National Review: Major league debate

Few would quibble with the notion that one who relies on factual inaccuracies while writing about an industry that he does not understand is unlikely to produce sound analysis. Tim Marchman's recent article "Against Baseball Socialism" (Nov. 10) confirms this truism.

Mr. Marchman begins his analysis with data that are just flat wrong. For example, he asserts that the Anaheim Angels receive $13 million in revenue sharing. In fact, the club receives less than one-sixth of that amount. Moreover, without explanation, Marchman asserts that "player-development paths are more predictable than has been generally thought" and that clubs "can determine which young players are most likely to develop into stars." In reality, less than 28 percent of the players drafted in the first five rounds each year achieve one day of Major League service and less than 10 percent achieve three years of Major League service. Such statistics suggest that Mr. Marchman's assertions concerning predictability are not well founded.

Mr. Marchman also makes statements that are simply nonsensical. He claims that the Marlins success this year had nothing to do with revenue sharing but instead was due to "unexpectedly good pitching," a breakout season for Mike Lowell, and the signing of catcher Ivan Rodriguez. Surely it must have occurred to Mr. Marchman that without $23 million in revenue sharing it would have been impossible for the Marlins to retain Mike Lowell and to sign Ivan Rodriguez. Mr. Marchman also asserts that "a competitive-balance tax that no one pays" is of questionable utility. In reality, a tax that no one pays has, by definition, restricted high-spending clubs and reduced payroll disparity--which all economists agree should improve competition.

We appreciate NATIONAL REVIEW's interest in the national pastime. We can only hope that the next time you decide to cover baseball, you do so with greater accuracy.

Robert D. Manfred Jr.

Executive Vice-President,

Labor Relations & Human Resources

Major League Baseball

New York, N.Y.

TIM MARCHMAN REPLIES: I am glad to hear from Mr. Manfred that the Anaheim Angels received less than a sixth of the $13 million I said they were due from the revenue-sharing pot. As I noted in my piece, though, that number is based on an estimate by the respected economist Andrew Zimbalist, whose numbers I trust more than those of an industry that claimed just two years ago that it was a half-billion dollars in debt. Perhaps if Mr. Manfred and his employers would release official revenue-sharing numbers and open Major League Baseball's books to independent review by disinterested auditors, those such as myself would be allowed to understand the industry better.

Mr. Manfred's statement about how successful drafted players are likely to be is misleading; I can offer you a long sheet of odds showing how impossible it is to win a blackjack game, but that doesn't mean that players who stack the odds in their favor with smart, consistent play don't improve on those odds. And his statement about the Marlins is just obfuscatory rhetoric, replete with the bad faith that has characterized MLB's negotiations with the players' union for decades.

Without revenue-sharing money they could have afforded Lowell and Rodriguez, by not giving out bad contracts and by marshalling their resources wisely--tactics that work in any business. Further, Mr. Manfred seems blind to the irony of a team based in the sixth-largest metropolitan region in which baseball is played in America receiving $23 million. Nothing he says contradicts the point of my article, which is that a system allowing for that is a bad one.