21 Jul '14 01:12>
Yankees sweep the Reds!
Let the payroll complaining begin! 😉
Let the payroll complaining begin! 😉
Originally posted by iChopWoodForFreeI've run numbers in the past. Basically If you divide the top half of high payroll from the bottom half, you can then see that the top 15 teams have winning records, except for a few. The inverse is that the bottom half usually have losing records, except for a few.
The Mariners are pretty much proof that you can pay to win. Perennial bottom feeders spend a lot of money in the offseason and become playoff contenders while playing in arguably the best division in baseball.... The athletics also, go from good playoff team to best team in baseball after increasing their payroll in the offseason.
Originally posted by iChopWoodForFreeThe A's payroll is 27th of 30 teams and yet they have the best record in baseball.
The Mariners are pretty much proof that you can pay to win. Perennial bottom feeders spend a lot of money in the offseason and become playoff contenders while playing in arguably the best division in baseball.... The athletics also, go from good playoff team to best team in baseball after increasing their payroll in the offseason.
Originally posted by sh76The season is only half over, so it is a little early is it not?
The A's payroll is 27th of 30 teams and yet they have the best record in baseball.
The Mariners are all of 53-47. So let's relax about how great they're playing. In any case, they're 20th in payroll.
3 of the top 7 teams in payroll have losing records (Boston, Texas and Philadelphia) and a 4th (the Yankees) are barely above .500.
There is some correlat ...[text shortened]... ly be the other way around. Teams with good players may naturally need to pay more to keep them.
Originally posted by sh76I wasn't referencing how much they pay in contrast to the other mlb teams.
The A's payroll is 27th of 30 teams and yet they have the best record in baseball.
The Mariners are all of 53-47. So let's relax about how great they're playing. In any case, they're 20th in payroll.
3 of the top 7 teams in payroll have losing records (Boston, Texas and Philadelphia) and a 4th (the Yankees) are barely above .500.
There is some correlat ...[text shortened]... ly be the other way around. Teams with good players may naturally need to pay more to keep them.
Originally posted by iChopWoodForFreeIt's like winning elections. Those that pay out the most money will win.
I wasn't referencing how much they pay in contrast to the other mlb teams.
Pretend you and i are both buying a car to enter a race, i pay 18k for a car guaranteed to get me at least in the top 5 and because of your savvy you pay 10k for a car guaranteed to get you at least in the top 6. Did we both pay to win? Yes, but I paid considerably more t ...[text shortened]... ry cap you can pay to win... though I will admit it isn't so bad in the mlb as it is in the nba.
Originally posted by iChopWoodForFreeIf all your point is that spending gives you a marginal advantage over not spending, then I concede the point, but it's kind of trivial. The only purpose of debating the issue would be whether spending disparities make the game unfair or whether spending disparities make it pointless to root for a small market team. Results have generally answered the latter question, certainly, in the negative.
I wasn't referencing how much they pay in contrast to the other mlb teams.
Pretend you and i are both buying a car to enter a race, i pay 18k for a car guaranteed to get me at least in the top 5 and because of your savvy you pay 10k for a car guaranteed to get you at least in the top 6. Did we both pay to win? Yes, but I paid considerably more t ...[text shortened]... ry cap you can pay to win... though I will admit it isn't so bad in the mlb as it is in the nba.
Originally posted by whodeyMany would argue that causation flows in the other direction. Candidates who are better candidates and this more likely to win raise more because they are stronger candidates. Looked at that way, raising more is the result of winning, not the cause of it.
It's like winning elections. Those that pay out the most money will win.
Is this always the case? No. In fact, the Tea Party won some elections over the GOP establishment even though they were outspent by millions of dollars. However, it is usually how it works and why the two party system, with all their wealth, monopolize the system.
Originally posted by sh76There is nothing trivial about big market teams dominating the World Series in terms of wins for.......how long has it been now?..........I think a decade and a half.
If all your point is that spending gives you a marginal advantage over not spending, then I concede the point, but it's kind of trivial. The only purpose of debating the issue would be whether spending disparities make the game unfair or whether spending disparities make it pointless to root for a small market team. Results have generally answered the latter question, certainly, in the negative.
Originally posted by sh76It's like trying to argue that smoking causes cancer. You can't prove it, but gosh darn it, most who smoke seem to wind up with it.
Many would argue that causation flows in the other direction. Candidates who are better candidates and this more likely to win raise more because they are stronger candidates. Looked at that way, raising more is the result of winning, not the cause of it.