Yup.Originally Posted by jacksonianmarch
Yup.
I disagree.
I believe the owners and GM's have just seen the light and are refusing to shell out for these big money, long term contracts that typically don't work out.
There doesn't need to be collusion for them to come to this realization.
Actually, the majority of economists surveyed by the Associated Press believe that the US is resilient enough to defy the global economic slowdown and the recent downturn in the stock market that have fanned fears of a recession.
https://apnews.com/31aa637512eb4c53aec954df496955d1
I think it's a combination of factors.
It's pretty clear that some teams are just withholding spending because of the advantageous of tanking.
It's becoming a complete mess.
Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1
The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.
There is a definite correlation between spending and winning . I know there are exceptions to the rule , but there is a correlation. Some teams are willing to be also rans and save the money . That is an issue for MLB .
If there is, it’s probably not nearly as great as you think.
We all saw the Red Sox come in last place 3 out of 4 years despite spending heavily. Every years, teams near the top in spending finish at the bottom in wins.
In fact, if you look at the ranges of payroll and the advantage in winning spending more gives, many would come to te conclusion it just isn’t worth it...
I think dgalehouse is correct that there is correlation. How strong the correlation is I would like to see as well.
Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1
The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.
Considering the largest payrolls are 150-200% larger than the smallest, but the best team only wins about 20-25% more often than the worst team, I’d say trying to win by outspending is not as easy as people think...
The Last season, using payroll numbers from Sportrac, the top ten payrolls produced 4 playoff teams (Boston, Chicago, Houston, New York). The bottom 10 payrolls produced 3 (Oakland, Atlanta, Milwaukee). And the middle ten produced 3 (Cleveland, Los Angeles, Colorado).
Not the most exact method, but it certainly raises questions about how important spending is...
The law of diminishing returns would certainly appear to be in effect.
Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1
The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.
I don't think anyone can deny that the competitive advantage held by the Red Sox and the Yankees over the Rays over the years has had a lot to do with our ability to outspend them by multiples.
Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1
The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.
I think the lower spenders have a better chance of making the playoffs in this wild card era . As we know , if you get in the playoffs anything can happen. But looking at the championship teams over the years , it is pretty hard to deny the connection between payroll and parades . And it is pretty hard to miss the fact that some teams are content to take the money and be satisfied with mediocrity. I think the players are certainly not missing it . Things should get interesting.
Any single season correlation between payroll and winning is not very strong. The correlation coefficient is somewhere in the neighborhood of .25. In some years, alphabetical order has a stronger correlation to winning than payroll does.
That said, there is a much stronger correlation between sustained spending, or lack thereof, and winning. If you look at 3 year cycles, the correlation between payroll and winning is closer to .6, which is pretty strong.
It makes sense that this would be the case.
Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association engaged in a back-and-forth regarding potential rules changes to improve pace of play and discussed other measures, including a universal designated hitter and requiring pitchers to face at least three batters before being removed from a game.
Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reported the news, noting MLB made a proposal to the players' union Jan. 14 that included the three-batter minimum rule. The union responded Friday with a proposal that included a plan for the National League to adopt the designated hitter as soon as the 2019 season.
T
other names i have posted under: none
3 batter minimum would sure speed up the game, but it could be a nightmare for managers. Teams might no longer have slots for a LOOGY.
There would have to be a provision for a pitcher injury, and some way to keep faked injuries from occurring.
I'm glad they are looking at ways to speed up the game. Robo umps would help.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote