PDA

View Full Version : Does More Money Spent = More Wins? I did some research...


WhiteSoxFan84
01-25-2009, 03:05 AM
I was interested in finding out if there was any correlation between payrolls and records. So I put together a regular final season standings list, in parenthesis ranked their record, put each team's payroll figure next to their record, and in parenthesis ranked that as well. If you'd like that in Excel format, just PM me. Here are some of the more interesting findings of mine...



1 -
Teams that made the playoffs had payrolls ranked...
4th (Red Sox - 133.4), 5th (White Sox - 121.2), 6th (Angels - 119.2), 7th (Cubs - 118.6), 8th (Dodgers - 118.5), 13th (Phillies - 98.3), 15th (Brewers - 81.0), and 29th (Rays - 43.8).
The average ranking was 11th and the average payroll was 104.3 million.


2 -
There were 16 teams that finished with a winning record (> 81 wins). The following are ranked in order of records (best is first), then the team name is listed, followed by the team's payroll, and finally it's payroll rank...
1st) Angels..............119.2 - 6th
2nd) Cubs................118.6 - 7th
3rd) Rays................. .48.3 - 29th
4th) Red Sox............133.4 - 4th
5th) Phillies...............98.3 - 13th
6th) Brewers..............81.0 - 15th
7th) Mets.................138.3 - 3rd
8th) Yankees............209.1 - 1st
9th) White Sox.........121.2 - 5th
10th) Twins................62.2 - 24th
11th) Astros...............88.9 - 14th
12th) Cardinals.........100.6 - 11th
13th) Blue Jays..........98.6 - 12th
14th) Marlins..............21.8 - 30th
15th) Dodgers...........118.5 - 8th
16th) Diamondbacks...66.2 - 23rd
Avg) Average............101.5 - 13th


3 -
The top 10 payrolls averaged out to 131.7 million and combined for an average record of 85-77.
The bottom 10 payrolls averaged out to 54.0 million and combined for an average record of 77-85.
The difference between the average of the top 10 payrolls and the bottom 10 is 77.7 million.
The difference between the average record of the 10 top payrolls and the bottom 10 is 8 wins.
That means, on average, the 10 top payrolls paid almost 10 million per extra win compared to the bottom 10.

4 -
The average payroll in the AL was 96.9 million. The average payroll in the NL was 82.8 million.
The AL East had both, the highest average salary (110.4) and the best average record (87-75).
The NL West had the lowest average salary (80.8) and the worst average record (75-87).
The rest: AL Central (91.9 & 81-81), AL West (88.4 & 79-83), NL Central (85.5 & 83-79), and NL East (82.0 & 79-83).

captainclutch24
01-25-2009, 10:11 AM
Nice, obviously money helps you win games but it just doesn't garuntee championships. If a lot of these smaller market teams could afford it I think we would see more even salary distribution across the board but they simply can't. Teams like the Rays are forced to build from within and when their really good young players get into a contract year either trade them away so they can start over and get some help down the road, or most likely lose them to free agency if they decide to hold onto them for the stretch if they feel like they will remain competitive. Good drafts year in and year out are the best ways for small market teams to win.

Dan Mega
01-25-2009, 10:16 AM
Good start, I think you'd have to look at it over a period of time though to get a true sense of how spending equates to winning. Maybe 10 years. Also, keep in mind that not all teams are going to spend the same on certain players.

Lip Man 1
01-25-2009, 11:50 AM
Clutch:

No one said a thing about 100% "guaranteeing" anything. The only things "guaranteed" in life, are death, taxes and the Cubs not winning the World Series.

The point is (as Proud To Be Your Bud himself has pontificated on) that spending money increases your chances of making the post season significantly.

THAT is the key as the late Bill Walsh once said. Get to the post season. Once you are there anything can happen.

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams"--Bud Selig to ESPN'S Peter Gammons.

Some folks seem to think that unless you can "guarantee" a title (which is impossible), don't spend any money, that it's not worth it. That "either-or" attitude is extremely foolish to me.

Lip

jabrch
01-25-2009, 11:59 AM
There are three ways to make it to the post season.

1) Spend a lot of money

2) Suck a lot - and build a team of cheap (pre-arb) players and be fortunate when they arrive at the same time.

3) Combine the two - spend some money $ and be fortunate with one or two hits from the farm.

IF you insist on it being black and white (which it is not), spending a lot of money is a much more sure way of building sustainable success. The miss rate when you have $150mm for you MLB team + more for you farm is lower than if you spend 60mm on your team and try to bank on the farm...

Parrothead
01-25-2009, 12:05 PM
In other news....

Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

LoveYourSuit
01-25-2009, 12:50 PM
Clutch:

No one said a thing about 100% "guaranteeing" anything. The only things "guaranteed" in life, are death, taxes and the Cubs not winning the World Series.

The point is (as Proud To Be Your Bud himself has pontificated on) that spending money increases your chances of making the post season significantly.

THAT is the key as the late Bill Walsh once said. Get to the post season. Once you are there anything can happen.

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams"--Bud Selig to ESPN'S Peter Gammons.

Some folks seem to think that unless you can "guarantee" a title (which is impossible), don't spend any money, that it's not worth it. That "either-or" attitude is extremely foolish to me.

Lip


Couldn't agree more.

You have to "get there" (post-season) to even sniff a chance at the bigger price.

Spending big money greatly increases your chances to "get there" to have that chance.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-25-2009, 02:42 PM
In other news....

Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Thank you, once again, for your amazingly intelligent commentary. Please join us next time when we hope you enlighten us with more of this. The world needs more Parrotheads.....


Anyway, back to worthwhile contribution, I don't think I made myself clear. What I'm saying is that spending money may NOT mean you'll win more games. Look at # 3....

3 -
The top 10 payrolls averaged out to 131.7 million and combined for an average record of 85-77.
The bottom 10 payrolls averaged out to 54.0 million and combined for an average record of 77-85.
The difference between the average of the top 10 payrolls and the bottom 10 is 77.7 million.
The difference between the average record of the 10 top payrolls and the bottom 10 is 8 wins.
That means, on average, the 10 top payrolls paid almost 10 million per extra win compared to the bottom 10.

On average, the teams in the top 10 paid $10,000,000 per extra win compared to the bottom 10. That's an average and it's still amazing. The Yankees alone spent $67mill more than BOTH of the World Series participants combined! Obviously the Yankees and Rays can be viewed as outliers because they're both very rare cases. But we can shift our attention to what Lip Man pointed out about teams with lower payrolls losing 219 out of 224 playoff games between 1995-2001, and we can then see how much has changed.

Spending money is NOT the only way to win anymore. Heck, some may argue that is it not the best way either.

voodoochile
01-25-2009, 03:04 PM
Here's an article I wrote about this for the site with data going back for a while.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2414

gosox41
01-25-2009, 03:05 PM
Clutch:

No one said a thing about 100% "guaranteeing" anything. The only things "guaranteed" in life, are death, taxes and the Cubs not winning the World Series.

The point is (as Proud To Be Your Bud himself has pontificated on) that spending money increases your chances of making the post season significantly.

THAT is the key as the late Bill Walsh once said. Get to the post season. Once you are there anything can happen.

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams"--Bud Selig to ESPN'S Peter Gammons.

Some folks seem to think that unless you can "guarantee" a title (which is impossible), don't spend any money, that it's not worth it. That "either-or" attitude is extremely foolish to me.

Lip



Lip,

The 1995-2001 stats are true but are outdated. The reason is that since 2002 there has been revenue sharing. If you were to take a look at the stats from 2002-2008 then you'd see that the winning percentage is nowhere near as great in favor of higher payroll teams vs lower.

Revenue sharing has helped. Also, whose to say that 1995-2001 wasn't the period of time that is a statistical fluke? Especially if you operate under the assumption of just making the playoffs and then and thing can happen. If you believge in that, then payroll doesn't play much of a role once you get to the playoffs.


Bob

Lip Man 1
01-25-2009, 09:59 PM
Bob:

Since 2001 I don't see the bottom feeder teams winning a lot in the post season...do you? (That's because they don't seem to get there much.)

For every fluke Tampa or Florida there seems to be a hell of a lot of Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals etc.

I agree the numbers probably aren't as high as they were from 95-01 (and that number was chosen by Proud To Be Your Bud because that's when baseball expanded the number of teams in the post season...) but it's still higher, significantly higher in my opinion and that means something.

When teams like the Pirates, Royals, Orioles and so forth actually start making the postseason, hell A postseason, then I think your comment will have more merit.

