Originally posted by quackquack3.8% is a lot. It means you'd expect it to happen once or twice every year.
If all teams had a 50% likelihood of winning in a 16 team game schedule. The probability of winning 4 of fewer games would be 3.8%. Anyone who watches the NFL in the last decade could clearly see that teams like the Lions and the Raiders aren't just average teams getting bad bounces and the Colts and Patriots aren't average teams getting the breaks. teams, more different teams in the playoffs and more different teams winning championships.
Take a small actual separation of teams (say, the Colts at 65% and the Rams at 35% ) and the odds of big seasons and awful seasons dramatically increases.
Though, there's also the nature of the sport to deal with. Every sport has some luck involved, but baseball much more so than any other sport, and football probably the lease of any sport.
There was a famous essay in 2001 by Voros McCracken that basically concluded that pitchers have little control over everything but walks, strikeouts and home runs. Once a ball is put in play, according to his study, the best pitchers are only slightly better, if at all, than the worst pitchers at preventing base hits.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878
That may be an oversimplification and the fact that some pitchers like Mariano Rivers buck this trend by holding the opposition to consistently low BABIPs (batting average on balls in play) throws this a bit into question, but the underlying fact remains. A line drive bullet down the line with the bases loaded and 1 out can go right at the third baseman and be a 5-4-3 double play or get by the third baseman if hit 2 feet to the right and be a bases clearing double, etc. Also, you have the strange phenomenon in baseball of being rewarded on bad swings for hitting the ball so poorly that you foul it back rather than hitting it slightly better and popping it up.
In football, while there is obviously some luck involved (mainly in things like whether the referee see your right tackle hold the blitzing linebacker), you can physically dominate a football game. You generally cannot win a game in which you are dominated. In baseball, you can hit a bunch of line drives at people and the other team can get a bunch of bloops and swinging bunts and beat you.
I think this distinction more than anything else is the reason for the gaudy NFL records.
Whodey has done it everyone!! He has done the research to prove his theory that big salaries = winning ball clubs.
I did research from 2005 to 2009. Each year I looked at salaries, because they tend to differ from year to year, and then observed where they fell in the win column that year. I divided the teams in terms of salary right down the middle by taking the top 15 salary teams and bottom 15 salary teams each year. I then noticed which teams in the top 15 were over 500 and under 500 and then did the same for the bottom 15 teams. So here is my results.
In 2005
Top 15 teams
Over 500: 9 teams were above 500 for a 60% average.
Under 500: 6 teams were below 500 for 40% average
Bottom 15 teams
Over 500: 7 teams were above 500 for a 46% average
Under 500: 8 teams were below 500 for a 53% average
In 2006
Top 15 teams
Over 500: 10 teams were above 500 for a 66% average
Under 500: 5 teams were below 500 for a 33% average
Bottom 15 teams in salary
Over 500: 4 teams were above 500 for a 26% average
Below 500: 11 teams were below 500 for a 73% average.
In 2007
Top 15 teams
Over 500: 11 teams were over 500 for a 74% average
Below 500: 4 teams were below 500 for a 26% average
Bottom 15 teams
Over 500: 6 teams were over 500 for a 40% average
Under 500: 9 teams were below 500 for a 60% average
In 2008
Top 15 teams
Over 500: 12 teams were above 500 for a 80% average
Under 500: 3 teams were below 500 for a 20% average
Bottom 15 teams
Over 500: 6 teams were above 500 for a 40% average
Under 500: 9 teams were below 500 for a 60% average.
In 2009
Top 15 teams
Over 500: 11 teams were over 500 for a 74% average
Under 500: 4 teams were below 500 for a 26% average
Bottom 15 teams
Over 500: 5 teams were over 500 for a 34% average
Under 500: 10 teams were below 500 for a 66% average
To sum up, over 5 years the top 15 teams who were over 500 were 70% and below 500 were 30%. Conversley, of the bottom 15 teams 37% were over 500 and 63% were under 500. This is basically an inverse relationship.
Now lets look at the playoff picture over the last 5 years. Here is the teams under 500 who have made the playoffs.
In 2005: One team made the playoffs who were under 500 for a 12% average
In 2006: Three teams made the playoffs who were under 500 for a 37% average
In 2007: Three teams made the playoffs who were under 500 for a 37% average
In 2008: Two teams made the playoffs who were under 500 for a 25% average
In 2009: One team made the playoffs who were under 500 for a 12% average
So over the 5 year span about 24% of the teams who were the bottom payroll teams made the playoffs. Also, out of that 24% none won a World Series.
The Padres (29th in salary) have the best record in the NL. The Reds (19th) and Braves (15th) are division leaders. The Giants would be the wild card team. The NL NY team (3rd highest NL salary) is below .500, the NL Chicago (highest NL salary) team is 17 games below .500. The NL LA team is out of the playoffs. Salary just does not seem to be a deciding factor. In fact there may even be a reverse correlation in the NL.
AL Texas (27th) and Tampa (21st) are two teams in the bottom third in salary who would make the playoffs
Summary: (5 of 8 playoff teams are ranked from 15 to 30 in salary
NYY (1) White Sox (7) San Fran (10) Atlanta (15) Cincinnati (19) Tampa (21) Texas (27) San Diego (29)
Premise that you cannot compete without spending money in still just false.
I also think that when you only look at a short period of time it seems like the same teams make the playoffs every year. Right now 7 of the 8 teams from last year: Boston, Minnesota, Angels, Philly, St Louis, Dodgers and Colorado are all out of the playoffs. Does that ever happen in the NBA? Does it happen in the NFL? Why so much competetive balance crying that is completely unjustified by facts?:
Originally posted by quackquackWell it certainly has been an interesting year. In fact, it seems outside the norm. However, the year is not over yet, but if it continues, we will see if this year is simply a fluke or hopefully more to come.
The Padres (29th in salary) have the best record in the NL. The Reds (19th) and Braves (15th) are division leaders. The Giants would be the wild card team. The NL NY team (3rd highest NL salary) is below .500, the NL Chicago (highest NL salary) team is 17 games below .500. The NL LA team is out of the playoffs. Salary just does not seem to be a deci ...[text shortened]... (27) San Diego (29)
Premise that you cannot compete without spending money in still just false.
Originally posted by quackquackI have to say, there are repeat offenders in terms of teams who are on the bottom 15 of pay roll but who seem to do well in terms of seasons over 500. They include the Padres, the Twins, Tampa Bay, and the Marlins. It is my theory that of the four, three are in warm climates. We all know people who have taken pay cuts in order to be payed in sunshine. In addition, states like Florida who have no state income tax makes such lower salary jobs that much more persuasive saving them millions in tax returns every year. As for the Twins, I have no idea. All I can say is that perhaps they have the best front office in baseball. As for my Reds, they have improved in that category as well, but I can't help but wonder when Joey Votto will be a Yankee. Either that, or if he continues to hit well they will have to sacrifice other players in order to afford him.
Summary: (5 of 8 playoff teams are ranked from 15 to 30 in salary
NYY (1) White Sox (7) San Fran (10) Atlanta (15) Cincinnati (19) Tampa (21) Texas (27) San Diego (29)
Premise that you cannot compete without spending money in still just false.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyThe Padres normally do well -- am I missing something?
I have to say, there are repeat offenders in terms of teams who are on the bottom 15 of pay roll but who seem to do well in terms of seasons over 500. They include the Padres, the Twins, Tampa Bay, and the Marlins. It is my theory that of the four, three are in warm climates. We all know people who have taken pay cuts in order to be payed in sunshine. In ...[text shortened]... r if he continues to hit well they will have to sacrifice other players in order to afford him.
Different team make the playoffs every year
Lets look at 2008 and 2009 ( a two year period before this year where 7 of the 8 teams from last year did not make the playoffs)
Three AL east teams, 2 AL Central, 1 NL west teams (but the Angels will not make the playoffs in 2010), one NL East team (but the Braves are leading the division), three NL Centrals (and a different team the Reds are leading now), two NL west teams (and the Padres have the best record in the NL west and the giants lead in the Central). So if things stay as is in three years 16 different teams make the playoffs out of 24 spots. That is amazing parity!
You change your argument constantly but it is not just about money.
(1) Seven of the eight teams from last year would not make the playoffs.
(2) Of the six teams in the three biggest cities only two would make the playoffs (with the Twins possibly making it only one)
(3) Two of the bottom payrolls four would make the playoffs.
(4) Florida teams are not doing well because of the weather. They do not have players that took less money because of warmer weather. Their players are young and do not have free agency capabilities.
Originally posted by quackquackI in no way mean to imply that just throwing money at a team is the only factor of success. You also have the issue of the competancy of the front office and coaching staff, appeal of a certain city, etc, to take into consideration. However, to ignore the statistics I have given showing that big money teams perform far better on average than lower money teams is just sticking your head in the sand. Payroll is a rather large factor, even though it is not the only factor. In addition, my arguements have not really changed in that a well sought out player is going to go to the team that has the most to offer whether it be in salary, tax deductions, living conditions, or a combination of all three. To negate the appeal of living in San Diego as opposed to Pittsburg, for example, again is just sticking your head in the sand.
The Padres normally do well -- am I missing something?
