Photo

Payroll Analysis 2000-2019 vs Playoffs


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#41 dude

dude

    HOF

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

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:32 AM

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.

 

I'm guessing you don't actually want to discuss any of this.

 

For example, despite the accusation, I have yet to say Elias isn't doing a good job.  We know he's not trying to win now (that's a fact) but I think the structural pieces he's building have merit.  We won't actually know anything about results for some time and they really haven't even laid out a timeline for that evaluation.  I do have issues with a number of things he has said recently (for example; "this is the first time the Orioles have really been honest with the fan-base about rebuilding" which is a patently false statement, they very specifically said they were rebuilding in 2008 under McPhail).

 

...but regardless of my opinion of some of those comments and the fact that I despise the lameness of rebuilding (which I actually hadn't mentioned in this thread), I'd guess he's doing a good job internally in terms of infrastructure.  I don't really like Melewski's stuff that much, but I commented previously I liked the Holt interview, there was insight into some of the good things going on across the Organization.

 

I get that you're probably still mad about the draft pick stuff, but that too shall pass.



#42 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:39 AM

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

That's not at all what he said


  • BSLSteveBirrer likes this

#43 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:41 AM

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.

Amen my friend



#44 dude

dude

    HOF

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

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:54 AM

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.

 

I don't understand why you'd want to go back even more than 10 years to consider the impact of money (regardless of the view it supports).

 

The conditions across the league in just about every respect are so dramatically different, why would the consequence of money for anything pre-2000 (I'd argue even more recently) have any consideration for money's impact in the coming years?

 

That doesn't mean we can't look back and learn stuff from how teams have won (we can and probably should) but the changes in local and National revenue streams, Revenue sharing, Lux Tax, Wild Cards, Analytics (including the changes in career views with age curves) are all pretty different.  There's a lot of structural differences in the setup off the field.



#45 dude

dude

    HOF

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

Posted 27 December 2019 - 01:01 AM

That's not at all what he said

 

You actually 'liked' this (Steve's comment) in the other thread....

 

So they may well be extremely well run. But they spend in the top two payrolls of their division every year. The O's do not have the financial ability to do that in the AL East. So perhaps the O's could take a page from what the Cards do but to overlook the payrolls is disingenuous. As I have stated many times. You want to make the playoffs on an ongoing basis? Then you need to have a payroll in the top two of your respective division.

 

This thread is supposed to be the proof ('draw your own conclusions') of that statement from the other thread.



#46 dude

dude

    HOF

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

Posted 27 December 2019 - 01:14 AM

No computer for the next couple days.  Have at it, I'll catch up later.



#47 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 December 2019 - 01:18 AM

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.


1) Agreed but that’s not what this thread is about, so why bring it up?

2) It’s 26% of the sample size...that’s not nothing, especially within the context of 2 of teams in the division doing nothing for 7 of those years, to start the decade. It’s always easier to win anything when you have teams trying to actively lose.
@BSLRobShields

#48 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 December 2019 - 01:21 AM

Amen my friend

Do you have an original thought? Analysis of your own?

Just wondering?
@BSLRobShields

#49 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 03:51 AM

I'm guessing you don't actually want to discuss any of this.


Why would you guess that?

For example, despite the accusation, I have yet to say Elias isn't doing a good job. We know he's not trying to win now (that's a fact) but I think the structural pieces he's building have merit. We won't actually know anything about results for some time and they really haven't even laid out a timeline for that evaluation. I do have issues with a number of things he has said recently (for example; "this is the first time the Orioles have really been honest with the fan-base about rebuilding" which is a patently false statement, they very specifically said they were rebuilding in 2008 under McPhail).

...but regardless of my opinion of some of those comments and the fact that I despise the lameness of rebuilding (which I actually hadn't mentioned in this thread), I'd guess he's doing a good job internally in terms of infrastructure. I don't really like Melewski's stuff that much, but I commented previously I liked the Holt interview, there was insight into some of the good things going on across the Organization.


It's hard to tell that you think there are good things he's doing with the organization when all you post about is how bad his rebuilding plan is. I would be very surprised if I was the only one who got that impression.

I get that you're probably still mad about the draft pick stuff, but that too shall pass.


You lost me. I don't know what this is in reference to.

Regardless, nothing I posted had anything to do with anything related to draft picks.

#50 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

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

Posted 27 December 2019 - 06:26 AM

1) Agreed but that’s not what this thread is about, so why bring it up?

2) It’s 26% of the sample size...that’s not nothing, especially within the context of 2 of teams in the division doing nothing for 7 of those years, to start the decade. It’s always easier to win anything when you have teams trying to actively lose.

I must admit that I missed that Steve mentioned this as AL East only. So my bad on that.

So while that diminishes my point about the sample size, miraculously, my whole argument still stands.

There's no reason to take a sample size that is already smaller than it should be and reduce it to 25% of the time and 40% of the teams. And again, it doesn't make sense to only choose the specific parameters that you choose, unless you're only trying to support your bias.

Otherwise, it is still true that Steve absolutely didn't say or suggest that money is the only factor in winning. It is also still absurd that you wrote a concluding sentence listing the factors that go into winning, and left out money.

It's really hard to believe that an Orioles fan can't see that both intelligence and money are both significant factors with winning.

#51 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 87,606 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 27 December 2019 - 08:06 AM

I have never said money doesn’t matter.

However, I don’t believe it is the overriding factor and it’s not as important as other factors are.

Steve has implied, in this thread and over the years on this board, that money is the main thing.

That’s not true at all.

And the “data” provided here doesn’t really matter that much because there is no context to it.

Situations have made Boston and NY so good...some within their control and others not.

When 2/5 of your division are tanking or whatever words you want to use (ie, not trying to win), it makes your task always much easier. That type of context isn’t given here.

Now, you can say sure but that’s only a year here or year there (not true but we can go with that).

The problem is that those years add up and all of a sudden, what looks like a great stat over a 19 year period really boils down to several years of just plain being lucky that teams aren’t trying to win and that means you won by default.

Again, the money gives you margin for error. Look at all the injuries NY had last year but still won 100 games. Some of that was guys stepping up who weren’t making much money but some of it was just that you had enough players making money that the depth carried you...but again, having 2 teams not trying to win helps with that.
@BSLRobShields

#52 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,145 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 27 December 2019 - 09:06 AM

I never said money was the only key to success. In fact post #10 specifically said that was not the case. My point is and always has been that payroll is a very big factor over the long haul. Fine to disagree with that. But stop extrapolating my posts to something I never said.



#53 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 10:02 AM

I never said money was the only key to success. In fact post #10 specifically said that was not the case. My point is and always has been that payroll is a very big factor over the long haul. Fine to disagree with that. But stop extrapolating my posts to something I never said.

Anyone who thinks money isn't a massive advantage is fooling themselves.

It's kind of like saying that being tall isn't required to be in the NBA, and then pointing to a few players who are short (by NBA standards) as your proof. Sure, height doesn't GUARANTEE success, and there are shorter guys who excel. It doesn't mean it doesn't help.

If you were starting a brand new franchise and had the option to check a box to have the same financial capability as the Yankees or that of the Rays, every person here is picking the Yankees. Guaranteed.


  • bmore_ken and mdrunning like this

#54 BSLSteveBirrer

BSLSteveBirrer

    Soccer Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,145 posts
  • LocationMS and ID

Posted 27 December 2019 - 10:14 AM

Dude's thought that the data is skewed because teams tank and don't try and win raises a question though. Certainly it impacts the number of wins other teams get. But my analysis didn't having anything to do with wins. Its only about making or not making the playoffs.

 

So lets look at last year as an example. I think we all pretty much agree that the O's were not trying to hard to win. Whether you call it tanking or trying to rebuild or whatever. So if the O's had tried to put a better product on the field, lets say a 70 win team. Would that really change the picture of the data?

 

I don't believe that is the case. The O's would have gotten 16 more wins. Unless those wins were almost all against a few teams the teams making or not making the playoffs wouldn't change.