Lip

Parrothead
01-25-2009, 10:08 PM
Thank you, once again, for your amazingly intelligent commentary. Please join us next time when we hope you enlighten us with more of this. The world needs more Parrotheads.....


Your welcome. I know my commentary was just knowledgable as spend more money and you have a better chance of winning. Talk about insight.

Daver
01-25-2009, 10:10 PM
Lip,

The 1995-2001 stats are true but are outdated. The reason is that since 2002 there has been revenue sharing. If you were to take a look at the stats from 2002-2008 then you'd see that the winning percentage is nowhere near as great in favor of higher payroll teams vs lower.

Revenue sharing has helped. Also, whose to say that 1995-2001 wasn't the period of time that is a statistical fluke? Especially if you operate under the assumption of just making the playoffs and then and thing can happen. If you believge in that, then payroll doesn't play much of a role once you get to the playoffs.


Bob

MLB had revenue sharing before 2002.

jabrch
01-25-2009, 10:13 PM
For every fluke Tampa or Florida there seems to be a hell of a lot of Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals etc.


What do the Cards have to do with the Yanks and Red Sox?

jabrch
01-25-2009, 10:16 PM
Revenue sharing has helped.


How? So few $ have changed hands - and it was from teams that still keep spending, to teams that still aren't spending.

Daver
01-25-2009, 10:20 PM
How? So few $ have changed hands - and it was from teams that still keep spending, to teams that still aren't spending.

Luxury tax money is not revenue sharing, revenue sharing is paid out equally to all franchises on money made by MLB, luxury tax payments from franchises are paid to MLB, and used as seen fit by the commisioner of baseball, be it to as payment to small market teams or added to the MLB general funds.

jabrch
01-25-2009, 10:23 PM
Luxury tax money is not revenue sharing, revenue sharing is paid out equally to all franchises on money made by MLB, luxury tax payments from franchises are paid to MLB, and used as seen fit by the commisioner of baseball, be it to as payment to small market teams or added to the MLB general funds.


ok - was thinking about it wrong - thanks.

How much are the revenue sharing payments? It doesn't seem like it puts a dent in the gap between NYY/BOS and the small market teams.

Daver
01-25-2009, 10:47 PM
ok - was thinking about it wrong - thanks.

How much are the revenue sharing payments? It doesn't seem like it puts a dent in the gap between NYY/BOS and the small market teams.

It is a percantage of a payroll limit that is on a sliding scale that changes from year to year, it is not fully detailed in the CBA and is referenced to a document that was never made public that I know of. Really it is a moot point, most of the money goes into the MLB's general funds, which is used to pay for the anti steroids commercials that MLB runs among other things.

The only revenue sharing in the sense of truly shared money comes from national broadcast rights, playoff broadcasts rights, and MLB branded merchandise sales, and these revenue streams have existed for years, they far predate 2002.

MLB enjoyed a large spike in the sale of branded merchandise with the tremendous growth of internet sales in the early part of this decade up until a year or so ago, which helps a lot in why they were experiencing all time highs in revenues, but none of that revenue has to go back to the teams payroll, the only revenue that is league edicted meant to go back into the team expenses are payments from the luxury tax, and they are dispensed at the whim of the commisioner of baseball.

Make fun of Bud Selig all you want, but he is the most powerful commisioner the game has ever had, though I don't think that it exactly a good thing.

Eddo144
01-25-2009, 11:02 PM
On average, the teams in the top 10 paid $10,000,000 per extra win compared to the bottom 10. That's an average and it's still amazing. The Yankees alone spent $67mill more than BOTH of the World Series participants combined! Obviously the Yankees and Rays can be viewed as outliers because they're both very rare cases. But we can shift our attention to what Lip Man pointed out about teams with lower payrolls losing 219 out of 224 playoff games between 1995-2001, and we can then see how much has changed.

Spending money is NOT the only way to win anymore. Heck, some may argue that is it not the best way either.
Dollars-per-win figure is an interesting but very misused figure. Essentially, a team like the Yankees or Dodgers, since they spend so much, can afford to overspend on wins. Most teams would be crazy to give Derek Jeter over $20M a year when he's really worth around half that, but since the Yankees already spend so much, overpaying isn't really an issue.

Basically, it's a vicious cycle. High-payroll teams can afford to overspend because they're already high-payroll teams. The Rays, for example, can't afford Pat Burrell to be worthless, even though they're "only" paying him $8M per year, whereas the Yankees can afford to have Carl Pavano do nothing for a few years while they're paying him a ridiculous amount of money.

WhiteSox5187
01-26-2009, 08:32 AM
Make fun of Bud Selig all you want, but he is the most powerful commisioner the game has ever had, though I don't think that it exactly a good thing.
I've always thought that Landis was probably the most powerful commisioner in baseball and the rest have been lackeys for the owners. While Selig may have the most power, when the hell has he used it? The only time he uses his power is when the public pressures him into doing something (ie steroid testing, revenue sharing, etc).

Daver
01-26-2009, 10:47 AM
I've always thought that Landis was probably the most powerful commisioner in baseball and the rest have been lackeys for the owners. While Selig may have the most power, when the hell has he used it? The only time he uses his power is when the public pressures him into doing something (ie steroid testing, revenue sharing, etc).

I never said he was a good commissioner.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-26-2009, 12:46 PM
Your welcome. I know my commentary was just knowledgable as spend more money and you have a better chance of winning. Talk about insight.

Ignorance is bliss. Read my second post in this thread genius.

FedEx227
01-26-2009, 05:52 PM
I'm sure you won't mind, but we'd like to discuss your findings on our radio show tonight. Is that cool? It's something we've often wondered and discussed but never really went into the research with.

Just getting the okay from you.

gosox41
01-26-2009, 08:20 PM
Bob:

Since 2001 I don't see the bottom feeder teams winning a lot in the post season...do you? (That's because they don't seem to get there much.)

For every fluke Tampa or Florida there seems to be a hell of a lot of Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals etc.

I agree the numbers probably aren't as high as they were from 95-01 (and that number was chosen by Proud To Be Your Bud because that's when baseball expanded the number of teams in the post season...) but it's still higher, significantly higher in my opinion and that means something.

When teams like the Pirates, Royals, Orioles and so forth actually start making the postseason, hell A postseason, then I think your comment will have more merit.

Lip

I think those teams need to get some mangement that knows what they're doing. The Royals may be on the right track, but the Pirates and Orioles are wait and see.

Spending lots of money on bad moves have made the once proud Oriole franchise into a crappy organization.

Also, the top 8 teams in payroll aren't making the playoffs every year. Heck, the highest payroll team in the division isn't always making it either.

As for the playoffs, I would expect a higher payroll team to have more succsess but not at the high winning % of 1995-2001.,

WhiteSoxFan84
01-26-2009, 09:31 PM
I'm sure you won't mind, but we'd like to discuss your findings on our radio show tonight. Is that cool? It's something we've often wondered and discussed but never really went into the research with.

Just getting the okay from you.

Mine? Or Lip Man's?
If you're talking to me, no, I would prefer you don't use my awesome researching skills.... lol jk. You're more than welcome to do so if you're talking to me.

FedEx227
01-26-2009, 09:36 PM
Well we did it at 7pm. You can check out the show in the archives, we discussed it a little bit.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-26-2009, 10:26 PM
Well we did it at 7pm. You can check out the show in the archives, we discussed it a little bit.

lol I'm listening to it now.

Quote your source next time you jerk :redneck

Lip Man 1
01-27-2009, 12:20 PM
Bob:

No one is saying they are going to get all eight postseason spots but it's clear there is a real trend between making the playoffs = spending money vs. not making the playoffs = not spending money.

I think that's all anyone is saying.

And that makes perfect sense. Talent costs money, having insurance in case of injuries costs money.

Generally talent wins out over the course of 162 games.

Lip

FedEx227
01-27-2009, 12:59 PM
I think it's related, but not as heavily related as people like to think.

People think spending a ton of money automatically equals to winning, which in the Yankees case has shown to not be true.

It's about how you spend the money.

Like most things a healthy mix is definitely the key. Spend your money wisely, but also know how to develop young prospects and know when to find diamonds in the rough.

The Angels are a good representation of that. Yes, they've spent mega amount of money on Vladmir and Torii Hunter, but have also structured their teams with relatively cheap but effective players like Figgins, K-Rod, Arredando, among others. They've pretty much before this year built the league's best bullpen without having to break the bank.

