Should a team lose their way to the top of the draft?

I read an interesting article about losing in order to get the first overall pick in the draft on Jorge Says No!, and it got me thinking.

There is a certain amount of twisted calculation that goes into a team's thought process towards the end of the year. Teams such as the Pirates and Nationals(to stick with a baseball analogy), are typically out of the playoff race at this point, and have to decide whether to keep playing and attempt to keep the support of the fans, or lose games and try to get a higher draft pick. Ultimately, people make the assumption that getting the number one draft pick will help the team, whereas winning games will hurt(relative to losing). Is this the case? Does losing games and ultimately gaining a high draft choice help a team?

To analyze this, I will look at teams that receive the #1 overall pick, and their average records over the 5 years, following a 2 year gap(for example, for a pick made following in 1998 season, I would look at the record from 2001-2006). This is because it typically takes 3 or more years to call up first overall picks. I will look at the time frame from 1994-1998.

1994 California Angels



In 1995, the then-California Angels picked Darin Erstad, a college baseball star who was also a starting punter. Over the following 5 years, the Angels had a .489 record. Although better than their 1994 record of .409, this was not a major step forward for the franchise, as they averaged a middling record. In 1994, their total attendance was 1.5 million a drop of 500,000 from 1993. The figure increased by 250,000 the following year. This shows that a team takes a significant fan support penalty when they lose games in an attempt to gain a high draft pick. For the Angels, at least, it was a gamble that produced moderate, but not spectacular results. They may have been better off with a better record in 1994.

1995 Pittsburgh Pirates



In 1995, the woebegone Pirates finished with a .403 record, earning them the right to take Kris Benson with the #1 overall pick in the 1996 draft. Although not quite a bust, Benson did not live up to expectations(his wife aside). Over the 5 years from 1998-2002, the Pirates averaged a .433 record. Clearly, gaining the first draft pick did not much improve their prospects. Their attendance in 1995 was 905,517, a whopping 25% drop from 1994. Post 1995, attendance would be significantly lower than previous years, despite the growing numbers of baseball fans. The total attendance figures for 1991 have only been surpassed once in the years since. The losing season in 1995 clearly eroded fan support, and lowered ticket sales long-term.

1996 Detroit Tigers

In 1996, the Tigers finished with a 53-109 record(.327), one of the worst seasons in franchise history. They took Matt Anderson with the first overall pick in the 1997 draft. Their attendance did not drop significantly from the previous season, and increased 2.3 times in the 5 years from 1999-2003. Unfortunately, their winning percentage over this period was .386. Although it was better than .327, the Tigers were still a league basement dweller, and did not become appreciably better.

1997 Philadelphia Phillies


The Phillies finished with a .420 record, and were awarded the right to draft Pat Burrell, who would go on to become a solid player. From 2000-2004, they would average a .498 record, a significant improvement which unfortunately still left them with a middling record. Although the move seems to have made an impact on the franchise, especially coupled with their other picks and moves, it was not a franchise-altering one. Their attendance dropped significantly, as 300,000 fewer people attended games in 1997 compared to 1996. Their attendance would bounce back slightly the next year, with 200,000 more attendees, and would on average increase 1.4 times in the period from 2000-2004. Overall, they did not gain much by having the first overall draft pick, and lost significant amounts of fans; it took until 2003 for attendance to hit 1995 levels.

1998 Tampa Bay Devil Rays


Much like today, Josh Hamilton was prominently featured in the sports media in 1999. He was drafted by the Rays after a .389 finish in the franchise's first year. The Rays, as an expansion franchise are a unique case. Typically, a team performs poorly their first few years. However, fan enthusiasm is usually very high when a team first relocates, but that enthusiasm will usually wane after the first season. The Rays were no exception, and their 1998 attendance is the highest in team history. All 2.5 million fans that attended quickly saw how bad the Rays were, and decided to stay home next year. Their winning percentage from 2001-2005 was .392, basically equal to their 1999 performance. Their attendance dropped off quickly, hitting 1 million in 2002. It is hard to make judgments from this data though, because it of the expansion.

Conclusions

It looks like most teams that are given the first overall draft pick face significant attendance and fan morale penalties as a result, penalties which can carry on for years afterwards. There also is no franchise-altering increase in winning percentage in the years during which the draft pick(or picks) made that year should be contributing. However, although the change is not earth-shattering, some franchises saw moderate increases in winning percentage.

It doesn't look like losing in order to gain the first draft pick is a good strategy. It doesn't increase fan support, and it doesn't really increase winning percentage. Although it could be good if there is a can't-miss, surefire major leaguer, how many scouting reports have been wrong over the years?

[Inspiration from Jorge Says No!]

