Photo

Payroll Analysis 2000-2019 vs Playoffs


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#1 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:57 AM

For the payroll isn't a significant factor here's the data. You can draw your own conclusions.

 

Here's the data comparing in division payroll with chance of making the playoffs for the last 20 seasons.

 

Highest Payroll - 39%

 

Second Payroll - 22%

 

Third Payroll - 18%

 

Fourth Payroll - 13%

 

Fifth Payroll - 8%


  • Ricker Says likes this

#2 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:05 AM

To expand a bit here is the data just for the ALE:

 

Highest Payroll - 46%

 

Second Payroll - 31%

 

Third Payroll - 6%

 

Fourth Payroll - 11%

 

Fifth Payroll - 6%



#3 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,632 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:07 AM

What are you showing here?

Trying to correlate money to winning?
@BSLRobShields

#4 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:27 AM

To expand a bit here is the data just for the ALE:

 

Highest Payroll - 46%

 

Second Payroll - 31%

 

Third Payroll - 6%

 

Fourth Payroll - 11%

 

Fifth Payroll - 6%

You're never going to win that argument with dude. The reality is if you can afford a higher payroll, you can afford to pay better players which also increase your chances of winning. It also means you have more room for error. 



#5 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:19 PM

What are you showing here?

Trying to correlate money to winning?

You can make your own conclusions. I just posted the data, i.e., facts.



#6 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,251 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:23 PM

What are you showing here?

Trying to correlate money to winning?

While it's not a perfect correlation (by mathematical definition), I'm sure there is a strong correlation between payroll and games won. It makes sense. I'd be shocked if there wasn't. 


@BSLMikeRandall

#7 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,632 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:30 PM

Why didn’t the Yankees win nearly as much from 2012-2016, when the Os were winning?
@BSLRobShields

#8 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:37 PM

Why didn’t the Yankees win nearly as much from 2012-2016, when the Os were winning?

SSS



#9 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,632 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:40 PM

SSS


5 years isn’t a SSS.

The Yankees spent a lot of money those years.

Why didn’t they win?
@BSLRobShields

#10 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 26 December 2019 - 01:09 PM

There are lots of factors that account for winning in sports. 

 

Coaching, injuries, "chemistry", talent. Money doesn't guarantee winning or exempt you from those other things, especially injuries.

 

But if you are denying that money isn't a big factor then I guess you just deny the data.



#11 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,733 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 December 2019 - 01:22 PM

5 years isn’t a SSS.

The Yankees spent a lot of money those years.

Why didn’t they win?


It is when you're only choosing one 5 year sample out of a much longer timeline and then choosing just two teams to compare, especially two teams that you purposely chose to support your position.

#12 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,632 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 01:38 PM

It is when you're only choosing one 5 year sample out of a much longer timeline and then choosing just two teams to compare, especially two teams that you purposely chose to support your position.

Not really...you can throw Boston in there too if you want.

Point is, spending money guarantees nothing.

It gives you more room for error but not much else.

Intelligence, scouting and developing is what gives you wins.
@BSLRobShields

#13 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:07 PM

Rob your are just plain ignoring the facts. The top two spending teams in each division have a combined 76% chance to make the playoffs over a 20 year span. Conversely the bottom three have less than 25% chance combined. How can you possibly say money doesn't give you wins?



#14 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,632 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 03:44 PM

Rob your are just plain ignoring the facts. The top two spending teams in each division have a combined 76% chance to make the playoffs over a 20 year span. Conversely the bottom three have less than 25% chance combined. How can you possibly say money doesn't give you wins?


Talent gives you wins.

The Yankees and Red Sox got into trouble because they had horrible contracts and traded away all their young talent.

Money doesn’t solve all issues and most big free agent acquisitions fail.

Where the money is well spent is where you saw the Os payroll jump up...arbitration raises.

Those are players still in their primes, generally speaking.

So yes, money helps when you can keep your in their prime players and not have to trade them off when they get costly, which is something teams like Oakland and Tampa need to do.

Money helps, no doubt. But being a well run organization that knows how to develop and scout is more important.

The combo that is scary are the ones who can do both.
@BSLRobShields

#15 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 26 December 2019 - 03:57 PM

For the payroll isn't a significant factor here's the data. You can draw your own conclusions.

 

My conclusion is you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Seriously, you're an Engineer.  

 

Here's the thread Chris posted in August on Payroll Correlation.  You commented in it.  I made comments and nobody bothers to respond.  Then we do this again months later.

 

We've talked about this specific thing before also.  I can go find it if I need to but the bottom line (similar to my comment in the link) is that you have teams trying and teams not trying.  Teams that don't try intentionally aren't spending money.  Teams that are trying are typically spending money.  There are teams that are trying and competing on a lesser payroll.

