[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Not really, no. Let’s try a different example. We’ll flip a rigged coin that lands tails 75% of the time, heads 25%. Each time it lands tails, you give me a dollar, each time it lands heads, I give you a dollar.
I would consider you unable to compete with me in this game. Would you?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, I have a chance of winning, so I can compete, at least over the short term.
storyteller I want to give your post my full attention, but I’ve got to run. Not having read it all the way through, I just have a couple points on your football comparisons:
The Giants were actually at a significant free-agent disadvantage for the first years under Coughlin, but that was self-inflicted. As for Eli, he didn’t care about the market size, but rather the specific franchise of the Chargers. They had a long and reliable history of sucking and not treating their people well. (eg: Marty Schottenheimer.) They’ve since turned the sucking part around, at least. Also, I’ve seen nothing to indicate that he wanted the spotlight of New York. Certainly his clearest role model has done well for himself on the notoriety scale in the small market of Indianapolis.
There is no way Eli would have lobbied to go to New York if the Giants were picking 20th that year. He looked at the teams at the top of the draft who had a track record of trading a lot. Ernie Accorsi loved to make trades during his time as the Giants GM. Basically, New York was the answer to “anywhere but San Diego.”
Also, Kansas City was a terrible example for a bad home field advantage. Arrowhead is a brutal place to play. Better examples would be Miami or Atlanta.
(I stopped reading after the Chiefs comment.)
More fun with payrolls:
Every year, from 1994-1999, the Orioles had a higher payroll than the Red Sox. You know when the Red Sox were complaining they can’t compete with the relic that is Fenway, and the Orioles had actual competitive teams. It is amazing what having competent ownership can do.
[QUOTE=Hawkeyeop]
Sure, I have a chance of winning, so I can compete, at least over the short term.
[/QUOTE]
I submit that while your definition is perfectly logical, it is not the commonly understood one.
OK, for some reason my Internet connection is acting up. I can’t get onto any of the payroll sites, so further response will have to wait until I can do the research.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
OK, for some reason my Internet connection is acting up. I can’t get onto any of the payroll sites, so further response will have to wait until I can do the research.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been using http://www.super70s.com/Baseball/Teams/Background/Payroll/
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
The Yankees weren’t one of the best teams in baseball in the mid-1980’s.
[/QUOTE]
Save the Yankees, trade Steinbrenner. I remember, but I didn’t think that was a long enough time to count, when considered along the general period 1923-2008.
Anyhow, that’s the opposite effect of what I want to see. During the period when the Yankees were one of the best teams, did their payroll ever change significantly from being the highest?
For that matter, when they weren’t, in the 80s, how did their payroll stack up?
[QUOTE=Hawkeyeop]
I’ve been using http://www.super70s.com/Baseball/Teams/Background/Payroll/
[/QUOTE]
God bless you.
In the meanwhile, I think a direct statement of my own opinion, and what I’m trying to argue, would be worthwhile. Here it is:
Payroll has a modest impact on a team’s ability to win in any given year. But it is very modest. The fact that a higher proportion of teams above the median make the playoffs is at least partly attributable to the fact that teams with expectations of success tend to take on payroll to increase their chances, and teams with expectations of poor performance tend to divest payroll and build for the future.
Skillful team management is so much more relevant as to make the modest advantage associated with increased payroll all but irrelevant (look at that list of teams that have been in the playoffs 3 times or more in seven years; the GMs include Brian Cashman, Billy Beane, Walt Jocketty, Jon Scheurholtz, Theo Epstein).
What competitive advantage exists is related more to being above the median than to being in the top five. Since virtually every team is capable of that amount of spending, the playing field is in fact level in this regard.
Would you believe I completely forgot the CBS era? '64-72. Worse than the 80s.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Save the Yankees, trade Steinbrenner. I remember, but I didn’t think that was a long enough time to count, when considered along the general period 1923-2008.
Anyhow, that’s the opposite effect of what I want to see. During the period when the Yankees were one of the best teams, did their payroll ever change significantly from being the highest?
For that matter, when they weren’t, in the 80s, how did their payroll stack up?
[/QUOTE]
The yankees were first or second in every year from '80-'88. They dropped a bit after that, 4th in '89, 8th in '90 and '91, 9th in '92 and 3rd in '93. They were back on top in '94.
True, Mattingly was darn good. I guess that doesn’t count. But I know the 60s were horrid. Anyhow, how’s their payroll stack up over the years?
[QUOTE=Hawkeyeop]
The yankees were first or second in every year from '80-'88.
