07 Jul 11
Originally posted by uzlessBroken record...on repeat mode.
Simple, top 4 salary's get into the playoffs...sweet deal!
Team....................Payroll.....Standing
1.New York Yankees...$201.........1
2.Philadelphia ...........$173.........1
3.Boston...................$161..........2 (wildcard)
4.Los Angeles Angels.$139...........1
Angels probably will not win their division.
Los Angeles Dodgers payroll is HUGE....where are they in the playoff hunt???
07 Jul 11
Originally posted by uzlessThe playoffs started already?
Simple, top 4 salary's get into the playoffs...sweet deal!
Team....................Payroll.....Standing
1.New York Yankees...$201.........1
2.Philadelphia ...........$173.........1
3.Boston...................$161..........2 (wildcard)
4.Los Angeles Angels.$139...........1
08 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessI've already been down this road and done quite a bit of research showing a correlation going about 10 years back. Basically the evidence showed that out of the top 15 teams in payroll there were a handfull that did not have a winning record by years end and out of the bottom 15 teams in payroll there were a handfull with winning records on average at years end.
Simple, top 4 salary's get into the playoffs...sweet deal!
Team....................Payroll.....Standing
1.New York Yankees...$201.........1
2.Philadelphia ...........$173.........1
3.Boston...................$161..........2 (wildcard)
4.Los Angeles Angels.$139...........1
OF course, those sold to a particular belief system, for whatever reason, blindly ignored the evidence. You are wasting your time here guy.
08 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyWinning records and getting into the playoffs and ultimately winning the world series are quite a different matter.
I've already been down this road and done quite a bit of research showing a correlation going about 10 years back. Basically the evidence showed that out of the top 15 teams in payroll there were a handfull that did not have a winning record by years end and out of the bottom 15 teams in payroll there were a handfull with winning records on average at years ...[text shortened]... system, for whatever reason, blindly ignored the evidence. You are wasting your time here guy.
Your claims are that the top spenders are a lock for the playoffs.
That just isn't true and the evidence is there for you to see.
Sure, some of them make it in, but you have looked silly with your predictions.
08 Jul 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitI did some more number crunching in terms of "winners".
Winning records and getting into the playoffs and ultimately winning the world series are quite a different matter.
Your claims are that the top spenders are a lock for the playoffs.
That just isn't true and the evidence is there for you to see.
Sure, some of them make it in, but you have looked silly with your predictions.
Here are the world champions from 2010-2000 and where they finished in terms of payroll.
2010 Giants (10th)
2009 Yanks (1)
2008 Phillies (13)
2007 Red Sox (2)
2006 Cardinals (11)
2005 White Sox (13)
2004 Red Sox (2)
2003 Marlins (25)
2002 Angels (15)
2001 Arizona (8)
2000 Yankees (1)
If you add up the rankings in payroll, you will see that it averages out that winners are at least 10th in payroll every year. In fact, if you left out the Marlins, which are an obvious statistical anomaly, every last team would be ranked 13 or higher in terms of payroll raising the average to around 8th in payroll.
Another glaring fact is that #1 and #2 in payroll over the last decade have won the World Series no less than two times.
Of course, please feel free to glibly ignore these facts as well. In fact, why do I put myself through such torment when all will happen is people mocking what they don't want to hear?
08 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyCan you understand that you are a nut case on this?
I did some more number crunching in terms of "winners".
Here are the world champions from 2010-2000 and where they finished in terms of payroll.
2010 Giants (10th)
2009 Yanks (1)
2008 Phillies (13)
2007 Red Sox (2)
2006 Cardinals (11)
2005 White Sox (13)
2004 Red Sox (2)
2003 Marlins (25)
2002 Angels (15)
2001 Arizona (8)
2000 Yankees (1)
...[text shortened]... elf through such torment when all will happen is people mocking what they don't want to hear?
The way you presented your argument, the four highest salaries should always produce the winner.
In eleven years, a top 4 team won it 4 times. That is barely over 1/3 of the time.
During that same time span, a team with the 11th highest or lower won it all five times.
That is nearly half of the time!!!!
The remaining two years the 8th and 10th highest payrolls won.
You made my case for me and you don't realize it.
08 Jul 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitThe greatest myth in American sports is that MLB is completely about dollars spent.
Can you understand that you are a nut case on this?
The way you presented your argument, the four highest salaries should always produce the winner.
In eleven years, a top 4 team won it 4 times. That is barely over 1/3 of the time.
During that same time span, a team with the 11th highest or lower won it all five times.
That is nearly [b]half ...[text shortened]... ars the 8th and 10th highest payrolls won.
You made my case for me and you don't realize it.[/b]
The number of teams in the bottom third of payroll that are doing well is staggering. Tampa has the second lowest payroll they have won the toughest division in wuality and payroll (two of the last three years) and currently has the third best record in the AL. Pittsburgh has the third lowest salary they are above .500 and playing better than last years division champ Cleveland has the fifth lowest salary they are in first place. Arizona has the sixth lowest salary is 7 games above .500 and has the 4th best record in the NL. In fact of the bottom six teams in salary, four are above .500. Baseball has more parity than any other major sport. Right now only 1 team is above .600 and only one team is below .400.
08 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodey10th of 30 teams shows a weak statistical correlation. In fact that number hurts your argument more than it helps it, especially since you could also argue that teams have high payrolls because they're good (if you rear good players you have to pay to keep them; if you rear bad players they cost nothing to keep), further weakening the cause and effect assumption.
I did some more number crunching in terms of "winners".
Here are the world champions from 2010-2000 and where they finished in terms of payroll.
2010 Giants (10th)
2009 Yanks (1)
2008 Phillies (13)
2007 Red Sox (2)
2006 Cardinals (11)
2005 White Sox (13)
2004 Red Sox (2)
2003 Marlins (25)
2002 Angels (15)
2001 Arizona (8)
2000 Yankees (1)
...[text shortened]... elf through such torment when all will happen is people mocking what they don't want to hear?
And please, spare us the "leave out the Marlins; they were an anomaly." In 2000, the Yankees won 87 games in the regular season. Why don't you leave them out as the anomaly?
08 Jul 11
1 edit
What this tells me is that to win a World Series you need to be in the top half of big spenders on average. In addition, if you are the two top teams, more than likely you will win a World Series at least two times in a decade.
Interpret the data how you want. The way I see it, we instinctivly interpret data to fit our preconceived belief systems, but that is for another thread I suppose.
08 Jul 11
Originally posted by whodeyAre you hope for more governmental interference with a well working free market system?
What this tells me is that to win a World Series you need to be in the top half of big spenders on average. In addition, if you are the two top teams, more than likely you will win a World Series at least two times in a decade.
Interpret the data how you want. The way I see it, we instinctivly interpret data to fit our preconceived belief systems, but that is for another thread I suppose.
09 Jul 11
Originally posted by quackquackNope. MLB can do what it likes. I just hate to see a certain segment of fans who root for low budget teams to be disinfranchised. In short, certain fans will simply stop watching with the additional loss of future generations of baseball fans.
Are you hope for more governmental interference with a well working free market system?