Baseball Post-Season and Salary

The A's are hammering the Rangers and seem to be on their way to an improbable come from behind run to win the AL West. According to USAToday, they have the second smallest payroll in baseball.http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

In fact there seems little correlation this year between player salaries and team performance. 5 playoff teams were in the top 9 in salary, but 5 others were in the bottom half of player salary spent. Overall, the average playoff team was 13th in average salary.

whodey's Theorem seems to have had a rough 2012.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The A's are hammering the Rangers and seem to be on their way to an improbable come from behind run to win the AL West. According to USAToday, they have the second smallest payroll in baseball.http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

In fact there seems little correlation this year between player salaries and team per ...[text shortened]... eam was 13th in average salary.

whodey's Theorem seems to have had a rough 2012.

If you look at the list of teams that made the playoffs, 5 of the 10 teams were in the
bottom half of the salary structure, and 5 from the top half. There is actually an
interesting spreads here.

Ranking the playoff teams by salary with 1 being the lowest salary and 30 being the highest,
you produce the following:

2 Oakland
11 Washington
12 Baltimore
14 Cincinnati
15 Atlanta
22 St. Louis
23 San Francisco
25 Texas
26 Detroit
30 NY Yankees

Yes, it does appear that money can't buy you the playoffs.

EDIT

Also notice there is a 65 million dollar gap between the Yankees and the Tigers, while there is only a 77 million dollar gap between the Tigers and the A's.
This produces a median of 126 million dollars that has only the Yankees and Tigers above
the median.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
If you look at the list of teams that made the playoffs, 5 of the 10 teams were in the
bottom half of the salary structure, and 5 from the top half. There is actually an
interesting spreads here.

Ranking the playoff teams by salary with 1 being the lowest salary and 30 being the highest,
you produce the following:

2 Oakland
11 Washington
12 ...[text shortened]... duces a median of 126 million dollars that has only the Yankees and Tigers above
the median.

"That has only the Yankees and Tigers above the median."

This little facet would support whodey's theory.

I don't think anybody can deny that the amount of money spent correlates with the probability of making it to the playoffs. You may not see that when looking at one season but I wonder what the statistics are from the last 25 years? I also wonder what the correlation is between the salary of the coaching staff and the probability of making the playoffs.

Originally posted by tomtom232
"That has only the Yankees and Tigers above the median."

This little facet would support whodey's theory.

I don't think anybody can deny that the amount of money spent correlates with the probability of making it to the playoffs. You may not see that when looking at one season but I wonder what the statistics are from the last 25 years? I also wonder ...[text shortened]... tion is between the salary of the coaching staff and the probability of making the playoffs.

No, whodey's theory said the bulk of the playoff teams would be in the top half of the
top team salaries, and here we have only 2 out of 10 and one of those two was barely
above the median.

This blows whodey's theory out of the water.

He expected Boston, Philadelphia, NY Yankees, LA Angels, LA Dodgers to make it.
Only one did.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
No, whodey's theory said the bulk of the playoff teams would be in the top half of the
top team salaries, and here we have only 2 out of 10 and one of those two was barely
above the median.

This blows whodey's theory out of the water.

He expected Boston, Philadelphia, NY Yankees, LA Angels, LA Dodgers to make it.
Only one did.

One season proves nothing. Look at the last several years and you'll see how the odds improve if you are a high salary team.

There have been threads in the past where i've broken it down by salary and teams making the playoffs.

It's overwhelmingly in support of high salary teams making the playoffs.

Geez!!

No. Team Payroll
1. New York Yankees $197,962,289
2. Philadelphia Phillies $174,538,938
3. Boston Red Sox $173,186,617
4. Los Angeles Angels $154,485,166
5. Detroit Tigers $132,300,000
6. Texas Rangers $120,510,974
7. Miami Marlins $118,078,000
8. San Francisco Giants $117,620,683
9. St. Louis Cardinals $110,300,862
10. Milwaukee Brewers $97,653,944
11. Chicago White Sox $96,919,500
12. Los Angeles Dodgers $95,143,575
13. Minnesota Twins $94,085,000
14. New York Mets $93,353,983
15. Chicago Cubs $88,197,033
16. Atlanta Braves $83,309,942
17. Cincinnati Reds $83,309,942
18. Seattle Mariners $81,978,100
19. Baltimore Orioles $81,428,999
20. Washington Nationals $81,336,143
21. Cleveland Indians $78,430,300
22. Colorado Rockies $78,069,571
23. Toronto Blue Jays $75,489,200
24. Arizona Diamondback$74,284,833
25. Tampa Bay Rays $64,173,500
26. Pittsburgh Pirates $63,431,999
27. Kansas City Royals $60,916,225
28. Houston Astros $60,651,000
29. Oakland Athletics $55,372,500
30. San Diego Padres $55,244,700

Simple math, even one that you guys can understand.