The Steroid Question

As the steroid debate rages across our professional sports landscape, I find that more and more media coverage is devoted to the subject. Assuming that we are interested in the “scandals” and the drama, sports networks such as ESPN are increasingly airing grand jury testimony and other exposes of various players. I believe the question that is being overlooked, however, is an important one. Namely, does any of it matter?


Steroids have been used for decades in order to boost performance. Nobody can definitively prove when they became widely adopted, just like nobody can prove who used or is using them. Thus, our sports leagues were rife with steroid use during a period of rapid expansion. Baseball revenue has enjoyed double digit growth through the 90's and 2000's, and NFL franchises have enjoyed 5-10% growth rates in the same period. While these are looking at the corporations, the facts are simple: more people are watching baseball and football today, and paying more to do so, than they did before the steroid scandals became public. Arguing that steroids are bad for the sport is a weak argument against these numbers.

Steroids have led to many records being set, and many players enjoyed unprecedented longevity. It is indisputable that steroids can cause harm to a person, and create significant health issues that can shorten someone's life. However, the players that are taking steroids realize this. They take steroids in order to earn more money, set records, and be able to play for a longer period of time. Given that they are adults making a conscious choice, should the leagues regulate steroids? We, as sports viewers, take much pleasure in seeing new records set, and much of this is aided by the steroids that the media vilifies.

The chemists who create steroids are very adaptable, and can quickly synthesize new, undetectable, compounds. Because our detection lags behind those who create the chemicals, we can only catch the people using the steroids that we know about. We cannot find who is using current steroids, unless we save samples and test them down the line, when we discover the compounds of today. Because of this, we can only implicate people after the fact, if at all. This leads to denials, and thorny issues. For example, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz were implicated as steroid users. Does this invalidate the Red Sox championships?(it shouldn't). Should they be stripped of any awards that they have earned since then? Do the Dodgers or Red Sox have the ability to invalidate their contracts? These issues are very subjective, and it would be difficult to resolve the legal and other concerns surrounding them.



This drive to create new steroids to stay ahead of detection also creates many more issues. The steroids that were used in the past were well-studied, and their risks well known. With new, untested, compounds come new risks and issues. Ironically, by testing for steroids and banning them, we could actually be harming the athletes that we are trying to help as they move to new, more damaging, chemicals.

Ultimately, we need a new system to regulate and manage steroid usage. The current system of occasional witch hunts does not work. By slowly revealing the names of players involved, the media networks keep their ratings high, and the issue visible. However, as the issue drags on, the public is becoming weary of the coverage. Congress has gone so far as to hold special hearings in which players lie under oath regarding their steroid use. Does this help anyone? The answer would seem to be no, especially given that very little progress has come out of these hearings. The players that use steroids simply lie and move on to newer chemicals, and the ones that did not continue to not do so.
The current situation benefits the media networks and only the media networks. Sports leagues are dogged by issues, and the public speculates wildly about whether or not their favorite stars are using steroids. Given the issues with the current arrangement, we need a viable solution.

Steroids should be made “legal” in sports, as long as players restrict themselves to safe, well-tested compounds, and reveal what steroids they are taking. As adults, players should be able to make the choice about whether or not they want to pursue the extra few million dollars that steroids can bring, or whether they want to live a healthier, more productive life. Athletes should be given all the information concerning steroids and the relative risks and rewards upfront. This way, athletes can make informed decisions about their own futures, instead of being involved in an outlandish soap opera that benefits no one. Testing should continue, in order to determine whether newer compounds are being used or not.

This system would be beneficial to the fans, because it would allow for records to be broken, and the games to remain viable and exciting. It would also let us know which players are using which steroids, so we would be able to make personal decisions about how valid each player's individual records are. This way, there would be no more speculation about whether a player's record is valid or not, and we would not have to take the media's opinion as gospel; we would be able to create an informed, individual decision.


The system would be beneficial to the athlete because it would screen out the more harmful compounds of today. With no penalties for revealing steroid usage, more players would admit their usage. The court of public opinion would also likely pressure some into discontinuing their steroid use, benefiting their health. The results from any drug test would be released to the public immediately, creating real time opinion shifts.



The system would benefit the sports leagues because there would no longer be a steroid issue. With individual fans able to decide whether or not their favorite players are cheaters or opportunists, the leagues would retain more fans. The leagues would also be able to work closely with players to educate them and be involved in the decision making process of whether or not to use steroids.

As we move forward into a new era of chemicals and genetic tinkering, we need to resolve this issue, and quickly. For example, in the future, if a baby is genetically altered to grow taller than normal, or stronger than normal, should they be allowed to play? Without a defined system for dealing with this, we face potential future bumps in the road, which will only be detrimental to the sports leagues, fans, and players.