The Payroll Fallacy

[Bellhorn04]

Money is a weapon, basically.  It's only useful if you hit the target with it.  And if you don't know what you're doing, you can maim or kill yourself.

[Hugh2]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Money is a weapon, basically.  It's only useful if you hit the target with it.  And if you don't know what you're doing, you can maim or kill yourself.

That's a pretty good way of putting it. 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

2 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Money is a weapon, basically.  It's only useful if you hit the target with it.  And if you don't know what you're doing, you can maim or kill yourself.

Sounds like a metaphor, so I crack a simile.

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, Nick said:

 

Adding 5, unless 4 are pitchers would squeeze the roster and force trades or the 2 or 3 for 1 type, or a 40 man guy for a non 40 guy trade or two.

I just don't see Soto as a Sox player, unless we trade Anthony or Duran for a top pitcher.

If it was up to me, and I had $75M AAV, I might go with:

$30-35M SP

$12-15M Closer

$10-13 M Set-up RP (LH'd?)

Let's say $55-60M on these three

I'd spend the remaining $15-20M on a RHB Catcher on a 1 year deal (D Jansen?) and another decent pitcher. That's adding 5. I'd then trade Abreu and DHam for another pitcher, making the net roster gain 4.

SP: __FA__, Houck, Bello, Gio, Crawford

RP: __FA__, __FA__, Slaten, Hendriks, Whitlock __FA__, __Trade__, Fulmer/Criswell/Wink/Guerrero

C: Wong, __FA__

1B: Casas

2B: Mayer-Campbell, Grissom

SS: Story, Mayer (Romy)

3B: Devers

LF: Duran/Campbell/Refsnyder

CF: Rafaela/Duran

RF: Anthony/Campbell

DH: Yoshida/Refsnyder

The more quality route might work better:

$35M SP, $18-20M closer, $15M RP, $5-7M Catcher (still trade Abreu and DHam.)

 

[Maxbialystock]

4 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Money is a weapon, basically.  It's only useful if you hit the target with it.  And if you don't know what you're doing, you can maim or kill yourself.

Better said than my OP.  I also like notin's point that MLB is indeed a 10% game, which is what Crash (Kevin Costner) means when he talks about the difference one hit a week can make.  There are 26 weeks in a season,  If we assume 550 at bats, 26 hits is the difference between batting .272 and .320, which is pretty big even though the differential is less than 10% (or 100 points in a batting average).  OPS looks a tad more rational because MLB regulars OPS's normally range from .700 to 1.000, which is a 30% range.  

If we use ERA as the measure of a pitcher--and some don't like ERA's--the top 50 ERA's in the NL this season range from 2.38 to 4.38, a huge swing of 2 whole earned runs.  If we use the midpoint, 3.38, as the baseline, from 2 to 3.38 is a swing of 59%.  That's huge and argues that the best starting pitchers who can routinely start 30 or more games are more valuable than the best hitters.  

If a top ten ERA starting pitcher goes 6 (or more) innings and starts 30 or more games, that can be huge.  Here, for example, are the won-lost records (a much-maligned stat) of the  top ten starters--according to their ERA's--in MLB this season:  18-3, 18-4, 16-7, 13-6, 15-3, 15-7, 15-9, 12-8, 13-9, and 16-9.  

Fittingly, the 11th best starter was Tanner Houck with an ERA of 3.12.  His W-L record was, and  I would argue that's proof of just how bad the Sox bullpen was this season.  Of the top 11 MLB starters by ERA, Tanner Houck 19 quality starts, which was as many as or more quality starts than all but 4 of the other 10 top ERA's.    

 

 

[notin]

9 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

Better said than my OP.  I also like notin's point that MLB is indeed a 10% game, which is what Crash (Kevin Costner) means when he talks about the difference one hit a week can make.  There are 26 weeks in a season,  If we assume 550 at bats, 26 hits is the difference between batting .272 and .320, which is pretty big even though the differential is less than 10% (or 100 points in a batting average).  OPS looks a tad more rational because MLB regulars OPS's normally range from .700 to 1.000, which is a 30% range.  

If we use ERA as the measure of a pitcher--and some don't like ERA's--the top 50 ERA's in the NL this season range from 2.38 to 4.38, a huge swing of 2 whole earned runs.  If we use the midpoint, 3.38, as the baseline, from 2 to 3.38 is a swing of 59%.  That's huge and argues that the best starting pitchers who can routinely start 30 or more games are more valuable than the best hitters.  

If a top ten ERA starting pitcher goes 6 (or more) innings and starts 30 or more games, that can be huge.  Here, for example, are the won-lost records (a much-maligned stat) of the  top ten starters--according to their ERA's--in MLB this season:  18-3, 18-4, 16-7, 13-6, 15-3, 15-7, 15-9, 12-8, 13-9, and 16-9.  

Fittingly, the 11th best starter was Tanner Houck with an ERA of 3.12.  His W-L record was, and  I would argue that's proof of just how bad the Sox bullpen was this season.  Of the top 11 MLB starters by ERA, Tanner Houck 19 quality starts, which was as many as or more quality starts than all but 4 of the other 10 top ERA's.    

 

 

Since OPS is scaled from 0 to 5.000, wouldn’t a .300 difference really be 6%?
 

Not that it matters much, because no one knows what it’s 6% of…

[Duran Is The Man]

looks like 3 of the 4 teams in NL & AL Championhips are in the Top 5 in spending. hey Max, looks like your payroll fallacy is a fallacy. 

[dgalehouse]

18 hours ago, Duran Is The Man said:

looks like 3 of the 4 teams in NL & AL Championhips are in the Top 5 in spending. hey Max, looks like your payroll fallacy is a fallacy. 

The three highest payroll teams are all in the Championship Series. That is not a coincidence. If you put the names of all thirty teams in a hat, what are the odds that the first three you picked out would be the Mets, Yankees and Dodgers ?  

[moonslav59]

50 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

The three highest payroll teams are all in the Championship Series. That is not a coincidence. If you put the names of all thirty teams in a hat, what are the odds that the first three you picked out would be the Mets, Yankees and Dodgers ?  

I'd say the odds were against the Mets, and the Yanks did not play all that well, second half, so their odds were not great, either.

Yes, big spending helps your odds.

[notin]

1 hour ago, dgalehouse said:

The three highest payroll teams are all in the Championship Series. That is not a coincidence. If you put the names of all thirty teams in a hat, what are the odds that the first three you picked out would be the Mets, Yankees and Dodgers ?  

Was it a coincidence last year when the top three payrolls all failed to make the postseason altogether?

[Maxbialystock]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

Was it a coincidence last year when the top three payrolls all failed to make the postseason altogether?

Completely coincidental.  We throw out all data that doesn't confirm that spending like a drunken sailor is the only route to success.  

[dgalehouse]

Since no one answered, the odds would be astronomical.  Out of thirty teams, the three with the highest payroll were the first three to make the final four. Do you really think that was an accident? Or would you concede that the payroll gives you a better chance at success? Of course, it doesn't mean that it always works that way, but the correlation is undeniable. I don't think any of you are not intelligent enough to see that. So, I have to conclude that you all just like to be argumentative. But this is a poor argument. The correlation is just too obvious. Do you not remember the old days when everyone complained that the Yankees won a lot because they out spent the others? And it was true. They did. They didn't win all the time, but they always had a better chance than most.   

[notin]

12 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

Since no one answered, the odds would be astronomical.  Out of thirty teams, the three with the highest payroll were the first three to make the final four. Do you really think that was an accident? Or would you concede that the payroll gives you a better chance at success? Of course, it doesn't mean that it always works that way, but the correlation is undeniable. I don't think any of you are not intelligent enough to see that. So, I have to conclude that you all just like to be argumentative. But this is a poor argument. The correlation is just too obvious. Do you not remember the old days when everyone complained that the Yankees won a lot because they out spent the others? And it was true. They did. They didn't win all the time, but they always had a better chance than most.   

I know the answer.  It’s the same as picking the Rangers, Astros and Diamondbacks would have been last year!!  The teams ranked 7th, 10th and 21st in payroll.

Also, you forgot to ask about the Guardians.  Also in the bottom third…

[notin]

If payroll is the end all-be all of determining the postseason, why not mention that two of the three highest-spending teams of 2023 missed the postseason, cut payroll, and then made the postseason in 2024?

And they didn’t shed bad contracts.  Among the money moved was Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer and Juan Soto.  All three played in the next LCS after being dealt..

[dgalehouse]

9 minutes ago, notin said:

If payroll is the end all-be all of determining the postseason, why not mention that two of the three highest-spending teams of 2023 missed the postseason, cut payroll, and then made the postseason in 2024?

