PDA

View Full Version : Money Talks


Lip Man 1
10-06-2003, 11:27 PM
For the record...

3 of the 4 remaining teams in the playoffs have payrolls of at least 88 million dollars...the Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees.

Money talks.....

Sure hope Uncle Jerry realizes this.

Lip

MRKARNO
10-06-2003, 11:34 PM
You can get quality guys for cheap but the clutch guys are expensive

Lip Man 1
10-06-2003, 11:41 PM
Does anybody know what the Florida Marlins payroll is at this time?

Lip

Daver
10-06-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Does anybody know what the Florida Marlins payroll is at this time?

Lip

48 Million,one of the lowest in baseball.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2003, 11:55 PM
Well then if somehow the Marlins can beat the Cubs then Florida will be the first team to get to the World Series in the last ten years with a payroll less then 65 million.

Long, long odds.

Lip

dougs78
10-07-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
For the record...

3 of the 4 remaining teams in the playoffs have payrolls of at least 88 million dollars...the Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees.

Money talks.....

Sure hope Uncle Jerry realizes this.

Lip

Actually I hope that Bud Selig AND the Players Association realize this. There will always be payroll disparities, but at least they should not be this egregious. I would think that after awhile even the players would get tired of the fact that only 20% of them have a realistic shot at the playoffs each year and demand more payroll parity.

mandmandm
10-07-2003, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
You can get quality guys for cheap but the clutch guys are expensive

Example A: The A's marching out Chris Singleton and Terrence Long in the ninth with the tieing and winning run in scoring position.

Counterpoint: Maggs, Thomas, and Konerko have all choked during critical periods since the second half of 2000. There are not exactly making chump change.

OneDog
10-07-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
Actually I hope that Bud Selig AND the Players Association realize this. There will always be payroll disparities, but at least they should not be this egregious. I would think that after awhile even the players would get tired of the fact that only 20% of them have a realistic shot at the playoffs each year and demand more payroll parity.


I'm sure some players are not as interested in parity as they are in cashing their enormous pay checks. I would hope that winning is important to all players, but whenever there is baseball labor news you here the same lines (for example: "Baseball is a business" or "We have to look out for ourselves and our families").

soxtalker
10-07-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
Actually I hope that Bud Selig AND the Players Association realize this. There will always be payroll disparities, but at least they should not be this egregious. I would think that after awhile even the players would get tired of the fact that only 20% of them have a realistic shot at the playoffs each year and demand more payroll parity.

Does the PA really care that there is parity? If it is thought that spending money is what gets you to the playoffs, it will encourage an escalation in salaries. In contrast, I bet that they are not terribly excited about the success of the A's and ideas espoused by Billy Beane (in Moneyball).

The A's failing also doesn't strike me as a very convincing argument that their system won't work. The series and finish were both extremely close, and a single different play or decision could have resulted in the opposite result.

MisterB
10-07-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Does the PA really care that there is parity? If it is thought that spending money is what gets you to the playoffs, it will encourage an escalation in salaries. In contrast, I bet that they are not terribly excited about the success of the A's and ideas espoused by Billy Beane (in Moneyball).

The A's failing also doesn't strike me as a very convincing argument that their system won't work. The series and finish were both extremely close, and a single different play or decision could have resulted in the opposite result.

The MLBPA is perfectly o.k. with the "have's" far outspending the "have not's". Part of the reason is free agency itself. Players would care more about payroll pairity if they didn't have the option of just picking up and following the money to another team.

As for the A's - if it were just one game, you could say "it's could have gone either way", but the A's have failed to clinch a playoff series victory in 9 straight attempts. That's a pattern, my friend.

voodoochile
10-07-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
The MLBPA is perfectly o.k. with the "have's" far outspending the "have not's". Part of the reason is free agency itself. Players would care more about payroll pairity if they didn't have the option of just picking up and following the money to another team.

As for the A's - if it were just one game, you could say "it's could have gone either way", but the A's have failed to clinch a playoff series victory in 9 straight attempts. That's a pattern, my friend.

I don't think they worry about it, but certainly aren't going to agree to a lower salary cap until the owners get serious about revenue sharing.

BTW, that streak of losing when there is a chance to win a series is the all time record.

soxtalker
10-07-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
As for the A's - if it were just one game, you could say "it's could have gone either way", but the A's have failed to clinch a playoff series victory in 9 straight attempts. That's a pattern, my friend.

Originally posted by voodoochile
BTW, that streak of losing when there is a chance to win a series is the all time record.

OK, let me see if I can do a little better job of articulating my opinion. I don't disagree that spending lots of money helps, and, yes, the record of which teams make it to post season demonstrates that. (I think, by the way, that this would also go a long way toward explaining the Yankees dominance before the mid-60's.)

However, if I was an owner that really wanted to win, but had less resources than the NYY, I think that I would look at the Oakland A's record over the past several years and take away how successful they have been with such limited payroll. Now, they haven't been completely successful, so I'd ask what I need to do to tweak that approach. I say "tweak", because they really have been close. Perhaps the answer is to spend a bit more money. However, I suspect that there are some other factors that could be cited. I haven't followed the A's over this series, much less over the entire season, so I really don't know what these are.

I don't have time now, but this is a very interesting topic to me. I read Moneyball only recently and found many of the ideas appealing. But like most things, I'm sure that it isn't the complete answer.

MarkEdward
10-07-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Actually I hope that Bud Selig AND the Players Association realize this. There will always be payroll disparities, but at least they should not be this egregious. I would think that after awhile even the players would get tired of the fact that only 20% of them have a realistic shot at the playoffs each year and demand more payroll parity.

Yeah, because teams like the Marlins, Twins, A's, and Royals just can't compete anymore! I mean, it's not like any of them finished with a record above .500. And it's not like any of these teams made the playoffs. And it's not like the team with the sixth lowest payroll in baseball is in the NLCS right now. We definitely need a salary cap.

And I totally think we should increase our payroll. Teams like the Mets, Dodgers, Rangers, Mariners, Cardinals, Daimondbacks, Angels, Orioles, Astros, Phillies, Rockies, Reds, Pirates, Expos, and Jays all had payrolls higher than us, and look where they are now! Oh, wait...

Dadawg_77
10-07-2003, 01:04 PM
If Tejada hadn't stop running and if Bryns had touch plate there is no game five. Bad breaks versus an equally as good team cost them the series. But spending money to keep Jason would have help this and last year.

voodoochile
10-07-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Yeah, because teams like the Marlins, Twins, A's, and Royals just can't compete anymore! I mean, it's not like any of them finished with a record above .500. And it's not like any of these teams made the playoffs. And it's not like the team with the sixth lowest payroll in baseball is in the NLCS right now. We definitely need a salary cap.

And I totally think we should increase our payroll. Teams like the Mets, Dodgers, Rangers, Mariners, Cardinals, Daimondbacks, Angels, Orioles, Astros, Phillies, Rockies, Reds, Pirates, Expos, and Jays all had payrolls higher than us, and look where they are now! Oh, wait...

How come you stats guys want to ignore the stats about payroll and playoff appearances and WS wins?

Dadawg_77
10-07-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How come you stats guys want to ignore the stats about payroll and playoff appearances and WS wins?

We're not ignoring appearances, Oakland A's have been there the past four years? How many other clubs can say that? Two, and they play the big spender game. Lets look at the teams who use sabermetric style to run their ballclub? Boston, Oakland, Toronto are all that I can think of right now. Boston and Toronto are just laying the foundation, and when the system is fulling in place they should be a better team for less money if market conditions stay the same.

In short series the best team may not always wins, that is one of the great things about baseball is the Marathon of a season. Fluke plays, just team in a funk can lead lesser team to victory. Look at the A's if Jeremy Giambi slides they beat the Yankees, if Tejada had finishing running to the plate, if Byrnes touches the plate the Oakland wins two of those series. I am not saying Oakland is a better team then the Red Sox, I think they were good match up with Red Sox having a edge becaue their offense was better, but not because of big name players, but because of the castoffs the Red Sox pickup.

voodoochile
10-07-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
We're not ignoring appearances, Oakland A's have been there the past four years? How many other clubs can say that? Two, and they play the big spender game. Lets look at the teams who use sabermetric style to run their ballclub? Boston, Oakland, Toronto are all that I can think of right now. Boston and Toronto are just laying the foundation, and when the system is fulling in place they should be a better team for less money if market conditions stay the same.

In short series the best team may not always wins, that is one of the great things about baseball is the Marathon of a season. Fluke plays, just team in a funk can lead lesser team to victory. Look at the A's if Jeremy Giambi slides they beat the Yankees, if Tejada had finishing running to the plate, if Byrnes touches the plate the Oakland wins two of those series. I am not saying Oakland is a better team then the Red Sox, I think they were good match up with Red Sox having a edge becaue their offense was better, but not because of big name players, but because of the castoffs the Red Sox pickup.

I agree the best team doesn't always win a series. Luck plays so heavily into the equation in the post season, but what percentage of teams in the last decade made the playoffs with a payroll in the bottom half of the league? In the lower third?

What were the payroll levels of the WS winners over that same decade?

I don't know the answer, but I bet Lip does and I bet it can be found somewhere. From what I have read, the days of low payroll teams winning a WS are becoming a thing of the past, or at least a statistical anomaly.