[/QUOTE]
Well, gosh, that’s just completely false. They were fifth in 1982, third in 1983 and 1984, fourth in 1987, and fifth in 1988. They finished second twice, in 1985 and 1986, and 1985 was really their only close call.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
That’s moving the goalposts. I believe the original assertion was that small market teams can compete just fine, which they clearly cannot.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
We’ve discussed payrolls, but not market size. It’s important to draw a distinction between the two; there’s a connection between them but it’s not a firm one, and teams have control over the size of their market through savvy marketing, goodwill, leveraging new stadia, investment in team success, and other factors; look at how the Expos essentially ruined their own market, or how St. Louis has continued to milk a city of modest size (relatively speaking) for lots of money.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Well, gosh, that’s just completely false. They were fifth in 1982, third in 1983 and 1984, fourth in 1987, and fifth in 1988. They finished second twice, in 1985 and 1986, and 1985 was really their only close call.
[/QUOTE]
I think he was referring to payroll ranking.
[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
I think he was referring to payroll ranking.
[/QUOTE]
If so, I’d love to know where to find such information. It’s remarkably hard to Google up.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
If so, I’d love to know where to find such information. It’s remarkably hard to Google up.
[/QUOTE]
At least one person is using the link in post 46:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9669857&postcount=46
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
better teams are going to tend to shoot for the moon, while weaker teams are going to divest salary and save for future runs; that’s going to partially contribute to the fact that better-compensated teams tend to be more likely to make the playoffs.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what you’re saying, and agree that this effect will inflate the perceived payroll advantage. But just as you assert that the payroll imblance is overblown, I claim the “midseason adjustment” inflation is overblown. This could be resolved if we could find a site listing opening day payroll.
I would suggest that on opening day, if your team’s payroll is in the top half of the league, your team has a significantly better chance of making the playoffs than those in the bottom half.
As an aside, I’m very happy that the NFL’s trade deadline is so early in the season. I’d hate to see teams jettison players simply because they can’t make the playoffs and want to save a few bucks.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
This could be resolved if we could find a site listing opening day payroll.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t find any historic data, but I did find the 2008 opening day payrolls. We can revisit these numbers after the season to see if my hypothesis holds true:
1 $209,081,579 New York Yankees
2 $138,685,197 Detroit Tigers
3 $138,293,378 New York Mets
4 $133,440,037 Boston Red Sox
5 $121,152,667 Chicago White Sox
6 $119,216,333 Los Angeles Angels
7 $118,595,833 Chicago Cubs
8 $118,536,038 Los Angeles Dodgers
9 $117,993,982 Seattle Mariners
10 $102,424,018 Atlanta Braves
11 $100,624,450 St. Louis Cardinals
12 $98,641,957 Toronto Blue Jays
13 $98,269,881 Philadelphia Phillies
14 $88,930,415 Houston Astros
15 $81,004,167 Milwaukee Brewers
16 $78,970,067 Cleveland Indians
17 $76,904,500 San Francisco Giants
18 $74,277,695 Cincinnati Reds
19 $73,677,617 San Diego Padres
20 $68,655,500 Colorado Rockies
21 $68,239,551 Texas Rangers
22 $67,196,248 Baltimore Orioles
23 $66,202,713 Arizona Diamondbacks
24 $62,182,767 Minnesota Twins
25 $58,245,500 Kansas City Royals
26 $54,961,000 Washington Nationals
27 $49,365,283 Pittsburgh Pirates
28 $47,967,126 Oakland Athletics
29 $43,820,598 Tampa Bay Rays
30 $21,836,500 Florida Marlins
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
As an aside, I’m very happy that the NFL’s trade deadline is so early in the season. I’d hate to see teams jettison players simply because they can’t make the playoffs and want to save a few bucks.
[/QUOTE]
Heh. I think this is one thing that separates “baseball people” from “football people.” I hate the lack of real trades in football; it makes the sport much less interesting to me. Baseball deadline deals are always of tremendous interest, because it’s very rarely about saving a few bucks in and of itself. Teams trading away highly-paid veteran talent get young players in return, and a team that thinks intelligently about who to jettison and who to ask for in return can build a contending team around a well-timed trade.
There’s not really an analogue in football, sadly.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
I understand what you’re saying, and agree that this effect will inflate the perceived payroll advantage. But just as you assert that the payroll imblance is overblown, I claim the “midseason adjustment” inflation is overblown. This could be resolved if we could find a site listing opening day payroll.
[/QUOTE]
For what it’s worth, it’s not just midseason adjustments that I refer to in my argument. Most teams (the well-run teams, anyway) are operating under plans that extend for multiple years. Payroll adjustments are a function of off-season decisions (who to sign and re-sign, who to trade and for what) as much as anything else. A team building toward success may gradually increase its payroll over two or three consecutive seasons, hold firm for a few years, then divest payroll when it appears the run is over.
Having looked at the numbers a bit more, though, I’ll say that my characterization of the situation isn’t entirely accurate (or at least, is incomplete). It would seem that baseball teams seem to fall into one of five categories, in terms of payroll:
Always Very High: The Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Dodgers are all good examples. These teams are usually in the top five, always in the top ten. They do not divest payroll in expectation of unsuccessful seasons.
Generally High, with some variation: The Braves are the best example here. The Braves cycle between about tenth in payroll up to about fifth. In the last few years, with John Smoltz aging and some of their better position players doing the same, they have spent somewhat less relative to other teams (payroll rank has declined from #3 in 2000 to #7-#8 in the middle part of the decade to #10 as 2008 starts). Now they have a bunch of emergent young players; if my theory is correct, you will see them add veteran talent in the next few offseasons and be back around #5 in payroll by 2010 as they gear for a new run built around Yunel Escobar, Jordan Schafer, Brian McCann, and Jeff Francoeur.
Always Mid-Range: Just about every year, the St. Louis Cardinals can be found in about the same place on the salary scale - above the median, out of the top ten. They do not appear to follow the model I’ve suggested, gearing up financially for runs and cutting payroll for expected fallow periods.
The Poorhouse Teams: The Royals, Pirates, Athletics, and Twins are all consistently in the bottom of third of the league in terms of payroll. They may swap around spots, but they’re always in the basement.
The Pinball Teams: These are teams whose payroll varies widely, and who hew closest to the model I’m suggesting. The Cleveland Indians had the fifth highest payroll in all of baseball in 2001. They’ve missed the playoffs five years running thereafter. Their payroll decreased, to the point that in 2007, they ranked only 23rd in the league in payroll. Last year they won their Division and nearly went to the World Series, so they held firm, added a few pieces and divested none, and now rank #16 in payroll. A midseason trade, which would bring their payroll above the median, is exceedingly likely if they continue to contend.
The White Sox are another good example. In 2000, they ranked 21st in payroll. Over the next five years, they gradually increased payroll in baby steps. In 2005, when they won the World Series on the strength of several career years, they had the 13th highest payroll in the league. Emboldened by this, and expecting to continue their success, they added pitcher Javier Vasquez and DH Jim Thome, and their payroll in 2006 went all the way up to fourth.
A final example: in 2001, the Arizona Diamondbacks went to and won the World Series with the eighth highest payroll in baseball. Like the White Sox, they wanted to sustain their success, so they increased payroll in the following year (ranking fourth in all of baseball). It worked, sort of: they won their division in 2002. But it was not sustainable. Their team was built around old guys - Mark Grace (38), Steve Finley (37), Luis Gonzalez (34), Randy Johnson (38), Curt Schilling (34). It was clear that a reckoning was coming.
In 2003, the Diamondbacks cut payroll (rank = 11). Going into 2004, it was likely the team would have a losing record and certain the team would not make the playoffs. So they traded Curt Schilling to Boston, and lost 100+ games (payroll rank = 13). In the next two years, Arizona would continue to play young talent, get rid of expensive older talent, and drop all the way down to 23rd in payroll. Now they have been successful. They traded for Dan Haren in the off-season; a midseason deal is likely. I’ll bet any amount you’d care to wager that the Arizona payroll will increase by five slots or more relative to the rest of league going into 2009, in support of a serious run at a championship.
I have a meeting now, but more from me later.
Great stuff, storyteller.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Heh. I think this is one thing that separates “baseball people” from “football people.” I hate the lack of real trades in football; it makes the sport much less interesting to me. Baseball deadline deals are always of tremendous interest, because it’s very rarely about saving a few bucks in and of itself. Teams trading away highly-paid veteran talent get young players in return, and a team that thinks intelligently about who to jettison and who to ask for in return can build a contending team around a well-timed trade.
There’s not really an analogue in football, sadly.
[/QUOTE]
On the flipside, one could argue that “team building” in baseball is as simple as plugging in players, whereas in football there is honest to god team building, in that the players have to get accustomed to the team and each other because nobody (except kickers) ever stands alone.
I’d say the first week of NFL free agency is the analog to MLB’s trade deadline; both generate a lot of interest and excitement if you judge by sports talk radio. Plus there’s also the draft. Do baseball fans get excited about the MLB draft?