Jump to content

High payrolls win again

GuidoSarducci

By GuidoSarducci
in MLB

Recommended Posts

weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
What is the point of this? That spending lots of money doesn't guarantee anything? No one is saying it does. Plus, the Angels are probably an even better example of that point, IF that is even your point...

Sure. That is my point. Good Organizations, that spend good money, win a lot. Yeah. That is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
What is the point of this? That spending lots of money doesn't guarantee anything? No one is saying it does. Plus, the Angels are probably an even better example of that point, IF that is even your point...

And the Angels are a good example of both. Good call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
What is the point of this? That spending lots of money doesn't guarantee anything? No one is saying it does. Plus, the Angels are probably an even better example of that point, IF that is even your point...

Oh, and Cito...and Tony LaCava, still suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GuidoSarducci Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

GuidoSarducci

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, I guess my point is, being a high spender doesn't guarantee anything, and certainly a low payroll teams can get to the playoffs. But they don't seem to win, very often.

For all the hoopla about the A's and the Ray's, how have they fared in the playoffs? The Rays did reach the WS, but other than that, the other 3 years they made the playoffs, they lost in the division series.

The As: Since 2000, they have made the playoffs 7 times. Only one of those times did they get to the ALCS.

And then theres the Braves: On another post I was making fun of them, but I didn't realize their payrolls have been pretty modest since the early 2000s, when they were amongst the highest payroll teams in the MLB. Their payroll has been floating between $85-$100 million for the past 10 years. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

The Cardinals have probably had the most success with the smallest payroll. Still, their payroll has been in the top half of the MLB every year for the past 15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I guess my point is, being a high spender doesn't guarantee anything, and certainly a low payroll teams can get to the playoffs. But they don't seem to win, very often.

For all the hoopla about the A's and the Ray's, how have they fared in the playoffs? The Rays did reach the WS, but other than that, the other 3 years they made the playoffs, they lost in the division series.

The As: Since 2000, they have made the playoffs 7 times. Only one of those times did they get to the ALCS.

And then theres the Braves: On another post I was making fun of them, but I didn't realize their payrolls have been pretty modest since the early 2000s, when they were amongst the highest payroll teams in the MLB. Their payroll has been floating between $85-$100 million for the past 10 years. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

The Cardinals have probably had the most success with the smallest payroll. Still, their payroll has been in the top half of the MLB every year for the past 15 years.

Very good points. And as he has said, "My stuff doesn't work in the playoffs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I guess my point is, being a high spender doesn't guarantee anything, and certainly a low payroll teams can get to the playoffs. But they don't seem to win, very often.

For all the hoopla about the A's and the Ray's, how have they fared in the playoffs? The Rays did reach the WS, but other than that, the other 3 years they made the playoffs, they lost in the division series.

The As: Since 2000, they have made the playoffs 7 times. Only one of those times did they get to the ALCS.

And then theres the Braves: On another post I was making fun of them, but I didn't realize their payrolls have been pretty modest since the early 2000s, when they were amongst the highest payroll teams in the MLB. Their payroll has been floating between $85-$100 million for the past 10 years. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

The Cardinals have probably had the most success with the smallest payroll. Still, their payroll has been in the top half of the MLB every year for the past 15 years.

If every single team in the playoffs (and I'm just counting after the one-game play-in) had dead even talent you'd have a 12.5% chance of winning the Series. Once in every eight attempts.

High payroll teams are on average a bit more talented than a team like the Rays or A's. But not enough to significantly swing the odds. No team is going to win it all much more often than one in five or six playoff appearances without some luck. The Yanks have dominated the sport in payroll for many years, and they have one WS title since 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
The Cardinals have probably had the most success with the smallest payroll. Still, their payroll has been in the top half of the MLB every year for the past 15 years.

I don't really begrudge the Cardinals anything, since their market is comparable to Cleveland, Sacramento, Portland, Pittsburgh. They sustain winning because they're well run, have a long history, and exploit their market as well as anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scOtt Hangout Grand Counsel

scOtt

Posted
Posted
If every single team in the playoffs (and I'm just counting after the one-game play-in) had dead even talent you'd have a 12.5% chance of winning the Series. Once in every eight attempts.

High payroll teams are on average a bit more talented than a team like the Rays or A's. But not enough to significantly swing the odds. No team is going to win it all much more often than one in five or six playoff appearances without some luck. The Yanks have dominated the sport in payroll for many years, and they have one WS title since 2000.

With the second wildcard it's technically 10% chance. Just sayin'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GuidoSarducci Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

GuidoSarducci

Posted
  • Author
Posted
If every single team in the playoffs (and I'm just counting after the one-game play-in) had dead even talent you'd have a 12.5% chance of winning the Series. Once in every eight attempts.