I'd also like to see the stats on the total payroll outlay for teams in those same situations, including guys they aren't paying like Everett and Alomar with the Sox this year.

Dadawg_77
10-07-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I agree the best team doesn't always win a series. Luck plays so heavily into the equation in the post season, but what percentage of teams in the last decade made the playoffs with a payroll in the bottom half of the league? In the lower third?

What were the payroll levels of the WS winners over that same decade?

I don't know the answer, but I bet Lip does and I bet it can be found somewhere. From what I have read, the days of low payroll teams winning a WS are becoming a thing of the past, or at least a statistical anomaly.

I'd also like to see the stats on the total payroll outlay for teams in those same situations, including guys they aren't paying like Everett and Alomar with the Sox this year.

Voodoo the question shouldn't be how much you spend, but how much you do with what you spend. How many of the teams with a low payroll try to find a way to beat the system? How much does a team spend in minor league system? How do they scout players? How do they draft? If a team tries to compete in same way the Yankees and the Braves do without spending the same type of money, they will fail. The key to winning is developing talent not free agency. So look for teams who home grown talent are major contributors to the club and you find your playoff teams.

voodoochile
10-07-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Voodoo the question shouldn't be how much you spend, but how much you do with what you spend. How many of the teams with a low payroll try to find a way to beat the system? How much does a team spend in minor league system? How do they scout players? How do they draft? If a team tries to compete in same way the Yankees and the Braves do without spending the same type of money, they will fail. The key to winning is developing talent not free agency. So look for teams who home grown talent are major contributors to the club and you find your playoff teams.

I agree, it shouldn't be, and it definitely doesn't help to spend money unwisely (see the Rangers for example #1). Still, the question remains. Does spending more money seem to increase the chance for a team to make the playoffs and win the WS. The answer seems to be yes.

You develop talent, but have to hang on to it also and that costs money.

Paulwny
10-07-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


You develop talent, but have to hang on to it also and that costs money.

Also teams who are willing to spend are able to fill holes in the field/line-up with fa's when they don't have the talent in the minors to fill those holes. It's impossible to have major league talent for every position in a minor league system.

thepaulbowski
10-07-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Actually I hope that Bud Selig AND the Players Association realize this. There will always be payroll disparities, but at least they should not be this egregious. I would think that after awhile even the players would get tired of the fact that only 20% of them have a realistic shot at the playoffs each year and demand more payroll parity.

The players union only cares about themselves, they don't care about the game. Until there is a salary cap and a salary floor, sustained parity will not exist.

Dadawg_77
10-07-2003, 04:03 PM
Based on Doug Pappas idea of Marginal Dollar per Win ( no team will finish below .300 winning %, and every team must spend at least 8.4 million, 25 man roster and 3 on the DL making the MLB minimum. The best team, spending the least amount per marginal win was the Tampa Bay Devil Rays spending $779,861, but they only had an opening day payroll of 19,630,000, so it doesn't take much for good rate. The A's were in second at 885,250 per MW but they had three times as many MW then the Rays did. The other two teams who spent under a million per win are the Royals and Marlins. The worst teams, Texas (over 4 mill) and the Mets (over six million)

The White Sox were second in the central with spending $1,139,305 per marginal win. The Twins opening day payroll was higher by about 4 million then the Sox.

soxtalker
10-07-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Also teams who are willing to spend are able to fill holes in the field/line-up with fa's when they don't have the talent in the minors to fill those holes. It's impossible to have major league talent for every position in a minor league system.

It seems to me that the high-spending teams are often able to correct problems that are caused by either injuries or mistakes. We avoided the former pretty much this year. For the mistake part, I don't think that we had the ability to go out and purchase a closer to replace Koch. Fortunately, KW had signed Gordon, who was able to help fill in the hole along with Marte. The Yankees might have just gone out and purchased someone.

Now, it might be good to look at not just spending but amount that the team has in reserve to take care of such needs. Several other teams (e.g., Dodgers) had little capacity to spend later in the season. We were at a much lower spending level, but the same concept held. KW did a nice job in making the trades, but he was unable to pick up additional salary.

Randar68
10-07-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
KW did a nice job in making the trades, but he was unable to pick up additional salary.

Don't forget the other catch-22 with this. Because he couldn't take on the salary, he was forced to deal much better prospect than he would have been otherwise required. Ring, Webster, and Rupe were all decent-to-good prospects at the very least...

It's a juggling act.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2003, 01:04 AM
Voodoo:

Per your request:

"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 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams." --Bud Selig, April 2002.

voodoochile
10-08-2003, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Voodoo:

Per your request:

"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 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams." --Bud Selig, April 2002.

Not much ambiguous about those stats now is there?

MarkEdward
10-08-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Not much ambiguous about those stats now is there?

This year, the A's (23rd in payroll) won 96 games. The Royals (29th in payroll) won 83 games. The Twins (18th in payroll) won 90 games. The White Sox (22nd in payroll) won 86 games. The Phillies (15th in payroll) won 86 games. The Marlins (24th in payroll) won 91 games. The Expos (20th in payroll) won 83 games. The Blue Jays (21st in payroll) won 86 games. Are you seriously trying to tell me that none of these teams were competitive this year?

The playoffs are a crap shoot. They're a crappy way of determining the best team in baseball. If you're hot come September 30th, you're almost guaranteed a shot in the World Series (see Marlins and Cubs as examples). You can't point to a stat showing low payroll teams have only won however many times in the last whatever number of series and say 'Look! Low payroll teams can't compete!' It's just not fair.

When I'm judging competitiveness, I'll take 162 games worth of evidence over a five game series.

poorme
10-08-2003, 01:54 PM
such silliness. the royals stink for 15 straight years and then somehow manage to win 83 games, and then people claim, "Look! You don't need to spend money to win!"

the only reason the A's are good is that they stumbled into having three of the best starters in baseball. the A's only had the 9th best OPS in the american league. that team is built around pitching.

in a few years when mulder, zito, and hudson are long gone, we'll see how smart billy beane is.

mrwag
10-08-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
The playoffs are a crap shoot. They're a crappy way of determining the best team in baseball. If you're hot come September 30th, you're almost guaranteed a shot in the World Series (see Marlins and Cubs as examples).
So why is then that only the high payroll teams get hot when it counts?

GoSox2K3
10-08-2003, 02:07 PM
I'm tired of people using teams like the '03 Royals as a reason why everything is fine with baseball's competitiveness.

Some of the poorer teams can get by for a few years with their homegrown talent, but then they know it's almost a certainty that the talent will leave once they are eligible for FA.

It would be one thing if there were only 1 or 2 teams in baseball that couldn't compete, but it seems like it's at least 1/3 of all the teams that will never be able to string many decent seasons together.

voodoochile
10-08-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
This year, the A's (23rd in payroll) won 96 games. The Royals (29th in payroll) won 83 games. The Twins (18th in payroll) won 90 games. The White Sox (22nd in payroll) won 86 games. The Phillies (15th in payroll) won 86 games. The Marlins (24th in payroll) won 91 games. The Expos (20th in payroll) won 83 games. The Blue Jays (21st in payroll) won 86 games. Are you seriously trying to tell me that none of these teams were competitive this year?

The playoffs are a crap shoot. They're a crappy way of determining the best team in baseball. If you're hot come September 30th, you're almost guaranteed a shot in the World Series (see Marlins and Cubs as examples). You can't point to a stat showing low payroll teams have only won however many times in the last whatever number of series and say 'Look! Low payroll teams can't compete!' It's just not fair.

When I'm judging competitiveness, I'll take 162 games worth of evidence over a five game series.

What about those 224 games of evidence that Lip pointed out earlier. Do those count for something?

anewman35
10-08-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Not much ambiguous about those stats now is there?

Except that Bud Selig has lied in the past. Not that I'm saying he is here, but seeing his name attached to something doesn't exactly make it so in my mind.

voodoochile
10-08-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Except that Bud Selig has lied in the past. Not that I'm saying he is here, but seeing his name attached to something doesn't exactly make it so in my mind.

If they were false, don't you think someone would have pointed it out? I mean playoff wins, losses and payrolls are all a matter of public record.

MarkEdward
10-08-2003, 06:38 PM
Wow, lots of responses...

Originally posted by poorme
such silliness. the royals stink for 15 straight years and then somehow manage to win 83 games, and then people claim, "Look! You don't need to spend money to win!"

Well, first, it's only been 10 years. Like I wrote in my previous post, there are other teams that have sustained success with low payrolls, like the Sox, A's, and Twins. Heck, maybe this is the start of a long, low payroll dynasty for the Royals, Marlins, and Twins. We just don't know.

the only reason the A's are good is that they stumbled into having three of the best starters in baseball.

Ah, I see. They just stumbled upon Mulder, Hudson, and Zito. Nope, can't give any credit to Beane, Alderson, or their scouts. No-sir-ee.

the A's only had the 9th best OPS in the american league. that team is built around pitching.

And?

in a few years when mulder, zito, and hudson are long gone, we'll see how smart billy beane is.

