Fairball

Rating:
Summary: Oh, please...
Review: Costas understands the science of economics as well as a Mallomar. Player salaries are an investment. Those who spend on players, and spend wisely, are more likely to be rewarded with maximum franchise value. Those who choose not to invest, Expos, for example, *are still making profits*. They're just pocketing the money. They're choosing to minimize franchise value, perhaps to help the team move to a new location. The new location would jack up the value of the franchise, should Peter Loria want to sell and recoup his investment.

The last time an *independent* study was done on a team's finances was 1984. Dr. Roger Noll, an economics professor from Stanford Universtiy, discovered that teams claiming a $50 million loss were, through creative accounting, actually $9 million in the black. Whoops.

Is it a coincidence that no independent analysis of baseball finances has been done since then? Why won't teams open their books? If the team, and the sport, were really in so much trouble, why wouldn't the undisclosed truth be thrown on the table. "Look," they'd say, "here's our unadulterated financial records." The players have everything to lose if the sport goes under, and would be sympathetic.

The reason this doesn't happen is that the game is fine. The owners are trying to maximize profits *and* franchise value at the same time. The way to do that is by cheating the players, and lying to the public.

In short, Costas is either a puppet with the owners' hand up his rump, or he has as much qualification for writing about economics as Julia Child. I'm inclined to believe the latter. Read Andrew Zimbalist's "Baseball and Billions" if you want truth from a qualified source.

Rating:
Summary: Good book
Review: I think that Costas does an excellent job with this book. There is definitely flaws with MLB today, but there probably always will be. Costas has some good ideas and opinions, and it's good for fuel of any big baseball debates.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I read the reviews and had high expectations. I like Costas on TV, and had been led to expect a meaningfully insightful discussion. The book disappoints. The book revolves around only a handful of observations and a handful of remedial suggestions that even a modest baseball fan (like me) will find fairly obvious.

Here's the book: Big market teams have a lot more money, so they have bigger payrolls, thus better players, so they tend to win all the time. This isn't good for the game, since poor teams will not survive and there'll be no one left for the rich teams to play. Some sort of revenue-sharing would even things out somewhat and, in the end, help everyone.

Save your money.

Rating:
Summary: A good plan to work from for baseball
Review: I found this book interesting and provocative. I have become a better informed fan of baseball becasue of it. This is in part due to Costas' often insightful remarks, but also because of the research it prompted me to conduct. Bob Costas makes his strongest case in the arena of baseball's economics. He first firmly establishes the notion that money = quality play. This is not exclusive, as he notes the Montreal Expos of the early '90s (esp. 1994). However, he makes case on the fact that money is the prime motivator in professional sports. With this in mind, we are lead down a very realistic path of revenue sharing ("dummy") that, for its part, can help restore lsting and honest competitive balance in baseball. We are then treated to a more opinion oriented section on the "alignment" of baseball in which Mr. Costas essentially discounts every exciting moment in baseball since the inception of the wild card. Although I am no particular fan on the present playoff system, I hardly agree with the notion that the wild card has cheapened anything. Please note, no wild card team has ever had worse than the fourth best record in the league. What almost amounts to vehemence on Costas' part aside, I really like his "3-0" solution where by only division champions reach the playoffs and the best one gets a "first round bye". I only skimmed the "odds and ends" chapter, since most of the issues were of little interest to me. Nothing obscure is revealed. On the whole, this book does make a "fan's case" for baseball. I would heartily endorse the basic ideas Bob Costas puts forth in this book. As he alludes to in the epilogue: we the fans can only hope that baseball, owners and players alike, comes to its senses and heads down a road not entirely unlike the one given in this book. We should be so lucky.

Rating:
Summary: Silly and Self Important
Review: I received this book as a gift, the author is a silly and pretentious clown, an intellectual lightweight who can neither write nor think. I remember seeing him hugging Mickey Mantle's coffin to try to get himself some kind of credibility in the game. He is worse than George Will. If you want writers who know about baseball and can write, try Bill James, Peter Gammons and Roger Kahn. This book and man are monuments to our semi-literate and shallow times.

Rating:
Summary: Too bad this book wasn't around in 1993 or 1994
Review: Costas for commissioner? Great candidate but the last guy was an ardent, principled fan also and look what happened to him. The owners took over the commissioner's office and the game with it as well. They should read this book. As should the players and Don Fehr. All parties are greedy and shortsighted.

A thought provoking read for any fan. Costas, as he states early on, is no starry-eyed-baseball is poetry Field of Dreams guy, just a fan who loves the game. Costas makes great arguments for revenue-sharing (this resistant fan was won over), the elimination of the wildcard (even if he beats it to death, it does cheapen the regular season), eliminating the DH (almost convinced me), and a good one for salary caps (how do you handle guys locked into $11 milllion plus salaries if $10's your cap?)

