Team Ownership Ratings, By the Community

Just how good is a particular owner or ownership group, relative to the rest? It’s just about impossible to say. As fans, what we see is pretty well removed from what goes on at the ownership level, so it’s not like those executives can be evaluated like a pitcher with a sub-3 FIP. So we don’t know that much about who’s good or bad, really. But that never stands in the way of opinions. Oh, people have opinions, and those opinions aren’t based on nothing. A few days ago, I asked you all for your thoughts on your teams’ owners. What follows is the resulting information, based on many thousands of votes from presumably many thousands of participants.

The polls were simple. After each prompt, you could select from two positive opinions, two negative opinions, and one middle-of-the-road opinion. People don’t usually compare ownership groups, since situations are so different, but now we can at least try to do that, with numerical data. Of course, what you see won’t be infallible evaluations. This is opinion-polling, but I think it’s just interesting to see what people think, even if it turns out plenty of people are wrong. I love what crowd-sourcing can indicate, and I love that we get to do it. Thanks again for all your help.

To start with, let’s look at the distribution of votes. Shown is every team in baseball, and that team’s fraction of the total votes, where you’d expect an average of 1/30, or 3.3%. Not all teams hang around the average. Some teams are simply better represented on this corner of the Internet, and some other teams are just more likely to generate opinions in people than others. Sometimes both apply.

percent-of-total-ownership-rating-votes

In terms of participation, the Blue Jays blew everyone away, getting hundreds more votes than the second-place Mets. This is a confluence of those factors: the Blue Jays are highly represented online, but also people tend to have thoughts about Rogers Communications. They tend to be not great thoughts, but we’ll get to that in a bit. The usual teams are around the other end — we never get a ton of poll responses with teams like the Reds or the Twins. Still, even the last-place team accounted for more than 300 votes, so we needn’t worry too much about sample sizes. Going back to the left side, something you might notice — it’s a bunch of popular teams, and it’s the Marlins. Boy, I wonder what that could mean.*

* I don’t actually wonder because I know what it means and so do you

Let’s move now to the ratings themselves. As I’ve always done, I assigned a number to each vote, with the worst rating getting a 1 and the best rating getting a 5. So it was easy enough to calculate for each ownership group an average fan rating, and that’s what you see in the following plot. I can’t imagine there’s too much that’ll surprise you. The obvious players are mostly in the obvious spots.

ownership-ratings

The Giants finish in first, squeaking past the Cubs. There are so many different factors that go into how an owner or ownership group are perceived, but the Giants have of course won those three recent World Series, and they play in a beautiful ballpark that was privately funded. They provide an excellent game-day experience, and payroll has doubled in the last six or seven years. There just isn’t much of anything to complain about, just as there isn’t much to complain about with the Cubs’ Ricketts group. And so on. The Tigers finish pretty high, and I have to imagine fans have little trouble getting behind Mike Ilitch’s commitment to winning. That comes with some negative consequences but he’s a rare owner who doesn’t come off as profit-driven, and fans eat that up.

There’s a clear lowest tier. Actually, there are two clear lowest tiers. The Marlins are almost off the scale. There’s nothing Jeffrey Loria could possibly do to save his reputation, and his franchise is understood to be a circus. No one wants to play there, and no one wants to work there. Despite the talent they have, the Marlins will probably always be a mess. On the worst tier out of the non-Loria group, you get the Mets, edging out the Rockies. These are two very different situations. The Rockies owners have been somewhat quietly disagreeable. Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, meanwhile, are famously hated by Mets fans the world around, for funneling money to paying off private debts. So payroll now is well below where it was just a few seasons ago. There’s more to it than this, but that’s the biggest factor.

As a fun fact, when I polled the community about 2015 season experiences, the Royals results reflected the influence of trolls, with more than 11% of voters saying their Royals fan experience was very bad. With any Internet poll, you always have to keep in mind that a certain percentage of the respondents will be trolling, but it seems this project was almost immune. Just 1% of Marlins voters picked “very good”. Just 1% of Mets voters picked “very good”. These ownership situations are so strongly disliked they even dissuaded would-be trolls from following their trolling instincts. That’s powerful stuff.