And they didn’t shed bad contracts.  Among the money moved was Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer and Juan Soto.  All three played in the next LCS after being dealt..

You are making stuff up. I didn't say payroll is the end all, be all. I said it gives you a better chance. And it clearly does.  

[notin]

23 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

You are making stuff up. I didn't say payroll is the end all, be all. I said it gives you a better chance. And it clearly does.  

You didn’t say it gives you a better chance.  You said it was not a coincidence the top 3 payrolls were in the LCS and then made some odd pointless thing about drawing them at random.  Not sure what you were going for there, but you did say something about astronomical odds.  (Was that the better chance?)

I pointed out last year the top three payrolls missed the postseason altogether, and you ignored it.  Then I pointed out two of them shed payroll and made the postseason.  You ignored that, too…

[dgalehouse]

  I don't want to go any further with this.  It is clear that there is a strong relationship between the payroll and your chances of winning. That is my point.   If you can't see that, then there is no point in arguing with you.  It's like I said that having a more expensive car would make it more likely for you to get to your destination. And you (and of course Max) would argue that you knew a guy with an expensive car that broke down. And you knew a guy with a junk car that made it to his destination.  And that proves that having a better car does not matter. It's a false argument. Of course it matters. And the high payroll baseball team has a better chance of success that the low payroll team. I think you just like to take an opposing position and debate it, even when it is absolutely illogical.  Nothing more to say.  

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, notin said:

Was it a coincidence last year when the top three payrolls all failed to make the postseason altogether?

Only examples that support claims can be used.

[moonslav59]

Is anybody saying there is absolutely no correlation between spending more and winning?

The debate is about to what degree it is, right?

[dgalehouse]

6 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Is anybody saying there is absolutely no correlation between spending more and winning?

The debate is about to what degree it is, right?

Read the O.P.  Max B. says , and I quote, " There ain't much correlation between spending big on players and winning lots of games."  That is so obviously wrong that I wonder why I am wasting my time arguing it.  And citing a few examples where it didn't work that way does not change that fact. Year after year , the higher payroll clubs have a better chance than the low payroll clubs. That is why the Yankees have more championships than anyone. And Sox fans all complained about that for years. And that is why we want John Henry to spend more now. 

[Old Red]

19 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Only examples that support claims can be used.

 

 

1 hour ago, dgalehouse said:

  I don't want to go any further with this.  It is clear that there is a strong relationship between the payroll and your chances of winning. That is my point.   If you can't see that, then there is no point in arguing with you.  It's like I said that having a more expensive car would make it more likely for you to get to your destination. And you (and of course Max) would argue that you knew a guy with an expensive car that broke down. And you knew a guy with a junk car that made it to his destination.  And that proves that having a better car does not matter. It's a false argument. Of course it matters. And the high payroll baseball team has a better chance of success that the low payroll team. I think you just like to take an opposing position and debate it, even when it is absolutely illogical.  Nothing more to say.  

👍👍👍!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

7 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Read the O.P.  Max B. says , and I quote, " There ain't much correlation between spending big on players and winning lots of games."  That is so obviously wrong that I wonder why I am wasting my time arguing it.  And citing a few examples where it didn't work that way does not change that fact. Year after year , the higher payroll clubs have a better chance than the low payroll clubs. That is why the Yankees have more championships than anyone. And Sox fans all complained about that for years. And that is why we want John Henry to spend more now. 

Denny, don't you pay attention to preseason polls among professionals who make a living analyzing teams and rosters? The reason the Yankees and Dodgers are the favorites every single year isn't because of the talent they amass with the almighty dollar -- it's because of the shrewd managerial skills of Aaron Boone and Dave Roberts.

Boone and Roberts were playoff heroes 20 years ago, so they know how to rally their troops in crunch time. Imagine how far they could go with the rosters given to Alex Cora the past three years -- at least to the back of the line at the Unemployment office.

[moonslav59]

10 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Read the O.P.  Max B. says , and I quote, " There ain't much correlation between spending big on players and winning lots of games."  That is so obviously wrong that I wonder why I am wasting my time arguing it.  And citing a few examples where it didn't work that way does not change that fact. Year after year , the higher payroll clubs have a better chance than the low payroll clubs. That is why the Yankees have more championships than anyone. And Sox fans all complained about that for years. And that is why we want John Henry to spend more now. 

"Ain't much" is not saying absolutely no correlation, and that was the question I asked.

