The Payroll Fallacy

[Bellhorn04]

48 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.

OK, well what you're doing now is highlighting the question of how we measure "success".

Those who believe the playoffs are a crapshoot will argue that the Yankees and Dodgers failure to pile up rings has nothing to do with measuring their success.  

I think the evidence is pretty strong that the playoffs have become a crapshoot.

No team has repeated since 2000.  We're in our 24th year of teams not defending their title. 

The last 3 World Series have featured teams that won less than 90 games.

[dgalehouse]

There are more rounds in the post season than ever before. That alone obviously makes it more difficult to win championships. Back when the Yankees piled up titles, the two pennant winners met in the World Series , with no preliminary rounds and possible upsets. Later, with Division play , there was just one wild card. Anyway, the Yankees and the Dodgers consistently have high payrolls and very good teams. And there is clearly a relationship between their payrolls and the quality of their rosters.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

OK, well what you're doing now is highlighting the question of how we measure "success".

Those who believe the playoffs are a crapshoot will argue that the Yankees and Dodgers failure to pile up rings has nothing to do with measuring their success.  

I think the evidence is pretty strong that the playoffs have become a crapshoot.

No team has repeated since 2000.  We're in our 24th year of teams not defending their title. 

The last 3 World Series have featured teams that won less than 90 games.

Valid point.

I think we all know spending more usually increases your odds of winning. I think even Max would agree.

There are other correlations to winning, as well- like great management. A strong farm 1-3 years before a window and maybe 1-2 into the window, if you want a long window is also very helpful. Are these more or less important than spending? Does it matter?

Is having great management AND a strong farm for a 3-4 year period more important than spending a lot? The Astros would say "YES!"

The Astros ranked 18th in spending in 2017. They did jump up to 11th in 2018 and 8th in 2019. They reached 4th in 2020, so one could argue they did spend big, but they had already won, before getting to top 8. They started dropping in the rankings before the Sox and were 7th in 2021 (Sox were 3rd.) In '22 they dropped to 11th (Sox 6th.) They were barely ahead of the Sox in spending in 2023. They let a lot of top talent players go: Verlander, Springer, Correa, Cole, Morton and more, yet they kept winning with great management, some huge farm infusions (and okay, some cheating, too.) This year, they jumped to top 4 again, and lost the first round of the playoffs.

Spending matters, but there are never any guarantees in baseball.

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

5 hours ago, notin said:

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).

This has always been my point since I joined here in '19 when posters brought up whatever top 5 payroll place the Red Sox currently held.

If the front office blows it by signing a bad fit or someone suddenly injury-prone, that's too bad for the org... but the best ones find ways to overcome or eat their mistakes and still pay for acceptable replacements -- for the paying fans! 

Rich owners don't see a company mistake and just refuse to take another chance on a different investment (though they might first make changes and take a chance on using different employees to do the investing).

As for the Mets, they have it all working: bargain guys, overcoming overpaid old pitchers they got rid of, and relishing the peak of their most expensive condiment currently cutting the mustard -- Lindor.

[notin]

9 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

You were doing well until the last sentence.

What long term struggles are the Yankees and Dodgers having?

Those two teams don’t stop spending.  Between them they have 5 of the 10 largest contracts in MLB history.  Watching them avoid their bad stretches is like watching a drunken man trying to avoid a hangover by non-stop drinking.

 

The Sox aren’t trying to emulate those shameful tactics.  Why o you want them to?

[Bellhorn04]

10 hours ago, notin said:

Those two teams don’t stop spending.  Between them they have 5 of the 10 largest contracts in MLB history.  Watching them avoid their bad stretches is like watching a drunken man trying to avoid a hangover by non-stop drinking.

 

The Sox aren’t trying to emulate those shameful tactics.  Why o you want them to?

OK, so you admit that they've avoided struggles by continuing to spend - you just think it isn't the fair or honorable thing to do.

[mvp 78]

18 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

OK, well what you're doing now is highlighting the question of how we measure "success".