The strongest single response out of everything: 89% of voters said the Marlins’ ownership situation is very bad. Next-strongest: Giants, very good, 60%. So the Marlins reaction was about 50% stronger than the next-strongest response. Think about how little you know about most ownership groups. Think about how much you know about the Marlins. This isn’t an accident. They’re terrible.

The weakest single response out of everything: one solitary voter called the Padres’ ownership situation very good. The Padres remain the most Padres organization in baseball. Even when they tried desperately to reinvent themselves, they still wound up forgettably mediocre.

You might be wondering how things averaged out in total. The average ownership rating, league-wide, was 3.05. The last time I did something like this, asking about 2015 fan experiences, the average league rating was 3.01. When I polled about front offices, the average rating was 3.17. When I polled about pitching coaches, several months ago, the average rating was 3.64. People seem to really like pitching coaches, and they pay more attention to the successes than they do to the failures. Not surprising, but kind of interesting.

How do you evaluate an ownership group? There are countless factors, but fans want to see a high payroll, and a capacity for hiring quality baseball men. 2015 payroll and 2015 winning percentage, together, explained about 50% of the variance in ownership rating, and I was able to use that information to calculate an “expected” rating. This plot shows the actual ratings against the expected ratings:

actual-vs-expected-ownership-rating

The Astros exceeded their expected rating by the most, followed right behind by the Giants and Cubs. The Mets fell below their expected rating by the most, which isn’t surprising since last year’s Mets won the division and the National League pennant. The big issue there isn’t so much the payroll itself as it is where the payroll is as opposed to where it should be. Nobody trusts the Mets’ ownership group, and it’s not like it’s because of them that the team has such an incredible collection of young arms. I don’t need to keep talking about the Mets. The Marlins have the second-biggest negative difference here, then the Blue Jays and Angels. Fans are annoyed that Rogers doesn’t invest more in the team, while other fans are annoyed by Arte Moreno’s meddling and restrictions.

Here’s a final informative table. Have fun.

Team Ownership Ratings
Team Very bad Pretty bad Average Pretty good Very good Rating
Giants 3% 1% 5% 31% 60% 4.44
Cubs 2% 2% 7% 30% 58% 4.39
Cardinals 6% 1% 7% 28% 57% 4.29
Dodgers 5% 5% 8% 24% 58% 4.26
Red Sox 5% 6% 11% 38% 41% 4.04
Tigers 4% 7% 14% 38% 37% 3.97
Rangers 3% 3% 25% 55% 14% 3.73
Astros 2% 6% 28% 48% 17% 3.73
Yankees 7% 12% 17% 36% 27% 3.63
Royals 5% 10% 27% 38% 21% 3.61
Pirates 5% 12% 24% 44% 15% 3.52
Nationals 5% 14% 36% 38% 7% 3.28
Rays 12% 25% 27% 24% 13% 3.02
Brewers 9% 25% 40% 18% 7% 2.89
Twins 8% 23% 51% 17% 1% 2.80
Indians 8% 26% 49% 15% 2% 2.77
Phillies 17% 25% 30% 24% 4% 2.75
White Sox 10% 30% 42% 15% 3% 2.71
Braves 15% 28% 35% 16% 5% 2.68
Diamondbacks 17% 27% 35% 15% 6% 2.65
Angels 15% 34% 27% 19% 5% 2.65
Athletics 18% 31% 30% 15% 6% 2.61
Mariners 13% 34% 39% 10% 3% 2.57
Padres 14% 36% 40% 10% 0% 2.46
Orioles 15% 36% 36% 11% 1% 2.46
Blue Jays 19% 34% 32% 13% 2% 2.44
Reds 12% 40% 40% 7% 1% 2.44
Rockies 43% 38% 17% 2% 1% 1.81
Mets 56% 27% 11% 6% 1% 1.69
Marlins 89% 8% 1% 1% 1% 1.19
SOURCE: all y’all

Thank you one more time for your assistance. And may the Miami Marlins one day become an actual major-league operation.



Print This Post



Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Ryan
Member
Ryan
4 months 15 days ago

CHC and LAD over the Red Sox, is that a joke?

jruby
Member
Member
jruby
4 months 15 days ago

You can’t post pictures in these comments, but if you could, I’d post that meme with Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, smiling wryly, and it would read something like:

“Oh, your opinion is correct and hundreds of fans’ opinions are a joke?