Different team make the playoffs every year
Lets look at 2008 and 2009 ( a two year period before this year where 7 of the 8 teams from last year did not make the playoffs)
Three AL east teams, 2 AL Central, 1 NL west teams (but the Angels will not make the playoffs in 2010), one NL East team (bu ...[text shortened]... ey because of warmer weather. Their players are young and do not have free agency capabilities.
Originally posted by whodeyThere is absolutely no truth to your statement that the Padres are good this year because athletes want to live in San Diego and not Pittsburgh. The Pirates suck because they are grossly mismanaged. It is not the city because the Steelers and Penguins are good.
I in no way mean to imply that just throwing money at a team is the only factor of success. You also have the issue of the competancy of the front office and coaching staff, appeal of a certain city, etc, to take into consideration. However, to ignore the statistics I have given showing that big money teams perform far better on average than lower money tea ...[text shortened]... in San Diego as opposed to Pittsburg, for example, again is just sticking your head in the sand.
I used to hear that the Rangers could never be good because it is too hot, that Tampa could never be good because it was a bad stadium, a few years back that Philly could never be good because it was Eagles town. None of these stereotypes are true. Good teams win; bad teams lose. Open up the newspaper right now and see small market teams in playoff position all across the country (and different teams than made it last year). Things change fast: two years ago the Cubs and Brewers made the playoffs, this year the Padres have the best record in the NL. Tampa, Texas and Cincinatti would also make the playoffs. Small payrolls in the post season everwhere
Originally posted by whodeyHave you ever been to Florida in the summer? Would you really want to have to play baseball in that kind of heat and humidity for almost an entire season?
I have to say, there are repeat offenders in terms of teams who are on the bottom 15 of pay roll but who seem to do well in terms of seasons over 500. They include the Padres, the Twins, Tampa Bay, and the Marlins. It is my theory that of the four, three are in warm climates. We all know people who have taken pay cuts in order to be payed in sunshine. In ...[text shortened]... r if he continues to hit well they will have to sacrifice other players in order to afford him.
Originally posted by quackquackI think we can accept that payroll size does play SOME role in determining how good or bad a team will be. If signing star players did nothing at all to improve a team's chances of winning, very few owners would ever give anyone a large contract - they'd just go with the kids at AAA knowing they'd be just as likely to win with them as they would with the big payroll.
There is absolutely no truth to your statement that the Padres are good this year because athletes want to live in San Diego and not Pittsburgh. The Pirates suck because they are grossly mismanaged. It is not the city because the Steelers and Penguins are good.
I used to hear that the Rangers could never be good because it is too hot, that Tampa could ...[text shortened]... Texas and Cincinatti would also make the playoffs. Small payrolls in the post season everwhere
That being said, it also seems clear that a large payroll size doesn't really guarantee you anything besides avoiding a really bad season. The main thing it guarantees the owners are a bunch of REALLY restless natives (many of them residing in Flushing) come August. And its also clear that MLB isn't going to make any changes to this -- since absolute perfect parity would probably greatly damage the game.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI don't disagree that money is an asset. But now, more than ever, teams that are spending lots of money and not making the playoffs and teams that did not make the playoffs last year are making it this year. Whodey's assertion that there is a virtual 100% correlation between payroll and record is clearly contradicted by the standings.
I think we can accept that payroll size does play SOME role in determining how good or bad a team will be. If signing star players did nothing at all to improve a team's chances of winning, very few owners would ever give anyone a large contract - they'd just go with the kids at AAA knowing they'd be just as likely to win with them as they would with the ...[text shortened]... ny changes to this -- since absolute perfect parity would probably greatly damage the game.
Originally posted by quackquackBut you are just looking at the players. What about the front office and managment? It seems that the best in the business have greater flexibility regarding where they wish to reside.
There is absolutely no truth to your statement that the Padres are good this year because athletes want to live in San Diego and not Pittsburgh. The Pirates suck because they are grossly mismanaged. It is not the city because the Steelers and Penguins are good.
I used to hear that the Rangers could never be good because it is too hot, that Tampa could ...[text shortened]... Texas and Cincinatti would also make the playoffs. Small payrolls in the post season everwhere
Originally posted by quackquackSo tell me, how many times have the Yankees missed the playoffs in the last 20 years? Why is that if money has nothing to do with it? Is it that their front office is soooo good? In fact, when they don't make the playoffs, which rarely happens, the media acts as if someone died in addition to assuming they should reach the World Series pretty much every year.
I don't disagree that money is an asset. But now, more than ever, teams that are spending lots of money and not making the playoffs and teams that did not make the playoffs last year are making it this year. Whodey's assertion that there is a virtual 100% correlation between payroll and record is clearly contradicted by the standings.