antitrust lawyer--at his Legal Ethics and Haiku Blog discusses a new article by Bruce Fein of the Washington Lawyer about baseball's antitrust exemption and related harm to DC baseball fans.
Also, for those interested in excellent sports law discussion on the radio, Sports Court, a weekly show hosted by attorneys David Frank and Scott Gilefsky of 1510 The Zone Sporting News Radio Boston, has a great program scheduled for tonight (7 PM to 9 PM). The guests will include:
* Shawn Peters, a columnist on the Remy Report and Sports Page 43.
* Amanda Martin, Assistant District Attorney of Suffolk County (Massachusetts) and supervisor of Roxbury District Court (she will discuss the prosecution of ticket scalping cases for individuals arrested for selling outside of Fenway Park).
* David Thomas, an attorney at the Boston law firm Gilman and Pastor (he will discuss the lawsuit he filed in Massachusetts Superior Court this past week that challenged the questionable business practices of several local ticket agents.)
Sports Court can be heard live at this link from 7 PM to 9 PM tonight. It should be another great show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)