Those who believe the playoffs are a crapshoot will argue that the Yankees and Dodgers failure to pile up rings has nothing to do with measuring their success.  

I think the evidence is pretty strong that the playoffs have become a crapshoot.

No team has repeated since 2000.  We're in our 24th year of teams not defending their title. 

The last 3 World Series have featured teams that won less than 90 games.

It's even more of a crapshoot now that more teams can get in. However, a strong payroll position should get you entry into the playoffs. You don't even have a chance if you're sitting at .500 or worse in mid September. Sox have a good farm system and the means to acquire good FA's. That's how the Dodgers have managed to stay competitive. Why don't the Sox go that route? 

[mvp 78]

10 hours ago, notin said:

Those two teams don’t stop spending.  Between them they have 5 of the 10 largest contracts in MLB history.  Watching them avoid their bad stretches is like watching a drunken man trying to avoid a hangover by non-stop drinking.

 

The Sox aren’t trying to emulate those shameful tactics.  Why o you want them to?

The last time the Yankees were below .500 was 1992. Since 1995, they've missed the playoffs only 5 times. Seems like they are doing it the right way!

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The last time the Yankees were below .500 was 1992. Since 1995, they've missed the playoffs only 5 times. Seems like they are doing it the right way!

But it's shameful.  There's a moral component in notin's position that spending is bad.

[Hugh2]

3 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The last time the Yankees were below .500 was 1992. Since 1995, they've missed the playoffs only 5 times. Seems like they are doing it the right way!

True, but the first 8 years since 92 were much better than the proceeding 24.  They've been good and competitive, but besides 09 they have very little to show for their winning the last couple decades. 

A lot can change if they win it all this year.  I will absolutely hate it if they get bragging rights. 

Lets go Cleveland!!!!

[Bellhorn04]

1 minute ago, Hugh2 said:

True, but the first 8 years since 92 were much better than the proceeding 24.  They've been good and competitive, but besides 09 they have very little to show for their winning the last couple decades. 

The law of averages got them after that nightmarish 1996-2000 stretch.  Unfortunately, it might be about ready to swing back the other way. 

[Hugh2]

Over the last 29 years, 20 of 29 teams had a top 10 payroll who won the world series. 

The lowest 3 payrolls who won:

The 2017 Astros who were 17th, and they spent big to stay on top and win again. 

Then the 2015 royals, who did not spend big and did not stay on top. 

the 2003 Marlins, who did not spend and fell apart and haven't done anything since.  Aside from 3 2nd place finishes, one of which was the covid year, and another with a losing record. 

 

[Hugh2]

3 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The law of averages got them after that nightmarish 1996-2000 stretch.  Unfortunately, it might be about ready to swing back the other way. 

No luxury tax limit and penalties back then.  Yes the Yankees spend, but they had young infused talent on those teams as well. 

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But it's shameful.  There's a moral component in notin's position that spending is bad.

People have read my posts long enough to know that I'm shameless on here. 🤷‍♀️

[mvp 78]

5 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The law of averages got them after that nightmarish 1996-2000 stretch.  Unfortunately, it might be about ready to swing back the other way. 

The law of averages is now kicking the Sox' ass right now too. 🤮

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

The law of averages is now kicking the Sox' ass right now too. 🤮

Averages are overrated. It's all about metrics, now (kilometers to go before I nap).

All that matters is a team's WOPBL -- Winning Or Playoffs Beats Last.

Henry acoloytes and acoheavies alike just. want. our Sox. to be woppable.

[Bellhorn04]

18 hours ago, dgalehouse said:

There are more rounds in the post season than ever before. That alone obviously makes it more difficult to win championships. Back when the Yankees piled up titles, the two pennant winners met in the World Series , with no preliminary rounds and possible upsets. Later, with Division play , there was just one wild card.

Yes, it's pretty simple.  If you keep adding teams the results are going to keep getting more random.

Because baseball is much more subject to randomness than other team sports to begin with.  

[Nick]

33 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Yes, it's pretty simple.  If you keep adding teams the results are going to keep getting more random.

Because baseball is much more subject to randomness than other team sports to begin with.  

Yep

JH wonders how come we won 92 games in 2021 while only  spending $180M. 

I think that's what he's looking at.

Jays opening payroll this year was $226M and they won only 74 games, finishing dead last in AL East. 

Not sure what the Yankees will do if they don't get to the World Series. Re-signing Soto will not make the team any better. Not re-signing him make the team worse. He's probably looking at north of $45M per year in real money. 

[Hugh2]

2 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

The law of averages is now kicking the Sox' ass right now too. 🤮

I would agree a lot of the Sox misfortune in recent years can be drawn up to bad luck, but we can't ignore how much of it has also been due to incompetence and poor roster construction. 

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I would agree a lot of the Sox misfortune in recent years can be drawn up to bad luck, but we can't ignore how much of it has also been due to incompetence and poor roster construction. 

They got very lucky in previous years (2013 for example) and now we're just seeing the other side of the coin. Even the success in 2021 had a lot to do with luck: 2b was a mess, Kiké career year, last Dalbec hot stretch, career high in RBI for Renfroe, Nasty Nate's best season, Barnes, Sawamura and Taylor all fell apart after 2021. 

[Maxbialystock]

On 10/13/2024 at 1:54 PM, Bellhorn04 said:

OK, well what you're doing now is highlighting the question of how we measure "success".

Those who believe the playoffs are a crapshoot will argue that the Yankees and Dodgers failure to pile up rings has nothing to do with measuring their success.  

I think the evidence is pretty strong that the playoffs have become a crapshoot.

No team has repeated since 2000.  We're in our 24th year of teams not defending their title. 

The last 3 World Series have featured teams that won less than 90 games.

Everything you say is true and pretty convincing. 

However, I cannot resist reminding you that the teams in the postseason are all members of the 53% to 61% winning percentage club.  That is an incredibly tight shot group and means that any team has about the same chance as any other team in the playoffs.  

Indeed, the great DD is griping that the Phillies got screwed because they didn't get to play in the first freaking round and instead were tragically unable to maintain their baseball skills during 5 days of inactivity.  

Whether DD has a point or not, the bigger issue is that any WS winner these days must in fact win three straight series of 5 or 7 games.  And no team, absolutely no team at all, has a decisive edge in winning percentage.  

 

[moonslav59]

It could be  as simple as JH saw the tremendous window we had with the kids, Betts, Bogey, JBJ, Devers and others, so he added Sale, Price, Porcello, JD, Nate and others, but knew all along, he was never going to just keep spending more and more as the star young players reached free agency and the aging free agent signing started their inevitable decline.

This does not speak to any plans of creating a new window, but there does seem to be some signs for a new great big picture window opening wide, soon. 

I have no idea what JH's future plans are, but he did go all in through the DD era. Some will argue, we are paying the price Max is speaking of, now and over 5 of the last 6 seasons.

It is pretty telling that the biggest contracts in MLB belong mostly to a handful of teams:

LAD: 1 Ohtani, 3 Betts, 9 Yamamoto

NYY: 4. Judge, 9. Stanton, 12. Cole

SDP: 5. Machado (2 deals) , 7. Tatis, 17. Bogey

NYM: 6. Lindor 

PHI: 8. Harper, 14. T Turner

_____________________

TEX: 9 Seager, LAA: 2. Trout, BOS: 13. Devers, KCR 16. Witt

______________________

Highest AAV

LAD: 1, Ohtani, 13. Bauer

NYM: 2. Scherzer, 3. Verlander, 12. Lindor

NYY: 5 Judge, 7. Cole

5 of top 7 w 3 teams and 7 or top 12, too.

 

[moonslav59]

51 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

Everything you say is true and pretty convincing. 

However, I cannot resist reminding you that the teams in the postseason are all members of the 53% to 61% winning percentage club.  That is an incredibly tight shot group and means that any team has about the same chance as any other team in the playoffs.  

Indeed, the great DD is griping that the Phillies got screwed because they didn't get to play in the first freaking round and instead were tragically unable to maintain their baseball skills during 5 days of inactivity.  

Whether DD has a point or not, the bigger issue is that any WS winner these days must in fact win three straight series of 5 or 7 games.  And no team, absolutely no team at all, has a decisive edge in winning percentage.  

 

Next step: 16 teams make it to the dance, and nobody gets a bye series.

[notin]

10 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

OK, so you admit that they've avoided struggles by continuing to spend - you just think it isn't the fair or honorable thing to do.

I’m all for fairness, although a salary cap with or without floor won’t establish it in MLB.

But I also don’t expect the Sox to be able to maintain the spending pace those clubs established.  And if the Sox have to do things on a lower payroll, I understand that and have seen it work even for prolonged stretches (Tampa, Milwaukee, Cleveland).  Because what I haven’t seen it it work well for Boston, and it isn’t just because they “sign the wrong players”; it’s because most worthy players get contracts longer than Father Time recommends…

[notin]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Next step: 16 teams make it to the dance, and nobody gets a bye series.

They’re going to need us all to drive more to extend some global warming further into November…

[moonslav59]

18 minutes ago, notin said:

They’re going to need us all to drive more to extend some global warming further into November…

They can shorten the season to 154 or go with 3 games series in round 1 and 5 game series in rd 2. Lessen days off between playoff games.

[mvp 78]

13 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

They can shorten the season to 154 or go with 3 games series in round 1 and 5 game series in rd 2. Lessen days off between playoff games.

They want more games, not less.

[moonslav59]

38 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

They want more games, not less.

Then expand the roster to 27 or 28 players (+1 for DBLHDRs) and have less days off.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

On 10/9/2024 at 4:18 PM, Maxbialystock said:

Simply stated, there ain't much correlation between spending big for players and winning lots of games.  

Oh, it's definitely true that this year the top 5 payrolls--Mets, $318M; Yankees $309M; Astros $255M; Phillies $247M; and Dodgers $241M--all have winning records.  And in fact the Yankees have the most wins, 94, in the AL and the Dodgers the most in the NL (and MLB), 98.  

Meanwhile, however, the Diamondbacks spent $173M for 89 wins, the Padres $172M for 93 wins, the Mariners $148M for 85 wins, the Royals $123M for 86 wins, the Brewers $115M for 93 wins, the Orioles $110 M for 91 wins, the Guardians $107M for 92 wins, and the Tigers $99M for 86 wins.  

It gets better because to me there just ain't that much difference between the most wins--98 by the Dodgers--and the somewhat sparser wins, 85 by the Mariners.  When you do the math--or just look at the end of season standings--you see that the Dodgers winning percentage is 60% and the Mariners 52%.  That's nothing!!  It means that in an 11 game series, the Dodgers would theoretically win 6 games and the Mariners 5.  

Heck, the no good, lowdown, rotten, stinking Boston Red Sox had a non-winning percentage of exactly 50%, which means they were just 10% worse than the mighty LA Dodgers, who, I hasten to add, could be about to lose their NLDS series against the 93 win Padres.  Oh, and the 94 win Yankees are 1-1 against the 86 wins Royals.  

Does anyone on talksox doubt that John Henry, who ensured that the Sox had one of the top 5 payrolls in MLB from 2003 through 2021, is aware that the correlation between shelling out massive dollars for a top five payroll and having a dominant won-loss record is tenuous at best?  

Does anyone else remember that just 3 seasons ago, the Rays had 100 regular season wins with the 26th largest payroll of $71M?  The Sox spent $187M that season and won 92 games.  The Yankees spent $206M and won 92 games.  The Mets spent $201M and won 77 games.  

 

 

 

This is one of the dumbest takes I have ever read in here, and that's saying a lot.

[TheSplinteredSplendor]

15 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Next step: 16 teams make it to the dance, and nobody gets a bye series.

I hope not, then it becomes like the NBA and the NHL where everyone but the very worst teams makes the playoffs.