Ah yes, I've heard that before:
When Jason Giambi leaves, then we'll see how good the A's really are.
When Johnny Damon leaves, then we'll see how good the A's really are.
When Jason Isringhausen leaves, then we'll see how good the A's really are.

When Zito, Mulder, and Hudson leave, Joe Blanton, Rich Harden, and Mike Wood will take their places. Or Beane will find another source of cheap talent. It's time to stop predicting the man's demise and give him some credit.

Originally posted by mrwag

So why is then that only the high payroll teams get hot when it counts?

The Marlins are a high payroll club?

Originally posted by GoSox2K3
I'm tired of people using teams like the '03 Royals as a reason why everything is fine with baseball's competitiveness.

Well, I'm tired of people using Bud Selig's crappy "fact" as proof that everything is wrong with baseball's competitiveness.

It would be one thing if there were only 1 or 2 teams in baseball that couldn't compete, but it seems like it's at least 1/3 of all the teams that will never be able to string many decent seasons together.

Are they not competitive because they can't retain their free agents, or are they not competitive because their management sucks? Seriously, how many homegrown players have the Devil Rays lost to free agency?

MarkEdward
10-08-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

What about those 224 games of evidence that Lip pointed out earlier. Do those count for something?

I don't think so. Those 224 games are divided into tiny five and seven game series.

Once again, don't the seasons of the Jays, Sox, Twins, Royals, A's, Marlins, Phillies, and Phillies account for anything? Were they in the lower half payrolls, and weren't they competitive?

Originally posted by voodoochile

If they were false, don't you think someone would have pointed it out? I mean playoff wins, losses and payrolls are all a matter of public record.

For what it's worth, I think Doug Pappas wrote some stuff on that quote. I'll try to find it.

voodoochile
10-08-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I don't think so. Those 224 games are divided into tiny five and seven game series.

Once again, don't the seasons of the Jays, Sox, Twins, Royals, A's, Marlins, Phillies, and Phillies account for anything? Were they in the lower half payrolls, and weren't they competitive?



For what it's worth, I think Doug Pappas wrote some stuff on that quote. I'll try to find it.

The fact that they are divided into "tiny series" seems pretty moot to me. So is the regular season.

You keep coming back to the regular season and I will continue to point out that until someone shows me differently, you have to spend money to succeed in the playoffs. Look back at that stat. the lower payroll teams won 5 games out of 224. FIVE! That is NOT a fluke. It is NOT something that can be brushed off.

I don't necessarily think anything is wrong with baseball, I just want the Sox to up their payroll. That's my point.

poorme
10-08-2003, 07:53 PM
what are you talking about by "competitive." so you win 85-90 games a couple of years in a row...BIG DEAL. the only exception has been the A's. the A's success is solely attributable to having hudson, zito, and mulder come up together. now maybe that's just chance or maybe beane has a crystal ball, but either way, it has no relevance for the sox or any other team. teams have been trying to draft ace pitchers for 35 years and nobody's been able to figure out how to do it consistently.

MarkEdward
10-08-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


The fact that they are divided into "tiny series" seems pretty moot to me. So is the regular season.

You keep coming back to the regular season and I will continue to point out that until someone shows me differently, you have to spend money to succeed in the playoffs. Look back at that stat. the lower payroll teams won 5 games out of 224. FIVE! That is NOT a fluke. It is NOT something that can be brushed off.

So am I understanding your argument correctly: low payroll teams are able to compete during the first 162 games of the season, but once the playoffs hit, they completely lose their competitiveness and are horribly beaten by high payroll teams.

I don't necessarily think anything is wrong with baseball, I just want the Sox to up their payroll. That's my point.

I have no problem with increasing our payroll. We really should bring Ordonez, Thomas, and Colon back because we have no cheaper options. My point is that it's not a hopeless cause just because a team has a payroll under 60 million.

Originally posted by poorme
what are you talking about by "competitive." so you win 85-90 games a couple of years in a row...BIG DEAL.

Consistently winning 85-90 games a season isn't being competitive? Well then, I guess you and I disagree on the meaning of the word 'competitive.'

the only exception has been the A's. the A's success is solely attributable to having hudson, zito, and mulder come up together.

Yeah, Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada haven't helped at all.

The Twins and Sox have also been pretty successful on low payrolls, among others.

now maybe that's just chance or maybe beane has a crystal ball, but either way, it has no relevance for the sox or any other team.

Why not? Why can't other teams follow sabermetric ideas? It's worked for the A's, Red Sox, and Blue Jays.

teams have been trying to draft ace pitchers for 35 years and nobody's been able to figure out how to do it consistently.

Well, maybe it's because they've been doing it wrong...

voodoochile
10-08-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
So am I understanding your argument correctly: low payroll teams are able to compete during the first 162 games of the season, but once the playoffs hit, they completely lose their competitiveness and are horribly beaten by high payroll teams.


Apparently so if you look at the stats. Honestly, I think it comes down to the fact that higher payroll teams have deeper benches, more veteran players (read more experience) who are less likely to be emotionally overwhelmed in a short playoff series or get away from the things they do to be successful when the chips are down, better bullpens and a better 3rd and 4th starter.

So, IMO, that translates to more ACTUAL TALENT (to use a phrase from your BP article) and that translates to more wins in the post season - lots and lots more wins from the looks of things.

poorme
10-09-2003, 09:39 AM
even beane admits money matters!

"I'll tell you what," Beane said. "If you want to give us $50 million more, I'll promise you we won't blow that 2-0 lead. Our guys battled their rear ends off. If you guys want to make an issue of it, so be it."

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2003/10/07/frustration_in_failure/

dougs78
10-09-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Yeah, because teams like the Marlins, Twins, A's, and Royals just can't compete anymore! I mean, it's not like any of them finished with a record above .500. And it's not like any of these teams made the playoffs. And it's not like the team with the sixth lowest payroll in baseball is in the NLCS right now. We definitely need a salary cap.

And I totally think we should increase our payroll. Teams like the Mets, Dodgers, Rangers, Mariners, Cardinals, Daimondbacks, Angels, Orioles, Astros, Phillies, Rockies, Reds, Pirates, Expos, and Jays all had payrolls higher than us, and look where they are now! Oh, wait...

As others have pointed out, sure the marlins, twins, A's got very hot at the end of the season and got into the playoffs. This is great and I wish it were that simple. I do agree that there is more to winning than spending money, but that does not diminish the fact that money is still very strongly related to baseball success. That simply should not be the case. The sheer amount of money spent should not influence a sports outcome.

I know many of you arguing against a salary cap love statistics, well here is how you can use them to look at this. If you really want to examine my point heres the data you'll need:

1. A measure of all the teams success over the past 10-15 years. We can use wins + playoff appearances + championships and weight each one until you feel it captures "success."

2. An exact figure of a team's on the field payroll. (ie, not including injured players (Belle), or paying portions of salary (Hampton)) for each season over the past 10-15 years.

3. You would need to somehow quantify how "smartly" each team spent their money in each of those 10-15 years. That could be by a series of ratings by very knowledgeable people. So in the end it would have to be an averaged opinion of sorts. Keep in mind its not how the money was spent across years, but within that particular season.

4. A measure of how much money the team spent on the off the field things such as scouting, player development, minor league salary, salary paid for other teams and whatever else they spend money on. (personally I"m not sure you could find this information, but it would really be necessary to prove the point that money talks, and truthfull this information should really be average of the 3-5 years previous to make sure it reflects the development of the players playing).

5. Finally, it would be interesting, but perhaps not necessary for this point to have a quantification of the talent available to each team. This would get entirely subjective so it may not be worth looking at.

6-? You are welcome to come up with any other measures of variables that you feel account for teams success in the game of baseball. (ie, managerial ability, stadium location, etc). As long as you quantify those somehow then its fine.


So, after collecting the data sets for each of variables I strongly suggest that compute the correlation of variables 2,3, 4 and 6 with variable 1 (success). I think you'll find a strong correlation for each one.

However, by using Multiple Regression (for those of you that have not been forced to sit through graduate stats classes, its a way of determining correlations while holding the other variables constant) you can use Success as your criterion measure and then enter variables 3 (smart spending) and all the variables you came up with for 6 in the first step of the regression model. Then enter total spending in the final step. Total spending will be a combination of 4 (off field spending) and 2 (on the field spending). By doing this it will tell us if Total Spending makes a contribution to Success ABOVE AND BEYOND what the other variables account for.

If you do all this, I'm quite confidnet you'll find that it does.

thepaulbowski
10-09-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by poorme
such silliness. the royals stink for 15 straight years and then somehow manage to win 83 games, and then people claim, "Look! You don't need to spend money to win!"

the only reason the A's are good is that they stumbled into having three of the best starters in baseball. the A's only had the 9th best OPS in the american league. that team is built around pitching.

in a few years when mulder, zito, and hudson are long gone, we'll see how smart billy beane is.

Or maybe they have good minor league development staffs & scouts? You don't just stumble into that many people.

poorme
10-09-2003, 10:41 AM
of course spending more money pays off, otherwise every team would compete with eachother to see who spends the LEAST amount of money.

if you want to compete for a championship on a regular basis, you need to spend the $$$.

here's an interesting thought: what if every gm read moneyball, and got a subscription to baseball prospectus and bought into the highly complex theory that OBP was all that mattered? all the rich teams would buy up all the high OBP players!! how would that solve the problem of financial inequity?

Iwritecode
10-09-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Consistently winning 85-90 games a season isn't being competitive? Well then, I guess you and I disagree on the meaning of the word 'competitive.'

I think this is the big sticking point right here.

Voodoo is talking about what has happened in the post season the past five years.

Mark keeps talking about being competitive in the regular season.

IMHO, competitive and success are 2 different things. Take our White Sox for example. I'm not sure of the exact #'s but I do know you have to go back a number of years to see the last time the team finished below third. Most of the time they finish second and a few times they even manged to win the division.

That means they've been pretty competitive at least the past couple of decades.

So for all of that, what do they have to show for it? 3 divison titles in 20+ years?

Maybe you're satisfied with that, but for most people, the 162-game regular season is just a warm up for the "real" season. The whole point of playing all those games is so you can be the team at the end that can say "We're #1".

When's the last time a low-payroll team (like the Sox) has been able to do that?

So forget about the regular season and focus solely on the team that won the WS in every year. Check to see where their payroll was that year and I'm sure that 99% of the time it was a team with a payroll in the upper-half at least. Upper-third is even more likely.

I'm sick of this team being competitive. Just once in my like I would like to say they are the best...

kempsted
10-09-2003, 12:01 PM
I did a quick study last year and charted out the teams in terms of payroll and wins and there is a high statistically significant correlation between payroll and wins. Take about a 10 year sample and it is striking.

What is interesting is there are two consistent outliers - one who spends more than they win and one that spends less then they win.

The A's have been consistently in the bottom bracket in spending and the upper bracket in winning.

The team that has consistently been in the top bracket in spending and the lowest bracket for wins ...... the Cubs. Yes the Cubs spend a lot of money to put sucky teams on the field year after year. Maybe this will all change after this year but ...

There is another correlation which is interesting. There is a correlation between wins and attendance but there is even a stronger correlation between $$$ and attendance. Now there will be the obvious which causes which question but I think there is at least circumstantial evidence that spending more can cause increased attendance which then allows for more spending. Fans come out because of the big name players you put on the filed in the first half. The second half they come out for wins.

voodoochile
10-09-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
There is another correlation which is interesting. There is a correlation between wins and attendance but there is even a stronger correlation between $$$ and attendance. Now there will be the obvious which causes which question but I think there is at least circumstantial evidence that spending more can cause increased attendance which then allows for more spending. Fans come out because of the big name players you put on the filed in the first half. The second half they come out for wins.

NO WAY!

No shock at all and you miss the obvious part about what signing big name players increases the season ticket base which increases attendance for the whole year (obviously) and is THE SINGLE BEST WAY to guarantee higher attendance. Of course you have to do it for several years in a row to see any dramatic increase.

MisterB
10-09-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
There is another correlation which is interesting. There is a correlation between wins and attendance but there is even a stronger correlation between $$$ and attendance. Now there will be the obvious which causes which question but I think there is at least circumstantial evidence that spending more can cause increased attendance which then allows for more spending. Fans come out because of the big name players you put on the filed in the first half. The second half they come out for wins.

In my mind, it's all a self-sustaining loop. More wins leads to increased fan interest/attendance which leads to more revenue which leads to better talent which leads to more wins, etc. Also there is a group of people between each step that affects how efficient the process is: Marketing turns wins into fan interest, Sales & Merchandising turns fan interest into revenue, ownership and the GM turn revenue into talent, and the on-field staff turns talent into wins. It's interesting to see who fits in each spot and how it affects the whole system. Manuel got fired for failure to turn talent into wins. Billy Beane is highly regarded for turning less revenue into better talent. The Flubs have managed to turn less wins into more fan interest :angry: , and so on...

MarkEdward
10-09-2003, 12:56 PM
Again, lots of responses, so...

Originally posted by voodoochile

Apparently so if you look at the stats. Honestly, I think it comes down to the fact that higher payroll teams have deeper benches,

I don't know about that. You can build a very good bench cheaply, if you know where to find the talent. There are plenty of examples of inexpensive players out there (Daubach, McMillon, etc.). I do admit that Beane did a crappy job of putting together the 2003 A's. Byrnes, Singleton, Dye, and Long is not an impressive outfield.

Let's use this year as an example. Would you really take the Yankees bench (Flaherty, Almonte, Sojo, Delluci, Garcia, Sierra) over the Marlins bench (Redmond, Fox, Lowell, Mordecai, Banks, Harris, and Hollandsworth)?

more veteran players (read more experience) who are less likely to be emotionally overwhelmed in a short playoff series or get away from the things they do to be successful when the chips are down, better bullpens and a better 3rd and 4th starter.

So, for the A's to be successful in the playoffs, they need to sign Jim Leyrtiz and Luis Sojo this off-season :smile:?

As for the pens, it's pretty easy to find cheap relievers (Kenny Williams actually did this well). Would you take the Yankees pen over the A's pen?

Originally posted by poorme
even beane admits money matters!


I never said money didn't matter. I said teams can compete on a low payroll.

Originally posted by dougs78

If you do all this, I'm quite confidnet you'll find that it does.

Well, I suppose we don't know that (yet). However, a lot of your study would be based on subjective intelligence (how would one measure intelligence?).

Originally posted by poorme

here's an interesting thought: what if every gm read moneyball, and got a subscription to baseball prospectus and bought into the highly complex theory that OBP was all that mattered? all the rich teams would buy up all the high OBP players!! how would that solve the problem of financial inequity?

Then he'll just find another undervalued stat. Beane's whole philosophy is based on the market for players. If OBP becomes heavily valued, then he'll just find something else to look for in players (maybe defense, or sluggers).


Originally posted by Iwritecode

When's the last time a low-payroll team (like the Sox) has been able to do that?

Um, maybe the Angels, around 2002?

So forget about the regular season and focus solely on the team that won the WS in every year. Check to see where their payroll was that year and I'm sure that 99% of the time it was a team with a payroll in the upper-half at least. Upper-third is even more likely.


Well, if we go by that measurement, then only one team is competitive per year. Everyone else is a dismal failure. Even if they don't make the World Series, I'm sure the Marlins (and their fans) will consider this year a successful year.


Originally posted by kempsted
I did a quick study last year and charted out the teams in terms of payroll and wins and there is a high statistically significant correlation between payroll and wins. Take about a 10 year sample and it is striking.


So did Doug Pappas:
http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/02-4pay.htm

The six division winners placed first, fourth, seventh, 13th, 27th, and 28th in payroll. The Wild Card teams finished 10th and 15th. Meanwhile, the six last-place teams finished third, sixth, 20th, 21st, 26th, and 30th.

Hm. Some teams that spend money win, some teams that spend money lose. Some teams that don't spend money win, some teams that don't spend money lose. That sounds like damn good parity to me.

Iwritecode
10-09-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, if we go by that measurement, then only one team is competitive per year. Everyone else is a dismal failure. Even if they don't make the World Series, I'm sure the Marlins (and their fans) will consider this year a successful year.

It really depends on what the expectations for the team are at the beginning of the year. The Sox finished in second place and over .500 (again) this year.

But... they missed the playoffs. Was this a successful year for them? I'd have to say no.

Was 2000 a sucessful year? They sure don't have much to show for it do they?

In the end it all boils down to one thing. Getting that WS ring.

I'm not saying the other 29 teams are disimal failures every year, but I don't see how coming up short of your final goal can be considered success...

What was it the Bulls said that one year?

"72-10 don't mean a thing without that ring"

Iwritecode
10-09-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Um, maybe the Angels, around 2002?

What was their payroll last year anyway? Wasn't somewhere between 60 and 70 million?

Whatever it was, I'm sure it was more than the Sox spent this year...

voodoochile
10-09-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I don't know about that. You can build a very good bench cheaply, if you know where to find the talent. There are plenty of examples of inexpensive players out there (Daubach, McMillon, etc.).

I never said money didn't matter. I said teams can compete on a low payroll.

Um, maybe the Angels, around 2002?

Well, if we go by that measurement, then only one team is competitive per year. Everyone else is a dismal failure. Even if they don't make the World Series, I'm sure the Marlins (and their fans) will consider this year a successful year.

Hm. Some teams that spend money win, some teams that spend money lose. Some teams that don't spend money win, some teams that don't spend money lose. That sounds like damn good parity to me.

I'm just lumping the parts I want to respond to together.

I agree a team can compete on a low payroll in the regular season, but can a team win it all with a payroll in the bottom half of the league? Where did the Angels' 2002 payroll fall in terms of league average?

You are talking about apples and oranges as far as I am concerned. You keep coming back to competitive and I am talking about winning it all or at least winning playoff games in the first two rounds. You keep using arbitrary statements like "low payroll" which has no statistical meaning. Where do these "low payroll" competitive teams place in the league's overall payroll ranking? Is any team below $100M a low payroll team, IYO?

You are correct that a high payroll doesn't guarantee success either in the regular or post season, but again, the statistics seem to be proving that you do have to spend at certain levels if you want to go for the big prize. In addition, you can find solid bench players for "low salaries", but if you spend more, you are more likely to land better players. Do you agree with that? In addition, the veteran "low priced" bench players you mention are still more expensive than filling your bench with a teams best minor leaguers in their first 3 years of service, so there is at least SOME extra cost to have them on your team.

