Best 18 seasons, ever?

[Frisbee Slider]

It is hard to believe the 2023 season was the 18th year led by Principal Owner, Mark Attanasio. I appreciate the polarization of this topic but wanted to recognize that 2006 to present is the Golden Age of Brewers baseball.

From 1970 to 1987, the Brewers went: 1374-1477 (.482 winning percentage)

From 1988 to 2005, the Brewers went: 1323-1525 (.465 winning percentage)

From 2006 to 2023, the Brewers went: 1454-1361 (.517 winning percentage)

Before Attanasio, two playoff appearances. Since Attanasio, seven playoff appearances.

No matter what happens for the remainder of this off-season, 2024 should be an exciting season.

[BrewerFan]

Yeah, it's kinda hard to compare it to the first 18 years as an expansion team to a WS team. Yount, Molly, Coop. That's probably the golden era for many, but Attanasio has kept the Brewers in Milwaukee, the future is bright with regard to the stadium, the players, the farm system.

 

We have the right people leading it and hopefully an Acuna Jr type talent coming up. 

[Brewcrew82]

My entire perspective on Attanasio is something this: We're the literal smallest market in the game. We spent like it during the Selig-Prieb years. We haven't since Attanasio took over ownership in 2005.

Further, we had a losing record and two total postseason appearances in the three and a half decades pre-Attanasio. With Attanasio overseeing things the last eighteen years, we have a winning record and seven postseason appearances, including two LCS appearances where we were a game or two from the WS. 

Overall, I really struggle to understand the hate directed towards Attanasio by a significant portion of the fanbase. If anything, he's gotten better as an owner, by meddling less in baseball operations and deferring to minds like Stearns and Arnold. 

Sure, we haven't won a WS. But only one comparable market team has won one this century. And it took two large market-teams, the Cubs and Red Sox, almost a combined two centuries to win a WS.

If Attanasio were to sell the team like some want, it would more likely than not imo be to someone who returns spending to Selig-Prieb levels or, in the alternative, decides to move the team to a more profitable market. 

Instead, we're getting a bunch of bites at the apple in an era where 80 win teams are routinely making and even winning the WS. If you can find an owner who is 100% committed to keeping the team in MKE and is willing to pull a Seidler over multiple seasons in pursuit of a WS, then I'll be the first to sign up. In the meantime, I'll happily stick with MA. 

[Frisbee Slider]

2 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Yeah, it's kinda hard to compare it to the first 18 years as an expansion team to a WS team.

If you filter out the first ten years as a franchise, the Brewers were a .500 team from 1980 to 1997.

1398-1396 record

[igor67]

I would agree that this has been a fantastic era partly because it's been a fun mix of hold overs and changing cast of characters. If Molitor/ Yount had expanded playoffs though they would have had more playoffs, I don't think quite as many total appearances (counting fairly is a little tricky since the playoffs have expanded over the course of the current era). 

[BrewerFan]

2 minutes ago, Frisbee Slider said:

If you filter out the first ten years as a franchise, the Brewers were a .500 team from 1980 to 1997.

1398-1396 record

I'm talking about the '78-84 teams.

The WS teams...the teams that would have made the playoffs 5 straight years in the current model(even before the last expanded WC team).

6 minutes ago, igor67 said:

I would agree that this has been a fantastic era partly because it's been a fun mix of hold overs and changing cast of characters. If Molitor/ Yount had expanded playoffs though they would have had more playoffs, I don't think quite as many total appearances (counting fairly is a little tricky since the playoffs have expanded over the course of the current era). 

Right. It's kinda hard to argue against Yount, Molitor, Coop, Oglive, Thomas, Fingers, Vook, Sutton, Simmons...just a stacked team.

It's a great era to be a Brewers fan NOW though. That's the larger point...and I completely agree with that. 

Would it'd be nice if Cohen bought the team? Sure...but again, the structure and the organization are all headed in the right direction.

[SF70]

33 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

My entire perspective on Attanasio is something this: We're the literal smallest market in the game. We spent like it during the Selig-Prieb years. We haven't since Attanasio took over ownership in 2005.

