Photo

Payroll Analysis 2000-2019 vs Playoffs


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#21 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 07:06 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.

It isn't a personal attack. It is an observation.

You don't discuss things. There is no exchange of ideas. There is you telling us things and then telling anyone who disagrees with you that they don't get it, or "don't know what they're talking about."

The fact that you can remember THE SINGLE TIME you were willing to cede a point to anyone should speak volumes about how often that happens.

Take it personally if you want. If it bothers you, then change the way you discuss things.

#22 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,732 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 December 2019 - 09:07 PM

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.


Don't play dumb on the small sample. It absolutely is the way you're applying it, you just don't want to admit it because that would go against your argument.

And it's laughable to leave money out of that last sentence.

Both the Yankees and the Red Sox have had tremendous success over the past 30 years, where free agency has been prominent, and there is no question that money has been a big reason.
  • BSLMikeRandall, BSLSteveBirrer and bmore_ken like this

#23 mdrunning

mdrunning

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 09:59 PM

I think the question here is, Are you good because you spend money, or do you spend money because you're good?

 

You have to separate teams that qualify as the former from those which can be categorized under the latter.



#24 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:07 PM

Don't play dumb on the small sample. It absolutely is the way you're applying it, you just don't want to admit it because that would go against your argument.

And it's laughable to leave money out of that last sentence.

Both the Yankees and the Red Sox have had tremendous success over the past 30 years, where free agency has been prominent, and there is no question that money has been a big reason.

I’m not trying to do anything.

I’m saying for a solid 5 years, which is definitely not a SSS (and its idiotic to suggest otherwise), those teams weren’t winning.

That was and is my only point.

It’s dumb to point to money and act as if that’s the only way success occurs.

In fact, one of the reasons those teams were mediocre for those years was because they did spend money and they spent it poorly.

In the first 5-7 years of the decade, the Os and Rays were terrible. So, it’s easy to rack up wins (see NE and all the AFC East titles).

The Orioles were viable for 5 years...TB has been a good organization for a decade. The winning hasn’t been there as much for Boston and especially NY, as it was earlier in the decade.

Intelligence still reigns supreme and it always will.
@BSLRobShields

#25 mdrunning

mdrunning

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:18 PM

Most statistical analyses I've seen don't establish a direct correlation between money spent and winning, but what they do seem to demonstrate is that while money doesn't always equate with success, it more or less guarantees you won't completely suck.


  • bmore_ken likes this

#26 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:21 PM

Most statistical analyses I've seen don't establish a direct correlation between money spent and winning, but what they do seem to demonstrate is that while money doesn't always equate with success, it more or less guarantees you won't completely suck.


That’s because the margin for error is higher. That’s the real advantage.
@BSLRobShields

#27 mdrunning

mdrunning

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,221 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:26 PM

That’s because the margin for error is higher. That’s the real advantage.

True. And while the ceiling has a larger margin, the opposite can be said of the floor, which can change quite a bit.



#28 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,732 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:29 PM

Lol at saying a 5 year purposely selected sample from all of baseball history only focusing on two teams isn't a small sample size.

Yeah, I guess I'll be idiotic then.
  • BSLMikeRandall and BSLSteveBirrer like this

#29 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,732 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:33 PM

I’m not trying to do anything.

I’m saying for a solid 5 years, which is definitely not a SSS (and its idiotic to suggest otherwise), those teams weren’t winning.

That was and is my only point.

It’s dumb to point to money and act as if that’s the only way success occurs.

In fact, one of the reasons those teams were mediocre for those years was because they did spend money and they spent it poorly.

In the first 5-7 years of the decade, the Os and Rays were terrible. So, it’s easy to rack up wins (see NE and all the AFC East titles).

The Orioles were viable for 5 years...TB has been a good organization for a decade. The winning hasn’t been there as much for Boston and especially NY, as it was earlier in the decade.

Intelligence still reigns supreme and it always will.


Who was pointing at money as the only way success occurs?

And you had a grand concluding sentence of reasons for success which left out money. Like how?

#30 dude

dude

    HOF

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

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:38 PM

Most statistical analyses I've seen don't establish a direct correlation between money spent and winning, but what they do seem to demonstrate is that while money doesn't always equate with success, it more or less guarantees you won't completely suck.

 

I'm not going to bother doing it, but if one of these guys that likes to do the analysis wanted to, just take the rebuilding teams (we generally know exactly which one they are) out of the data set.  Remove their consequence (because they are intentionally bad and skew win data for other teams).

 

In data that already has a moderate (at best) correlation, you'd be removing the most correlated (low wins, low payroll) data.

 

I'm betting you'd be bordering on low to no correlation (.2 or less).



#31 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:40 PM

Lol at saying a 5 year purposely selected sample from all of baseball history only focusing on two teams isn't a small sample size.

Yeah, I guess I'll be idiotic then.


Baseball history? We are talking about 19 years here.
@BSLRobShields

#32 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:40 PM

Who was pointing at money as the only way success occurs


Steve..thus the point of the thread.
@BSLRobShields

#33 dude

dude

    HOF

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

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:42 PM

Who was pointing at money as the only way success occurs?

And you had a grand concluding sentence of reasons for success which left out money. Like how?

 

Steve.  That's his entire point.  It's why he started this thread.  Steve believes that money is the answer to success.

 

I guess we can't say that money isn't the most significant factor because we don't know how to measure (what many would assume is) the other factor(s) to consider....but we know there isn't a strong correlation to money....and the answers are even worse than the ones the analyses share.



#34 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,243 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 10:44 PM

Baseball history? We are talking about 19 years here.


The Yankees or Red Sox won more games than the Orioles in four of the five years your harping on. Don’t act like they were losing a ton.
@BSLMikeRandall

#35 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,732 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:01 PM


Baseball history? We are talking about 19 years here.


You can and should go back further than just 19 years to analyze the impact of money on winning. But even if we were to just stick to this century, picking the only 5 year stretch where the O's were good and comparing that to the Yankees worst 5 year stretch (haven't checked, so may not quite be the worst) is a small sample of only 2/30 teams and a very biased sample at that.

#36 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,732 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:02 PM

Steve..thus the point of the thread.


He hasn't even come close to saying that in this thread.
  • Ricker Says likes this

#37 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,732 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:04 PM

Steve. That's his entire point. It's why he started this thread. Steve believes that money is the answer to success.

I guess we can't say that money isn't the most significant factor because we don't know how to measure (what many would assume is) the other factor(s) to consider....but we know there isn't a strong correlation to money....and the answers are even worse than the ones the analyses share.


He said that he thinks money is a big factor. He very clearly also stated that it is not the only factor.

#38 dude

dude

    HOF

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

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:04 PM

It isn't a personal attack. It is an observation.

You don't discuss things. There is no exchange of ideas. There is you telling us things and then telling anyone who disagrees with you that they don't get it, or "don't know what they're talking about."

The fact that you can remember THE SINGLE TIME you were willing to cede a point to anyone should speak volumes about how often that happens.

Take it personally if you want. If it bothers you, then change the way you discuss things.

 

Slide, you probably already know this doesn't work on me, but whatever.

 

I didn't start this thread.  Steve actually started it to try and throw something in my face.  We've actually done this several times before (I linked the one in August where everyone bails because the information doesn't support their viewpoint)

 

....much the same way you tried to throw this one in my (maybe others, I'm the biggest opponent of the viewpoint) in my face a couple of months ago.

 

You don't like me or my opinions <<shrug>> just post the information that merits another view or whatever (you know, on an Orioles message board).

 

If your opinion lacks merit, don't blame me for pointing it out, develop a more merited opinion.



#39 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:57 PM


Slide, you probably already know this doesn't work on me, but whatever.

I didn't start this thread. Steve actually started it to try and throw something in my face. We've actually done this several times before (I linked the one in August where everyone bails because the information doesn't support their viewpoint)

....much the same way you tried to throw this one in my (maybe others, I'm the biggest opponent of the viewpoint) in my face a couple of months ago.

You don't like me or my opinions <<shrug>> just post the information that merits another view or whatever (you know, on an Orioles message board).

If your opinion lacks merit, don't blame me for pointing it out, develop a more merited opinion.

First of all, I don't know you as a person. You could be a great guy. We met once years and years ago at a Bowie get together and you seemed fine. Believe me when I say this isn't personal with regard to who you are as a human being.

However, you are correct that I don't like the way you express your opinions. Here's why:

1. Nobody cares who started what thread. You hijack literally every thread to push the same narrative. I.E. the Orioles rebuild is unnecessary and stupid, Elias isn't doing a good job, your plan is better, etc.

It's remarkably consistent. Even if the topic doesn't get entirely shifted to that discussion, that is what you inject into (nearly) every. Single. Thread. You post in.

2. You don't discuss. You say your opinions, and then either utterly disregard the opinions of others (frequently by just saying they're wrong), and then continue the same rehashed thoughts.

3. I truly, (again, not personal) believe you think you're smarter than everyone else. You act like it in the way you write, the subtle barbs you send (such as how people "bailed," for example), and the way you act like what your points are should be obvious to the simplest layman who can rub two brain cells together. This leads to...

4. Unflinching arrogance in your viewpoints. YOUR plan will work. Why don't they just trade for who YOU think they should, sign the guys YOU want, and be done with it? It's easy, lazy front office!

Sure it is, when you sit in all the seats at the negotiating table. But you don't want to hear that. On top of that, you feign this "just the facts, ma'am" mindset regarding discussion, but you have crowned yourself the decider regarding whether someone has a meritorious opinion. Invariably you decide that most opinions here suck (paraphrasing) when they don't align with yours, and it gives you carte blanche to continue on doing as you do.

The reason people "bail" on the threads you reference is because it is a pointless, exhausting experience to interact with you. That's why I call what you do "textual masturbation." You love to read your own words, and nobody else's are particularly important.
  • weird-O and bmore_ken like this

#40 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:30 AM

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.

Bingo!!!!!!!!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners