22 Jul 14
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.
22 Jul 14
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.
Then when the playoffs come, the bottom half teams may win one playoff series, but by in large are outmatched and lose. The A's come to mind. In fact, I recommend the movie "Moneyball" with Brad Pitt in it. It is a real life explanation of the plight of small market teams and the seemingly insurmountable obstacles they encounter with low pay rolls.
The system the A's came up with gets them to the playoffs about every year, but that is about as far as they will ever go.
23 Jul 14
3 edits
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.
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 correlation between payroll and winning, but it is a rather weak one. Moreover, the causation could partially be the other way around. Teams with good players may naturally need to pay more to keep them.
25 Jul 14
4 edits
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.
However, just looking at the top 15 teams in payroll right now and the bottom 15 teams, I see that in the top 15 there are 11 teams over .500, and in the bottom 15 only 6 have a winning record that is .500 or over.
Looking at your Yankees, however, they still have a winning record, and are only about 2 games out of first, so they are very much alive.
As I've said, a few of the top payroll teams fall apart every year. This year it is the Phillies, Reds Sox (who just won the world series I might add), and Arizona. Outside of that, ALL, and I mean ALL, of the rest are in contention.
Conversely, looking at the bottom 15 teams we have about 10 teams out of contention already.
I could really care less about the A's having the best record in baseball right now. They obviously have a system to get into the playoffs every year, but they never pan out when it comes playoff time. I'll believe it when I see it.
If the A's do win it this year, wouldn't it be ironic that the term is run by management that has acknowledged the problem that I raise, which is that there is a lack of parody in MLB due to payroll differences, and have come up with a system to combat it?
25 Jul 14
1 edit
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.
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 than you for just a smidgen more of a guarantee.
The Mariners and A's both shelled out money in the offseason in hopes of gaining an advantage that would allow them to win more and they have.
My point is that the largest payroll isn't guaranteed to win the world series and the smallest payroll isn't going to necessarily have the worst record, but it is obvious that you can pay to win in the MLB.
I mean come on man, in the NFL all the rage is about how teams can maintain success in the salary cap era whereas before teams could just shell out the bucks and pay to win. In any sport that doesn't have a salary cap you can pay to win... though I will admit it isn't so bad in the mlb as it is in the nba.
25 Jul 14
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.
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.
30 Jul 14
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.
30 Jul 14
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.
30 Jul 14
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.
30 Jul 14
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.
Sh is the lone smoker out there smiling saying, "See, it does not cause cancer"