This reminds me of how success can be defined different ways. One would think winning at baseball GAMES is the ultimate goal, but as discussed, baseball is a business as much as it is a sport… So even if they aren’t winning games, they ARE winning in marketing, and winning in getting new eyes on the game.
Not all wins look the same, not in theory - but in reality, which is incredibly encouraging!
Sep 25Liked by Robin Cangie (she/her), Robin Taylor (he/him), Alex Varghese
The writing and ideas here are so sticky and logical, they've got to be right. Still, I wonder how they play out when tested on entire leagues (say, MLB, NBA, NFL). The NHL would be interesting from a strong/weak-link point of view too since play time for top players isn't as much as in basketball but more than baseball though, I guess more similar to basketball when considering proportions of playtime for top and minor players.
I suspect that the ideas here can also be applied to considering the contribution: compensation balance in other endeavors.
Thanks for the kind words! Applying the strong/weak-link framework to other leagues is something I’ve done a lot in my work. In general, the key indicator is the proportion of touches that you can get to your strong links, but there are other factors that play in as well. Another interesting factor to consider is randomness, which this Vox video does a great job exploring here: https://youtu.be/HNlgISa9Giw?si=qDi1tYrMbzSGKfYT
Sep 25Liked by Robin Cangie (she/her), Robin Taylor (he/him), Alex Varghese
This was fascinating! I couldn't believe I kept reading but I kept learning stuff. Now I'll analyze my Packers, Badgers, and Brewers in a different light.
Sep 25·edited Sep 25Liked by Robin Cangie (she/her), Robin Taylor (he/him), Alex Varghese
I need to share with my husband—lifelong Dodger fan who is amazed by Ohtani. I wonder what he’ll think of the idea of baseball players having a lesser effect on outcomes.
Interestingly enough, when I was researching this piece the die-hard baseball fans I talked to about the findings weren’t all that surprised. For many of them that I talked to, it was a given that even the best players would have a lesser outcome than the average quality of either team, which is fascinating because that isn’t the case in almost any of our other major US sports.
21 hrs agoLiked by Robin Cangie (she/her), Robin Taylor (he/him)
This was so interesting Alex! I don't follow baseball that much and was surprised to hear that Ohtani didn't have postseason success. Your reasoning makes sense to me, just based on how baseball is set up. It made me think that perhaps the Dodgers overpayed for Ohtani but when you mentioned the ticket prices going up, that made sense to me.
Sometimes I wonder why NFL owners want so badly for their teams to win every single year (despite not having the best team) but I'm reminded that when their franchises do well, they make boatloads of money with merchandise, TV, tickets, gear etc.
Interesting read! Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed!
This reminds me of how success can be defined different ways. One would think winning at baseball GAMES is the ultimate goal, but as discussed, baseball is a business as much as it is a sport… So even if they aren’t winning games, they ARE winning in marketing, and winning in getting new eyes on the game.
Not all wins look the same, not in theory - but in reality, which is incredibly encouraging!
The writing and ideas here are so sticky and logical, they've got to be right. Still, I wonder how they play out when tested on entire leagues (say, MLB, NBA, NFL). The NHL would be interesting from a strong/weak-link point of view too since play time for top players isn't as much as in basketball but more than baseball though, I guess more similar to basketball when considering proportions of playtime for top and minor players.
I suspect that the ideas here can also be applied to considering the contribution: compensation balance in other endeavors.
Thanks for the kind words! Applying the strong/weak-link framework to other leagues is something I’ve done a lot in my work. In general, the key indicator is the proportion of touches that you can get to your strong links, but there are other factors that play in as well. Another interesting factor to consider is randomness, which this Vox video does a great job exploring here: https://youtu.be/HNlgISa9Giw?si=qDi1tYrMbzSGKfYT
Thanks! I'll watch that video.
This was fascinating! I couldn't believe I kept reading but I kept learning stuff. Now I'll analyze my Packers, Badgers, and Brewers in a different light.
So glad you enjoyed - and go packers!
This was an interesting read, I work for one of the Chicago MLB teams. No, not that one, the other one.
I need to share with my husband—lifelong Dodger fan who is amazed by Ohtani. I wonder what he’ll think of the idea of baseball players having a lesser effect on outcomes.
Interestingly enough, when I was researching this piece the die-hard baseball fans I talked to about the findings weren’t all that surprised. For many of them that I talked to, it was a given that even the best players would have a lesser outcome than the average quality of either team, which is fascinating because that isn’t the case in almost any of our other major US sports.
This was so interesting Alex! I don't follow baseball that much and was surprised to hear that Ohtani didn't have postseason success. Your reasoning makes sense to me, just based on how baseball is set up. It made me think that perhaps the Dodgers overpayed for Ohtani but when you mentioned the ticket prices going up, that made sense to me.
Sometimes I wonder why NFL owners want so badly for their teams to win every single year (despite not having the best team) but I'm reminded that when their franchises do well, they make boatloads of money with merchandise, TV, tickets, gear etc.