Major league debate.(Letter to the Editor)

Few would quibble with the notion that one who relies on factual inaccuracies while writing about an industry that he does not understand is unlikely to produce sound analysis. Tim Marchman's recent article "Against Baseball Socialism" (Nov. 10) confirms this truism.

Mr. Marchman begins his analysis with data that are just flat wrong. For example, he asserts that the Anaheim Angels receive $13 million in revenue sharing. In fact, the club receives less than one-sixth of that amount. Moreover, without explanation, Marchman asserts that "player-development paths are more predictable than has been generally thought" and that clubs "can determine which young players are most likely to develop into stars." In reality, less than 28 percent of the players drafted in the first five rounds each year achieve one day of Major League service and less than 10 percent achieve three years of Major League service. Such statistics suggest that Mr. Marchman's assertions concerning predictability are not well founded.

Mr. Marchman also makes statements that are simply nonsensical. He claims that the Marlins success this year had nothing to do with revenue sharing but instead was due to "unexpectedly good pitching," a breakout season for Mike Lowell, and the signing of catcher Ivan Rodriguez. Surely it must have occurred to Mr. Marchman that without $23 million in revenue sharing it would have been impossible for the Marlins to retain Mike Lowell and to sign Ivan Rodriguez. Mr. Marchman also asserts that "a competitive-balance tax that no one pays" is of questionable utility. In reality, a tax that no one pays has, by definition, restricted high-spending clubs and reduced payroll disparity--which all economists agree should improve competition.

We appreciate NATIONAL REVIEW's interest in the national pastime. We can only hope that the ...