Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The blue trendline indicates the positive correlation of team payroll and wins. The correlation coefficient works out to 0.64. The coefficient of determination (or R-squared) is 0.41, which means payroll explains 41 percent of a team's win total. A large portion of the balance is determined by the impact of "cost-controlled" players (i.e., minimum or close to minimum in years one through three and roughly 40-60-80 percent of free agent market values in years four through six, respectively) as Dave Studeman, who improved the correlation coefficient to 0.77 and the R-squared to nearly 0.60 for the 2006 season, pointed out in an intelligent piece in The Hardball Times a couple of years ago.
Furthermore, the relationship between payroll and wins is not linear. The difference between the highs and lows of wins (67-94) is much more tightly bunched than payrolls ($27M-$216M), suggesting that marginal wins are significantly more costly than average wins. In other words, going from 70 to 80 wins isn't as important — or costly — as going from 80 to 90 wins. By my count, 68 of the 78 teams that have won at least 90 games during the past 10 years have participated in the postseason. Win 90 and you have about an 87 percent chance of playing beyond the regular season.
Without getting into the math there is a pretty clear relationship between a team's payroll and their number of wins.
I'd also point you toward this article which was linked to in the other article. Net Win Shares Value 2006
There is a really good article that I'm looking for that discussed playoff appearances and payroll. High payroll teams go to the playoffs much more frequently than low payroll teams.
Without getting into the math there is a pretty clear relationship between a team's payroll and their number of wins.
I'd also point you toward this article which was linked to in the other article. Net Win Shares Value 2006
There is a really good article that I'm looking for that discussed playoff appearances and payroll. High payroll teams go to the playoffs much more frequently than low payroll teams.
Why do fans of bad small market teams always use $$$ as the excuse for their poor results?
Quote:
Can small market teams compete?
Despite enacting a luxury tax and increasing the amount of local revenues shared, this is one problem that still plagues major league baseball. Big market teams such as the Yankees and Dodgers still hold the same advantages they have enjoyed since the beginning of the decade, and there is no sign of this subsiding. Meanwhile, small market teams still have just as much trouble winning as they did when the panel made its recommendations. While there has been an increase in shared local revenues to help small-market teams, some have complained that these clubs are simply pocketing the money rather than investing it in a quality on-field product. Perhaps if this is addressed, we will see the small market teams competing with big market clubs once again, but for now, this is a major problem that plagues MLB as much as ever.
Verdict: Failure
This is just a small snippet of the entire article which is worth a complete read.
Quote:
Of the four indicators of competitive balance, Selig and MLB have a mixed record. On one hand, the best and worst teams aren't quite as extreme as they used to be, and the same few teams are not dominating year after year as they were in the late '90s and early 2000s. That represents some modest progress in baseball's quest for competitive balance. However, on baseball's two most important fronts, payroll imbalance and small market competitiveness, MLB is basically in the same situation it was in at the beginning of the decade. This systematic disparity between teams' ability to succeed is at the heart of the competitive imbalance problem, and these issues remain the most dangerous problems for Major League Baseball.
Let's move our amateur signing bonus to the Steel City...
Jameson Taillon, $6.5MM (2010)
Pedro Alvarez, $6MM (2008)
Bryan Bullington, $4MM (2002)
Brad Lincoln, $2.75MM (2006)
Luis Heredia, $2.6MM (2010)
If there's any good that can come out of finishing with a below-.500 record for 18 straight years, it's that you'll have a ton of high draft picks. Unfortunately for the Pirates, they really didn't take advantage of those high picks until the last few years, as too many first rounders to count have flamed out since the team's last winning season. Neal Huntington has been dedicated to building the next great Pirates team through the farm system, so he's spent a ton of money on amateurs since taking over in late 2007. In fact, Pittsburgh has doled out close to $30.6MM on draft picks in the three years that Huntington's run the team, the most in baseball by more than $2MM.
This is exactly what these bottom dwelling teams should be doing. Spending money in the draft to make sure they sign top talent. The Pirates have spent $30.6 million over the last 3 years on signing draft picks. That's $10 million a year. What players could they have got for $10 million a year?
These players signed in 2008 for around $10 million a season:
Freddy Garcia
Eric Gagne
Jose Guillen
Aaron Rowand
Carlos Silva
Who do you see in this list that is the difference maker that'd help the Pirates go from worst to first?
So, when people are calling for a salary floor, this should be Exhibit A of why that is a bad idea. The Pirates will do much better by drafting some high ceiling players and taking a chance with them instead of pissing that money away the guys you see above
This is exactly what these bottom dwelling teams should be doing. Spending money in the draft to make sure they sign top talent. The Pirates have spent $30.6 million over the last 3 years on signing draft picks. That's $10 million a year. What players could they have got for $10 million a year?
These players signed in 2008 for around $10 million a season:
Freddy Garcia
Eric Gagne
Jose Guillen
Aaron Rowand
Carlos Silva
Who do you see in this list that is the difference maker that'd help the Pirates go from worst to first?
So, when people are calling for a salary floor, this should be Exhibit A of why that is a bad idea. The Pirates will do much better by drafting some high ceiling players and taking a chance with them instead of pissing that money away the guys you see above
What would exhibit B be for why there should be one? Maybe the fact that the Pirates haven't even made the playoffs for years and are constantly getting rid of major league talent to cut costs. If it was evident that their team as well as many of the other bottom feeders were trying to be competitive, that would be one thing; but it appears they just hope they are lucky while they are hoarding revenue sharing $$$. It's all about the greed for them. Sorry but there has to be a way to force them to try to be competitive instead of just pocketing $$$. A floor is necessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