Further, we had a losing record and two total playoff appearances in the three and a half decades pre-Attanasio. With Attanasio overseeing things the last eighteen years, we have a winning record and seven playoff appearances, including two LCS appearances where we were a game or two from the WS. 

Overall, I really struggle to understand the hate directed towards Attanasio by a significant portion of the fanbase. If anything, he's gotten better as an owner, by meddling less in baseball operations and deferring to minds like Stearns and Arnold. 

Sure, we haven't won a WS. But only one comparable market team has won one this century. And it took two large market-teams, the Cubs and Red Sox, almost a combined two centuries to win a WS.

If Attanasio were to sell the team like some want, it would more likely than not imo be to someone who returns spending to Selig-Prieb levels or, in the alternative, decides to move the team to a more profitable market. 

Instead, we're getting a bunch of bites at the apple in an era where 80 win teams are routinely making and even winning the WS. If you can find an owner who is 100% committed to keeping the team in MKE and is willing to pull a Seidler over multiple seasons in pursuit of a WS, then I'll be the first to sign up. In the meantime, I'll happily stick with MA. 

Bud Selig spent above his means most years as an owner from ‘78-‘84, most years during that period he had a top 5-10 payroll team. Even in the mid to late 80’s up to 1992 his payrolls were mostly near the top half of teams.

Things changed in ‘93, when it became apparent the team needed a new stadium to be able to compete financially with the mid and large market teams.

Wendy’s team was the issue payroll-wise while Bud was running baseball as interim-comish trying to get revenue-sharing and new stadiums built around the game including Miller Park.

Attanasio has been a good owner during his 18 years with his best attribute being his ability to hire the right people to run his team.

[Soupbone]

Igor has it right. Different system for the playoffs.

 

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, SF70 said:

Bud Selig spent above his means most years as an owner from ‘78-‘84, most years during that period he had a top 5-10 payroll team. Even in the mid to late 80’s up to 1992 his payrolls were mostly near the top half of teams.

Things changed in ‘93, when it became apparent the team needed a new stadium to be able to compete financially with the mid and large market teams.

Wendy’s team was the issue payroll-wise while Bud was running baseball as interim-comish trying to get revenue-sharing and new stadiums built around the game including Miller Park.

Attanasio has been a good owner during his 18 years with his best attribute being his ability to hire the right people to run his team.

I believe we had the highest payroll in MLB one year. Yount was made the highest-paid player as well...IIRC.

[SF70]

8 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I believe we had the highest payroll in MLB one year. Yount was made the highest-paid player as well...IIRC.

Yes, Yount signed a 3 year, $9.6M contract in 1989 making him the highest paid player in baseball.

Going off of memory, but the highest the team ever got was #5 in team payroll in 1982. 

5-10 for the years ‘78-‘83. 

Bud Selig was a great owner. 

[Frisbee Slider]

14 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Bud Selig was a great owner. 

Fair.

At the same time, the Attanasio Brewers have outperformed the Selig Brewers when you compare the two tenures.

[nate82]

4 hours ago, SF70 said:

Yes, Yount signed a 3 year, $9.6M contract in 1989 making him the highest paid player in baseball.

That same contract today would be about $8mm a season.  So 3 years $24mm is what it would cost you for that contract today.  There is no way you are getting someone like Yount for that.  Actual contract is probably closer to 3 years $48mm taking his age into consideration in 1989.  So you need to double the amount given out to those players after taking inflation into consideration.

Even Reggie Jackson in 1976 would only cost about $4mm today per season. Definitely not signing anyone like Reggie for about $4mm today.  If Reggie were a FA now he would be getting something closer to $20-$25mm a season.  You are looking at about a 900% increase in FA cost from the 70’s-90’s.  It is not until about 2000 where FA deals start to normalize and there isn’t as wide of a gap between the top players and now.  That is only about a 20-year gap now.

[TURBO]

Can't compare playoff appearances due to complete change in format.

[Frisbee Slider]

Regular season winning percentage can be compared.

[BrewerFan]

10 hours ago, SF70 said:

Yes, Yount signed a 3 year, $9.6M contract in 1989 making him the highest paid player in baseball.

Going off of memory, but the highest the team ever got was #5 in team payroll in 1982. 

5-10 for the years ‘78-‘83. 

Bud Selig was a great owner. 

I remember once seeing the Brewers payroll atop the league at ~19M a year(something like that). But they're inexact and that was years ago and probably inaccurate. 

BUT, to the larger point, Selig was a great owner, but he was more than that. There are no Milwaukee Brewers without Bud, the financial landscape is even more imbalanced without Selig as the Commissioner. 

He did an awful lot for the city of Milwaukee. 

 

8 hours ago, nate82 said:

That same contract today would be about $8mm a season.

Based on what? Normal inflation numbers, WAR per season from that period?

Because MLB's total revenue was under 600M in 1990 and just under 11B in 2023. 

[nate82]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

Based on what? Normal inflation numbers, WAR per season from that period?

If you read my full post and didn't stop at the first part it is fairly obvious I am talking about today's dollars compared to 1989. 

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

If you read my full post and didn't stop at the first part it is fairly obvious I am talking about today's dollars compared to 1989. 

 Player income is always tied to the revenue generated by the league(at least in the modern era). The dollar value from 1990 to 2023 does not compare salaries from today to 1990. 

If you were talking about a Principal, a skilled laborer, or virtually any other industry, it'd make sense. Not professional sports though.

So I don't really understand why you'd use that standard for inflation. It's not really relevant. 

[nate82]

5 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

 Player income is always tied to the revenue generated by the league(at least in the modern era). The dollar value from 1990 to 2023 does not compare salaries from today to 1990. 

If you were talking about a Principal, a skilled laborer, or virtually any other industry, it'd make sense. Not professional sports though.

So I don't really understand why you'd use that standard for inflation. It's not really relevant. 

Tell me you know nothing about economics without saying you know nothing about economics.

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, nate82 said:

Tell me you know nothing about economics without saying you know nothing about economics.

NO, you're absolutely right. Player salaries have NEEEEVER been tied to the income a sport generates and professional sprots are not an outlier in economics at ALL!

 

I am definitely the one who...-insert lazy 'tell me you know nothing without telling me- line here...🤣

[nate82]

14 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

NO, you're absolutely right. Player salaries have NEEEEVER been tied to the income a sport generates and professional sprots are not an outlier in economics at ALL!

Salaries are not tied to income as income is everything after expenses.  If you mean revenue then also no.  It is not until you get to budgeting where salaries are determined.  This is the bottom line that a company wants to make.  It then allocates the expense amount compared to the income the company wants to make.  Income doesn’t drive salaries as that is already included in the income stage.

If you want to compare the percentage the players get based on revenue sure that maybe an outlier but CEO’s and other executive types also fall under this.  So not really an outlier.  As sales people also receive a higher percentage when compared to revenue.

Sports are also not an outlier in economics as they follow the same economic rules as any other entertainment industry does.  Not an outlier unless you can find an economics paper saying otherwise.  

[BrewerFan]

5 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Salaries are not tied to income as income is everything after expenses.  If you mean revenue then also no.

I meant what I said. I first used total revenue and then said the income a sport generates.

And salaries are tied to that in professional sports. I'm really not even sure how that's in question.

That MLB has fallen behind the other sports and is "only" at ~44% while the other sports have a set number that's closer to 49% has been a point of contention with the union fighting for a floor, but it absolutely is tied to it total revenue. Very specifically tailored to be tied to revenue generated. 

9 minutes ago, nate82 said:

Sports are also not an outlier in economics as they follow the same economic rules as any other entertainment industry does.

The entertainment sector? Ok, so they're not an outlier when compared to the entertainment sector, but you're still using overall inflation?

I don't know(or believe) that's true with regard to the entertainment sector...but more importantly, I don't care. This was about sports as compared to general inflation.