Buying Championships?

Originally posted by uzless
Come again?

Since 2003.....

Team.....playoff appearances.....League Payroll position (8 is avg)

NY..............5.........................................1
Bos.............4.........................................2
LAA.............3.........................................3

Where are the teams in your list that spend millions for nothing? Why do they suck? Why can't they buy their way in like Sox and Yankees to so well according to you?

P-

I am not sure what your statistics show. I have already pointed out its the only sport where all teams win between 40-60% of their game and only one team repeated in the playoffs this year and has had different champions each year this decade.
Especially since none of the factors are mentioned
(1) These stats are not nearly as strong in the NL. An argument has little basis if you ignore the part does not fit your theory and limit the time period.
(2) When there is no state income tax, the same amount of money is worth more. You might think this effect is minimal. The state of Texas has the Mavs, the Rockets and the Spurs. I'd argue it is a lot greater than people think. New York, Boston and New York hound their players daily. It costs a fortune to live there they have to pay more or no one would go there.
(3) teams that win championships have to increase their payroll to keep players. People love guys who teams have success. that's where MVPs come from, post season recognition. After seeing the Marlins debacle, people will keep teams together even if it isn't cost effective.
(4) Certain teams have made money by spending money even if the money is foolishly spent. There are better outfielder that Matsui but the Yankees would never let him go because they sell advertising rights in Japanese (see the outfield wall). Boston and New York own cable companies. They need "names" in addition to success and both team would spend money just to get their name out there even if it does not help them win.
(5) baseball teams have always paid players after they had success. alot of players sign big contracts with their teams as rewards or bonuses for what they have done in the past. the Yankees will do try to do that with an aging rivera and pasada although they certainly are not going to good for too much longer.
(6) stats are based on end of year payroll. Team that start out well are buyers and teams that start out well are sellers. So the disparity is always augmented.
(7) You go to most parts of this country football is the biggest sport. In New York and Boston it isn't close -- baseball is king. There is an expectation of performance and a willingness to pay. No one watches high school football and their is barely coverage of college football. You are going to make more money when there is more popularity. In Pittsburgh or Miami you can talk football 365 days a year. In Boston and New York there are two round the clock sport radio stations and you can always talk baseball.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Where are the teams in your list that spend millions for nothing? Why do they suck? Why can't they buy their way in like Sox and Yankees to so well according to you?

P-

um, those stats are for the TOP 3 FRICKIN PAYROLLS guy.

What more do you want?😞

Originally posted by poundlee
I am not sure what your statistics show.

Then I'm giving up.

Next year I wish NY and Boston well against the team that gets in out of the remain 13 teams.

2004...NY, BOS, LAA, MIN
2005...NY, BOS, LAA, CHI
2007...NY, BOS, LAA, CLE
2008...NY, BOS, LAA, ???

AMF

Originally posted by uzless
um, those stats are for the TOP 3 FRICKIN PAYROLLS guy.

What more do you want?😞

Do it for 10 years ago, do it for 8 years ago... do it for 15 years ago.

Just because these teams do well now doesn't prove it's simply the money. It helps, but there is definitely more too it.

Also, like I've said... your team not wanting to invest is as much the problem as the teams that do want to.

P-

I liked the way you skip '06 where both boston and angles did not make it. Why don't you just take any three years and based on that form any conclusion. The Yankees and Red Sox both play each other 19 times (a severe disadvantage plus the yankees play the mets another high pay roll team six times). There is always a time from the central in the playoffs (where the payrolls are lower) but what the heck just take the fact you like.

Originally posted by poundlee
I liked the way you skip '06 where both boston and angles did not make it. Why don't you just take any three years and based on that form any conclusion. The Yankees and Red Sox both play each other 19 times (a severe disadvantage plus the yankees play the mets another high pay roll team six times). There is always a time from the central in the playoffs (where the payrolls are lower) but what the heck just take the fact you like.

Holy cow,

This is my last post because i've never seen so much fluff analysis posted on a topic before, other than maybe the Debates forums.

