Stan's Speech at 2010 Baseball Winter Meetings
Stan Brand's opening speech--courtesy of MILB
12/06/2010 4:20 PM ET
Minor League Baseball
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. -- As I do each year, I bring news from the Nation's Capital and attempt to interpret events that may impact our industry, and to some extent, predict what the future may portend for us. Political prognostication is an art and can leave the most experienced and astute professional observers bewildered and sometimes just plain wrong -- sort of like picking pennant winners. Nevertheless, I am going to try my hand at it.
Of course, we just had an election -- a momentous one that produced a major power shift in Congress and political repercussions for the next two years leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. What do the results of the 2010 mid-term election mean generally, and then more particularly, what do they mean for baseball?
We all know that baseball is, more than almost any other major sport, numbers driven, and that statistics have played a central role in the long history and public fascination with the game. So, first, let's take a look inside some numbers to see what they may tell us about the current political climate and how we might interpret the election results. I have read the analyses of virtually every political pundit on both sides of the aisle, as we say in Washington, and found one particularly persuasive. Writing in The Wall Street Journal the day before the election, Scott Rasmussen, a Republican pollster, put it this way: "for the third election in a row, voters did the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: they voted against the party in power." Rasmussen posited that the Democrats ignored public concern over an overly ambitious health care plan and paid the price at the polls.
But he also borrowed a metaphor all baseball executives should resonate to, cautioning Republicans that their "team didn't win, the other team lost." Indeed, according to his analysis, the trend culminating in the last three anti-incumbent elections began in 1994, when President Clinton's party lost control of the Congress in the mid-term election of 1994. The trend continued when President Bush lost control of Congress in the 2006 mid-term. The conclusion he drew from these anti-incumbent results won't come as a surprise: "...elected politicians should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves."
A deeper look inside the numbers seems to support his admonition to both sides not to over read election results. In 2008, slightly more than 53 percent of voters cast ballots for Democratic candidates in the House of Representatives. In 2010, a little bit less than 53 percent opted for Republican candidates in the House. Despite this almost identical margin of victory for the winning party in 2008 and 2010, the numbers yielded an almost 80-seat shift to the Republicans in the House -- the worst beating taken by the Democrats since 1938. And here's another numerical analysis that reflects the increasing volatility of the electorate: in 1994, the Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 40 consecutive years and 46 of the previous 48 years.
The Republicans maintained control of the House for the next 12 years, until 2006, when the Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. Of course, this year, the Republicans cut short the Democratic run of control to a mere four years. Based on these numbers, and using a bit of Bill James baseball-like statistical hypothesizing, the House of Representatives could be expected to switch back in 2012 -- although no one is realistically predicting that.
The point is that the electorate is not sold on either party, and so we are likely to witness increased volatility for the next several cycles. This signals again the decreasing importance of party affiliation and the determination of elections by the vast and growing legion of independent voters not registered in either party. In Massachusetts, for example, the number of independents now exceeds the combined total of voters registered as Democrats and Republicans. That's how Scott Brown, a Republican, was elected in Massachusetts to the Senate to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Kennedy. While the political parties keep reading their victories as ringing endorsements of their agendas, it may be, as Rasmussen suggests, a false reading, since the vast number of independent have repudiated each party in power in the last three cycles.
In addition to the numbers, the "narratives," as the political professionals like to label the underlying rationalization for the electorate's political attitudes, seem to me unsupportable when we dig beneath their surface appeal. These narratives -- sometimes formulated by the parties themselves -- tend to be self-serving rationalizations reflecting the agendas of party insiders.
Let me give you an example: a large portion of the Democrat establishment, and some major media, are promoting the notion that a surge of so-called independent campaign spending by corporations and allied business groups swamped the electorate and drowned incumbent candidates in a sea of negative ads, all facilitated by the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, which struck down, on First Amendment grounds, spending limits imposed on independent groups. In my view, the notion that money determined the outcome simply can't be demonstrated. First, while independent expenditures certainly soared, especially by corporate related interests, more money was spent by candidates themselves.
Indeed, one of the myths often propagated by those arguing that money skews elections is the proliferation of self-funded candidates and the supposed advantage they enjoy by using their personal wealth. Here's a statistic that puts a big hole in the theory that money steers elections. OpenSecrets.org, a political investigative blog, reported that of 58 federal-level candidates who contributed half a million dollars or more to their own campaigns, 11 won election to federal office. Well, if you do the math, the percentage of successful self-funded candidates, if translated into a batting average, would be below the storied Mendoza line in baseball. Of three candidates who spent a combined $250,000 million dollars, two lost by large margins to less well-funded candidates.
