RANT: It's not even November Yet and...

[osfan83]

I am not going to whine about the Orioles because I do believe their problems are do to poor management not salary issues. But I will say that anyone who believes the current system is remotely competitive is just kidding themselves. Yes you can succeed with a smaller payroll but it is an uphil battle. Why should a city like Milwaukee or Pittsburgh be forced to face a bigger challenge solely based on geography and demographics. If MLB wants to maximize the number of fans, they will find a way to get the franchises that are not competitive due to market constraints on a level playing field. Will there be fewer Yankee and Red Sox fans if Tampa and KC are on equal ground?

Since, I think 162 games is a better barometer of trends I have chosen to look at playoff teams to see the impact of payroll dollars. Here are some interesting stats.

There have been 112 playoff teams since 1995. The average payroll ranking of a playoff team is 9.88

The top payroll team has made the playoffs 79% of the time.

The top 5 payroll teams (or roughly 17% of of the league) have accounted for 31% of the 112 playoff teams

The top 10 payroll teams have accounted for 60% of the 112 playoff teams

The top 15 payroll teams have accounted for 78% of the 112 playoff teams

Conversely,

The bottom 10 payroll teams (or roughly 1/3) have accounted for 12% of the 112 playoff teams.

The bottom 5 payroll teams have accounted for 8% of the 112 playoff teams.

I think it is pretty clear that while payroll does not guarantee success it sure helps considerably. It also shows that if you are not willing or able to pay you are severely disadvantaged.

Great post. Have a payroll in the top 5, you enter the season with a 31% chance of making the post season, have a payroll in the bottom 5, you have an 8% chance of making the post season.

Seams pretty simple to me.

[LookinUp]

1. I never said it was only about the Orioles. I said it's about teams' management much more than payroll.

2. TiredofLosings information is very general and holds little meaning to me. Has he compared it with the payrolls of other sports with salary caps - like football? Many of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, anyway. Teams that perceive themselves with a a good chance to compete add free agent talent while those who judge themselves far from competing shy away from or are avoided by quality free agents - like how the Os and Pirates did not pursue top FAs last offseason. Look at the Diamondbacks payroll when they competed and this year as an example.

4. Color me an idiot. "Fundamental competitive imbalance" is a rich statement, but I disagree. Any team should be able to do what the DRays just did after several years of high draft picks. Look at how poorly the Pirates have drafted since selecting Bullington ahead of Upton. If you add Upton, Alvarez and Wieters to McClouth, JBay and another good pick or two from 2003 to 2006 and they are two quality free agents pitchers away from competing successfully in that division for several years with a low payroll to boot.

We'll agree to disagree.

I'll take the Rays for the ALEast next year and you tell me the team you want the coin you want to bet.

If you think the Rays are a one year wonder, I will be done with this thread very soon.

Even if the Rays have a good 5 year stretch, it doesn't prove your point or disprove mine. I've acknowledged throughout this thread that exceptional franchises could do this. The Rays have done an exceptional job. However, if you average it out over time and over all franchises, the evidence is obvious.

My point is that their only option is to do it with less, whereas other teams have many more options and resources to accomplish the same goal.

[clarence]

In 9 of the last 14 years (including this season) the AL representative in the World Series has come from the ALEast. In 10 of those seasons, the wildcard was won by a team from the ALEast. In almost all of those instances, the two teams have been the same.

A situation like the current Rays is not going to be the norm. It is going to be interesting in a few years to see the current state of the Rays because we all know if that talent was in boston or ny, they would be looking at a decade of playoff baseball. The rise of the Rays is going to make the redsox and yanks do things even more aggresively.

For all the talk about the parity in baseball, I'd like to see some of the smaller/ mid-market teams like Minnesota, Oakland, Cleveland, and even the White Sox, try and reach the playoffs if they were in the ALEast. These are the teams that are always thrown out as examples of it can be done, but the divisions they play in are so different. People throw out NL teams in the same way, but every division in the NL is weaker as well.

As an O's fan, it is a difficult reality to face. But, as the owner or gm, it shouldn't be. This is where the situation has become tough to stomach. How we can be so lacking in international scouting is unacceptable. How we could've gone ten years without a plan is ridiculous. Not drafting top talent and spending over slot to get them signed won't work. The big boys are doing it, as well as signing up the top talent. No matter how much we fans complain, nothing is really going to get better until Angelos decides he wants it to truly get better.

MLB and media types love to talk about the fact that the yanks and bosox don't win it every year so the system is working. But the reality is, they are the teams playing for the World Series or in the playoffs almost every year so there is a problem. If the Rays and someone like the Bluejays and O's were dominating a league, I guarantee something would be done about the system to get the markets like NY and Boston back onto an even playing field. Since they are the media darlings, it is never going to happen.

[geschinger]

For all the talk about the parity in baseball, I'd like to see some of the smaller/ mid-market teams like Minnesota, Oakland, Cleveland, and even the White Sox, try and reach the playoffs if they were in the ALEast. These are the teams that are always thrown out as examples of it can be done, but the divisions they play in are so different. People throw out NL teams in the same way, but every division in the NL is weaker as well.

There have been some years in the recent past where the AL East has not been the toughest division in baseball. We shouldn't diminish the accomplishments of some of the other teams by implying that they only accomplished what they accomplished because they were in a weaker division. In some cases the Sox and Yankees have had it easier as other divisions haven't had a pair of teams as weak as the Rays and O's have been to feast upon 38 times a year.

[geschinger]

Great post. Have a payroll in the top 5, you enter the season with a 31% chance of making the post season, have a payroll in the bottom 5, you have an 8% chance of making the post season.

Seams pretty simple to me.

Teams in the bottom 5 aren't using anywhere near the resources available to them so you can basically throw that out the window. If you know, what is the % chance of making the playoffs for teams with a payroll ranked between #6 and the median?

[clarence]

There have been some years in the recent past where the AL East has not been the toughest division in baseball. We shouldn't diminish the accomplishments of some of the other teams by implying that they only accomplished what they accomplished because they were in a weaker division. In some cases the Sox and Yankees have had it easier as other divisions haven't had a pair of teams as weak as the Rays and O's have been to feast upon 38 times a year.

I agree that it isn't an absolute with the ALEast, but the numbers seem to say it is a heckuva lot more difficult (9 for 14 in the WS). Also, as bad as the O's and Rays have been over the last decade, I bet their w/l record would look slightly different if they had been in another division. I'm not meaning to diminish the achievements of any other teams, they've done what they had to do to win in the division they were assigned. Hopefully the powers that be within the front office will accept the responsibility of trying to compete on a consistent basis in our division.

[TiredofLosing20]

2. TiredofLosings information is very general and holds little meaning to me. Has he compared it with the payrolls of other sports with salary caps - like football?

I guess don't let a little thing like statistics get in the way. I think a 10 year sampling looking at the full season impact of payrolls is a pretty good indication of trend to those who are willing to see it.

Some other staggering facts In 2008, the difference between the highest payroll team and the lowest in MLB was $187mm. The difference between the highest and second highest team was $70mm. The difference between the second highest and the lowest payroll was $116mm. For comparison purposes the lowest payroll is about 10% of the Yankees 2008 payroll. It is 16% of the second highest payroll. The second highest payroll is 66% of the Yankees payroll.

By contrast, in 2007 (2008 numbers are not in yet) the difference between the highest payroll and the lowest in the NFL is $47mm. The lowest payroll team was the NFL Champion NY Giants. To compare their payroll is 61% of the highest NFL payroll in 2007. Just slightly less than the difference between highest and second highest in MLB.

Based on your comment I put together the same payroll statistics for NFL from 2000-2007 (Prior to 2000 wasn't as easily accessable). Since the NFL has more playoff teams, I utilized only the top 4 teams in each conference by their regular season record and used only division champion or playoff team as a tie breaker. Here are the findings.

The average payroll ranking was 15.23 of the top 8

The top spending team was in the top 8 in standings 38% of the time.

The top 5 spending teams were in the top 8 16% of the time

The top 10 spending teams were in the top 8 33% of the time

The top 15 spending teams were in the top 8 55% of the time

The bottom 10 spending teams were in the top 8 28% of the time

The bottom 5 spending teams were in the top 8 9% of the time

I think the original statistics on MLB clearly indicated that $ spent are a major factor in the success of a team. I think this comparison clearly shows that there is some of that in the NFL but not nearly as drastic. My guess is that is because the vast discrepancy between the haves and have nots in baseball.

I think that an important thing to look at as well is the ability of a team to change its year to year ranking. The NFL is full of teams that from one year to the next change their ranking from the bottom 5 to the top 15. Since it is pretty clear that you have a 50/50 chance if you are in the top 15 in payroll of having one of the best 8 records in the league I believe the ability to move from towards the bottom to the middle of the pact is pretty important. I believe the fact that the 50% level is within one spot of half the number of teams is not coincidental. Conversely in MLB to have a 50/50 chance you have to be in the top 8 in payroll and from 1995 to 2008 there were 0 teams to move from the bottom 5 to the top 8. The highest jump of a bottom 5 team was the 2000 White Sox who went up to 14th in 2001 from the bottom 5. I think it is obvious why, in 2008 to jump from the 26th rank in MLB payroll to the 8th you would have to increase payroll by $63mm dollars (which would be a payroll increase of 116%) or about $16 million more to jump from the lowest NFL team payroll to the highest (2007 statistics)

[TiredofLosing20]

For all the talk about the parity in baseball, I'd like to see some of the smaller/ mid-market teams like Minnesota, Oakland, Cleveland, and even the White Sox, try and reach the playoffs if they were in the ALEast. These are the teams that are always thrown out as examples of it can be done, but the divisions they play in are so different. People throw out NL teams in the same way, but every division in the NL is weaker as well.

Right and you throw in the unbalanced schedule and walla, you now have teams that are even more inherently disadvantaged.

[Sports Guy]

When you talk about those with little revenue and resources, look at Oakland.

They have traded all their name guys and have gotten a ton of prospects...But, what else have they done recently?

They are spending a ton of money in the draft and internationally.

They know they can't compete for the top FAs but they can for the amateur players. So, between that and trading the guys they can't afford anymore, they really improve their system and will be a force in the next few years in the NL West.

It always goes back to smart decision making IMO.

The idea of money is important and it allows you for more margin of error but without smart decisions, it doesn't really matter.

[TiredofLosing20]

When you talk about those with little revenue and resources, look at Oakland.

They have traded all their name guys and have gotten a ton of prospects...But, what else have they done recently?

They are spending a ton of money in the draft and internationally.

They know they can't compete for the top FAs but they can for the amateur players. So, between that and trading the guys they can't afford anymore, they really improve their system and will be a force in the next few years in the NL West.

It always goes back to smart decision making IMO.

The idea of money is important and it allows you for more margin of error but without smart decisions, it doesn't really matter.

Agreed, its why in the NFL smart decision making is even more vital than in MLB. If the ultimate goal is to provide the best competition and keep the most amount of fans engaged, leveling the monetary playing field is simply the best way of doing this.

[Enjoy Terror]

When you talk about those with little revenue and resources, look at Oakland.

They have traded all their name guys and have gotten a ton of prospects...But, what else have they done recently?

No offense, but did you bother to even look at what the A's have done recently? They've been to the playoffs 5 out of the past 9 seasons, and had records of 90+ wins in 6 of the past 9 seasons.

2008: $ 47,967,126 75-86

2007: $ 79,366,940 76-86

2006: $ 62,242,079 93-69 Won division

2005: $ 55,425,762 88-74

2004: $ 59,425,667 91-71

2003: $ 50,260,834 96-66 Won division

2002: $ 40,004,167 103-59 Won division

2001: $ 33,810,750 102-60 Won wild card (Seattle won a record 116 games)

2000: $ 32,121,833 91-70 Won division

So with very little payroll, they've done a whole lot. Beane is smart and rebuilding while they aren't embarassing themselves yet. They have the top or second ranked farm system right now. They'll be back on top in the not too distant future.

[Sports Guy]

No offense, but did you bother to even look at what the A's have done recently? They've been to the playoffs 5 out of the past 9 seasons, and had records of 90+ wins in 6 of the past 9 seasons.

2008: $ 47,967,126 75-86

2007: $ 79,366,940 76-86

2006: $ 62,242,079 93-69 Won division

2005: $ 55,425,762 88-74

2004: $ 59,425,667 91-71

2003: $ 50,260,834 96-66 Won division

2002: $ 40,004,167 103-59 Won division

2001: $ 33,810,750 102-60 Won wild card (Seattle won a record 116 games)

2000: $ 32,121,833 91-70 Won division

So with very little payroll, they've done a whole lot. Beane is smart and rebuilding while they aren't embarassing themselves yet. They have the top or second ranked farm system right now. They'll be back on top in the not too distant future.

No offense but did you even understand my point?

BTW, my point was what you just posted.

[Greg Pappas]

I guess don't let a little thing like statistics get in the way. I think a 10 year sampling looking at the full season impact of payrolls is a pretty good indication of trend to those who are willing to see it.

Some other staggering facts In 2008, the difference between the highest payroll team and the lowest in MLB was $187mm. The difference between the highest and second highest team was $70mm. The difference between the second highest and the lowest payroll was $116mm. For comparison purposes the lowest payroll is about 10% of the Yankees 2008 payroll. It is 16% of the second highest payroll. The second highest payroll is 66% of the Yankees payroll.

By contrast, in 2007 (2008 numbers are not in yet) the difference between the highest payroll and the lowest in the NFL is $47mm. The lowest payroll team was the NFL Champion NY Giants. To compare their payroll is 61% of the highest NFL payroll in 2007. Just slightly less than the difference between highest and second highest in MLB.

Based on your comment I put together the same payroll statistics for NFL from 2000-2007 (Prior to 2000 wasn't as easily accessable). Since the NFL has more playoff teams, I utilized only the top 4 teams in each conference by their regular season record and used only division champion or playoff team as a tie breaker. Here are the findings.

The average payroll ranking was 15.23 of the top 8

The top spending team was in the top 8 in standings 38% of the time.

The top 5 spending teams were in the top 8 16% of the time

The top 10 spending teams were in the top 8 33% of the time

The top 15 spending teams were in the top 8 55% of the time

The bottom 10 spending teams were in the top 8 28% of the time

The bottom 5 spending teams were in the top 8 9% of the time

I think the original statistics on MLB clearly indicated that $ spent are a major factor in the success of a team. I think this comparison clearly shows that there is some of that in the NFL but not nearly as drastic. My guess is that is because the vast discrepancy between the haves and have nots in baseball.

I think that an important thing to look at as well is the ability of a team to change its year to year ranking. The NFL is full of teams that from one year to the next change their ranking from the bottom 5 to the top 15. Since it is pretty clear that you have a 50/50 chance if you are in the top 15 in payroll of having one of the best 8 records in the league I believe the ability to move from towards the bottom to the middle of the pact is pretty important. I believe the fact that the 50% level is within one spot of half the number of teams is not coincidental. Conversely in MLB to have a 50/50 chance you have to be in the top 8 in payroll and from 1995 to 2008 there were 0 teams to move from the bottom 5 to the top 8. The highest jump of a bottom 5 team was the 2000 White Sox who went up to 14th in 2001 from the bottom 5. I think it is obvious why, in 2008 to jump from the 26th rank in MLB payroll to the 8th you would have to increase payroll by $63mm dollars (which would be a payroll increase of 116%) or about $16 million more to jump from the lowest NFL team payroll to the highest (2007 statistics)

An outstanding post. These sort of researched views are a big part of what makes the Hangout so impressive. You have a researched viewpoint and then deliver the resulting reasoning in an easy to understand format.

Whether or not you agree with this post is a sidebar... well done TiredofLosing20.

[hoosiers]

No offense, but did you bother to even look at what the A's have done recently? They've been to the playoffs 5 out of the past 9 seasons, and had records of 90+ wins in 6 of the past 9 seasons.

2008: $ 47,967,126 75-86

2007: $ 79,366,940 76-86

2006: $ 62,242,079 93-69 Won division

2005: $ 55,425,762 88-74

2004: $ 59,425,667 91-71

2003: $ 50,260,834 96-66 Won division

2002: $ 40,004,167 103-59 Won division

2001: $ 33,810,750 102-60 Won wild card (Seattle won a record 116 games)

2000: $ 32,121,833 91-70 Won division

So with very little payroll, they've done a whole lot. Beane is smart and rebuilding while they aren't embarassing themselves yet. They have the top or second ranked farm system right now. They'll be back on top in the not too distant future.

And this is why the simple conclusions made by many of TiredofLosing's post are wrong. Oakland knew they could not compete so they dumped payroll, picked up prospects and invested in draft and international talent. Oakland could have held onto payroll, even picked up a free agent and had their total payroll in a position where TiredofLosing's analysis would have concluded that Oakland's chances of making the playoffs were substanitally increased.

However, Billy Beane and most of us here are astute enough to take that analysis for what it's worth and not as a pillar from which to reach a caveman-like conclusion that larger markets have higher payrolls which result in more playoff appearances. In two years, smaller market teams in Oakland, Tampa, Florida and Minnesota will be legit contenders for their respective divisions.

[Greg Pappas]

No one's saying that teams without big payrolls can't make the playoffs, but rather that it is an inherent advantage to have more payroll available. The disparity is a real issue. My whole point is quite simple... I'm advocating a more level playing field. I have trouble comprehending why that makes no sense to some.

Let me just ask... are there any posters here who feel that the chasm-like financial disparity that exist in MLB is okay, and that a plan to incorporate a more fair and level playing field in not needed? Is it wrong to expect that my team has the same basic chances to be successful as the other teams in my league?