Tell me more…”

Joe
Member
Joe
4 months 15 days ago

It looks like I’m alone but I’m a Cubs fan and I hate the Ricketts. I appreciate what they’ve done on the field with bringing in Epstein and what not but I’ve absolutely hated the way they have gone about other things (i.e. building those hideous video boards). But like I said I guess I’m in the minority.

output gap
Member
Member
output gap
4 months 15 days ago

Video boards generate revenue which is spent on making the team and/or experience better. It also brings the organization out of the 1960’s world it was operating in for the last 5 decades.

Joe
Member
Joe
4 months 15 days ago

I’ll give you revenue definitely not experience. Wrigley always had an awesome old-timey feel when you were there and IMO video boards are nothing but distracting. Also the tradition surrounding Wrigley and the Cubs is so great that the “1960’s world” was one of the coolest parts of being a Cubs fan. That’s not to say improvements weren’t needed or that some of the changes he has made aren’t for the better (home clubhouse definitely needed to be re-done) but that doesn’t make me like him. Many Chicago fans were anti-video boards and it felt like they did it more to block the rooftop seats (which again many fans love) than he did for the actual betterment of the club. I like what he has done in terms of on-field product and I recognize that some unpopular decisions such as the video boards help lead to that but the culture around the Cubs feels much different now and IMO its for the worse.

output gap
Member
Member
output gap
4 months 15 days ago

Change is hard. It’s okay.

The culture is different now on purpose. Ricketts is trying to win and treat his asset as an living organization rather than a parking lot.

MonkeyMan
Member
Member
MonkeyMan
4 months 15 days ago

Calling the video boards an “unpopular decision” is a huge exaggeration, in this Chicagoan’s opinion.

gnomez
Member
gnomez
4 months 15 days ago

“Also the tradition surrounding Wrigley and the Cubs is so great that the “1960’s world” was one of the coolest parts of being a Cubs fan.”

I’m a Cardinals fan and I couldn’t agree more. I always loved going to Cubs games when I lived in Chicago, whether they were playing the Cards or not. I haven’t been back since the video boards went up, but I can’t help but imagine that they do nothing but hamper what was previously one of the best experiences in professional sports. There was a certain pre-commercial atmosphere there that allowed a fan to romanticize baseball’s past and, however briefly, imagine we were part of it.

Michael
Member
Michael
4 months 14 days ago

The video boards aren’t so bad. Yes, the park was better without them, but I think they’ve done very well at making sure they fit with their surroundings architecturally and that the content shown on them distracts from the game as little as possible. How many big league teams put ANY thought into the crap they show on their video boards?

Anyway, getting to your main point, that the culture around the team has changed… well, that’s not wrong. But I’d argue that it NEEDED to change. The biggest reason the Cubs haven’t won a World Series since 1908 years is complacent ownership. PK Wrigley and the Tribune Company spent a combined 70 years sitting on their laurels, never changing anything unless they were forced to (the Trib only installed lights after the commissioner threatened to move Cubs playoff games to Comiskey Park). They could turn a tidy profit simply by existing and occasionally throwing a little money at the on-field product, but they were completely uninterested in taking the steps necessary on the business side to make the kind of big money necessary to sustain a really successful ballclub. And, yes, the “60’s world” environment that created around the team was fun, and I will miss it, but I’d also argue that a franchise stuck in the 60’s cant contend for a World Series title in 2016.

Jason B
Member
Jason B
4 months 14 days ago

Agreed with mj, it seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. The video boards don’t change the viewing experience much, if at all, unless you were trying to watch from the rooftops that now have obstructed views.

Or, to put it another way, you can put whatever signage you want in my stadium if you turn my team from a perennial laughingstock into a legit World Series contender.

cornflake5000
Member
cornflake5000
4 months 14 days ago

I’m a season ticket holder. I love the new video boards. I love what they’re doing to the park. The park doesn’t feel that much different. I just turned 40. I’ve been watching this team my entire life. They’ve made the playoffs, but it has always felt like a one time occasion. I have no idea if they will win the WS, but this feels like they will actually be good for awhile. And you can see from the ground up how the Ricketts have tried to improve things.

L. Ron Hoyabembe
Member
L. Ron Hoyabembe
4 months 15 days ago

The prices at Fenway for everything are exorbitant.

MustBunique
Member
Member
4 months 14 days ago

I voted for Pretty Bad. Prices are one reason, but the constant shameless selling through NESN is another. Red Sox Nation is a thing? Let’s sell memberships! People like different colored hats? We can do that! The culmination of this movement had to have been the selling of bricks from Fenway when renevations were done in the last couple of years.

All of that, and there seems to be no real understanding of baseball from the front office. Perhaps this is not unique to the Red Sox and it could be a little unfair to expect ownership to have intimate knowledge of the game. The Red Sox as a business is prosperous and that is their main responsibility. However, this ownership group is no longer new. Is it too much to hope that they would gain as much knowledge of their industry as possible so that they can make informed decisions? They should have had some knowledge that Bobby Valentine was not a good, but in fact a bad hire for manager(and comically so). Not retaining Francona was not popular, but could have been justified by a well thought out replacement. To have a one-and-done and then do whatever it took to bring back a piece of the Francona coaching tree did not inspire confidence or suggest any clear ownership vision.

The ability to rebuild in a single year is truly a blessing and curse for this ownership group, as they are quick to go to that option whenever their own personnel decisions become unpopular. They do not stand by their own decisions and seem to falter quickly under public scrutiny, which there is no shortage of in Boston. The celebrity over substance hires are a conspicuously troubling trend. I fear that the Dombrowski hire will be a blind squirrel finding a nut, and that they will react with the same scorched earth strategy that they have in the past when things don’t go well for a season or two. There will certainly be a time that they can prove me wrong. As for the blessing, well it is nice that they can go worst to first. There is a price for that, though.

The culture of being a Red Sox fan is a shell of what it once was, propped up by constant blaring music, pink hats, and some old, very expensive bricks.

Atreyu Jones
Member
Atreyu Jones
4 months 14 days ago

I am a Sox fan, and I have encountered your viewpoint in pockets of the fanbase. It never ceases to baffle me. You care about them selling bricks? That’s what you care about as a fan? Bricks? And you care about marketing things like Red Sox Nation and multi-colored caps? It’s really hard for me to fathom your priorities as a fan.

Bricks? Really?

I can’t speak for you, but a lot of other people who share that viewpoint are the type of sports fan that follows a team chiefly as a source of something for them to complain about. While the team had an excellent run of winning combined with high payrolls and the re-furbishing of Fenway Park, these types really had to grasp at straws for something to get mad about and tried to make a big deal about such non-issues as different colored caps (as if everything single team in the league doesn’t sell caps of different colors).

MustBunique
Member
Member
4 months 14 days ago

Yes. I care about bricks. Especially having to hear about them and other over the top promotions every commercial break. I am glad that your enjoyment is not diminished by these things. Mine is.

What about the other things I wrote about?

Atreyu Jones
Member
Atreyu Jones
4 months 14 days ago

What do you think other ownerships around the league play during commercial breaks? Mozart?

As for the other things you wrote, I agree that the ownership doesn’t have the best understanding of baseball. I don’t care, because they usually hire guys to run the team who do have a good understanding. That’s how sports ownership works. In general, they have hired good people, spent a lot of money on talent, and won a lot of baseball games. Those things sound simple, but there are 25 or more other teams who have been worse at it than the Sox ownership over the past 15 years.

I think you have a point about a sometime lack of clear ownership vision, but I think, as a problem, it’s way overblown. Again, we should compare to other teams, and over the past 15 years they have had more continuity and the team usually going in a clearer direction than the vast majority of other teams. Their plan has generally been to supplement their player development with spending on high payrolls. At times they have been herky-jerky about it, and they have changed sub-philosophies within that, but overall it has been successful. I’ll take that every single time over a team with less success but stubborn consistency in their planning.

MustBunique
Member
Member
4 months 14 days ago

Yeah, commercial breaks was a poor way to describe what I was thinking of. You are right. Between pitches is more what I meant. It gets old, fast.

Perhaps we looked at this excercise differently. I did not compare to other teams. I looked at what Jeff asked us to do and I interpreted it as asking us to evaluate a team’s ownership for what it is. Not relative to other teams. I think it is important to evaluate a group for their own actions and decisions. If you interpreted it as a relative exercise, great. I think relative to other teams I would agree with you, that they are pretty good.