Would you be happy making divisional runs every year but failing in the playoffs or falling just short of them? What constitutes a successful season to you? While I agree that for some teams making the playoffs is enough, will it be enough for Marlins fans 2 years from now?

Hangar18
10-09-2003, 01:15 PM
" The reason the A's are good, is that they Stumbled in 3 good
players, Hudson Mulder Zito".


I dont think the A's "Stumbled" into those players as much as they SCOUTED those players. The Cubs, now THEY STUMBLED into Mark Prior. I always laugh when theyre "Credited" for having PRIOR in their Minor League System. What a Crock. Bud Selig has as much to do with Prior being a Cub as anyone else.

voodoochile
10-09-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
So did Doug Pappas:
http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/02-4pay.htm

The six division winners placed first, fourth, seventh, 13th, 27th, and 28th in payroll. The Wild Card teams finished 10th and 15th. Meanwhile, the six last-place teams finished third, sixth, 20th, 21st, 26th, and 30th.

Hm. Some teams that spend money win, some teams that spend money lose. Some teams that don't spend money win, some teams that don't spend money lose. That sounds like damn good parity to me.

You are really defending the opposite viewpoint with these stats. There are 30 teams in the majors and of the 8 teams that made the playoffs all but 2 were in the top half of the payrolls and neither of them made it to the World Series - though playing each other in the first round certainly made it tougher.

Meanwhile of the last place teams, all but 2 were in the bottom half and half of them were in the bottom third of league payroll. The two that were in the top third played in two of the most competitive divisions in baseball and won an average of 73.5 games while the other 4 won an average of 58 games.

Of the teams in the bottom third of the league, only 3 finished with winning records and the average win total was 80.3. If you take out the two teams who made the playoffs the total drops to 75.8.

Meanwhile the top third of the payroll teams averaged 89.6 wins and 4 of them made the playoffs.

Small sample size, I know, but if you were trying to prove that increased payroll does not increase your odds of making the playoffs, you failed, IMO.

poorme
10-09-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I dont think the A's "Stumbled" into those players as much as they SCOUTED those players.

i don't care what you call it...luck, skill, magic, whatever. the point is it HAS NO RELEVANCE TO ANYTHING. every single person knows you have to draft good players. saying, "you have to draft well to be competitive" is so obvious, don't even bother saying it.

dooda
10-09-2003, 01:58 PM
I don't think the central issue in the Sox failure to win a World Series or even get to a WS under this ownership is primarily a money issue.

You do have to pay quality people (talent and character) in order to have them want to stay and perform for you.
You don't have to have the highest payroll to keep enough talent to win consistantly.

Winning is a decision, and an expectation and an attitude. The tone is set from the top down. Like Stieinbrenner or not, he sets the tone. He expects results. He provides resources. He demands winning.

The crux of the problem is leadership. Leadership starts with the owner deciding what the goal is. He then must being willing to put high quality, talented people in position to make the baseball decisions and give them the resources to do the job. These baseball people have to decide first and foremost HOW WE INTEND TO PLAY THE GAME. Once the decision has been made to play the game in a particular style (offensively or defensively), all of the personnel decisions should be nearly automatic.
Money will be spent on managers, players, and player development personnel that best fit the scheme.

Successful low budget teams like the Twins have remained competitive by playing a consistent style and wise use of the available money to enhance the style they have chosen to play. For example, the acquisition of Shannon Stewart fit the mold of the Twins player. Speed, high average, good defensive player, good OBP. They didn't go after a player that could no longer field his position or a low average high power guy who can't run.

The White Sox have not had a solid direction for the length of time that the current ownership has ruled. Success begins at the top.

voodoochile
10-09-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by dooda
I don't think the central issue in the Sox failure to win a World Series or even get to a WS under this ownership is primarily a money issue.

You do have to pay quality people (talent and character) in order to have them want to stay and perform for you.
You don't have to have the highest payroll to keep enough talent to win consistantly.

Winning is a decision, and an expectation and an attitude. The tone is set from the top down. Like Stieinbrenner or not, he sets the tone. He expects results. He provides resources. He demands winning.

The crux of the problem is leadership. Leadership starts with the owner deciding what the goal is. He then must being willing to put high quality, talented people in position to make the baseball decisions and give them the resources to do the job. These baseball people have to decide first and foremost HOW WE INTEND TO PLAY THE GAME. Once the decision has been made to play the game in a particular style (offensively or defensively), all of the personnel decisions should be nearly automatic.
Money will be spent on managers, players, and player development personnel that best fit the scheme.

Successful low budget teams like the Twins have remained competitive by playing a consistent style and wise use of the available money to enhance the style they have chosen to play. For example, the acquisition of Shannon Stewart fit the mold of the Twins player. Speed, high average, good defensive player, good OBP. They didn't go after a player that could no longer field his position or a low average high power guy who can't run.

The White Sox have not had a solid direction for the length of time that the current ownership has ruled. Success begins at the top.

Welcome Aboard! :D:

I agree 100%.

gosox41
10-09-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by kempsted

There is another correlation which is interesting. There is a correlation between wins and attendance but there is even a stronger correlation between $$$ and attendance. Now there will be the obvious which causes which question but I think there is at least circumstantial evidence that spending more can cause increased attendance which then allows for more spending. Fans come out because of the big name players you put on the filed in the first half. The second half they come out for wins.


So where were all the Sox fans the first half of the season. The crowds only started coming out after the team started playing well. But there were still bign ame playerss on the team during the first half.

Bob

gosox41
10-09-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
It really depends on what the expectations for the team are at the beginning of the year. The Sox finished in second place and over .500 (again) this year.

But... they missed the playoffs. Was this a successful year for them? I'd have to say no.

Was 2000 a sucessful year? They sure don't have much to show for it do they?

In the end it all boils down to one thing. Getting that WS ring.

I'm not saying the other 29 teams are disimal failures every year, but I don't see how coming up short of your final goal can be considered success...

What was it the Bulls said that one year?

"72-10 don't mean a thing without that ring"

I disagree. I think the ring is important and is the ultimate goal. But if a team doesn't do that, it doesn't mean they're a failure.

Take the A's. They averaged 99 wins between 2000-2002. Then this season they come back and win 97 games. Sure they've had some disappointments in the playoffs but I'll take a run like that in a 4 year period.

Do you consider the Braves failures? They've won 12 division titles in a row and have only one ring to show for it. While it would be nice if they would have more (especially this season) O give them credit for surviving a marathon season with all its ups and down and managing a trip to the playoffs....12 times in a row.

Also, most people don't realize the luck involved in a short series. WHile the A's blew it this year, the games they lost tot the Red Sox were only by a run or 2. They did not get their butts kicked or blown out or anything like that.

Bob

gosox41
10-09-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
What was their payroll last year anyway? Wasn't somewhere between 60 and 70 million?

Whatever it was, I'm sure it was more than the Sox spent this year...

The Angels did out spend the Sox in 2002, though they were still in the middle of the pack pay roll wise.

Meanwhile in 2003, the Angels spent close to $90 mill. to bring back essentially the same World Championship team and they finished under .500.

So it begs the quesition: Were the Angels a fluke last season? Did they get lucky with injuries, and had the ball fall their way in all the short playoff series to win it all or was this year the fluke?

Bob

gosox41
10-09-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
" The reason the A's are good, is that they Stumbled in 3 good
players, Hudson Mulder Zito".




I expect a lot of good things from Harden and Blanton. Did the A's stumble on these two guys, also? According to "Moneyball" the Sox were going to draft Blanton but didn't.

Give credit where credit is due. You don't make the playoffs 4 years in a row by just luck. The A's have a method that works. They've won 90+ games 4 years running while doing it on a $40 mill. payroll. There's not much "stumbling" going on for that to happen.

Bob

GoSox2K3
10-09-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
So did Doug Pappas:
http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/02-4pay.htm

The six division winners placed first, fourth, seventh, 13th, 27th, and 28th in payroll. The Wild Card teams finished 10th and 15th. Meanwhile, the six last-place teams finished third, sixth, 20th, 21st, 26th, and 30th.

Hm. Some teams that spend money win, some teams that spend money lose. Some teams that don't spend money win, some teams that don't spend money lose. That sounds like damn good parity to me.

I disagree that this proves damn good parity in baseball. How can you say there is parity when there are some teams that will spend obscense amounts of money every year to put them over the top? Any of the lower payroll teams that are lucky enough to string together a good young team know that their team will be picked apart by the likes of the Yankees, Giants, Red Sox, etc. in a few years.

Just because some big spending teams lose (Mets) and some low payroll teams win (Twins) doesn't prove that parity is great in baseball.

We'll see how great parity is when the Yankees scoop up Colon in a month or two. Do you think teams like the Brewers, Royals, Pirates, Tigers have a prayer of coming up with the money to sign someone like that?

xil357
10-09-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by poorme
here's an interesting thought: what if every gm read moneyball, and got a subscription to baseball prospectus and bought into the highly complex theory that OBP was all that mattered? all the rich teams would buy up all the high OBP players!! how would that solve the problem of financial inequity?