 

A good portion of he bottom teams (Divisions) in both the AL and NL in recent years haven't been competing so you are clearly (and very intentionally) going to have a gross bias in a Payroll to Division Winners assessment.

 

Why would you bias the data in that way?  Let's consider the NL East this year or last year....you have 4 teams that are all competing and one that has already quit.  The Marlins were (and are this year) trying to finish 5th; they aren't a data point.

 

The Braves finished first (160M), the Nationals 2nd (201M), the Mets 3rd (186M) and the Phillies 4th (192M)....do you really want to try and get some payroll vs winning correlation out of that?  All 4 teams are making moves to compete in 2020...would you use payroll to order their finish this year or would you rather do a more relevant assessment?  You think the Braves care they'll spend less than the other 3?

 

The Rays, Jays and Os were among the bottom 5 or 6 teams.  They Rays were trying and finished 2nd.  They Jays and Os weren't trying and finished a predictable 4th and 5th.

 

The Red Sox and Cubs were #1 and #2 in payroll and both finished 3rd in their Division (with only the non-data point behind them) and out of the playoffs.

 

There's been much more parity in MLB than in the other sports (in terms of making the playoffs) and there's no Salary Caps in Baseball, more revenue disparity (local versus national) and the last 8+ years you've had the biased data of teams intentionally tanking (more in MLB than NBA and NFL although it exists there too).

 

Neither the collective data or the anecdotal data supports your position.

 

Winning is more than spending.  (I mean, how many teams would love to dump 10s of millions off their payroll for nothing?)

 

Where ken is correct is that money provides you more avenues to work to get better.  That's true and that's fine.  Small market teams have smaller error margins when it comes to spending.  Fixing that would help spending across the sport (that's my GSP and TSF plan).



#16 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 26 December 2019 - 04:07 PM

...and not that I'd ever do it the way you're doing it....

 

...but if I was, I'd still normalize the data so you get a better sense of magnitude.  So there's that.



#17 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 26 December 2019 - 04:26 PM

Money helps, no doubt. But being a well run organization that knows how to develop and scout is more important.

The combo that is scary are the ones who can do both.

 

...and when it's pointed out that the Orioles won the most  games in the AL from 2012 to 2016, Steve and others respond...."the Orioles didn't win anything"....

 

We should point out that the 2 teams that have more of the above (rob's quote) the Dodgers (by far the best) and the Yankees....neither of them have a Championship this decade and the Yankees haven't even been to the WS including missing the playoffs 3 times.

 

The Royals have been to 2 WS and won one of them.

 

<<looking around for a mic to drop>>



#18 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,146 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 26 December 2019 - 04:55 PM

Dude what are you meaning when you say you would normalize the data? I know what that means but not sure what your getting at with this data.

 

 

As for tanking I think there is a reasonable thought that says that high payrolls are actually increasing the level of tanking. Forget for a minute that some prefer a team that wins 70 games over a team that wins 60 games regardless of the cost for those extra wins. We have discussed that a lot.

 

Put yourselves in the O's owners shoes. The team is in no reasonable shape, regardless of what they do, to have a legitimate shot at the playoffs in 2020. The Yankees have a projected payroll next year of $190M. The Red Sox well over $200M.  So from a cost/benefit perspective it tells an owner to tank. From a business perspective there is little to no reason not to.



#19 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,268 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 05:29 PM


My conclusion is you don't know what you're talking about.

To be fair, that is your conclusion regarding literally everything posted here by everyone, 100% of the time.

I've literally never seen you tell someone they had a point, acknowledged a conflicting point of view as having merit, or cede an inch on ANYTHING that you state.

Essentially, what you do here can be boiled down to the act of textually masturbating to your own posts.
  • ivanbalt, weird-O and bmore_ken like this

#20 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,940 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 26 December 2019 - 06:43 PM

....so instead of defending why a correlation (including the bad data) of .31 should be merited or explaining why teams with a different agenda from the analysis should be included as credible data, you chose to attack me personally. Whatever.

 

Baseball in general is enormously sloppy today in the way people express things.  We could talk about it, but I point it out all of the time.  Your right to an opinion isn't a right to a merited opinion. 

 

....but watch the side that goes personal...that will tell you what you need to know.

Otherwise, just defend your position (as a discussion on a baseball message board on a baseball topic)

 

 

In the 2020 Baseline thread, Mackus pointed out an inconsistency in the (my) approach of accounting for deferred money. 

He was correct and I made those fixes (including some additional research) to make the thread more correct.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners