Hey Whodey....wrong again!!!!

Originally posted by shortcircuit
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=140562&page=&page=2

[b]I said that a handful of low budget teams have winning seasons and the handful of high budget teams have losing seasons. In the end this translates into more high budget teams in the playoffs.


I would wager that we would be lucky to see another small market tea think this is true considering that only two "big market "rich" teams made the playoffs?

My theory has been that the top 15 teams in payroll outperform the bottom 15. Just split it right down the middle and what you will see this year is that the majority of teams above the magical 15 in payroll range outperform the bottom 15 like they do year after year after year.

As I have said, some teams simply outperform other teams on a level playing field. This would account for teams like the Cardinals to do well every year despite not spening like the Yankees. In short, the Cardinals have a much better run organization than the Yankees. If they both spent the same amount of money the Cards would outperform them year after year, however, because the Yankees spend like they do the Yankees usually have better seasons.

So, looking at this years high payroll teams who made the playoffs we have the following

#1, #2, #10, #11, #13and follwing up the rear the sisters of charity, #17, #29, and #25.

Originally posted by whodey
My theory has been that the top 15 teams in payroll outperform the bottom 15. Just split it right down the middle and what you will see this year is that the majority of teams above the magical 15 in payroll range outperform the bottom 15 like they do year after year after year.

As I have said, some teams simply outperform other teams on a level playing f ...[text shortened]... he following

#1, #2, #10, #11, and follwing up the rear the sisters of charity, #17, and #25.

If you don't like baseball's system. Don't watch. No one will miss you. The sport already has huge revenue sharing, luxury taxes, the two biggest spenders in the same division, Central Divisions with smaller markets competing for a division spot without the largest market there. Salary cap is not coming.

Originally posted by quackquack
If you don't like baseball's system. Don't watch. No one will miss you. The sport already has huge revenue sharing, luxury taxes, the two biggest spenders in the same division, Central Divisions with smaller markets competing for a division spot without the largest market there. Salary cap is not coming.

I watch the Reds and the typically sit out the playoffs.

Somehow I can't stop watching. Do you know of any support groups?

Originally posted by whodey
I watch the Reds and the typically sit out the playoffs.

Somehow I can't stop watching. Do you know of any support groups?

Yes, this forum is full of people who sympathize with you.

Originally posted by whodey
My theory has been that the top 15 teams in payroll outperform the bottom 15. Just split it right down the middle and what you will see this year is that the majority of teams above the magical 15 in payroll range outperform the bottom 15 like they do year after year after year.

As I have said, some teams simply outperform other teams on a level playing f ...[text shortened]... wing

#1, #2, #10, #11, #13and follwing up the rear the sisters of charity, #17, #29, and #25.

It's pointless using statistics on quackquack. He only sees what he wants to see. Either that, or he genuinely prefers an imbalanced system.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's pointless using statistics on quackquack. He only sees what he wants to see. Either that, or he genuinely prefers an imbalanced system.

I just showed you that other sports have even more imbalance. I have no idea why you complain about baseball.

Furthermore, when the #25 and #29 team make the playoffs in an eight playoff team game everyone has a chance.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's pointless using statistics on quackquack. He only sees what he wants to see. Either that, or he genuinely prefers an imbalanced system.

Perhaps they should just randomly award playoff spots; that would certainly be "balanced".

Or they could outlaw keeping score in the games and give all the players a gold star afterwards. That would improve everyone's self-esteem and make the world a happier place.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps they should just randomly award playoff spots; that would certainly be "balanced".

Or they could outlaw keeping score in the games and give all the players a gold star afterwards. That would improve everyone's self-esteem and make the world a happier place.

Another Yankees fan coming to defend the system which guarantees their perpetual dominance. How boring.

Originally posted by rwingett
Another Yankees fan coming to defend the system which guarantees their perpetual dominance. How boring.

I haven't been a Yankee fan since they tore down Yankee Stadium.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I haven't been a Yankee fan since they tore down Yankee Stadium.

That's what you say publicly, but you know that deep down inside you're still a Yankee fan.

Originally posted by rwingett
That's what you say publicly, but you know that deep down inside you're still a Yankee fan.

I couldn't imagine forgetting about my Reds and picking up another team. I suppose some do it but to me it seems kinda sick.

As for Maurader, it appears the only time he is in favor of a free market system is when it comes to baseball. As for myself, I would like to see a more equal system but would not waste my time trying to convince them. I would simply warn them that in a free market system you have supply and demand and as they water down the demand via small market ball clubs the fan base will surely shrink as less and less people actually care about MLB.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's pointless using statistics on quackquack. He only sees what he wants to see. Either that, or he genuinely prefers an imbalanced system.

My guess is that he is a fan of one of these gargantuan money teams.

Originally posted by whodey
My guess is that he is a fan of one of these gargantuan money teams.

Guess which one.

It's absurd to think that having more money to spend on players will not increase one's chances of making the postseason. Where do most of the truly big-name free agents want to go every year?

To use one year (this season) as "proof" that big money doesn't increase ones chances of making the postseason is like saying it didn't turn out well for the Yankees when they picked up Babe Ruth in 1920 because they didn't even win the pennant that year.

One season never proves or disproves a theory that requires several seasons worth of data to prove or disprove.


Besides, dividing the leagues into 3 divisions and adding the wild cards is what's going to give small and mid market teams the chance to make the post season every now and then.

The Florida Marlins have won two World Series, but have yet to win their own division. Under the old format, they never would have made the post season at all.

Originally posted by whodey
I couldn't imagine forgetting about my Reds and picking up another team. I suppose some do it but to me it seems kinda sick.

As for Maurader, it appears the only time he is in favor of a free market system is when it comes to baseball. As for myself, I would like to see a more equal system but would not waste my time trying to convince them. I would sim ...[text shortened]... ket ball clubs the fan base will surely shrink as less and less people actually care about MLB.

All the revenue from all the teams should be put into a common pool, which is then divided up equally. If the Yankees still manage to win more than any other team, then you could say it was because they were such a gosh darn terrific franchise. Until then, though, the taint of money will cloud their every success. If people like quackquack think the Yankees are so inherently superior, you'd think they'd be more than willing to take on that challenge. But no, they like their royalty too much and want the system to remain working in the Yankees' advantage in perpetuity.