I enjoy watching all teams, and baseball in general. Watching the Sox win or lose is great entertainment. Just not as much fun as it used to be, for me.

Atreyu Jones
Member
Atreyu Jones
4 months 14 days ago

Well, I agree that the NESN broadcasts have gone downhill and are over-stuffed with fluff. Hopefully, the broadcaster change indicates a willingness to also improve the overall broadcasts.

rolliesmustache
Member
rolliesmustache
4 months 15 days ago

Perhaps some Jays fans don’t realize that player salaries are paid out in US dollars while much of the team’s revenue is generated in Canadian dollars? That represents many millions that are lost from the poor exchange rate.

Their reported payroll for 2016 was $145M I believe. To put that in perspective, $145M USD is $206M CAD.

output gap
Member
Member
output gap
4 months 15 days ago

1) Currency translation works in both directions. When the CAD/USD was soaring because of high oil prices, the Jays were at a competitive advantage. Now it’s reversed.
2) Their share of national TV money is paid in USD, hedging some of their operational risk.
3) Currency risk can be quantified and therefore, managed around. Baseball teams need not be investment banks to participate in hedging strategies.

Eric B
Member
Eric B
4 months 15 days ago

Just to expand on your third point: Rogers absolutely hedges against currency fluctuations, although not enough to completely offset the plunging Canadian dollar in 2015.

I have a friend who used to work in the finance department at Rogers and he used to joke that there would be riots in the street if the public found out how much the Jays are actually worth on a yearly basis.

Matt
Member
Matt
4 months 15 days ago

I definitely understand the currency issues, but the main reasons why most people in Toronto are anti-Rogers are the following:

1. They’re a media conglomerate, and everyone hate those type of people
2. Most people use Rogers for cable or internet, and everyone hates their cable company
3. Toronto is I believe the 4th biggest city in NA, but we’re not a big tier city in terms of payroll
4. The Jays also have the largest TV audience of any team. The team averaged 880k viewers per game last season. That was 600k the year before when the team wasn’t a huge playoff threat either. For reference, the Yankees drew about 300k last year.
5. Because of those TV viewers, and that the team is owned by the cable company, they essentially just pocket that TV revenue. If they sold off those TV rights like recent Dodgers, Diamondback, etc.. deals, they could easily net 200M+ per year for those TV rights, which should let them increase payroll.
6. Currently, the team went through an incredible post-season run, rejuvenated the fans, and people are still talking about the Jays in the off-season. But they also replaced the beloved GM for what seems like no good reason, and are not raising the payroll. I know they cry foul about the exchange rate, but the team would be so much better if they only had, say, 15-20M more to play with. Imagine the team but instead of signing Happ, they re-signed Price.

So yeah, that’s why we hate the ownership group :) Essentially they’re like, “Oh, awesome, you sold out every game the second half of the season. Thanks a lot. Now, we all love this team. I promise that if we look like a good team again next year, we’ll seriously think about letting the team spend a little bit more money in July. Maybe. No promises though.”

Shirtless George Brett
Member
Shirtless George Brett
4 months 14 days ago

7) Toronto sports fans are just the worst.

TrueNorth
Member
TrueNorth
4 months 14 days ago

Excellent post Matt. The thing I don’t get is why doesn’t Rogers, a corporation that makes over 5 billion/year in adjusted profit, use the Jay’s to buy some corporate good will?

Run a $180 million payroll, try to win – and even if you don’t your customers would appreciate the attempt, you’d think the millions made from cell phone plan renewals alone, would cover any potential small losses from the team and they’d be seen as a good corporate citizen.

Unfortunately the team is controlled by a family trust , who are lacking in any ambition, quite unlike the entrepreneurial father that built the company and look at Rogers as a ” cash cow for plunder”.

AJS
Member
AJS
4 months 14 days ago

Problem is, shareholders don’t give a shit about any of that. They just want to see profits, and considering the decline in some of Rogers’ core businesses, it doesn’t seem likely they’ll loosen the belt.