High payroll teams are on average a bit more talented than a team like the Rays or A's. But not enough to significantly swing the odds. No team is going to win it all much more often than one in five or six playoff appearances without some luck. The Yanks have dominated the sport in payroll for many years, and they have one WS title since 2000.

I agree that winning the series is probably a high bar ... however, thats not the bar I set. If the As had won a few division series or even made to the series without winning, or the Rays had fared a little better, maybe my point wouldn't be as strong ... But if you look at the playoff records of the As/Rays/Braves compared to the relatively high spending Yanks/Red Sox/Tigers/Giants, I think you can see a clear discrepancy and MLB playoffs aren't really the tossups that alot of people claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chavez Ravine Hangout Grand Counsel

Chavez Ravine

Posted
Posted

Here are the cumulative number of playoff wins for each team that made the playoffs in a given year plotted against team payroll for that year. The data cover the period from 1995 through the 2013 LDS (excluding the expanded wildcard games). AS Drungo already said, it does not look like having a big payroll helps very much once you make the playoffs.

Capture1.PNG

Here are the same data summed over all the years from 1995. This is clearly not the correct way of looking at this question partly because the data only include teams that made the playoffs and it is simply saying that the more you make the playoffs the more salary is accumulated along the x-axis. Yet there do not seem to be any strange outliers...e.g. teams that always make the playoffs but exit early. More interesting than anything is probably just the fact that the NYY (the point in the top right corner) have paid baseball players over 2 billion dollars just on teams that made the playoffs since 1995!

Capture2.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • deward
      Who Should Be Extension Priority #1?

      By deward · Posted

      If you're projecting a future lineup without Mullins in 2026, then EBJ is a reasonable placeholder name to put in there. I would assume most people understand that it's not a sure thing to work out that way. 
    • webbrick2010
      My annual head first slide thread

      By webbrick2010 · Posted

      Every year players are injured sliding head first into bags or even worse home plate. Just noticed that EBJ has a head injury from sliding head first into home (really dangerous and stupid) I'll say it again, what analytics driven organization will be the first to ban head first slides for all of their players I remember when David Sequi was a decent player and ended his career with a serious hand injury sliding head/hand first into home. Cal never slid head first, and wouldn't have been the iron man if he did.
    • DrungoHazewood
      Time Gunnar's triple

      By DrungoHazewood · Posted

      Oh, I don't know. I thought when accusing someone of wild malpractice over possibly, maybe, slightly speeding up highlights that kind of opened the door to a little goofy exaggeration.
    • interloper
      The A's Series

      By interloper · Posted

      I was going to post something about this after reading about that on MLBTR this morning. That gives me a lot of hope for Bradish if this kid can come back from a UCL sprain and throw 103. Obviously, reliever vs. starter so who knows. But uplifting to read nonetheless. 
    • DrungoHazewood
      Colton Cowser 2024

      By DrungoHazewood · Posted

      Hollocher hit almost exclusively 2nd in the order. The Cubs' 3rd hitters (and it was the Cubs, not the Indians as I previously stated) were mostly Marty Krug, Zeb Terry, and John Kelleher. Krug was awful for a 1922 3rd-place hitter, with an 83 OPS+ in his only season as a MLB regular, but he only struck out 43 times in 524 PAs. Terry was worse, OPS+ing 74, but with just 16 Ks in 571 PAs. And Kelleher was the worst of the bunch, OPS+ing 60, while striking out 14 times in 222 PAs. Cubs manager Reindeer Bill Killefer stuck hard and fast to the old rule of thumb that the catcher should bat 8th, even if it's Bob O'Farrell and he hit .324 with an .880 OPS. Ray Grimes had a 1.014 OPS and batted cleanup. But Hack Miller and his .899 OPS batted mostly 6th. Statz wasn't a terrible leadoff hitter, was one of only a couple players who had a SB% higher than 50%, but was 6th among their regulars in OBP. That's as bad a bunch of #3 hitters as I've seen in a while, yet the Cubs finished 80-74-2. Just goes to show you batting order doesn't really matter. Anyway, back to the main point... yes, I'm sure some of Hollocher's CS were busted hit-and-runs. But nobody that regularly batted behind him struck out in even 7% of PAs so they shoulda been putting the ball in play the vast majority of the time.    
    • interloper
      Time Gunnar's triple

      By interloper · Posted

      Bobby needs to git gud. 
    • Frobby
      4/25: Bowie Wins, Only Team Above .500

      By Frobby · Posted

      How many people actually said they were one of the greatest teams ever?   They did hit the snot out of the ball the first 9 games of the year, mostly in a 6 game series in a very hitter-friendly ball park against a bad pitching staff.  That said, they’re still second in the league in runs per game.  Their pitching has been problematic, yielding 6.50 runs per game.  

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...