- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 22263
Originally posted by whodeyas a soccer fan i see the 'big spenders' in mlb performing quite badly actually, in the major leagues in europe if you're not in the top 2 or 3 spenders it's impossible to compete. especially the epl and la liga where the bulk on the money is.
Nope. 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.
it's been proven by the mets that spending money does not been success in mlb, it improves your chances of course but by your theory a team in the top 6 should be winning the ws each year, if the top spender in each devision picks up the divisional tittle you'd expect the average to be at least the 6th top spender winning each year. 10th is just poor and completely disproves what you're saying from a mathematical point of view.
5 edits
Originally posted by trev33As I said earlier, spending money is not a garauntee that you will have a winning season. In fact, a handful of teams in the top 15 in payroll do not have winning seasons. Also, a handful of teams below the 15 top spending teams have a winning season. They are almost an exact match in this regard on opposite sides of the spectrum.
as a soccer fan i see the 'big spenders' in mlb performing quite badly actually, in the major leagues in europe if you're not in the top 2 or 3 spenders it's impossible to compete. especially the epl and la liga where the bulk on the money is.
it's been proven by the mets that spending money does not been success in mlb, it improves your chances of course just poor and completely disproves what you're saying from a mathematical point of view.
So as we can see spending large amounts of money increases your chances of winning. However, clubs like the Mets and Cubs....pffft. They could spend twice what the Yankees spend and never win a world series. The two organizations are a disaster in terms of management.
Conversely, you have teams like the Tampa Rays and Marlins usually do well despite the payroll discrepency. I would attribute this to both good management and people being payed in sunshine and not just dollars. In addition, there is no state income tax so the payrolls are deceivingly higher.
You can say what you will but one thing is for certain. We have a 1 in 10 chance of a team below the 15 top payroll teams of winning a world series, if that. And if this happens, it will probably be from the sunshine state.
Originally posted by whodeyOh please!! ALL you have cackled about is how "the big spenders" are the only ones that make the playoffs.
As I said earlier, spending money is not a garauntee that you will have a winning season. In fact, a handful of teams in the top 15 in payroll do not have winning seasons. Also, a handful of teams below the 15 top spending teams have a winning season. They are almost an exact match in this regard on opposite sides of the spectrum.
So as we can see spend ...[text shortened]... ning a world series, if that. And if this happens, it will probably be from the sunshine state.
Get one story and stick to it.
Don't keep jumping from one side of the fence to the other.
Got news for you chief....it ain't a winning season unless you win it all.
Got that?
The team might win more games than they lose, but they did not "win" anything.
Ask any player and they will tell you that same thing.
Second place doesn't pay!!
Originally posted by shortcircuitI never said that. If you read my post 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. In fact, in the last decade there has only been one low budget team to win a World Series in the last decade as I already stated.
Oh please!! ALL you have cackled about is how "the big spenders" are the only ones that make the playoffs.
Get one story and stick to it.
Don't keep jumping from one side of the fence to the other.
Got news for you chief....it ain't a winning season unless you win it all.
Got that?
The team might win more games than they lose, but they did not "w ...[text shortened]... hing.
Ask any player and they will tell you that same thing.
Second place doesn't pay!!
So how does this get interpreted by you to mean that I said NO mall market teams make the playoffs? Hmmm?
Originally posted by whodeyThe crux of your argument for the last year is that only the big spenders win.
I never said that. If you read my post 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. In fact, in the last decade there has only been one low budget team to win a World Series in the last decade as I already stat ...[text shortened]... s this get interpreted by you to mean that I said NO mall market teams make the playoffs? Hmmm?
You even called the Marlins an anomaly.
Try to stick to one storyline.
2 edits
Originally posted by shortcircuitNope, last year I did decade long research to show that on average a handful of big spenders do not have a winning season and a handful of small spenders have a winning season. Usually, these are the same teams year in and out and the discrepency can be directly linked to management and the front office.
The crux of your argument for the last year is that only the big spenders win.
You even called the Marlins an anomaly.
Try to stick to one storyline.
So lets say 5 or so small market teams have a winning season and 5 or so big market teams do not have a winning season. This would mean that about 10 of the teams a year that are big spenders have winning seasons and only about 5 or so small market teams have winning seasons. The big spenders outnumber the small market teams by 5 teams. Then there is the obstacle of getting into the playoffs. Currently the division system helps small market teams get into the playoffs, but as I have shown over the last decade only one team has actually won a world series.
I would wager that we would be lucky to see another small market team win the world series in the next decade. In short, it would be an act of God himself in my opinion.
Originally posted by whodeyHeh heh heh.....
Nope, last year I did decade long research to show that on average a handful of big spenders do not have a winning season and a handful of small spenders have a winning season. Usually, these are the same teams year in and out and the discrepency can be directly linked to management and the front office.
So lets say 5 or so small market teams have a win ...[text shortened]... the world series in the next decade. In short, it would be an act of God himself in my opinion.
THAT means the Reds won't be winning a filthy thing then, which busts you in your OTHER argument!!
Doh!!!!!!
Originally posted by whodeyWhich teams are "small market teams"?
Nope, last year I did decade long research to show that on average a handful of big spenders do not have a winning season and a handful of small spenders have a winning season. Usually, these are the same teams year in and out and the discrepency can be directly linked to management and the front office.
So lets say 5 or so small market teams have a win ...[text shortened]... the world series in the next decade. In short, it would be an act of God himself in my opinion.
Originally posted by shortcircuitWrong!!
Heh heh heh.....
THAT means the Reds won't be winning a filthy thing then, which busts you in your OTHER argument!!
Doh!!!!!!
This season is different. I can feeeel it.
Laugh if you will, but I continue to stand by my prediction that the Reds will prevail this season as they defy the odds.