The election spawned other myths as well: one is that the Democratic party lost because its "messaging" did not effectively convey to the electorate the accomplishments it had achieved over the last two years. But as the business writer for The Washington Post, Steve Perlstein, cogently argued right after the election, there was no positive message to assuage an electorate experiencing 10 percent unemployment. It would not have been a winning argument to say that without some of the measures taken under the Democratic control, it would have been even higher. As James Carville famously stated in 1992, "It's the economy stupid," and so it was again in 2010.
In sum then, the numbers reflect a consistent pattern over the last three elections: a wary and divided electorate, not persuaded on the agendas of either political party, with the future control of government up for grabs. In 2008, at the Winter Meetings in Las Vegas, which were held on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, I discussed with you how the Minor Leagues contracted from 27 leagues to 18 leagues in the two years following the stock market crash of 1929, only to recover and grow to 37 leagues by 1937, owing to innovations like night baseball and playoffs advanced by Minor League president, William Bramham.
The point is that economic and political upheaval is not new to the Minors, nor is it something we should be unduly fearful of. We have endured through difficult times because our values and business models have served us well and provided an enduring foundation for our survival.
So, what does all this mean for baseball, which is after all, why we are all gathered here in Orlando? It certainly means that navigating the political shoals for us isn't likely to be any easier than it has been in the past. In 2010, there will be more elected officials taking the oath of office who have never before served in public office than at any time in our history. That statistic has sent chills down the spines of many in the Washington lobbying community, as they contemplate explaining their problems to legislators with no previous political or government experience.
But while these newly minted members have never set foot inside a legislative chamber or city council office, I'd venture a guess that most, it not all of them, have been to a ballpark. And while they may not yet know the jurisdiction of the committees they are being assigned to, or the details of the federal budget, surely they have a sense of the important role played by Minor League clubs in the life of their communities. They may have never attended a joint session of Congress or a White House briefing but they certainly have seen the positive impact of Minor League clubs on their constituents. So, we will have more new faces to meet and explain our business to, but it's unlikely that we will encounter people who do not appreciate the role that grassroots baseball has played in the fabric of American life.
While we have enjoyed a long period of stability and relative peace in baseball, two other major sports -- basketball and football -- face difficult labor management negotiations in the coming year, with the threat of work stoppages looming overhead. The saber rattling has begun with talk of union decertification -- usually a prelude to litigation -- and the hiring of lobbyists to seek congressional intervention in the dispute. It is some comfort that we are on the sidelines for once in this type of political free-for-all, although we must remain vigilant that any congressional action doesn't inadvertently spill over on us. We wish our brethren in other sports well, but we will be ready to protect our interest should that prove necessary. Link
12/06/2010 4:20 PM ET
Minor League Baseball
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. -- As I do each year, I bring news from the Nation's Capital and attempt to interpret events that may impact our industry, and to some extent, predict what the future may portend for us. Political prognostication is an art and can leave the most experienced and astute professional observers bewildered and sometimes just plain wrong -- sort of like picking pennant winners. Nevertheless, I am going to try my hand at it.
Of course, we just had an election -- a momentous one that produced a major power shift in Congress and political repercussions for the next two years leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. What do the results of the 2010 mid-term election mean generally, and then more particularly, what do they mean for baseball?
We all know that baseball is, more than almost any other major sport, numbers driven, and that statistics have played a central role in the long history and public fascination with the game. So, first, let's take a look inside some numbers to see what they may tell us about the current political climate and how we might interpret the election results. I have read the analyses of virtually every political pundit on both sides of the aisle, as we say in Washington, and found one particularly persuasive. Writing in The Wall Street Journal the day before the election, Scott Rasmussen, a Republican pollster, put it this way: "for the third election in a row, voters did the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: they voted against the party in power." Rasmussen posited that the Democrats ignored public concern over an overly ambitious health care plan and paid the price at the polls.
But he also borrowed a metaphor all baseball executives should resonate to, cautioning Republicans that their "team didn't win, the other team lost." Indeed, according to his analysis, the trend culminating in the last three anti-incumbent elections began in 1994, when President Clinton's party lost control of the Congress in the mid-term election of 1994. The trend continued when President Bush lost control of Congress in the 2006 mid-term. The conclusion he drew from these anti-incumbent results won't come as a surprise: "...elected politicians should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves."
A deeper look inside the numbers seems to support his admonition to both sides not to over read election results. In 2008, slightly more than 53 percent of voters cast ballots for Democratic candidates in the House of Representatives. In 2010, a little bit less than 53 percent opted for Republican candidates in the House. Despite this almost identical margin of victory for the winning party in 2008 and 2010, the numbers yielded an almost 80-seat shift to the Republicans in the House -- the worst beating taken by the Democrats since 1938. And here's another numerical analysis that reflects the increasing volatility of the electorate: in 1994, the Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 40 consecutive years and 46 of the previous 48 years.
The Republicans maintained control of the House for the next 12 years, until 2006, when the Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. Of course, this year, the Republicans cut short the Democratic run of control to a mere four years. Based on these numbers, and using a bit of Bill James baseball-like statistical hypothesizing, the House of Representatives could be expected to switch back in 2012 -- although no one is realistically predicting that.
The point is that the electorate is not sold on either party, and so we are likely to witness increased volatility for the next several cycles. This signals again the decreasing importance of party affiliation and the determination of elections by the vast and growing legion of independent voters not registered in either party. In Massachusetts, for example, the number of independents now exceeds the combined total of voters registered as Democrats and Republicans. That's how Scott Brown, a Republican, was elected in Massachusetts to the Senate to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Sen. Kennedy. While the political parties keep reading their victories as ringing endorsements of their agendas, it may be, as Rasmussen suggests, a false reading, since the vast number of independent have repudiated each party in power in the last three cycles.
In addition to the numbers, the "narratives," as the political professionals like to label the underlying rationalization for the electorate's political attitudes, seem to me unsupportable when we dig beneath their surface appeal. These narratives -- sometimes formulated by the parties themselves -- tend to be self-serving rationalizations reflecting the agendas of party insiders.
Let me give you an example: a large portion of the Democrat establishment, and some major media, are promoting the notion that a surge of so-called independent campaign spending by corporations and allied business groups swamped the electorate and drowned incumbent candidates in a sea of negative ads, all facilitated by the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, which struck down, on First Amendment grounds, spending limits imposed on independent groups. In my view, the notion that money determined the outcome simply can't be demonstrated. First, while independent expenditures certainly soared, especially by corporate related interests, more money was spent by candidates themselves.
Indeed, one of the myths often propagated by those arguing that money skews elections is the proliferation of self-funded candidates and the supposed advantage they enjoy by using their personal wealth. Here's a statistic that puts a big hole in the theory that money steers elections. OpenSecrets.org, a political investigative blog, reported that of 58 federal-level candidates who contributed half a million dollars or more to their own campaigns, 11 won election to federal office. Well, if you do the math, the percentage of successful self-funded candidates, if translated into a batting average, would be below the storied Mendoza line in baseball. Of three candidates who spent a combined $250,000 million dollars, two lost by large margins to less well-funded candidates.
The election spawned other myths as well: one is that the Democratic party lost because its "messaging" did not effectively convey to the electorate the accomplishments it had achieved over the last two years. But as the business writer for The Washington Post, Steve Perlstein, cogently argued right after the election, there was no positive message to assuage an electorate experiencing 10 percent unemployment. It would not have been a winning argument to say that without some of the measures taken under the Democratic control, it would have been even higher. As James Carville famously stated in 1992, "It's the economy stupid," and so it was again in 2010.
In sum then, the numbers reflect a consistent pattern over the last three elections: a wary and divided electorate, not persuaded on the agendas of either political party, with the future control of government up for grabs. In 2008, at the Winter Meetings in Las Vegas, which were held on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, I discussed with you how the Minor Leagues contracted from 27 leagues to 18 leagues in the two years following the stock market crash of 1929, only to recover and grow to 37 leagues by 1937, owing to innovations like night baseball and playoffs advanced by Minor League president, William Bramham.
The point is that economic and political upheaval is not new to the Minors, nor is it something we should be unduly fearful of. We have endured through difficult times because our values and business models have served us well and provided an enduring foundation for our survival.
So, what does all this mean for baseball, which is after all, why we are all gathered here in Orlando? It certainly means that navigating the political shoals for us isn't likely to be any easier than it has been in the past. In 2010, there will be more elected officials taking the oath of office who have never before served in public office than at any time in our history. That statistic has sent chills down the spines of many in the Washington lobbying community, as they contemplate explaining their problems to legislators with no previous political or government experience.
But while these newly minted members have never set foot inside a legislative chamber or city council office, I'd venture a guess that most, it not all of them, have been to a ballpark. And while they may not yet know the jurisdiction of the committees they are being assigned to, or the details of the federal budget, surely they have a sense of the important role played by Minor League clubs in the life of their communities. They may have never attended a joint session of Congress or a White House briefing but they certainly have seen the positive impact of Minor League clubs on their constituents. So, we will have more new faces to meet and explain our business to, but it's unlikely that we will encounter people who do not appreciate the role that grassroots baseball has played in the fabric of American life.
While we have enjoyed a long period of stability and relative peace in baseball, two other major sports -- basketball and football -- face difficult labor management negotiations in the coming year, with the threat of work stoppages looming overhead. The saber rattling has begun with talk of union decertification -- usually a prelude to litigation -- and the hiring of lobbyists to seek congressional intervention in the dispute. It is some comfort that we are on the sidelines for once in this type of political free-for-all, although we must remain vigilant that any congressional action doesn't inadvertently spill over on us. We wish our brethren in other sports well, but we will be ready to protect our interest should that prove necessary. Link