This is why people love an owner like Illitch, who doesn’t have to answer to anyone and can just spend his own money to field a winning team.

jsmit244
Member
jsmit244
4 months 15 days ago

Ya but Rogers communications made nrt revenue of 1.7 billion last year, wouldn’t kill them to spend a little on the Jays. Also that’s what happens when you can’t come to terms with a well liked hometown GM who ends a 20 year playoff drought.

Joser
Member
Joser
4 months 14 days ago

The Blue Jays also were at a significant exchange rate disadvantage in the late 80s and early 90s, and all they did then was build a team that won back-to-back World Series titles. It’s not just about money.

Baron Samedi
Member
Baron Samedi
4 months 15 days ago

Canada’s Pastime: Baseball, and bitching about Rogers.

Eric B
Member
Eric B
4 months 15 days ago

Don’t forget Bell

Jason B
Member
Jason B
4 months 14 days ago

He did have a pretty awesome 1987 season.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC
4 months 15 days ago

The Rays results are probably the most boring line on a graph in Fangraphs’ history.

jsalin
Member
jsalin
4 months 15 days ago

Oof. The Padres with the 0% Very Good rating… they aren’t even a distinctive enough brand of awful to bring out the troll votes.

DCE
Member
DCE
4 months 15 days ago

I am surprised that Yankees fans are mostly satisfied with their ownership. The decision by the Steinbrenner kids to get under the luxury tax in 2012 led them to allowing free agents such as Russell Martin, Curtis Granderson and Nick Swisher leave the team. They replaced these players with bargain bin options such as Chris Stewart, Vernon Wells and Ichiro. These replacements predictably were not as good as the players they replaced, and the Yankees put a mediocre team on the field in 2013.

Then, ownership did a backflip and decided to spend big. They never actually achieved their goal of resetting the tax. They dropped a bunch of millions on free agents such as McCann, Tanaka, Ellsbury and Beltran. Now it appears ownership has changed their mind once more, and once again is planning to get under the cap. This has led to the Yankees not participating in one of the most stacked free agent classes in recent memory. I think most Yankees fans would find this frustrating.

jayrobrules
Member
jayrobrules
4 months 15 days ago

The owners are saving up to break the bank in 2018, when Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, Jose Fernandez, Matt Harvey, Dallas Keuchel and Clayton Kershaw (assuming he opts out) are all hitting the market.

Jaack
Member
4 months 15 days ago

I don’t know much about the Phillies ownership, but I willing to bet that Free AEC had at least half of the ‘very bad’ votes there.

Ryan Christensen
Member
Member
Ryan Christensen
4 months 15 days ago

I would like to meet the 3% of voters who said the Mariners ownership is very good. I have a few questions…

Adam S
Member
Member
Adam S
4 months 15 days ago

And the 10% who said good. Are these baseball fans who voted on most/all ownership groups and guessed on many?

As a Mariners season ticket holder for almost 20 years, ownership has worked to the determent of the team. They’ve failed at the three primary tasks we care about — hiring good people (two very bad GMs), getting out of their way, and spending money (this is a big market given TV with a mid-market budget).

Bubba
Member
Member
Bubba
4 months 14 days ago

Why do you keep supporting them by buying season tickets?

francis_soyer
Member
francis_soyer
4 months 15 days ago

They should get together with the 3% who thought the Giants were very bad.

mitchy
Member
mitchy
4 months 15 days ago

Neat numbers!

It makes sense there would be some consensus at the top (Giants, Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers), and the bottom (Marlins) because it’s very obvious when something is really good and really bad.

It’s harder to pinpoint when something is exactly average. Twins fans were the only fanbase that was able to recognize the complete and total averageness of their ownership group (51%). Indians fans came close (49%).

Special shoutout also to Rays fans, who were able to come up with one of the most gentle distributions ever.

fjtorres
Member
fjtorres
4 months 15 days ago

2% of voters think the Indians owners are “very good”?
I didn’t realize there were that many Dolans out there.

Youppi!
Member
Member
Youppi!
4 months 15 days ago

Curious about n votes cast per team.

Adam S
Member
Member
Adam S
4 months 15 days ago

About 15000 votes total or 1% = ~150 votes. Multiple that by the first table for voters per team.