Also, Max has said other things that reveal that "intelligent spending" can make a difference. He likes to speak in superlatives.

I will add that things have changed since the Yanks ruled MLB with more money. I certainly think spending more gives teams a better chance, even if they swing and miss, wildy some or even most times. There are also some teams that spend little, but spend wisely, scout better and manage/develop players better than richer teams. Bringing up those examples is fair. It's not claiming that spending doesn't make a difference, but it does make the point that spending is not and never has been "everything." In recent years, we have seen various teams, like the Dodgers, Mets and Padres go nutty with spending, if just for a 1-2 year period.

This is obvious proof that spending wildly more than others does not mean you win a ring. There is gray area in this debate, but yes, spending makes a difference.

Look at last year's hug gaps in sending:

$334M Mets

$269M Yanks

$237M Padres

The #10-12 teams were at $180M (over $150M from the Mets.)

In 2022, the Dodgers spent $109M more than #10. The Mets spent $85M more.

In 2021, the Dodgers spent $85M more than #10/ the Yanks $52M more.

Why does bringing this up bother you so much? It's not claiming spending doesn't matter. It's just showing it's not everything- not that this is what you are saying this.

I think when one of us points this out, you think we are claiming spending makes no difference, when we are not.

Spending is what got the Sox 4 rings. It started with Manny, before JH even arrived. It took the brains to realise we could not win by just spending on bats to get us to glory. We spent and traded for pitching. It took brains and money to get us 4 rings.

[Bellhorn04]

13 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

"Ain't much" is not saying absolutely no correlation, and that was the question I asked.

Hmmm, well, to some ears "ain't much" sure sounds like a colorful way of saying zero.  

Kind of like Clint Eastwood's line "Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy." 😁

[moonslav59]

4 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Hmmm, well, to some ears "ain't much" sure sounds like a colorful way of saying zero.  

Kind of like Clint Eastwood's line "Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy." 😁

Max is on a mission to show that spending huge on a just a few players is a bad strategy that ends up back-firing or hurting the team, after the prime years are gone. He likes be hyperbolic and often uses superlatives to show how strongly he feels about his position. If you read most of what he posts, he has often said spending makes a difference, if it's spent wisely. I think taking this one statement and acting like Max thinks spending makes "zero" difference is going overboard. 

There certainly is no group of posters who think spending makes no difference, at all. Bringing up examples of low spenders who win or consistently win is just showing that spending isn't everything, and it isn't everything. 

It's a big factor, IMO. It's not such a big factor or an even bigger factor in others' opinions.

[Hugh2]

14 hours ago, notin said:

You didn’t say it gives you a better chance.  You said it was not a coincidence the top 3 payrolls were in the LCS and then made some odd pointless thing about drawing them at random.  Not sure what you were going for there, but you did say something about astronomical odds.  (Was that the better chance?)

I pointed out last year the top three payrolls missed the postseason altogether, and you ignored it.  Then I pointed out two of them shed payroll and made the postseason.  You ignored that, too…

There’s low payroll teams who do well, and high payroll teams that do horribly.  
 

some years there’s more of these than others.

 

but overall the long term trend is spending money wins you more games.

that shouldn’t be undeniable.

[notin]

13 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

Read the O.P.  Max B. says , and I quote, " There ain't much correlation between spending big on players and winning lots of games."  That is so obviously wrong that I wonder why I am wasting my time arguing it.  And citing a few examples where it didn't work that way does not change that fact. Year after year , the higher payroll clubs have a better chance than the low payroll clubs. That is why the Yankees have more championships than anyone. And Sox fans all complained about that for years. And that is why we want John Henry to spend more now. 

Ok here’s my point.

 

Soending when done right absolutely helps.  But when you just jump on the first sample where the top three teams made the ALCS and call it proof with the “pulled at random” crap, you’re just leaping into confirmation bias.  You basically said “this year proves it!! Not last year! That was flukey!”

And while the Mets have a high payroll, a lot of it isn’t even on the team anymore.  That’s not good spending.  The Mets presence in this series is more about an insane hot streak and some quality bargains (Manaea, for example).

Payroll when spent on Hanley, Sandoval and Rusney - not good.  Payroll spent extending Pedro or Pedroia - good.  Payroll spent extending Sale - not good, as it clearly didn’t help

The big problem with high payrolls is they CAN lead to short term success, but not always.  They do always lead to long term struggles…

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

14 minutes ago, notin said:

Ok here’s my point.

 

Soending when done right absolutely helps.  But when you just jump on the first sample where the top three teams made the ALCS and call it proof with the “pulled at random” crap, you’re just leaping into confirmation bias.  You basically said “this year proves it!! Not last year! That was flukey!”

And while the Mets have a high payroll, a lot of it isn’t even on the team anymore.  That’s not good spending.  The Mets presence in this series is more about an insane hot streak and some quality bargains (Manaea, for example).

Payroll when spent on Hanley, Sandoval and Rusney - not good.  Payroll spent extending Pedro or Pedroia - good.  Payroll spent extending Sale - not good, as it clearly didn’t help

The big problem with high payrolls is they CAN lead to short term success, but not always.  They do always lead to long term struggles…

 

 

You were doing well until the last sentence.

What long term struggles are the Yankees and Dodgers having?

[moonslav59]

35 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

You were doing well until the last sentence.

What long term struggles are the Yankees and Dodgers having?

Well, most teams hit the spending wall.

While the Yanks don't have losing seasons, and that's a really nice thing, they have not won a ring in a very long time.

With how much the Dodgers have spent, much of it deferred, you'd think they'd have more rings and WS appearances than they have had. They have missed the NLCS, the last 2 years, while outspending just about everyone but the Mets.

The Dodgers won the WS in 2020, a short season.

From 2021 to 2023, according to Steve the Ump, these are the top spending teams in 3 years combined (I added in my head and may have made mistakes on numbers):

$890M Mets: missed playoffs, twice and lost 1st round in '22

$803M Yanks: made playoffs 2 of 3 years, lost 1st rd once, lost ALCS once

$736M Dodgers (with some fancy deferrals) made playoffs all 3 & won 1 round.

$727M Phillies: made playoffs 2 of 3, lost WS & NLCS, once each.

 

$617M Padres: made playoffs 1 of 3 years, lost NLCS

 

This range has more rings than the upper two ranges 2-0

$550M Red Sox: made playoffs 1 of 3 years, lost ALCS

$514 Astros: made playoffs all 3 years, WON WS, lost WS and lost ALCS

$510M Blue Jays: LOL

$506M Braves: made all 3 years, WON WS, lost first round, twice.

Texas has the other ring and are far down the list.

 

I'm not presenting this to say spending does not matter. It clearly does. The top 4 spending teams made the playoffs in 8 of 12 chances. That is fact. No rings, however, does show that spending is not the be-all-end-all.

I know nobody is saying that, but nobody is saying spending makes no difference at all, either.

 

[dgalehouse]

33 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Well, most teams hit the spending wall.

While the Yanks don't have losing seasons, and that's a really nice thing, they have not won a ring in a very long time.

With how much the Dodgers have spent, much of it deferred, you'd think they'd have more rings and WS appearances than they have had. They have missed the NLCS, the last 2 years, while outspending just about everyone but the Mets.

The Dodgers won the WS in 2020, a short season.

From 2021 to 2023, according to Steve the Ump, these are the top spending teams in 3 years combined (I added in my head and may have made mistakes on numbers):

$890M Mets: missed playoffs, twice and lost 1st round in '22

$803M Yanks: made playoffs 2 of 3 years, lost 1st rd once, lost ALCS once

$736M Dodgers (with some fancy deferrals) made playoffs all 3 & won 1 round.

$727M Phillies: made playoffs 2 of 3, lost WS & NLCS, once each.

 

$617M Padres: made playoffs 1 of 3 years, lost NLCS

 

This range has more rings than the upper two ranges 2-0

$550M Red Sox: made playoffs 1 of 3 years, lost ALCS

$514 Astros: made playoffs all 3 years, WON WS, lost WS and lost ALCS

$510M Blue Jays: LOL

$506M Braves: made all 3 years, WON WS, lost first round, twice.

Texas has the other ring and are far down the list.

 

I'm not presenting this to say spending does not matter. It clearly does. The top 4 spending teams made the playoffs in 8 of 12 chances. That is fact. No rings, however, does show that spending is not the be-all-end-all.

I know nobody is saying that, but nobody is saying spending makes no difference at all, either.

 

The payroll makes a big difference. The reason why the Yankees have so many championships is because of spending big, not because of brilliant strategy or monument park.  You, yourself when defending Bloom, always say it was tough for him to win with the smaller payroll.  And it's just a general rule of business, the better the product, the more it costs. I do know that there are exceptions to this so no need to point that out.