Steinbrenner Dead

Originally posted by whodey
As I have said repeatidly, at the end of the year you will have a hand full of small market teams have winning seasons and a hand full of big market teams who have losing seasons, but by in large you get what ya pay for. Of course, you don't always get what you pay for by on average you do. Its like anything else really.

Just to clarify....

Is Houston a big market team??

Is Cincinnati a big market team??

Is St. Louis a big market team??

Is Chicago a big market team??

This is just one division (I am sure you are familiar with it).

Now take a look at the standings........

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Just to clarify....

Is Houston a big market team??

Is Cincinnati a big market team??

Is St. Louis a big market team??

Is Chicago a big market team??

This is just one division (I am sure you are familiar with it).

Now take a look at the standings........

All of them are big market teams except Cincinnati. As I said, there will be a hand full of big market teams who do not have winning seasons and a hand full of small market teams who do have winning seasons, however, the majority will be where they belong according to salary by years end.

Originally posted by whodey
All of them are big market teams except Cincinnati. As I said, there will be a hand full of big market teams who do not have winning seasons and a hand full of small market teams who do have winning seasons, however, the majority will be where they belong according to salary by years end.

So can you admit that your theory is just FLAT 100% wrong? San Diego is in first place. Tampa has the second best record in baseball and would make the playoffs. Of the 4 New York/ LA teams. Only one would make the playoffs. Texas is in first. So is Atlanta. That is five of the eight teams being small market teams. If anything it looks like large market teams are unable to compete

Originally posted by whodey
All of them are big market teams except Cincinnati. As I said, there will be a hand full of big market teams who do not have winning seasons and a hand full of small market teams who do have winning seasons, however, the majority will be where they belong according to salary by years end.

Why is St. Louis considered a "big market" team when their SMSA's population is less than San Diego's and only 80,000 more than Tampa Bay-St. Pete? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

These terms are generally applied arbitrarily.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why is St. Louis considered a "big market" team when their SMSA's population is less than San Diego's and only 80,000 more than Tampa Bay-St. Pete? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

These terms are generally applied arbitrarily.

Agreed. St. Louis has NEVER been considered to be big market in any sport. They are no more powerful than Kansas City or Sacremento of Minneapolis.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Agreed. St. Louis has NEVER been considered to be big market in any sport. They are no more powerful than Kansas City or Sacremento of Minneapolis.

Population? What does population have to do with anything? Its all about payroll. So where is St. Louis? They are about #13 on the payroll list.

Since MLB has 30 teams we can split it down the center and St. Louis becomes one of the "haves" instead of the lowly "have nots".

I will not argue the fact that St. Louis is a well run organization and that, as such, their success is due not only to payroll but also to the Front Office. In fact, if their front office ran the Yankees they would probably be World Series champs about every year.

The bottom line is that the top 15 will by far dominate the bottom 15 teams in terms of being over .500. Do either of you refute this prediction?

Originally posted by whodey
Population? What does population have to do with anything? Its all about payroll. So where is St. Louis? They are about #13 on the payroll list.

Since MLB has 30 teams we can split it down the center and St. Louis becomes one of the "haves" instead of the lowly "have nots".

I will not argue the fact that St. Louis is a well run organization and that ...[text shortened]... e the bottom 15 teams in terms of being over .500. Do either of you refute this prediction?

Salary is overrated. Here are some facts:

(1) Of the bottom 5 teams in salry 4 are above .500.
(2) San Diego is 29th in payroll, Texas is 27th. Both are in first place. That's two of the bottom four payroll teams.
(3) Tampa is 21st. They are in the toughest division in baseball with the second best record and are 5 games ahead of the Red Sox, the team with the second highest salary).
(4) The Marlins 5th from the bottom have the same record as the Mets (5th from the top). Oakland 3rd from the bottom is five games ahead of the Cubs (3rd from the top).
(5) Atlanta is 15; St Louis is 13. (San Fran 10 or the Reds 19 are the favorites to win the wild card.)

In fact the only teams in the top nine in salary who would make the playoffs if the season ended today is the Yankees and the White Sox (and there is a good chance Minnesota catches them). This happens because baseball has tremendous competitive balance and salary differential just is not a problem.

it looks like quackquack did a very good job refuting the prediction

indeed - would ANYONE be having any of these discussions about markets or payrolls if not for the Yankees' high level of success?

But if what the Yankees do was so easy, why haven't any of the other big market teams been able to duplicate it -- especially the almost always mediocre Mets who have the SAME market as the Yankees?

Originally posted by whodey
Population? What does population have to do with anything? Its all about payroll. So where is St. Louis? They are about #13 on the payroll list.

Whodey, don't you realize that it works the other way too? Good teams tend to have higher payrolls because they're good; it's not JUST that teams tend to be good because they have high payrolls. If the Royals suddenly gave $20,000,000 to Rick Ankiel, would that make them a better team?

You cannot look at payroll in a vacuum. If you're looking for an excuse, you need to look at team resources, not just team payroll. Resources are correlated with population, but also with how strong a BASEBALL market the city is. St. Louis has more resources than San Diego even with a much smaller population because St. Louis is a much better baseball market. More people care more about that Cardinals in St. Louis than the Padres in S.D.

Likewise, marketing and building of your franchise name is a key factor. The Yankees are stronger than the Mets even though they share the same market (in which the Mets arguably even have an advantage since there were two NL teams historically, whose fans mostly gravitated to the Mets), because the Yankees have done a better job in marketing and building their franchise. In the 80s, the Mets were clearly the stronger franchise even though the Yankees were also a good team.

Just to look at payroll in a vacuum (which, as demonstrated by other posters, doesn't even correlate very well with success in any case) is overly simplistic and not accurate.

Originally posted by quackquack
Salary is overrated. Here are some facts:

(1) Of the bottom 5 teams in salry 4 are above .500.
(2) San Diego is 29th in payroll, Texas is 27th. Both are in first place. That's two of the bottom four payroll teams.
(3) Tampa is 21st. They are in the toughest division in baseball with the second best record and are 5 games ahead of the Red Sox, t ...[text shortened]... ause baseball has tremendous competitive balance and salary differential just is not a problem.

Small market teams must love the Royals and Pirates. Year in and year out, they are nice enough to consistently provide 2 examples of bad teams with low payrolls. If not for them, who would people point to to show how "bad" "small market" teams are? The Twins? A's? Rays?

Originally posted by sh76
Small market teams must love the Royals and Pirates. Year in and year out, they are nice enough to consistently provide 2 examples of bad teams with low payrolls. If not for them, who would people point to to show how "bad" "small market" teams are? The Twins? A's? Rays?

on the other side -- has any city in the history of baseball had so much "market" and done so little with it than Chicago?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
on the other side -- has any city in the history of baseball had so much "market" and done so little with it than Chicago?

Other than the Yankees, Angels and Red Sox, there really haven't been any consistently good "big market" teams. The other most consistently good teams have been the Braves, Twins and Cardinals... someone can correct me if I'm missing someone. The Mets, Dodgers, White Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Astros and Giants are all big market teams, but they've all been inconsistent or worse.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
it looks like quackquack did a very good job refuting the prediction

indeed - would ANYONE be having any of these discussions about markets or payrolls if not for the Yankees' high level of success?

But if what the Yankees do was so easy, why haven't any of the other big market teams been able to duplicate it -- especially the almost always mediocre Mets who have the SAME market as the Yankees?

Tell me, when was the last time the NL won an All Star game before this year when they finally won a game? IF memory serves, it was 15 years. I call it the Yankee effect. They single handidly raised the level of play and helped the AL dominate the game for a decade and a half. This was done by the Yankees not only raising the level of competition, but also the level of payrolls across the board.

I in no way mean to imply that payroll is the only factor involved in winning. Clearly it is not. Just look at the Cubs. However, to sit back and say that payroll has no bearing is equally crazy. I have done analysis from previous years in the past and it has revealed that high payroll teams on average can buy a winning season. By in large, the bottom 15 teams have losing seasons except for a hand full and the top 15 have winning seasons except for a hand full. In the end, you cannot gaurantee a winning season but your odds are increased when you go after proven expensive players rather than taking your chances on developing players that may never pan out. Perhaps if I have more time I will go through the numbers once again to drive home my point.

Originally posted by whodey
Tell me, when was the last time the NL won an All Star game before this year when they finally won a game? IF memory serves, it was 15 years. I call it the Yankee effect. They single handidly raised the level of play and helped the AL dominate the game for a decade and a half. This was done by the Yankees not only raising the level of competition, but al ...[text shortened]... t. Perhaps if I have more time I will go through the numbers once again to drive home my point.

The All Star game always had huge streaks. Didn't the AL win in 1971 (reggie hit the ligh tower) and then not win again until 1983 (fred lynn hit the grand slam)? All Star streaks have nothing to do with payroll and the game doesn't even count anyway.

Your argument is just meaningless . Better teams win games. Tampa, Texas and San Diego are all lower pay roll teams. They are three of the eight teams in the playoffs. The Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Mets and Tigers are all in the top 6 and are not in the playoffs (randomly selecting teams you'd expect more than 1 of 6 to make the playoffs). New York, LA and Chicago have six teams. Chicago only has a one game lead. So only one or two of those six make the playoffs with the other four in third or worse place (which is what you would expect if money was not a factor at all).

Nevertheless to appease the whinning babies, baseball created a Central division where an automatic playoffs spot would go to a team that was not in New York, Boston or LA (the perception is they were stealing all the playoff spots). In Minnesota (who almost was a victim of contraction) and St. Louis (who was so big that their football team had to leave to go to the huge Arizona market) now too large for other major league teams to compete against? Stop complaining four of the bottom five teams in payroll are above .500 with two in first place. Everyone can compete in baseball.

Originally posted by whodey
Tell me, when was the last time the NL won an All Star game before this year when they finally won a game? IF memory serves, it was 15 years. I call it the Yankee effect. They single handidly raised the level of play and helped the AL dominate the game for a decade and a half. This was done by the Yankees not only raising the level of competition, but al ...[text shortened]... t. Perhaps if I have more time I will go through the numbers once again to drive home my point.

Perhaps it's time for the Statists to get involved - we could call it "socialized baseball" -- Congress should pass a law requiring each team in MLB to have payrolls that are exactly the same size. Levy a tax on teams that play in bigger markets or have high levels of attendance and viewers and use it to subsidize the teams in the smaller markets and low attendance and viewers.