PDA

View Full Version : Article on big $$$ payroll correlation to playoffs


caulfield12
09-29-2006, 09:30 AM
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/danoneill/story/D70025B60BFA965F862571F700096964?OpenDocument

cbotnyse
09-29-2006, 09:36 AM
The best examples of big money failing is right here. The Sox (no. 4) have obviously failed to make the playoffs and the Cubs (no. 7) are just about the worst team is baseball.

Lip Man 1
09-29-2006, 12:37 PM
Of course big spenders can fail. Nothing is an absolute guarantee.

However history has shown that for every year a Twins get into the post season there are four or five Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Astros and so forth.

Just a few seasons ago seven of the eight teams in the post season were 'big' spenders.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
09-29-2006, 12:44 PM
Having a larger resource pool is a definite advantage. Sometimes it can allow a team to cover up for mistakes in drafting and developing players, or bad trades.

But a team that has scouting/drafting/developing smarts that also has lots of financial resources would be unstoppable. I'd like to see the Sox take $5 millon of their current payroll and plow it into their scouting and player development operations to hire the smartest people and smother the globe with scouts.

TDog
09-29-2006, 01:03 PM
The difference between the Yankees and everyone else is significant. Big money has long failed with teams like the Mets, but the Yankees have been able to spend big money in addition to their big-money mistakes.

soxfanatlanta
09-29-2006, 01:20 PM
Although big$ <> winning, there most certainly is a correlation to payroll size and the chance of winning. Here is one of many articles out there (http://dellistacular.blogspot.com/2006/07/mlb-2006-payroll-vs-2006-winning.html) Also, you can read "May the Best Team Win:Baseball Economics and Public Policy"

Ol' No. 2
09-29-2006, 02:25 PM
I've studied this issue pretty extensively, and as far as making the playoffs go, the correlation is not so much with big payrolls as small ones. That is, it's not so much that a big payroll guarantees you will make the playoffs as that a small one more or less guarantees that you won't. Teams in the top quarter make the playoffs only marginally more often than teams in the second quarter, but teams in the bottom quarter almost never make it.

Flight #24
09-29-2006, 02:31 PM
Having a larger resource pool is a definite advantage. Sometimes it can allow a team to cover up for mistakes in drafting and developing players, or bad trades.

But a team that has scouting/drafting/developing smarts that also has lots of financial resources would be unstoppable. I'd like to see the Sox take $5 millon of their current payroll and plow it into their scouting and player development operations to hire the smartest people and smother the globe with scouts.

What would be great is if JR authorized a $10M payroll increase and KW said "I'll take $5 and $5 to poach scouts/coaches from the Twins".

But it's a tough call to say "take $5 from current payroll and put it to scouting" because with the way their salaries are top-heavy at the moment, that means dumping an impact player or going with street/replacement-type of guys.

caulfield12
09-29-2006, 02:49 PM
I've studied this issue pretty extensively, and as far as making the playoffs go, the correlation is not so much with big payrolls as small ones. That is, it's not so much that a big payroll guarantees you will make the playoffs as that a small one more or less guarantees that you won't. Teams in the top quarter make the playoffs only marginally more often than teams in the second quarter, but teams in the bottom quarter almost never make it.

With the exception of the Marlins, A's, Twins and a couple of other teams that were able to develop a "wave" of pitching at the minor league level and hold onto it for 4-6 years (Plan 2000 that never quite worked out for the Sox).

Frater Perdurabo
09-29-2006, 03:28 PM
What would be great is if JR authorized a $10M payroll increase and KW said "I'll take $5 and $5 to poach scouts/coaches from the Twins".

But it's a tough call to say "take $5 from current payroll and put it to scouting" because with the way their salaries are top-heavy at the moment, that means dumping an impact player or going with street/replacement-type of guys.

I threw out the $5 million number as an example. I'm not advocating cutting the current payroll just for the sake of cutting it, but if there is a way for the Sox to make the team better while saving $5 million, of course they should do it, and then plow the savings into poaching scouting and coaching. (Hey, I made a rhyme! :tongue: )

Of course, if money were no object, raising payroll $5 million while putting $5 million more into the system would be much, much better.

caulfield12
09-29-2006, 03:35 PM
I threw out the $5 million number as an example. I'm not advocating cutting the current payroll just for the sake of cutting it, but if there is a way for the Sox to make the team better while saving $5 million, of course they should do it, and then plow the savings into poaching scouting and coaching. (Hey, I made a rhyme! :tongue: )

Of course, if money were no object, raising payroll $5 million while putting $5 million more into the system would be much, much better.

See article on the Twins...give that money to Radcliff and Jim Rantz and we're set. REMEMBER those two names.

You can have Mackowiak and Cintron. I'll take those two and roll the dice for the next 10-15 years.

AZChiSoxFan
09-29-2006, 03:51 PM
Check out that picture of Dan O'Neil. Did he get slugged in the eye??

Ol' No. 2
09-29-2006, 04:08 PM
With the exception of the Marlins, A's, Twins and a couple of other teams that were able to develop a "wave" of pitching at the minor league level and hold onto it for 4-6 years (Plan 2000 that never quite worked out for the Sox).I haven't seen this year's payroll numbers, but the A's and Twins have generally not been in the bottom quarter. The Marlins are one of the few bottom-quarter teams that even finished with a winning record. Over the last 10 years, bottom-quarter teams have had about a 6% chance of making the playoffs. Median payroll teams are at 19%, which is about equal to their "pure chance" probability of 20%. Top-quarter teams are about 30%.