Off-Topic Tuesday Madness

I’m here! Let’s get this part started!

good game last night eh?

that grooveshark signs their emails:

xox
Grooveshark

Initially, in the comment count, there were no new comments. Now there are new comment counts = the number of total comments. I’m curious to know how this turns out.

Here are some more problems I find with your arguments that money = playoffs and the Yankees suck:

1) Using playoff appearances as a marker for success is an incomplete measure of league parity. As you can see here, MLB has four fewer playoff spots than the next closest league (NFL-12), and half as money spots as the other two major sports (NHL, NBA-16). Naturally, from 2000-09, MLB has seen the fewest number of participants as a share of the whole, yet 76% of the league made the playoffs at least during the last ten years, resulting in 8 different champions (the most of any major sport).

2) When making the case that money matters most, you argue that the top X teams in payroll consistently make the playoffs. Yet, only 4 of the top 10 teams in payroll made the playoffs last year (40% of the top 1/3 is not that big of as number, considering the significant investments made by the other 60% of the top 1/3). In 2008, only 5 of the top ten in payroll made the playoffs (and none of the top 3). In 2007, only 4 of the top ten in payroll made the playoffs (2006: 3/10; 2005: 5/10; 2004: 6/10; 2003: 4/10; 2002: 4/10; 2001: 5/10; 2000: 4/10). Only four times in the last ten years did more than half of the teams in the top ten in payroll make the playoffs. Of the 80 playoff spots over the last ten years, barely more than half (44) have gone to teams with top ten payrolls.

3) The Pirates statement on having money to increase payroll but choosing not to is pretty instructive: they’ve basically said they’re not going to pay for mediocre players. And that is the right stance. So, it’s not really about money at all, because most teams have the capability to spend $100M if they have the talent to spend it on. Not many have the capability to spend $200M, but it’s not necessary to spend that much to win a WS. In fact, there’s nothing to demonstrate that it even helps your chance. The 1996-2002 Yankees topped out at $125M in payroll; the 2003-2009 Yankees bottomed out at $152M. In the former period, they made the playoffs every year and won 4 WS. In the latter, they missed the playoffs once and only won one WS.

4) The teams comprising the top ten in payroll have varied greatly. The Rays even made in once (2000). Further, it makes sense that playoff teams would tend to be more expensive: when management decides it has a young core of players (like the 1996-2000 Yankees) that it likes, it’s not a bad idea to sign them all up. The money to lock up a core matters in terms of a window of opportunity. With a $50M payroll, a team like the Padres can have a window of 3-4 years. With a $100M payroll, maybe they can stretch it out to 5-6 years. After that, you begin to get stuck with older veterans who were signed to long-term contracts because it was popular at the time. But having a 3-4 year window doesn’t take $200M, and the Yankees were actually better off when they weren’t surrounding that core with high priced free agents (1996-2001, with Chad Curtis, Scott Brosius, etc) was a lot better than 2002-2008 (with A-Rod, Giambi, Clemens, Mussina, etc).

5) It’s really a chicken or egg argument. Free Agents, given the choice, are going to sign with teams that give them the best chance to win, followed slightly by who can give them the most money. Lots of teams could give a player a 6 year/$140M deal, but very few teams win on a regular basis and can’t fill the other half of that. Some teams can’t fulfill it because they aren’t talented enough; some won’t raise payroll from the standard $80M to $100M to fit that FA in. FAs aren’t interested in rebuilding projects, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

6) None of this even matters, because there isn’t a way to solve the issue of market size. Revenue sharing and luxury taxes are not obstacles to clubs (except when it comes to perception, which at times, the Yankees, Angels, Mets, and Red Sox have decided they don’t care about). The teams on the receiving end of revenue sharing have decided that either they aren’t going to spend the money on payroll to expand their window (Marlins) or aren’t going to spend the money to chase after middling FAs and want to wait until they have good talent to pay money for (Pirates). Unless you want to cap FA signings per year, or cap a teams re-investment of revenue over $X00M into the team. Both of those, along with a salary cap, are grossly unfair to the terms fought for by players, after 75 years of subservience to owners, in the collective bargaining agreement.

Money only matters if you have talent to pay for. And spending until your ears bleed doesn’t guarantee success unless your management is spending it on top talent. On that, teams have hit as much as they’ve missed.

All the best,
Deacs

gayer than Erasure