Other entries in the series:

Competitive Balancing Act I—The King James Version: An Overview of the Literature, Scenes I, II, III, and IV
Competitive Balancing Act II—This Is Pop: Redefining Large- and Small-Market by Population, Scenes I, II, and III
Competitive Balancing Act III—C'mon Freddy, Everyone into the Poo-el: Reviewing the Available Player Pool
Competitive Balancing Act IV—Natural Resources: Attendance and Competitive Balance

Next in my ongoing study on competitive balance in baseball, I would like to look at "quartiles", i.e., the performance of teams divided into four relatively equally sized groups based on highest to lowest revenue. Since I prefer to base the analysis on population given that revenue statistics are based largely on self-reports and are dependent to a large degree on the abilities of the team's ownership team. Population is the community's sole resource that is independent of the team itself.

Much was made of quartiles in the Blue Ribbon Panel report. The lack of playoff wins by teams in quartile three and four between the two CBAs, when the Yankee dynasty was at its strongest, was much reported by MLB shills like George Will. I thought that a thorough investigation of quartiles throughout baseball history would shed some light on their analysis.

I split up the major league teams per year into four groups whose number was determined by the total number of teams divided by four. I ordered the teams by the metropolitan area of their representative cities. Quartile 1 contains the teams from the largest metro areas and quartile 4, the smallest. If a team shared a metro area with another team or teams, they each got a share of the population. When the number of teams was not divisible by four or a multi-team city had to be split between two quartiles, I tried to arrange the groups the best that I could.

Anyway, here are the winning percentages by quartile per decade, with the ratio for each quartile relative to the smallest (quartile 4):

Well, from that it looks like Quartile 1 has been doing worse than its historical average since free agency. Also, though the Blue Ribbon Panel claimed that Quartile 1 and 2 were kicking 3 and 4's hinder, Quartile 3 has passed Quartile 1 and 2 over the past three decades. The one cause for concern is the decrease in Quartile 4 winning percentage over the same period. However, we should keep in mind that until the 2000s, it was still above the average and given that we have a relatively small sample for this decade, it might change by the decade's end.

So I see no real cause for concern. Teams from the largest cities tend to do very well recently and historically. Teams from the smallest tend to do not as well, recently and historically. However, the next group (Quartile 2) tends to do worse than the next to last group (Quartile 3), historically and recently.

But, you say, the Blue Ribbon Panel was looking mainly at the postseason. Well, here's a table by quartile similar to the one above, but based on playoff performance:

So historically and recently, Quartiles 2 through 4 have done about equally as well as each other. Actually, Quartile 4 has done better than Quartile 3 through most of the free agent era. Of course, Quartile 1 beats the rest by a good margin.

OK, winning percentage is one thing, but it is meaningless if Quartile 4 team hardly ever gets to the postseason. Here's a comparison based on the percentage of all postseason games per quartile:

Quartile 4's games have been dwindling. However, Quartile 3 has done better than any other quartile basically throughout the free agent era.

For a point of reference, Here are the 2003 teams by quartile:

- Quartile 1 (7 teams): Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Orioles, Phillies, Red Sox.

- Quartile 2 (8 teams): Rangers, Tigers, Astros, Blue Jays, Cubs, White Sox, Braves, Marlins.

- Quartile 3 (8 teams): Mariners, Giants, A's, Diamondbacks, Expos, Twins, Indians, Padres.

- Quartile 4 (7 teams): Rockies, Cardinals, Devil Rays, Pirates, Reds, Royals, Brewers.

To be continued…