Iwritecode
01-27-2009, 01:09 PM
"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is [COLOR=Black]219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams"--Bud Selig to ESPN'S Peter Gammons.

I'd really like to see what the record is from 2002-present.

Lip Man 1
01-27-2009, 06:32 PM
Iwrite:

Feel free to check (although I don't know how accurate the team payroll totals are -- example the AP reporting the Sox spent 121 million last season which as Mark Gonzales pointed out, was untrue and he gave some specifics why) I'd be curious myself. I don't think it will be as high as in the 95-01 period but I think it will still be heavily tilted towards those who spend.

--------------

Fed Ex:

Depends on your definition of "winning." Is it winning the World Series?...making the postseason? or even just having a "winning" season? (i.e. at least 82 wins)

Different owners have different ideas on what constitutes "winning" and what justifies what they spend (or don't spend) and fan bases have different opinions in general (say what the Yankee fan base demands as opposed to say the Pirates)

The Yanks haven't won a World Series since 2000 but they did make the postseason 13 years in a row.

Lip

FedEx227
01-27-2009, 06:35 PM
Winning to me is the postseason. I believe a lot of the playoffs is luck. Obviously there is a certain amount of skill but there are times where one game, one hit, one play can turn an entire playoff series around. Certain teams can also be built for the playoff haul, the 05 Sox had a great bullpen and a great rotation which helped them quite a lot. A lot of the playoffs though is pretty unpredictable, or a crapshoot, in my mind.

Still though, I don't believe you can judge winning on a World Series championship because it's so rare. Every year there is no way you can say 29 teams had an unsuccessful season.

turners56
01-27-2009, 06:52 PM
Winning to me is the postseason. I believe a lot of the playoffs is luck. Obviously there is a certain amount of skill but there are times where one game, one hit, one play can turn an entire playoff series around. Certain teams can also be built for the playoff haul, the 05 Sox had a great bullpen and a great rotation which helped them quite a lot. A lot of the playoffs though is pretty unpredictable, or a crapshoot, in my mind.

Still though, I don't believe you can judge winning on a World Series championship because it's so rare. Every year there is no way you can say 29 teams had an unsuccessful season.

It has been a lot of luck lately. That's why we see all these wild card teams in the World Series these days. Last year was an exception of course. But when you take a look at teams like the Rockies, Marlins, and Cardinals, teams that probably shouldn't have been there during their respective runs, it does seem like a lot of luck. But if you take a look before 2001, the Yankees were THE team. Outside of Florida winning it in 1997, the Yankees dominated the post-strike era of baseball until 2001. What's weird is that the Yankees are spending even more money now, yet they haven't gone past the ALDS for the past 4 years. It's a mystery, that's for sure.

Daver
01-27-2009, 07:02 PM
Depends on your definition of "winning." Is it winning the World Series?...making the postseason? or even just having a "winning" season? (i.e. at least 82 wins)


Nowadays even also rans can make it to the post season.

Madscout
01-27-2009, 08:36 PM
It has been a lot of luck lately. That's why we see all these wild card teams in the World Series these days. Last year was an exception of course. But when you take a look at teams like the Rockies, Marlins, and Cardinals, teams that probably shouldn't have been there during their respective runs, it does seem like a lot of luck. But if you take a look before 2001, the Yankees were THE team. Outside of Florida winning it in 1997, the Yankees dominated the post-strike era of baseball until 2001. What's weird is that the Yankees are spending even more money now, yet they haven't gone past the ALDS for the past 4 years. It's a mystery, that's for sure.
The Yankees just don't realize their own formula, which is the formula for every other team. When they were dominant, it wasn't slugging that won (although they could do that), but pitching pitching pitching. Those staffs were amazing, and with the sandman closing, it was a recipe for success. Now, they over pay for mediocre pitchers (everyone is doing this), but then put all of their money on the starting 9 hitters, who they overrate and get on the back end of their careers.

turners56
01-27-2009, 08:41 PM
The Yankees just don't realize their own formula, which is the formula for every other team. When they were dominant, it wasn't slugging that won (although they could do that), but pitching pitching pitching. Those staffs were amazing, and with the sandman closing, it was a recipe for success. Now, they over pay for mediocre pitchers (everyone is doing this), but then put all of their money on the starting 9 hitters, who they overrate and get on the back end of their careers.

It hasn't always been great pitching, sometimes, it's just pitchers who get hot during a short stretch. Jeff Francis, Ubaldo Jiminez, Anthony Reyes, and Jeff Weaver aren't great pitchers, in fact, some of them are horrible, but they all pitched well in the WS and was a key as to why their teams got there, and in the Cardinals' case, how they won it all.

BadBobbyJenks
01-27-2009, 11:43 PM
The Red Sox are the only team to have won the World Series with a payroll over 100 million right? Those calling for a cap where would you set it?

Madscout
01-28-2009, 08:04 AM
It hasn't always been great pitching, sometimes, it's just pitchers who get hot during a short stretch. Jeff Francis, Ubaldo Jiminez, Anthony Reyes, and Jeff Weaver aren't great pitchers, in fact, some of them are horrible, but they all pitched well in the WS and was a key as to why their teams got there, and in the Cardinals' case, how they won it all.
Yes, but you gotta get there. That Cardinals team got lucky, and was lucky to be in the playoffs. Bottom line, if you look at most of the teams that are in the postseason, they get there on the backs of their starting rotation, and stay there on the backs of their starting rotation. Spending **** tons on crappy position players doesn't improve that bottom line.

Iwritecode
01-28-2009, 12:41 PM
Iwrite:

Feel free to check (although I don't know how accurate the team payroll totals are -- example the AP reporting the Sox spent 121 million last season which as Mark Gonzales pointed out, was untrue and he gave some specifics why) I'd be curious myself. I don't think it will be as high as in the 95-01 period but I think it will still be heavily tilted towards those who spend.


From 2002 through 2008, a total of 226 MLB postseason games were played. Only 49 were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. Seven advanced past the Division Series, and eight teams, whose payrolls are not in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 177-49 in favor of the high payroll teams.

The Marlins were 26th in payroll when they won the WS in 2003.
The Rockies were 25th in payroll when they got to the WS in 2007.
The Rays were 29th in payroll when they got to the WS in 2008.

Sure it still favors the high-payroll teams but it doesn't look nearly as bad as the numbers from the previous 7 years. The "lower-half" teams basically made a 900% improvement.

Iwritecode
01-28-2009, 12:44 PM
The Red Sox are the only team to have won the World Series with a payroll over 100 million right?

That is correct.

Lip Man 1
01-28-2009, 03:38 PM
Iwrite:

Thanks for taking the time. As I thought there was some closing of the gap but the numbers still seem to indicate that the more you spend, the better your chances and again I don't see why anyone would be shocked or question that.

Talent costs money, insurance costs money...that's logical.

Lip

Lip Man 1
01-28-2009, 03:43 PM
So adding up the numbers posted by Proud To Be Your Bud and Iwritecode (again assuming in both cases the figures used were accurate) the final numbers are:

396-55 since 1995 through 2008, in favor of the "high payroll" teams in the postseason.

YIKES!

Lip

Lip Man 1
01-28-2009, 03:50 PM
Correction:

396-54.

My bad.

Lip

gosox41
01-28-2009, 10:09 PM
I think it's related, but not as heavily related as people like to think.

People think spending a ton of money automatically equals to winning, which in the Yankees case has shown to not be true.

It's about how you spend the money.

Like most things a healthy mix is definitely the key. Spend your money wisely, but also know how to develop young prospects and know when to find diamonds in the rough.

The Angels are a good representation of that. Yes, they've spent mega amount of money on Vladmir and Torii Hunter, but have also structured their teams with relatively cheap but effective players like Figgins, K-Rod, Arredando, among others. They've pretty much before this year built the league's best bullpen without having to break the bank.


Exactly my point. The Royals and Pirates aren't god awful due to the economics of baseball but bad management.

How many top 10 picks have the Pirates messed up? The Pirates sucking has nothing to do with the Yanks ability to spend $200 mill.

Teams with similar or less resources then the Pirates have had a lot more success.

Bob

Lip Man 1
01-29-2009, 11:18 AM
Bob:

But how do your comments change the reality of things? 396-54 is pretty black and white, open and shut, no?

I think you may be focusing too much on some specific teams and not on the overall picture, which by the numbers seems clear... if you want to win in October...hell if you just want to get to October, you better be prepared to pay for it.

396-54. If that was a fight it would have been stopped a long, long time ago.

Lip