Jump to content

Can You Buy a Championship?


Bahama O's Fan

Recommended Posts

It's harder with expanded playoffs. Even a dominant team is going into the playoffs with a < 50% chance of winning it all.

This exactly. It's much harder to have the depth for a team like us and the Rays to win the AL East. The depth and talent it takes to win for 162 games against the payroll giants.

Although I do think the best team won it this year. But most of the times you'll see a pitcher just become dominant and carry their team. Like Bumgarner for the Giants or when the Marlins beat the Yankees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This exactly. It's much harder to have the depth for a team like us and the Rays to win the AL East. The depth and talent it takes to win for 162 games against the payroll giants.

Although I do think the best team won it this year. But most of the times you'll see a pitcher just become dominant and carry their team. Like Bumgarner for the Giants or when the Marlins beat the Yankees.

So are you of the opinion that the best chance to win it all is to have a true ace? That is the most dominant factor, assuming you are in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you of the opinion that the best chance to win it all is to have a true ace? That is the most dominant factor, assuming you are in the playoffs.

It might be, but the odds would go up from 15% to 18% or something like that. It would be pretty easy to reel off a long list of teams with dominant pitching that failed in the playoffs. Like every good Orioles team outside of '66, '70, and '83. Or pretty much all the Braves teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This exactly. It's much harder to have the depth for a team like us and the Rays to win the AL East. The depth and talent it takes to win for 162 games against the payroll giants.

Although I do think the best team won it this year. But most of the times you'll see a pitcher just become dominant and carry their team. Like Bumgarner for the Giants or when the Marlins beat the Yankees.

I am no where near sure that the Royals were better then the Blue Jays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could buy a championship, why aren't the Dodgers World Champions?

Because $300M (or whatever their payroll was) isn't enough to buy a championship. I'm guessing here, but you probably need to be a .800 or .850 winning percentage team to be much better than even to get through the playoffs. I don't know if the spread in talent in baseball is such that you can be an .800 team, even if you had the best player at every position. It might be that the MLB All Star team wouldn't win 80% of its games. Especially since the All Star team you'd acquire in the offseason would have injuries and poor performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

o

 

As I've stated before, you may not be able to outright buy championships, or even pennants, but you sure as hell can buy yourself into being a perennial contender with a very small chance of fielding teams that have losing records.

For example, the Yankees have only won 3 pennants and 1 World Series in the last 15 years, BUT ........ they have had a payroll in excess of $200 Million that entire time, and have (at the very least) fielded teams that have won a bare minimum of 84 or 85 games every year.

There is no "risk/reward" factor for the Yankees in terms of paying their players to stay and/or acquiring new and expensive free agents. For mid-market and small-market teams, if they splurge on a couple of highly expensive free agents that don't work out, those teams will be pretty severely hamstrung financially as a result of those signings for several years. For the Yankees, it doesn't matter if they spend a lot of money on free agents that either bust and/or don't live up to the expectations that they had of them when they gave them all of that money (Carl Pavano, A. J. Burnett, Randy Johnson, Alex Rodriguez, Mark Teixiera, etc.) Or for that matter, Derek Jeter in the last few years of his career. Jeter wasn't a free agent signing, but as I stated earlier, he was a player that was making ****loads of money ($16 Million a year) over the final 5 years of his career, and he was nowhere near that type of money player in his last 2 years with the team. But for the Yankees and their short-term and long-term budgets, no matter ....... they just keep spending and spending with little or no repercussions.

As somebody once said about 5 or 6 years ago, you give me the financial restrictions that Andy MacPhail (and now Dan Duquette) had/have on them, and they'll hang me outside of O.P.A.C.Y.

If you give me more than $200 Million a year every year for 10, 11, 12, years running, I'll find a way to put a winning team on the field every year.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's harder with expanded playoffs. Even a dominant team is going into the playoffs with a < 50% chance of winning it all.

You make a great point that I had not thought of. IMO the two main changes in the game that helps neutralize the big spending team are:

1. Getting steroids out of the game. 15 years ago you could buy a 32 year old star and there was a good chance that star would produce for another 5-6 years. Now it is less certain.

2. Putting more teams in the playoffs gives good teams that can't quite compete over 162 a chance to beat the big spenders in a short series. One hot player (Daniel Murphy) can help carry a team for 4-7 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Posts

    • I'm pretty sure that the fielder right of away rule also exists as a safety thing because permitting collisions with players that aren't expecting them because they're focused on fielding a batted ball wouldn't be good for player safety.   Also I'm uncertain how the outcome can possibly matter, because the play is dead as soon as interference is called, which means that the umpire cannot know ahead of time that the fielder is able to make the play in spite of the interference.   On the infield fly video, the outcome shouldn't have been affected at all, because the infield fly rule was in effect.
    • The rules are put in to protect the players (runners can't trip/run into fielders, get in the way of fielders as they attempt a fielding play. Fielders can't trip/ run into/ force runners out of the basepaths as they are running. They are also put in to make the chances of running and fielding fair for both teams.  Suppose Gunnar sees Vaughn at the last instant, jumps laterally, and tears up his knee. Or, Gunnar's fine, but the ball drops, and Vaughn gets to third. The infield fly rule causes the second out, but then Vaughn scores on a passed ball. Because the ump saw interference, but waited to call it, maybe he thinks, "Well, I'm not gonna call it now. He didn't impede Gunnar that much. Third baseman should have come and made the play."  Shoe on the other foot: fielder gets in the runner's way unintentionally (like Vaughn, due to inattention), ump sees it, but waits to see if the runner is gonna score before he makes a call. Looks like the runner will score easily, but the runner trips and falls on the way to home. Should the ump then call interference? Or is the right call to call it as soon as you see it, which is what Valentine (the ump) did? Valentine made the right call immediately. It's Vaughn's responsibility to know where Gunnar is and avoid him, not just stare at the pop-up. The runner has a right to the occupied base, but still can't trip or elbow or interfere with a fielder making a play near him. Worried about getting doubled off the base? Then, don't take a lead. Runners don't get the advantage of being able to lead off or steal a base without the risk of pick-offs, caught stealing, doubled off, tagging too early, thrown out advancing, and yes, interfering with a fielder. Pay attention, runner. That's your job. Don't cry about the umps or the rule when you don't do your job.
    • Only using W-L as a metric for Means is a bit silly, especially when you're arguing we only think he's good because he was a standout on a bad team.  That's why his W-L record is mediocre!  But he's good when he's healthy. And as for Mullins, yeah, he's not that great, I'm not saying otherwise.  I'm saying, though, that his 2021 was truly great, and that's why people got the idea he was better than he's ended up being.
    • You hate everyone, so that's not surprising.
    • I got pulled over for doing seven in a five.
    • Is our system deep or extremely top-heavy? I have a feeling teams are asking for Holliday, Mayo, and Basallo while balking at most anyone else. 
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...