moonslav59

But they do not list yearly rankings over the years. I'd have to look up each team, individually over 25 years. That's looking up 750 individual data points (25 years x 30 teams.)

Yes, but every play involves the O and D lines setting up the one on ones. Baseball has double plays and assists, but most assists involve very little effort from one of the two fielders involved. They also have the pitcher-catcher relationship that is highly dependent of both players working as one, but to me, football is much more a non-individual sport.

Looks like we spread out our spending rather than go all in on one guy- like the Yanks did. I hope this works. We need to get back to the days of meaningful IFA additions happening regularly.

They'll probably compromise by starting the arb system a year earlier, but I agree on them fighting tooth and nail on keeping team control for 6 years. The owners could also add a roster slot and force lower budget teams to spend more or lose revenue sharing. There are several ways the players could make significant gains without becoming FAs earlier.

Where do you find year end budgets over the last 20-25 years?

The Astros tanked, too. They drafted well in that period and then spent much more money. The Rays were super bad for a while, drafted Price and others, but never really spent big and never won the big one.

Yes, and even they were not a bottom 5 spending team, which have not won in a very very long time. The Marlins were not always in the 24-26th place area back around 2003, but that year, they were. They were clearly the outlier. Other teams have remained competitive for long periods of time, while spending little, but getting over the championship hump has remained ellusive to the Rays, A's and other teams like them. The Royals have been notorious for low budgets, but they went up to 12th the year they won it all. Maybe that's what the A's and Rays could do- just once. (Doubt it happens, though.)

The problem is nobody watched every play of every game, so how can anyone's eyes tell them A is better than B without proper sample sizes and a keen sense of focus?

They stand farther apart. Many plays do not involve any help from other players. The batter stands apart from his teammates, and they have little influence on what he does. It's pitcher vs batter. Batter vs fielder. Runner vs fielder. Lot's of one-on-ones.

Fans still knew some players had greater range and made more plays. They could and did look at POs and Assists. I'm not sure exactly when RF/9 became a tool.

Many knew fldg% was highly flawed long ago.

That was my point.

I was responding to the "Ugh factor."

Yes, because back then, I valued RF/9.

Can't a SS making a spectacular play also juice up the team and pitcher?

To me, B is the obvious winner.

The Astros and Cubs might be the two teams that intentionally tanked to plan for bigger spending later and an improved chance at winning a ring within a given window. It worked for both teams. We point to the Marlins team as the example of winning on a low budget, but they had some big salary players on those teams near their winning seasons. The built up and tore down at least twice. The Royals and Twins seemed to plan for cycles back in the day. Neither looks to compete in the near future. The Rays and A's seem like the only two current teams that can win without spending on a consistent or semi-consistent basis, but neither has a ring to show for their gallant efforts.

I'm not seeing that with the teams on this list. Most are habitual big spenders or top 10-15 almost every year. The Astros took a different approach that ended up working, but they did not have a very long stretch of low budget teams. I do see the rules keeping some of the higher spending teams from going nutty, but it's not really helping the habitually, lowest spending teams, except to pay their owners with revenue sharing and higher bonus share spending for draftees and IFS signings that rarely help them even come close to winning a ring.

Bottom 10 but not bottom 5, yes.

10 of those 11 were 10-15th. 26 out of 27 were 1st to 15th.

MLB Champions and Spending Ranking Year Team Opening Day Payroll 2021 Braves 15th 2020 Dodgers 1st 2019 Nationals 3rd 2018 Red Sox 1st 2017 Astros 12th 2016 Cubs 4th 2015 Royals 12th 2014 Giants 10th 2013 Red Sox 3rd 2012 Giants 8th 2011 Cardinals 11th 2010 Giants 10th 2009 Yankees 1st 2008 Phillies 14th 2007 Red Sox 2nd 2006 Cardinals 11th 2005 White Sox 13th 2004 Red Sox 2nd 2003 Marlins 25th 2002 Angels 15th 2001 D-backs 8th 2000 Yankees 1st 1999 Yankees 1st 1998 Yankees 2nd 1997 Marlins 7th 1996 Yankees 1st 1995 Braves 3rd Since 1995, only one team below #15 in spending has won a championship- the 2003 Marlins. Only 5 of the 27 teams were ranked below #12. That is 60% of all MLB teams (18/30.) You basically have to be a top 40% spending team to have a good chance at winning. Five out of 27 times is less than a 19% chance for 60% of all MLB teams combined. 13 out of the last 27 winning teams were a top 4 spender. 12 of the last 27 were top 3 spenders. 8 of 27 were top 2 spenders. No bottom 5 team has won a ring in a long time, maybe for several decades.

How many bottom 5 or even 10 spending teams have won in the last 10-20 years?

Lugo was actually a decent fielder, until he hurt his knee (2008?). He had good range, but made too many errors. I'd rate the 2007 Lugo's D as better than the 2018 Bogey D. Close call. Lugo 2007: 0.8 dWAR (BR) 0 DRS -0.6 UZR/150 Bogey 2018: 0.1 dWAR (BR) -8 DRS +1.3 UZR/150

With 30 teams, that actually shows money helps. How many second and third highest paying teams won it all? How many bottom 5 or 10 won it all?

The statement that RP'ers are not good enough to be starters is still somewhat true, but the balance is shifting. One could say Houck and Whitlock are our best two pitchers. The slots for Houck and Whitlock will determine which area is in greater need. Even with both in the pen, our pen sucks after those two. (The rotation looks two deep, too.)