#55 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,243 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 10:27 AM

XF4tGHt.png
Correlation between opening day payroll and wins from 2000-2004. Depending on the publication, .411 on a scale of 0.0 (Zero correlation) to 1.0 (perfect correlation) is moderate. Upward slope is a positive correlation between the two.

The green lines I added make up the quadrants. The upper left is teams that spent a lot and didn't finish over .500. Only six teams. Upper right is teams that spent a lot and went over .500. 24 teams. Lower left is teams that didn't spend and didn't win. 66 teams. Lower right is teams that didn't spend but did win. 54 teams.

I'm sure if I did this for the other 15 seasons in question, the results would probably be close to the same. Spending like the Yankees doesn't guarantee winning. But it almost guarantees not losing. 80% of the teams over this span that spent over the median payroll finished over .500. 55% of the teams that didn't spend over the median finished under .500.
  • BSLChrisStoner and BSLSteveBirrer like this
@BSLMikeRandall

#56 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 10:41 AM

Dude's thought that the data is skewed because teams tank and don't try and win raises a question though. Certainly it impacts the number of wins other teams get. But my analysis didn't having anything to do with wins. Its only about making or not making the playoffs.

So lets look at last year as an example. I think we all pretty much agree that the O's were not trying to hard to win. Whether you call it tanking or trying to rebuild or whatever. So if the O's had tried to put a better product on the field, lets say a 70 win team. Would that really change the picture of the data?

I don't believe that is the case. The O's would have gotten 16 more wins. Unless those wins were almost all against a few teams the teams making or not making the playoffs wouldn't change.

Dude's logic is flawed also, because teams take that approach due to the massive financial disparities between franchises.

You never see the Red Sox, Yankees, or Dodgers take that approach because they can sign Anna free agents and take on enough money in trades to keep themselves at least moderately competitive even when they are trying to rebuild their farm system. The pipeline of stars to those teams is never dry.

Teams with more restrictive finances have one Avenue to acquire stars, and that's through the draft.

#57 bmore_ken

bmore_ken

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 10:56 AM

You actually 'liked' this (Steve's comment) in the other thread....

I liked his comment because he and I both agree that a team with higher payroll capability is more likely to succeed. Steve never said high payroll was a guarantee of anything. It's like Slide said, You love to read your own words, and nobody else's are particularly important. Because you clearly didn't read mine. The ability to have a higher payroll means you have the ability to obtain better players, it also means you have more margin for error if a few of those players don't work out. Those are facts, unlike the textual diarrhea you spew constantly. 



#58 ivanbalt

ivanbalt
  • Members
  • 443 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:11 PM

Teams that spend a lot of money have two distinct advantages:

 

- the ability to re-sign their home grown superstars when they hit FA (Imagine what the Rays or As could do if they could actually keep some of their talent)

 

- the ability to write off bad contracts (Yankees and Red Sox certainly wouldn't continue having Davis in the lineup)


  • BSLMikeRandall, BSLSteveBirrer and bmore_ken like this

#59 Slidemaster

Slidemaster

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:20 PM

Teams that spend a lot of money have two distinct advantages:

- the ability to re-sign their home grown superstars when they hit FA (Imagine what the Rays or As could do if they could actually keep some of their talent)

- the ability to write off bad contracts (Yankees and Red Sox certainly wouldn't continue having Davis in the lineup)

Yep. And there's another as well.

They can take on bad contracts from other teams, and get rewarded with additional pieces for the salary relief. Additionally, money allows them to (at times) preserve their prospects by being able to acquire talent with nothing more than dollars. Small market teams don't have that option.
  • BSLMikeRandall likes this

#60 dude

dude

    HOF

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

Posted 27 December 2019 - 12:37 PM

I liked his comment because he and I both agree that a team with higher payroll capability is more likely to succeed. Steve never said high payroll was a guarantee of anything. It's like Slide said, You love to read your own words, and nobody else's are particularly important. Because you clearly didn't read mine. The ability to have a higher payroll means you have the ability to obtain better players, it also means you have more margin for error if a few of those players don't work out. Those are facts, unlike the textual diarrhea you spew constantly. 

 

Priceless.  Go read the bottom of post #15.  You can't make this stuff up.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners