2023 Market Sizes

[PSUColonel]

10: Yankees

9: Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, Giants

8: Mets, Angels, Braves, Phillies

7: Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Mariners, Blue Jays

6: White Sox, Nationals, Padres

5: Orioles, Brewers, Rockies, Tigers, Twins, Diamondbacks

4: Pirates, Guardians, Rays, Royals

3: Reds, Athletics, Marlins


These rankings are more to do with a combination of market size, media exposure, and team worth. While current payroll plays a small role in these rankings, it is not the major factor in these rankings. While it's true some of these teams' might be currently spending more (or less) than where they are ranked, this is more to do with the ability to spend if a team chooses to, and what those limitations could possibly be.

[MathBandit]

I can't tell if this is satire or meant to be a serious attempt at market sizes.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I can't tell if this is satire or meant to be a serious attempt at market sizes.

I clearly said it wasn't based entirely on market size.

[pauwoo]

First glance… I’d swap SD & SEA, I think.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I clearly said it wasn't based entirely on market size.

I know, but it also appears to be completely separate from reality and more fiction than anything. Or perhaps reflects the landscape of 20 years ago, which is great for historical players I guess.

Pretending that SD is a poverty franchise and that the Mets are third-tier when they're literally breaking baseball and causing 29 other owners to try and change the rules to prevent their ability to spend was a fun laugh though

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I know, but it also appears to be completely separate from reality and more fiction than anything. Or perhaps reflects the landscape of 20 years ago, which is great for historical players I guess.

Pretending that SD is a poverty franchise and that the Mets are third-tier when they're literally breaking baseball and causing 29 other owners to try and change the rules to prevent their ability to spend was a fun laugh though

Good thing the post is about Market Sizes and not who is a poverty franchise then. I'm not sure what your issue is.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

Good thing the post is about Market Sizes and not who is a poverty franchise then. I'm not sure what your issue is.

He literally just clarified that it's *not* about just Market Size, but ability/willingness to spend.

[Dr Naysay]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

He literally just clarified that it's *not* about just Market Size, but ability/willingness to spend.

No he didn't.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I know, but it also appears to be completely separate from reality and more fiction than anything. Or perhaps reflects the landscape of 20 years ago, which is great for historical players I guess.

Pretending that SD is a poverty franchise and that the Mets are third-tier when they're literally breaking baseball and causing 29 other owners to try and change the rules to prevent their ability to spend was a fun laugh though

It has a lot to do with team worth...which in many cases can equal spending ability. There are teams' that have very high payrolls right now, that probably cannot sustain that type of spending over the long haul such as San Diego. There are other teams which have the ability to spend, but just are not right now such as Boston.

EDIT: Also, I do NOT have the Padres as a "poverty" franchise. They are above average in market size. The only true poverty cases here are the Marlins, Reds and Athletics.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It has a lot to do with team worth...which in many cases can equal spending ability. There are teams' that have very high payrolls right now, that probably cannot sustain that type of spending over the long haul such as San Diego. There are other teams which have the ability to spend, but just are not right now such as Boston.

EDIT: Also, I do NOT have the Padres as a "poverty" franchise. They are above average in market size. The only true poverty cases here are the Marlins, Reds and Athletics.

I mean, the Padres already have over $125M committed to just 5 players in 2027, and over $100M committed to 3 players in 2029. It seems odd to think that over the next 10+ years they'd ever be middle of the road in spending, given they're almost assuredly going to be over $200M the whole time.

Boston on the other hand might not even cross $200M at any point in the next decade given their spending trends.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I mean, the Padres already have over $125M committed to just 5 players in 2027, and over $100M committed to 3 players in 2029. It seems odd to think that over the next 10+ years they'd ever be middle of the road in spending, given they're almost assuredly going to be over $200M the whole time.

Boston on the other hand might not even cross $200M at any point in the next decade given their spending trends.

You are right…in which case the valuations may change. If they do, I’ll be sure to reflect that in the future. This list is more of a 2023 snapshot in time.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

You are right…in which case the valuations may change. If they do, I’ll be sure to reflect that in the future. This list is more of a 2023 snapshot in time.

I could be misunderstanding (in which case I apologize), but then doesn't this mean that if someone enters these Market Sizes in a 2023 Standard Game and plays for 10+ years, the Padres will need to slash payroll like no tomorrow, the Mets will cut their spending and be just another top10 team, the Yankees will buy everyone, and the Red Sox will be a top5 spender?

That just doesn't seem at all realistic to me.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I could be misunderstanding (in which case I apologize), but then doesn't this mean that if someone enters these Market Sizes in a 2023 Standard Game and plays for 10+ years, the Padres will need to slash payroll like no tomorrow, the Mets will cut their spending and be just another top10 team, the Yankees will buy everyone, and the Red Sox will be a top5 spender?

That just doesn't seem at all realistic to me.

What it is meant to do is to have the teams’ behave according to their worth (value) over a long period of time, based on their current worth. These values can change because they just do in OOTP…but this is just a way to get teams to behave according to their current worth over a long period of time…or as close to as possible.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

10: Yankees

9: Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, Giants

8: Mets, Angels, Braves, Phillies

7: Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Mariners, Blue Jays

6: White Sox, Nationals, Padres

5: Orioles, Brewers, Rockies, Tigers, Twins, Diamondbacks

4: Pirates, Guardians, Rays, Royals

3: Reds, Athletics, Marlins


These rankings are more to do with a combination of market size, media exposure, and team worth. While current payroll plays a small role in these rankings, it is not the major factor in these rankings. While it's true some of these teams' might be currently spending more (or less) than where they are ranked, this is more to do with the ability to spend if a team chooses to, and what those limitations could possibly be.

This is not a bad starting point, thanks. I feel the need to differentiate, in order to have more realism, but I had no guiding principles for a framework.

Here's a question; I'm just returning after 3 years away. Have they provided the option to FREEZE market sizes? I don't like the way that they migrate ...

[PSUColonel]

The reason a team like the Padres gets pulled down a little is because (even though they are spending) they are certainly in a lesser media market, and that seriously diminishes the overall worth of a franchise. Over the long haul, San Diego will never top a city like Dallas for example.

Conversely, Washington is certainly a larger media market (same with the White Sox) but the Nationals are bottom of the barrel spenders right now, so they are definitely getting penalized for that also. They should probably be higher ordinarily, but their lack of on field product has influenced their overall worth as a franchise. The White Sox are a 6 for a different reason…they are worth less as an organization simply because they live in the shadow of the Cubs.

[italyprof]

How can the Mets be in a smaller market than the Yankees when they play in the same city?

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by italyprof

How can the Mets be in a smaller market than the Yankees when they play in the same city?

Market Size has a lot more to it than just the size of the city you play in.

World Wide popularity is one example. The Yankees marketing reaches much further than the Mets does on a World Wide scale. The Yankees are far more known/popular.

That's just one of many things that affect Market Size.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

This is not a bad starting point, thanks. I feel the need to differentiate, in order to have more realism, but I had no guiding principles for a framework.

Here's a question; I'm just returning after 3 years away. Have they provided the option to FREEZE market sizes? I don't like the way that they migrate ...

No, which is another reason I do it this way…teams may go up or down a notch depending.

[Le Grande Orange]

For what it's worth, the real-world market sizes, revenue, and player expenses.

The market sizes are from the 2017-2021 CBA; the total revenue and player expenses (in millions of dollars) are from the Forbes 2023 club valuations report and are for the 2022 season. Revenue is net of revenue sharing, luxury tax, and stadium revenue used for debt service; player expenses include benefits and bonuses.

It isn't stated how the CBA determined the market size figures. Presumably it includes metro area population and media market size. Note that any club with a market size over 100 cannot receive revenue sharing.

      Market  Total    Player
Club   Size  Revenue  Expenses
------------------------------
NYA    235    657.0    262.0 
NYN    235    374.0    288.0 
ANA    178    371.0    196.0 
LAN    178    581.0    269.0 
CHA    124    276.0    213.0 
CHN    124    451.0    174.0 
TOR    119    294.0    200.0 
WAS    113    356.0    180.0 
PHI    111    398.0    255.0 
OAK    108    212.0     70.0 
SFN    108    421.0    179.0 
BOS    101    513.0    242.0 
TEX    101    366.0    165.0 
ATL     96    425.0    206.0 
HOU     93    407.0    207.0 
SEA     81    363.0    135.0 
MIN     76    267.0    172.0 
DET     74    260.0    158.0 
ARI     72    276.0    121.0 
TBA     72    248.0    119.0 
BAL     70    264.0     83.0 
COL     70    286.0    168.0 
MIA     69    238.0    104.0 
CLE     64    268.0     91.0 
SDN     60    324.0    243.0 
SLN     57    358.0    174.0 
PIT     56    262.0     81.0 
KCA     53    260.0    112.0 
MIL     52    294.0    149.0 
CIN     51    250.0    138.0

[Bluenoser]

Interesting stuff LGO.

Now if we could find a way to equate those numbers into OOTP's Market Sizes that would be gr8.