Jump to content

Top twelve in payroll...


Greg Hibbard

Recommended Posts

Is this a strange year, or what? Seems like there are an inordinate amount of teams spending and not getting results, compared to most years. 7 of the top 12 will likely miss the playoffs.

 

LA Angels - 77-65 (5th in AL) - $138 million in payroll (4th overall)

White Sox - 71-69 (7th in AL) - $127 million in payroll (5th overall)

Chicago Cubs - 61-81 (2nd worst in NL) - $125 million in payroll (6th overall)

New York Mets - 69-71 (8th in NL) - $118 million in payroll (7th overall)

San Francisco Giants 75-67 (t5th in NL) - $118 million in payroll (8th overall)

Minnesota Twins - 58-84 (worst in AL) - $112 million in payroll (9th overall)

LA Dodgers - 69-72 (9th in NL) - $104 million in payroll (12th overall)

Edited by Greg Hibbard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:35 AM)
This thread could go in either place, because I'm really wondering if this bizarre trend that includes the White Sox has a somewhat empirical explanation.

 

If I had to guess, salaries have finally gotten so inflated that the variance in returns to salary is jacked way up.

Or you could guess that payroll doesn't correlate to won games and never really has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Felix @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:36 AM)
Or you could guess that payroll doesn't correlate to won games and never really has.

 

In 2000 (the first example I looked at), 6 of the top 9 teams went to the postseason.

 

Edit: In 2001, 6 of the top 11 teams went to the postseason.

Edited by Greg Hibbard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could guess that payroll doesn't correlate to won games and never really has.

 

It correlates to winning games for the Yankees and Red Sox, and perhaps now the Phillies, who can outbid everybody else for the elite talent.

 

It does NOT correlate to winning games for the other teams, because the money that the top 3 spend on elite players cause the next tier of players to get overpaid by the next tier of teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:41 AM)
In 2000 (the first example I looked at), 6 of the top 9 teams went to the postseason.

 

Edit: In 2001, 6 of the top 11 teams went to the postseason.

 

This year it will be 4 of the top 10, unless the Angels pull a comeback (they would make 5). Last year was 4 of the top 10 as well.

Edited by LittleHurt05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:53 AM)
This year it will be 4 of the top 10, unless the Angels pull a comeback (they would make 5). Last year was 4 of the top 10 as well.

 

Right, so 75% of the playoff teams came from the top 10(ish) in payroll 10 years ago, and the last two years it's 50%.

Edited by Greg Hibbard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:35 AM)
This thread could go in either place, because I'm really wondering if this bizarre trend that includes the White Sox has a somewhat empirical explanation.

 

If I had to guess, salaries have finally gotten so inflated that the variance in returns to salary is jacked way up.

 

With the Sox it may be a matter of improving the farm system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:41 AM)
In 2000 (the first example I looked at), 6 of the top 9 teams went to the postseason.

 

Edit: In 2001, 6 of the top 11 teams went to the postseason.

Between 1995 and 2005, the correlation between market size and playoff appearances is .11, meaning markets have very little to do with a team making the postseason. While this isn't exactly what you're saying, I think it still applies pretty well, especially since most people associate big market teams with big payrolls.

 

Again, not exactly what you're going for, but if you go by the teams with the top revenue, the correlation is .51, which is naturally significantly higher, but it's also much more misleading since teams in the playoffs make more money than those that miss the postseason.

 

I think the first correlation is more along the lines of what you're going for. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That being said, looking at more than individual years would certainly strengthen your argument. Wake me up when you've looked at the last 10-20 seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:27 AM)
Is this a strange year, or what? Seems like there are an inordinate amount of teams spending and not getting results, compared to most years. 7 of the top 12 will likely miss the playoffs.

 

LA Angels - 77-65 (5th in AL) - $138 million in payroll (4th overall)

White Sox - 71-69 (7th in AL) - $127 million in payroll (5th overall)

Chicago Cubs - 61-81 (2nd worst in NL) - $125 million in payroll (6th overall)

New York Mets - 69-71 (8th in NL) - $118 million in payroll (7th overall)

San Francisco Giants 75-67 (t5th in NL) - $118 million in payroll (8th overall)

Minnesota Twins - 58-84 (worst in AL) - $112 million in payroll (9th overall)

LA Dodgers - 69-72 (9th in NL) - $104 million in payroll (12th overall)

 

And this is what happens when teams throw money around wildly.

 

If you're not a big market and your GM isn't all-so-brilliant, all-in is a horrible strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...