That has been my point exactly. When Moneyball becomes the Bible, laws of supply and demand will inflate the price of highOBP/OPS players. Meanwhile, because MLB rosters are limited to 25, the relative prices for pitching and for speedy defensive players will decrease.

Then some smart GM, with a limited payroll, will build up his minor league system to draft and develop speedy players with good gloves and pitchers, especially those who can nibble the corners to get outs.

Then that team will compete for postseason berths on a shoestring budget because they will have pitchers who can get the high OBP/OPS hitters out, and fielders who can get to more of the balls that are hit by the high OBP/OPS hitters, resulting in a higher percentage of putouts.

There are any one of a number of strategies to reach the post-season. The point is that if you are on a tight budget, you need to be a contrarian and zig when everyone else zags to get the best bang for your buck.

Then hope that its enough to beat the Yankees.

poorme
10-09-2003, 03:47 PM
this is getting absurd. but i'm for anything that makes speed and defense a winning strategy.

kempsted
10-09-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
So where were all the Sox fans the first half of the season. The crowds only started coming out after the team started playing well. But there were still bign ame playerss on the team during the first half.

Bob
They signed Colon and I guess some people might have considered Koch as a big deal. Although most of the increased season ticket sales were probably due to the All Star game there was an increase in season ticket purchases.

As Voodo points out that season ticket sales is the single biggest factor in better attendance. It insures that the lowest number is X where X is the number of season tickets you have sold. This is a plus for the Cubs where they have good numbers even when you go and find there is no one there (like when I went to a game at Wriggly last year).

But give me a break - where were the other big signings? The weather was awful and the team got off to a bad start. Had they gotten Robbie Alomar, Everett and Colon all at the beginning of the year it might have been a better start with attendance. The bad weather didn't help though. Still they averaged over 16K for that period.

PS The fans started coming out after 1) they played the Cubs and won and 2) Made significant moves and 3) started playing better. Take your pick as to what the cause was.

Dadawg_77
10-09-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
As others have pointed out, sure the marlins, twins, A's got very hot at the end of the season and got into the playoffs. This is great and I wish it were that simple. I do agree that there is more to winning than spending money, but that does not diminish the fact that money is still very strongly related to baseball success. That simply should not be the case. The sheer amount of money spent should not influence a sports outcome.

I know many of you arguing against a salary cap love statistics, well here is how you can use them to look at this. If you really want to examine my point heres the data you'll need:

1. A measure of all the teams success over the past 10-15 years. We can use wins + playoff appearances + championships and weight each one until you feel it captures "success."

2. An exact figure of a team's on the field payroll. (ie, not including injured players (Belle), or paying portions of salary (Hampton)) for each season over the past 10-15 years.

3. You would need to somehow quantify how "smartly" each team spent their money in each of those 10-15 years. That could be by a series of ratings by very knowledgeable people. So in the end it would have to be an averaged opinion of sorts. Keep in mind its not how the money was spent across years, but within that particular season.

4. A measure of how much money the team spent on the off the field things such as scouting, player development, minor league salary, salary paid for other teams and whatever else they spend money on. (personally I"m not sure you could find this information, but it would really be necessary to prove the point that money talks, and truthfull this information should really be average of the 3-5 years previous to make sure it reflects the development of the players playing).

5. Finally, it would be interesting, but perhaps not necessary for this point to have a quantification of the talent available to each team. This would get entirely subjective so it may not be worth looking at.

6-? You are welcome to come up with any other measures of variables that you feel account for teams success in the game of baseball. (ie, managerial ability, stadium location, etc). As long as you quantify those somehow then its fine.


So, after collecting the data sets for each of variables I strongly suggest that compute the correlation of variables 2,3, 4 and 6 with variable 1 (success). I think you'll find a strong correlation for each one.

However, by using Multiple Regression (for those of you that have not been forced to sit through graduate stats classes, its a way of determining correlations while holding the other variables constant) you can use Success as your criterion measure and then enter variables 3 (smart spending) and all the variables you came up with for 6 in the first step of the regression model. Then enter total spending in the final step. Total spending will be a combination of 4 (off field spending) and 2 (on the field spending). By doing this it will tell us if Total Spending makes a contribution to Success ABOVE AND BEYOND what the other variables account for.

If you do all this, I'm quite confidnet you'll find that it does.

I believe you are wrong, so prove it.

Dadawg_77
10-09-2003, 04:57 PM
Beane has a great system out in Oakland which constantly replenishes their team.

Post season experience doesn't mean a whole hell of lot. If you look at the number, hitter who made the postseason twice are worse their second time around and it is a downward slope.

An average major league hitter hits his peak at about 27 and stays there till about 32. After 32 you will see a decline in his performance. Since most star MLB players earn 6 year of service time around 27, and are working on their second UFA contract by 32. It means if you spend major dollars on a players second contract, you more then likely be paying for his peak years, while receiving his declining years. You will see most teams who have major FA bust are getting them on their second contract as a free agent. Young pre-UFA and first UFA contract players are the way to go to build a successful team.

The Yankees are spending 140 million this year, a lot of it was mistakes. That is what spending can cover up, is the mistakes in evaluating talent or doing something because of pressure from the owner.

If you gave Beane $15 million more or a no trade clause he beats the Red Sox since he still would have Jason on the A's. $50 million, and Eric Gange is closing games the Foulke sets up with leads Jason provided.

The Angels weren't a fluke, injuries really hurt them as their $90 million didn't get any depth. The good portion of their payroll last year went to nonrelevant pieces like Kevin Appier. They slugged their way to a ring last year with a great bullpen.

MarkEdward
10-09-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

I'm just lumping the parts I want to respond to together.
I agree a team can compete on a low payroll in the regular season, but can a team win it all with a payroll in the bottom half of the league? Where did the Angels' 2002 payroll fall in terms of league average?

Last year, the Angels' payroll was $61,721,667, good for 15th in baseball. The average payroll was about 67 million.

You are talking about apples and oranges as far as I am concerned. You keep coming back to competitive and I am talking about winning it all or at least winning playoff games in the first two rounds. You keep using arbitrary statements like "low payroll" which has no statistical meaning. Where do these "low payroll" competitive teams place in the league's overall payroll ranking? Is any team below $100M a low payroll team, IYO?

Well, I think you're arguing semantics, because people against my argument are also ambiguously using 'low payroll.' Anyway, I'll attempt to define it. I'd say that 'low payroll' teams are those that place in the bottom third of payroll rankings. In broader terms, it could also include the teams ranked 16th-19th in payroll. These are just general ideas, though.

You are correct that a high payroll doesn't guarantee success either in the regular or post season, but again, the statistics seem to be proving that you do have to spend at certain levels if you want to go for the big prize. In addition, you can find solid bench players for "low salaries", but if you spend more, you are more likely to land better players. Do you agree with that?

Obviously, good players make better money than bad players, yes.

In addition, the veteran "low priced" bench players you mention are still more expensive than filling your bench with a teams best minor leaguers in their first 3 years of service, so there is at least SOME extra cost to have them on your team.

I don't really see what you're arguing here. Good, veteran bench players like Daubach, Billy McMillon, and Dave McCarty all made near the minimum this year. Are you saying that low payroll teams like the A's can't afford these types of players, therefore can't succeed in the playoffs?

Would you be happy making divisional runs every year but failing in the playoffs or falling just short of them?

Similar to the Braves and A's? Sure.

What constitutes a successful season to you?

Well, there are different successes for different teams. A successful year for the Brewers is playing youngsters, watching out for those that can help the team in the future, while fielding a competitive club. For a team like the Yankees, a successful year is one in which the team makes a run at the playoffs.

While I agree that for some teams making the playoffs is enough, will it be enough for Marlins fans 2 years from now?

If the Marlins have three straight seasons of 90+ wins, I'm sure their fans will be very pleased.


Originally posted by voodoochile

You are really defending the opposite viewpoint with these stats. There are 30 teams in the majors and of the 8 teams that made the playoffs all but 2 were in the top half of the payrolls and neither of them made it to the World Series - though playing each other in the first round certainly made it tougher.

Four top payroll teams, two middle payroll teams, and two low payroll teams. What's wrong with that?

Meanwhile of the last place teams, all but 2 were in the bottom half and half of them were in the bottom third of league payroll.

Really now, what did you expect? Of course some lower payroll teams will finish in last place. They're going through re-building years. It would be stupid of them sign pricey veterans just to increase their payroll.

Of the teams in the bottom third of the league, only 3 finished with winning records and the average win total was 80.3. If you take out the two teams who made the playoffs the total drops to 75.8.

So we're randomly removing data points now :smile:?

Small sample size, I know, but if you were trying to prove that increased payroll does not increase your odds of making the playoffs, you failed, IMO.

Obviously, some higher payroll teams will beat some lower payroll teams. Better players make better money. However, you can't ignore the fact that lower payroll teams can still compete. They can still get win 80+ games, they can still make the playoffs, and they can still win in the playoffs. That's my point.

poorme
10-09-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
However, you can't ignore the fact that lower payroll teams can still compete. They can still get win 80+ games, they can still make the playoffs, and they can still win in the playoffs. That's my point.

sure these things CAN happen. but they are obviously more difficult for low revenue teams. owners use it as a crutch to not spend what money they do have. fans get PO'd because they feel it is unfair, which it's not. but life isn't fair.

FarWestChicago
10-09-2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
So it begs the quesition: Were the Angels a fluke last season? Did they get lucky with injuries, and had the ball fall their way in all the short playoff series to win it all or was this year the fluke?

Bob For a few weeks last year the Angels hit like The Big Red Machine. They got hot at the right time. They obviously couldn't stay at TBRM levels as this year proved. It was just good timing for them. :smile:

gosox41
10-09-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
They signed Colon and I guess some people might have considered Koch as a big deal. Although most of the increased season ticket sales were probably due to the All Star game there was an increase in season ticket purchases.

As Voodo points out that season ticket sales is the single biggest factor in better attendance. It insures that the lowest number is X where X is the number of season tickets you have sold. This is a plus for the Cubs where they have good numbers even when you go and find there is no one there (like when I went to a game at Wriggly last year).

But give me a break - where were the other big signings? The weather was awful and the team got off to a bad start. Had they gotten Robbie Alomar, Everett and Colon all at the beginning of the year it might have been a better start with attendance. The bad weather didn't help though. Still they averaged over 16K for that period.

PS The fans started coming out after 1) they played the Cubs and won and 2) Made significant moves and 3) started playing better. Take your pick as to what the cause was.

I'll take Door #3. Winning always draws fans in baseball. Big name players are nice, but if they're playing for a last place team it doesn't matter.

Sox fans came out in 2003 when the team started winning. All those extra walk ups in the second half were not solely due to Alomar and Everett.

Winning, and not big name players, is what gets fans excited and gets them to show up.


Bob

Dadawg_77
10-09-2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'll take Door #3. Winning always draws fans in baseball. Big name players are nice, but if they're playing for a last place team it doesn't matter.

Sox fans came out in 2003 when the team started winning. All those extra walk ups in the second half were not solely due to Alomar and Everett.

Winning, and not big name players, is what gets fans excited and gets them to show up.


Bob

Winning increases walk up and in season ticket sales.

Big names increase season ticket sales. Since you cann't win Jan and Feb, a big name causes people to dream of winning, thus they get season tickets. Season tickets are constant, and walkups are fickle, thus more season tickets sold the more stable attendance will be.

dougs78
10-10-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I believe you are wrong, so prove it.

Fair enough, you are certainly welcome to that. But I don't have the time or interest to do it. I was merely throwing it out there in case someone was interested enough to do it.


Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, I suppose we don't know that (yet). However, a lot of your study would be based on subjective intelligence (how would one measure intelligence?).

I'm not sure. But isn't alot (or all?) of your argument hingeing on whether this "GM intellect" exists? I think though that alot of this information may already be available, it would just be a matter of finding it from way back when. Lots of news sources "grade" teams offseasons and then again grade their midseason pickups. It would simply be a matter of finding a few these grades from different sources and aggregating across them. It would important that it be a grade on the moves before any games were played to avoid hindsight bias. Sure it would be an imperfect measure, but it would likely be the best available, unless you can think of a better one.


Either way I do think it would be interesting to see how that turned out. Maybe an aspiring young poster will go and check to see if such grades exist! :smile:

dougs78
10-10-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
NO WAY!

No shock at all and you miss the obvious part about what signing big name players increases the season ticket base which increases attendance for the whole year (obviously) and is THE SINGLE BEST WAY to guarantee higher attendance. Of course you have to do it for several years in a row to see any dramatic increase.


Voodoo, I agree with you that this may seem obvious, but its always important to find out of it is in fact statistically significant. Its the only way to start moving an opinion into the realm of fact.

The A's are again a striking example of this notion that big contract, marquee players fill the seats. Look at how successful they have been over the past few years and if my memory serves me correctly, they have had a tough time filling the seats.

Look also at a team like the braves who have the big contracts AND unbelievable success, yet still can't sell out a playoff game! There are always other factors that come into play.

Dadawg_77
10-10-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by dougs78

I'm not sure. But isn't alot (or all?) of your argument hingeing on whether this "GM intellect" exists? I think though that alot of this information may already be available, it would just be a matter of finding it from way back when. Lots of news sources "grade" teams offseasons and then again grade their midseason pickups. It would simply be a matter of finding a few these grades from different sources and aggregating across them. It would important that it be a grade on the moves before any games were played to avoid hindsight bias. Sure it would be an imperfect measure, but it would likely be the best available, unless you can think of a better one.


What do you mean by hindsight bias? If you are trading for player to help your team and the trade doesn't work out for reasons other then injury, then it was a bad trade. It doesn't matter if what people thought at the time the trade occurred, all that matters is the results of the trade. If you were running a 100 million dollar business and made a major decision which didn't work out, would your boss say thats alright, no one could have seen that one coming or would you be checking the classifies?

There is no such thing as a good theory on paper but bad practice. Good theories work, bad ones don't. The saying is only an excuse for those who didn't think of everything when coming up with a theory.

MisterB
10-10-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
What do you mean by hindsight bias? If you are trading for player to help your team and the trade doesn't work out for reasons other then injury, then it was a bad trade. It doesn't matter if what people thought at the time the trade occurred, all that matters is the results of the trade. If you were running a 100 million dollar business and made a major decision which didn't work out, would your boss say thats alright, no one could have seen that one coming or would you be checking the classifies?

There is no such thing as a good theory on paper but bad practice. Good theories work, bad ones don't. The saying is only an excuse for those who didn't think of everything when coming up with a theory.

There are no guarantees when it comes to the performance of human beings. Nobody has the ability to exactly predict what every player is going to do (even without injuries). Every player move is a crapshoot, some just have better odds than others.

Dadawg_77
10-10-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
There are no guarantees when it comes to the performance of human beings. Nobody has the ability to exactly predict what every player is going to do (even without injuries). Every player move is a crapshoot, some just have better odds than others.

No it isn't a crapshoot, every move should a educated guess, with risk factors and probabilities taken into consideration. Yes, you can't get an exact prediction on anything, but you can get predictions within a range of confidence. This is game poker, and while luck such a injuries come into play, the more skillful players win more then the less skillful.

MisterB
10-10-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No it isn't a crapshoot, every move should a educated guess, with risk factors and probabilities taken into consideration. Yes, you can't get an exact prediction on anything, but you can get predictions within a range of confidence. This is game poker, and while luck such a injuries come into play, the more skillful players win more then the less skillful.

Isn't that what I just said? To me, crapshoot means there is randomness to the outcome, and not one where you can plug in the same variables and always get the same result. You were making it sound like every GM should be able to predict the exact outcome of every move they make. Every deal can potentially blow up in your face, but I don't think any GM would make a move that he didn't feel had some chance of working out.

dougs78
10-10-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
What do you mean by hindsight bias? If you are trading for player to help your team and the trade doesn't work out for reasons other then injury, then it was a bad trade. It doesn't matter if what people thought at the time the trade occurred, all that matters is the results of the trade. If you were running a 100 million dollar business and made a major decision which didn't work out, would your boss say thats alright, no one could have seen that one coming or would you be checking the classifies?

There is no such thing as a good theory on paper but bad practice. Good theories work, bad ones don't. The saying is only an excuse for those who didn't think of everything when coming up with a theory.

I think you have pretty high expectations for theories... Do you honestly think that there are any theories that are able to predict things correctly 100% of the time? There are such things in the physical sciences, but they are called laws.

Thories are good theories if they improve your odds of success over the chance rate. Just because they work or don't work in one particular instance has absolutely nothing to do with how good a theory is. For example, a current theory is that having a closer by committee is the way to go. Just becuase it didn't work for the Red Sox this year does not mean the theory is necessarily wrong, just as if it had worked wouldn't mean it was necessarily right. It takes many examples to infer whether the theory itself has validity.

Dadawg_77
10-10-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Isn't that what I just said? To me, crapshoot means there is randomness to the outcome, and not one where you can plug in the same variables and always get the same result. You were making it sound like every GM should be able to predict the exact outcome of every move they make. Every deal can potentially blow up in your face, but I don't think any GM would make a move that he didn't feel had some chance of working out.

No it isn't, you want to absolve Kenny of any mistakes simply because we are looking at after the fact. That is total BS. A crapshoot means you are shooting craps, a roll of the dice. What I am saying is you need to do your homework and make moves which have a higher probability then 16% chance of success. We may have a different view on what crapshoot means, I think it means you leave something to a complete random outcome and hope for the best. This leaves more to chance and greater chance that something will blow up in your face. Every GM won't be perfect, but they accountable for mistakes they made and need to have a lot more success then failures.

I know no theory is perfect, but I would rather have something with a 80% chance or 95% chance of success. Not a coin toss, not a crapshoot, but a well researched educated guess. That would have told you there was a greater probability that Foulke would be a better pitcher then Koch in 2003 and 2004, that Ritchie would fail in the AL.

Saying we can't judge things in hindsight is crutch used by people who are not preforming up to task. Saying the theory was good on paper but not in practice is the same thing.

MisterB
10-10-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No it isn't, you want to absolve Kenny of any mistakes simply because we are looking at after the fact. That is total BS. A crapshoot means you are shooting craps, a roll of the dice. What I am saying is you need to do your homework and make moves which have a higher probability then 16% chance of success. We may have a different view on what crapshoot means, I think it means you leave something to a complete random outcome and hope for the best. This leaves more to chance and greater chance that something will blow up in your face. Every GM won't be perfect, but they accountable for mistakes they made and need to have a lot more success then failures.

I know no theory is perfect, but I would rather have something with a 80% chance or 95% chance of success. Not a coin toss, not a crapshoot, but a well researched educated guess. That would have told you there was a greater probability that Foulke would be a better pitcher then Koch in 2003 and 2004, that Ritchie would fail in the AL.

Saying we can't judge things in hindsight is crutch used by people who are not preforming up to task. Saying the theory was good on paper but not in practice is the same thing.

I never said anything about absolving Kenny of anything. I apologize if the term 'crapshoot' doesn't sit well with you. My interpretation of your post was that even if a GM makes a move that has a 95% chance of success, if the outcome's in that 5% failure range, he was a complete idiot for making it in the first place regardless of the odds. Completely discounting the result of a move is a little crazy, but you can't ignore how the deal looked when it was made either.

dougs78
10-11-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
I never said anything about absolving Kenny of anything. I apologize if the term 'crapshoot' doesn't sit well with you. My interpretation of your post was that even if a GM makes a move that has a 95% chance of success, if the outcome's in that 5% failure range, he was a complete idiot for making it in the first place regardless of the odds. Completely discounting the result of a move is a little crazy, but you can't ignore how the deal looked when it was made either.

Yeah I think its just really a matter of semantics. MisterB and I are saying the same thing as Dadawg in relation to the original point (at least i think) but we were coming at it from the overall series of moves while DaDawg was looking at only one move from a series.

However, off the original topic, I really just will have to disagree with this quote in the context that you are using it.

"Saying we can't judge things in hindsight is crutch used by people who are not preforming up to task. Saying the theory was good on paper but not in practice is the same thing." - Dadawg

In order to judge the rationale behind the move someone makes we simply can not let the results bias our estimation of the quality of any one move. However after many moves that are based on the same theory we can eventually say that the theory just doesn't work very well and discard it, or conversely say its shown some success and keep using it.

Again, perhaps we're really saying the same thing, but the difference is whether we are going to test our theory on one outcome or many.

xil357
10-11-2003, 10:35 AM
Getting a Tood Ritchie -- an established veteran who "ate" innings -- was a good idea. He had a strong track record, albeit in the inferior NL. Giving up Kip Wells, Josh Fogg and Sean Lowe for Ritchie was too high of a price, though. So even at the time it wasn't a good deal. If KW could have obtained Ritchie (or a comparable veteran) for a lower price, it would not have been as bad of a deal, either at the time (on paper) or in practice (at the end of the 02 season).

Getting David Wells -- an established ace pitcher -- was a good idea, even though it meant giving up the Sox ace of 2000, Mike Sirotka. Wells was the superior pitcher with a proven track record. Has Sirotka even pitched in the majors since that trade? The blame for that trade not working out falls squarely on David Wells and the fact that he must have thrown out his back trying to give his Yankees friends a "reach around." I blame the failure of that trade to improve the Sox squarely on David Wells. That is borne out in Wells' re-birth with the Yankees.

Both of these trades were not "crap shoots." Both trades were, I believe, made in the interest of improving the Sox. But both turned out to be disasters; one because KW paid too much (Kip Wells) and one because the player was a selfish arse.

JasonC23
10-12-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by xil357
Getting a Tood Ritchie -- an established veteran who "ate" innings -- was a good idea.

Uh...Todd Ritchie had one good season under his belt (1999) and was coming off a season in which he had a 5.58 ERA on the road. He was not an innings eater in any meaningful sense of the word (and besides, if all he could do was pitch a bunch of innings with an, at best, league-average ERA, why give up so much for him??), and he was an "established veteran" only in the sense that he was not a rookie. That trade was never a good idea.

Sorry...still bitter about the whole thing. :angry:

TornLabrum
10-12-2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Uh...Todd Ritchie had one good season under his belt (1999) and was coming off a season in which he had a 5.58 ERA on the road. He was not an innings eater in any meaningful sense of the word (and besides, if all he could do was pitch a bunch of innings with an, at best, league-average ERA, why give up so much for him??), and he was an "established veteran" only in the sense that he was not a rookie. That trade was never a good idea.

Sorry...still bitter about the whole thing. :angry:

As I wrote at the time, no pitcher is worth three other pitchers unless his name is Johnson or Schilling.

soxtalker
10-12-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
As I wrote at the time, no pitcher is worth three other pitchers unless his name is Johnson or Schilling.

At the time it seemed like we had this endless supply of pitching prospects with promise that we could deal. Now, that "bank account" is looking a bit empty.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-12-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
At the time it seemed like we had this endless supply of pitching prospects with promise that we could deal. Now, that "bank account" is looking a bit empty.

Ron Schueler was notorious for overselling everything he ever did to help the Sox. He once likened Ray Durham to Joe Morgan. If our pitching prospect "bank account" is looking empty these days, it is only because in truth it was never filled!

We would all be wise to not believe any of the hype about can't-miss prospects, especially those being touted by anybody in the Sox front office.

:schueler
"Not only did my prospects fail to deliver, I was too cheap, timid, and stupid to make the necessary trades to fill the obvious holes, too."

:ohno
"The 2000 team simply wilted on the vine..."

:valet
"Come on now! Schueler went out and signed me, didn't he?"

soxtalker
10-12-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Ron Schueler was notorious for overselling everything he ever did to help the Sox. He once likened Ray Durham to Joe Morgan. If our pitching prospect "bank account" is looking empty these days, it is only because in truth it was never filled!

We would all be wise to not believe any of the hype about can't-miss prospects, especially those being touted by anybody in the Sox front office.



I think that by the late 90's I no longer paid much attention to the hype of the Sox front office. I'd seen many earlier versions of can't-miss prospects (particularly pitchers) fail. (I also saw some successes like the early 90's.) What did offer hope were the independent reviews of organizations like BA. Of course, a promising prospect does not guarantee a great major leaguer. But we had a lot of good draft choices and prospects via trade, and a top ranking in BA should indicate that you have acquired a lot of the top ones.

Lip Man 1
10-12-2003, 12:07 PM
I find it interesting that Baseball America is quoted as an independent source for evaluating minor league prospects when that very same organization ran a story which showed that only one of ten minor league players ever spend day one in the major leagues.

Granted you have to have something to base possible future players on but the reality is that very, very few minor league players ever make the big leagues anyway.

With that small a success rate, I never understood teams (like the White Sox) ever putting their future in "can't miss kids."

The smart play is to go out and either trade for or buy other clubs established players . They have shown they can make and play in the major leagues. At least you are improving your chances for success rather then relying on a crapshoot with kids.

But of course that takes money and we all know the Sox don't have any because the fans won't support them.

Lip

cornball
10-12-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I find it interesting that Baseball America is quoted as an independent source for evaluating minor league prospects when that very same organization ran a story which showed that only one of ten minor league players ever spend day one in the major leagues.

Granted you have to have something to base possible future players on but the reality is that very, very few minor league players ever make the big leagues anyway.

With that small a success rate, I never understood teams (like the White Sox) ever putting their future in "can't miss kids."

The smart play is to go out and either trade for or buy other clubs established players . They have shown they can make and play in the major leagues. At least you are improving your chances for success rather then relying on a crapshoot with kids.


But of course that takes money and we all know the Sox don't have any because the fans won't support them.

Lip


I couldn't agree with you more. Plus the advantage of teams that spend money on free agents or forgien players fill a need without the loss of current players/prospects.

soxtalker
10-12-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I find it interesting that Baseball America is quoted as an independent source for evaluating minor league prospects when that very same organization ran a story which showed that only one of ten minor league players ever spend day one in the major leagues.

Granted you have to have something to base possible future players on but the reality is that very, very few minor league players ever make the big leagues anyway.

With that small a success rate, I never understood teams (like the White Sox) ever putting their future in "can't miss kids."

The smart play is to go out and either trade for or buy other clubs established players . They have shown they can make and play in the major leagues. At least you are improving your chances for success rather then relying on a crapshoot with kids.

But of course that takes money and we all know the Sox don't have any because the fans won't support them.

Lip

I disagree. The two statements by BA are entirely consistent. It may be that only 1 in 10 minor leaguers ever make the major leagues. However, it is also true that the vast majority (probably all but few players that come directly from the Japanese leagues) of major league players have played in the minor leagues. When BA ranks the organizations of the various teams, those teams at the top have prospects with a better chance of making the major leagues. The minor league system is like any other part of baseball; you want to be the best at acquiring (assessing and drafting) and developing the talent. I'm just not so sure that we've been terribly good at either the acquiring part or the developing part. If our "success rate" is low, figure out why that is and fix it.

I also don't agree that the smart move is to acquire established major league talent. That's part of the equation, but too often you are simply extrapolating last year's success and finding that it doesn't extend into the future. Evaluating talent might be a bit easier than in the minor leagues, but I haven't been impressed that we're particularly good at it either (e.g., Ritchie, Koch).