5 of the top 9 salary teams made the playoffs.

In other words, if you are in the top 9 you have better than a 50% chance of getting into the playoffs.

5 of the remaining 21 teams made the playoffs.

In other words if you are not in the top 9, you have less than a 25% chance of making the playoffs.

And if you are in the bottom 10 of salaries, you have a 10% chance of making the playoffs.

I'm always amazed at how people can look at stats and not understand them.

🙄

Originally posted by uzless
Simple math, even one that you guys can understand.

5 of the top 9 salary teams made the playoffs.

[b]In other words, if you are in the top 9 you have better than a 50% chance of getting into the playoffs.

5 of the remaining 21 teams made the playoffs.

[/b]In other words if you are not in the top 9, you have less than a 25% chance of making th ...[text shortened]... e playoffs.

I'm always amazed at how people can look at stats and not understand them.

🙄[/b]

That's nice cherry picking. One can also say that 5 of the top 15 in salary made the playoffs as did 5 in the bottom 15 according to the figures given.

Can you understand that? That's "simple math", too.

I don't think anyone has claimed that there is no relationship between average salary and performance and it would be counterintutive if it were otherwise. Nonetheless, there is enough variance in performance to say that salary is hardly a determinative factor in baseball.

Originally posted by uzless
Simple math, even one that you guys can understand.

5 of the top 9 salary teams made the playoffs.

[b]In other words, if you are in the top 9 you have better than a 50% chance of getting into the playoffs.

5 of the remaining 21 teams made the playoffs.

In other words if you are not in the top 9, you have less than a 25% chance of making the ...[text shortened]... e playoffs.

I'm always amazed at how people can look at stats and not understand them.

🙄

The next to lowest payroll made the playoffs
three of the botton 12 made it
5 of the bottom 15 made it
5 of the top 15 made it.

If you take simple math and say, take ANY salary and you have a 50% chance of
making the playoffs.

I am amazed at how many ways you can skew statistics and make a valid argument.

The last time a low market team won a world series was in 2003. How is that for cherry picking? LOL.

MLB is for tards. 😛

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's nice cherry picking. One can also say that 5 of the top 15 in salary made the playoffs as did 5 in the bottom 15 according to the figures given.

Can you understand that? That's "simple math", too.

I don't think anyone has claimed that there is no relationship between average salary and performance and it would be counte ...[text shortened]... gh variance in performance to say that salary is hardly a determinative factor in baseball.

Can you also understand that the more money you pay out the greater chance that you will have a winning season, thus positioning you to make the playoffs?

Thank God for the token small market teams that make the playoffs. It helps ease the big market guilt I suppose.

Originally posted by whodey
The last time a low market team won a world series was in 2003. How is that for cherry picking? LOL.

MLB is for tards. 😛

How in the world did they manage to do it??

Did they cheat?
Did they not realize they were treading on sacred ground?
The fact that it can happen at all hammers your theory.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's nice cherry picking. One can also say that 5 of the top 15 in salary made the playoffs as did 5 in the bottom 15 according to the figures given.

Can you understand that? That's "simple math", too.

I don't think anyone has claimed that there is no relationship between average salary and performance and it would be counte ...[text shortened]... gh variance in performance to say that salary is hardly a determinative factor in baseball.

Ok five of the top ten made it, four from the middle ten and one from the bottom ten.... there is definitely a correlation here which is probably amplified over the course of a decade.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
No, whodey's theory said the bulk of the playoff teams would be in the top half of the
top team salaries, and here we have only 2 out of 10 and one of those two was barely
above the median.

This blows whodey's theory out of the water.

He expected Boston, Philadelphia, NY Yankees, LA Angels, LA Dodgers to make it.
Only one did.

How? Both teams above the median made it to the playoffs. This would mean that they effectively bought a playoff spot. 😕

Originally posted by tomtom232
How? Both teams above the median made it to the playoffs. This would mean that they effectively bought a playoff spot. 😕

And the others... were they given it for free?

It's nice to be able to spend money, like a lot of sports worldwide but it doesn't guarantee success. Poor management structure and a lack of cohesion between players will get crusted against a well organized low sending team who are more worried about winning the game than anything else.