A lot of great ideas. Let's hope someone in a position of power and influence picks up on them.

Rating:
Summary: HOME RUN
Review: This book was well written and very well thought through. His ideas about revenue sharing, the Wild Card, and Pete Rose all had legitimate arguments. His ideas were backed up by number and all seemed to be decent if not excellent points.

Rating:
Summary: Well-written, but filled with obvious inconsistencies
Review: "Fair Ball" is an easy-read and it covers a number of important issues pertaining to modern day baseball. Costas covers his two most important issues, the current salary disparities of teams and the Wild Card, in greater detail. I gave the book two-stars because 1. the Wild Card has no business being one of the top two issues facing baseball these days and 2. because his arguments involving the Wild Card were wholly illogical. The book avoided a one-star rating because it is well-written, as Costas once again proves to be an eloquent speaker. Some examples of how the Wild Card arguments were illogical: 1. that it invites mediocrity into the playoffs 2. that it invites far less exciting World Series and 3. that it lessens the regular season. Number one, Wild Card teams are usually if not always better than atleast one divisional winner. Last year's ALCS under the old system (Costas prefers two divisions of 6 or 7) would have pitted the Yankees against the Texas Rangers. THe ALCS would have been a laugher sweep as Texas was extremely mediocre. 2. He cites Florida vs Cleveland (1997) as a terrible World Series and proof that the Wild Card doesn't work. The reason that Series didn't work was because Florida dismantled its team after the Series. The Series itself was pretty exciting and went 7 games. In addition, the old system frequently invited mediocre series such as San Diego vs Detroit (1984) and Oakland vs Cincinnati (1990). 3.He cites divisional races as somehow more exciting than Wild Card races. Who didn't enjoy last year's Mets vs Reds one-game playoff or the Giants vs Cubs the year before (with the Mets finishing one game behind them)? He cites the Bobby Thompson homerun as proof for his argument that these things don't happen anymore in September. Well, I can tell you that the Angels vs Mariners race in 1995. Costas vastly overrates the race between the Giants and Braves in 1992. Additionally, the current system produced a heck of an NLCS last year. The Wild Card is certainly NOT one of the two most important issues facing baseball, to make such a statement unfairly cheapens his first, and valid, argument regarding payroll disparities between large and small market clubs. Also, Costas use of the phrases "it was obvious" and "real fans know" throughout the book are a slap in the face to any baseball fan who disagrees with any of his views. I found Costas' arrogance stunning and appalling.

Rating:
Summary: Not just a fair ball - a grand slam
Review: Costas' arguments in favor of baseball as a game and against Major League Baseball as it has been operated over the past several years is as masterful as it is simple. From his look back at what the owners should have done in '93 to what the owners actually did in '93 to what the owners should do now, it is well-reasoned and logically justified. In short, Costas proposes a partial revenue-sharing scheme wherein 50% of a team's local broadcast revenues and 30% of its ticket revenues (including luxury box revenues) would go into a collective pot and be disbursed equally among all other teams. The genius of this system is that the rich aren't just giving to the poor (as in the current luxury tax), but the poor (Expos, Twins, Brewers, etc.) are putting in their 50% and 30% as well. Of course, those teams get out of the system much more than they put in, but the principle behind the sharing is superb.

Costas covers many more topics in the same straightforward style. My only complaint? It's not yet out in paperback. My advice is to get this one from the library now and read it once - then buy it when it comes out as a paperback if you want to read it again.

Rating:
Summary: "Fair Ball" Revisited
Review: Written from a fans' viewpoint, in "Fair Ball" Bob Costas succinctly identifies economic disparities in MLB and offers some solutions to restore stability and competitive balance in the sport. For example, to reduce the expanding revenue and payroll gaps between small, medium, and large market teams, Costas proposes that clubs share equally 50 percent of local broadcast revenues and 30 percent of ticket sales. Besides eliminating the designated hitter and wild card system, restructuring the American and National Leagues each into three five-team divisions, implementing an international draft, and other reforms, he also argues for maximum and minimum player salaries. Costas' proposals such as revuenue sharing, salary constraints, and league reorganization are, in part, justifiable and commendable. He, however, fails to convincingly discuss the financial incentives and impetus for large market team owners and the players union to accept his reforms. Another issue that Costas overlooks is: Assuming revenues are redistributed, to what extent will equity be restored among league teams. For instance, will the Expos and Twins win league championships before 2005? Will the Devil Rays or Royals play the Brewers or Pirates in the World Series before 2010? These questions need to be addressed. See "Fair Ball II." In "Relocating Teams and Expanding Leagues in Professional Sports," published by Quorum Books in 1999, John Guthrie and I conclude that demographics, win-loss percentages, and attendance are the primary factors in league decisions to allow inferior franchises to move.