Tasty Pastry
Member
Tasty Pastry
4 months 15 days ago

As a team that rarely has people speak up about it, I’d like to voice some positivity for the brewers results. Yes, the team was bad last year and had some tremendous collapses over the last few years. Yes, some trades sent away key players for other teams to make strong runs, such as Lorenzo Cain. And yes, they’re going to be bad next year. But seriously, if you’re ever bored, check out the brewers teams of the it’s under Selig. They were horrendous. And we celebrate that guy for some reason. While the brew is bad now, at least the majority owner is charismatic and willing to tell it like it is often, even during live broadcasts in the booth. You can tell it pains him to lose. There’s a lot to be said for having an owner who is empathetic and not ignorant of the issues.

cornflake5000
Member
cornflake5000
4 months 12 days ago

I live in IL, but I’ve got family in WI and I’ve heard a lot of good things about Brewers’ ownership as well. I’ve felt from afar that they needed an organizational overhaul, which they did with the front office changes… but there is a lot to like. I hope better times are near for my neighbors to the north…

ashlandateam
Member
ashlandateam
4 months 15 days ago

Literally every decision the Reds front office has made over the last 4-5 years has been somewhere between curious and so awful one wonders if they open every meeting by hitting each other in the skull with a steel chair. They haven’t been good, is what I’m trying to say. This feels like vindication that us Reds fans who have been baffled this whole time aren’t the crazy ones. Thanks Fangraphs!

francis_soyer
Member
francis_soyer
4 months 15 days ago

Most despised owners, yet another title the Wilpons can’t win.

tkn
Member
tkn
4 months 14 days ago

It is interesting (at least to me) that the Giants and Cardinals have bimodal distribution. Perhaps this could be evidence of trolling.

francis_soyer
Member
francis_soyer
4 months 14 days ago

Can anybody from KC explain the Royals numbers ? You would think a team that won a WS and was a swing away from winning 2 WS would be a little higher up on the list.

cornflake5000
Member
cornflake5000
4 months 12 days ago

Clearly it’s not just FanGraphs conspiring against them, the readers are as well.

Curtis Cook
Member
Curtis Cook
4 months 14 days ago

I don’t appreciate the author’s assumption that anyone who has a different opinion must be trolling. I’ve been a Mets fan since 1969, and I was extremely happy with management in 2015.

Their long-term commitment to developing the farm system finally bore fruit.
They grossly overperformed during the actual season, finishing about ten spots above where they were predicted to during the preseason.
When it looked like going out to get an impact player might make a difference at the deadline, they actually brought back four or five, and they spent both propects and money to do so, and they added another (Reed) a month later.
They didn’t panic and trade away Wheeler for a decrepit outfielder with a gaudy reputation.
The only mistake they made was in extending Terry Collins for two more seasons.

In short, they did practically everything right. What’s not to like? They didn’t set fire to a pile of money? That’s a GOOD thing, not a knock.

jlongrc
Member
jlongrc
4 months 14 days ago

You could make a good argument for Cubs management being among the best in baseball, but the opinion that their ownership is top tier seems unsubstantiated, if for no other reason than because Ricketts hasn’t been around long enough to do a whole lot. There has also been a decent amount of speculation that ownership doesn’t have the deep pockets they would like folks to believe, though an impending new TV contract will probably fix that.

Brians Sticky Sock
Member
Brians Sticky Sock
4 months 14 days ago

Deep pockets? They spent $800m on the team, $90m on the spring training facility, in the process of spending $500m on park renovations and they ponied up for Lester last year and Heyward this year, not to mention the money spent on international players. They don’t spend money like the Yankees of old or the Dodgers of now, but the family has billions from Ameritrade and they have invested in the team. Other than throwing out blank checks, what more could you ask for?

Michael
Member
Michael
4 months 14 days ago

Well, you could ask for ownership to identify and hire some of the best available front-office talent to run the baseball side of things.

Hey, wait a minute…

gunker
Member
gunker
4 months 8 days ago

I can’t find a single thing strange about putting an onwership with 5 years of 5th place and 1 season with a playoff series victory in a virtual tie with ownership that has 3 World Series rings.

4min33
Member
4min33
4 months 14 days ago

Re: Giants “provide an excellent game-day experience”, I’d say as long as you don’t like baseball. Or have to clean up the joint and have to sue for minimum wage and overtime violations.

wpDiscuz