2006...take one year and do an analysis on it. You can't, it's impossible. Take a statistics class ffs. Take the last 4 years and maybe you'll see a trend. There will always be blips in long term trends. I note that in 2006 the Yankees still got in though.

I didn't take just any 3 years ffs.

The fact is, 3 out of the last 4 years we see the same 3 teams with the 3 highest payrolls all making the playoffs. Fact. A trend? No of course not! Not according to you phenoms!! 99 smokers out of a 100 die from cancer but that 1 person that didn't die from cancer disproves the notion that cancer causes cancer!! Of course, why didn't I see that????

And if you haven't noticed, the gap between the highest payroll and the average payroll is $120 million dollars. It didn't used to be like that 15 years ago so if you're going to look at how gigantic differences in payrolls make a difference then you have to look when THERE ACTUALLY IS A GIGANTIC DIFFERENCE IN PAYROLLS....namely the last 4 or 5 years!

I shouldn't have to explain this. It should be obvious. Either way, i'm outta this thread.

Alpha
Mike
Foxtrot

All you care about is which american league team makes the playoffs in three of your years. The Yankees did not win the world series any of those years. So otehrs got a chance. The Cardinals were not in the top 10 and they won the world series. The Rockies are in the bottom third in payroll and they are in the world series. A trend that you see in three of four years does not mean baseball is broken and needs a new system.

Originally posted by uzless
Holy cow,

This is my last post because i've never seen so much fluff analysis posted on a topic before, other than maybe the Debates forums.

2006...take one year and do an analysis on it. You can't, it's impossible. Take a statistics class ffs. Take the last 4 years and maybe you'll see a trend. There will always be blips in long term trends. I not ...[text shortened]... . It should be obvious. Either way, i'm outta this thread.

Alpha
Mike
Foxtrot

Do you think we enjoy explaining this to you and having you NOT understand?

P-

Originally posted by poundlee
All you care about is which american league team makes the playoffs in three of your years. The Yankees did not win the world series any of those years. So otehrs got a chance. The Cardinals were not in the top 10 and they won the world series. The Rockies are in the bottom third in payroll and they are in the world series. A trend that you see in three of four years does not mean baseball is broken and needs a new system.

Since 2003.....

Team.....playoff appearances.....League Payroll position (8 is avg)

NY..............5.........................................1
Bos.............4.........................................2
LAA.............3.........................................3

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here's a run down of the last 6 YEARS of who made the playoffs..Yankees every year and Boston 4 times outta 6. And i'm only talking american league here...not up on the National league.

02 NY
03 NY & BOS
04 NY & BOS
05 NY & BOS
06 NY
07 NY & BOS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And in 2006, of the top 15 payroll salaries it breaks down like this....

6 finished in top 5 of their league
5 finished in mid 5 of their league
3 finished in bottom 5 of their league


Of the bottom 15 salaries it breaks down like this....

3 finished in top 5 of their league
3 finished in mid 5 of their league
9 finished in bottom 5 of their league.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 2003.....

The top 4 teams in salary have made it to the playoffs 13 times while the bottom 11 teams in salary have made it only 6 times.



Maybe someone else will pick up this up.

Originally posted by PocketKings
You hardly see a team winning the world series doesn't get along really well and fun together.

Oakland A's 72-74.

Originally posted by Red Night
Oakland A's 72-74.

Seems to fit the definition of "Hardly See". Can you think of any others?

P-

Wow, in 2006 a top 15 payoll is twice as likely to finish in the top five than a bottom 15 payroll. That is such a big deal? Football has 7-0 teams and an 0-7 team and you are crying about this? Big payroll teams play against each other anyway. Baseball already has revenue sharing. Baseball has a draft where bad teams pick first. Baseball already has compensation for lost free agents. Baseball already packed the Yankees and Red Sox in the same division and created central divisions for teams with primarily lower budgets teams with guaranteed playoff spots. Baseball makes high budget teams like Yankees- Mets; Dodgers-Angeles play each other 6 times each year. The sense of entitlement for teams that refuse to adequately compensate their players is shocking.