MLB Owners, Stop Being A Little Bitch

In the wake of the recent Yankees free agent pick ups including C.C. Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, and A.J. Burnett, many baseball owners, including the Braves and Brewers owners, have DEMANDED a salary cap to even the playing field. Their logic is that because the Yankees can spend the most amount of money and get get the best players available, they will have the best team and therefore be able to do well.

As Bill Beane as so accuretely pointed out, you don't need money to have a good product on the field. (I think it's called like "Moneyball" or something). Let's take a look at 2008 and see how teams spent their money:

1) Yankees. Payroll: $209,081,579. Finished: 89-73, 3rd in AL East, missed playoffs
2) Tigers. Payroll: $138,685,197. Finished: 78-88, last in AL Central, missed playoffs
3) Mets. Payroll: $138,293,387. Finished: 89-73, 2nd in NL East, missed playoffs
4) Red Sox. Payroll: $133,440,037. Finished: 95-67, 2nd in AL East, lost in ALCS
5) White Sox. Payroll: $121,152,667. Finished: 88-74, 1st in AL Central, lost in ALDS
6) Angels. Payroll: $119,216,333. Finished: 100-62, 1st in AL West, Lost in ALDS
7) Cubs. Payroll: $118,595,833. Finished: 97-64, 1st in NL Central, Lost in NLDS
8) Dodgers. Payroll: $118,536,038. Finished: 84-78, 1st in NL West, Lost in NLCS
9) Mariners. Payroll: $117,993,982. Finished: 61-101 (worst record in AL), last in AL West, missed playoffs
10) Braves. Payroll: $102,424,018. Finished: 72-90, 4th in NL East, missed playoffs

Here's what the top teams were in baseball during the regular season and their payroll ranking:
1) LA Angels. 100-62. 6th
2) Chicago Cubs. 97-64. 7th
3) Tampa Bay Rays. 97-65. 29th (out of 30)
4) Boston Red Sox. 95-67. 4th
5) Philedelphia Phillies. 92-70. 13th
6) Milwaukee Brewers. 90-72. 15th
7) New York Yankees. 89-73. 1st
8) New York Mets. 89-73. 3rd
9) Chicago White Sox. 88-74. 5th
10) Minnesota Twins. 88-74. 24th.

Here's how the playoffs shaked out and their teams payroll ranking:
Won WS: Philedelphia Phillies. 13th
Lost WS: Tampa Bay Rays. 29th
Lost ALCS: Boston Red Sox. 4th
Lost NLCS: LA Dodgers. 8th
Lost ALDS: Chicago White Sox. 5th
Lost ALDS. LA Angels. 6th
Lost NLDS: Milwaukee Brewers. 15th
Lost NLDS: Chicago Cubs. 7th

Notice anything? There is absolutely no correlation between payroll and how a team performs on the field or in the playoffs. AT ALL! In fact, the team with the second worst payroll made it to the World Series! They had a better regular season record that both the Red Sox and the Yankees and made it father in the playoffs than both of them.

The team with the worst payroll, the Florida Marlins, had a winning record at 88-77 and really was in the payoff hunt for a lot of 2008. The team with the second biggest payroll, the Detroit Tigers, a team that was supposed to have one of the best offenses of all time, finished dead last in their division, behind the Kansas City Royals! The Royals! The Twins with the 24th ranked payroll had the exact same record as the team with the 5th and only lost the division based off of the 163rd game. (As David "MVP" Eckstein would say Small Sample Size! Small Sample Size!)

So for all you owners and GMs and managers or whoever who are pissed at how much the Yankees are spending, SHUT THE HELL UP! Instead, maybe you should look within your organization and make that better instead of wasting your time bithching and moaning.

Source: http://blog.sportscolumn.com/story/2008/4/1/231932/3450/mlb/2008_MLB_Payrolls and http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/standings?date=20080929&type=reg&br=9&year=2008&order=false&st=2

6 comments:

The 'Bright' One said...

Small Sample Size!!

For the argument to work you need to show sustained success with a low payroll. except for the twins, i cant think of such a team. the rockies and rays and marlins win once a decade, while sucking it up the other 9 years. the yanks made it to the playoffs for 14 years straight and still had the 7th best record last year.

I think the NL doesnt have such a salary disparity between teams, such that there is more competition than the AL. But also the top teams are not as good in the NL.

David "MVP" Eckstein said...

You can't just show ONE season and say "NO CORRELATION" because money does have an impact -- it just has to be spent efficiently. Paying 160 million for a pitcher whose arm has been abused as shit and is almost 30 years old has a higher risk and lower "profit" potential than signing either a young prospect that has a high ceiling of potential (even if also a high risk to bank on production) or paying a player for at least what he will for sure produce (ie, paying Pujols 100 mil for 7 years)

Simply put, you just want to make sure when you spend your money, you get back at least your investment in terms of production. The Yankees and other teams have a problem with this because they get into bidding wars that inefficiently inflate contract values

Adam Kaplan said...

OK, if you really want I can go back and how having a shitload of money doesn't matter. You guys are missing the point. You can win with no money and you can lose with a lot of money. If you're team does not have money you can most certainly do well, at least in the regular season. The Twins can do it. The As can do it. And it looks like the Rays can do it as well. The point is not money but having a good organization. I said it has to do with a good organization. That baseball book Ehrenreich should us ( I forgot the name) proved that it's not about money but how you spend money. I said it's how you spend money or basically A GOOD FUCKING ORGANIZATION. Plus, the Brewers and Braves (the two owners complaining about the Yankees) have plenty of money to be competitive.

Don't be fucktards you two. I don't have the fucking time to research multiple years to show you how having a high payroll does not equate to how good your team is.


And Eckstein, don't be a douche. It's clearly obvious that when I say "money" I meant payroll. I will say it again THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN A HIGH PAYROLL AND HOW GOOD YOUR TEAM IS

Adam Kaplan said...

2007 Season and Payroll Rankings

Won WS: Red Sox. 2nd
Lost WS: Rockies. 25th
Lost NLCS: D'Backs. 26th
Lost ALCS. Indians. 23rd
Lost NLDS. Cubs. 8th
Lost NLDS. Phillies. 14th
Lost ALDS. Yankees. 1st
Lost ALDS. Angels. 5th

2006 Season and Payroll Rankings

Won WS: Cardinals. 11th
Lost WS: Detroit. 14th
Lost NLCS. Mets. 5th
Lost ALCS. As. 21st
Lost NLDS. Dodgers. 6th
Lost NLDS. Padres. 17th.
Lost ALDS. Yankees. 1st.
Lost ALDS. Twins. 19th

2005 Season and Payroll Rankings

Won WS: White Sox. 13th.
Lost WS: Astros. 12th.
Lost ALCS. Angels. 4th.
Lost NLCS. Cardinals. 6th.
Lost ALDS. Boston. 2nd.
Lost ALDS. Yankees. 1st.
Lost NLDS. Padres. 16th.
Lost NLDS. Braves. 10th.

THERE IS NO CORRELATION OR A VERY LITTLE CORRELATION BETWEEN HOW MUCH MONEY A TEAM SPENDS ON ALL OF THEIR PLAYERS AND HOW WELL A TEAM PERFORMS.

I show how teams do in the postseason to not only show how well a team can do with little money in the playoffs but also look at the teams that make the postseason to begin with.

While I'm still not fully convinced that the playoffs are completely random, if you are under this assumption, just look at just the teams that make the playoffs and not when they got eliminated. It still shows that you don't necessarily need a high payroll to make the playoffs.

Adam Kaplan said...

2004 Season and Payroll Ranking

Won WS: Red Sox. 2nd.
Lost WS: Cardinals. 11th.
Lost ALDS. Yankees. 1st.
Lost NLDS. Astros. 12th.
Lost ALCS. Twins. 19th.
Lost ALCS. Angels. 3rd.
Lost NLCS. Dodgers. 7th.
Lost NLCS. Braves. 8th.

2003 Season and Payroll Ranking.

Won WS. Marlins. 20th.
Lost WS. Yankees. 1st.
Lost ALCS. Red Sox. 5th.
Lost NLCS. Cubs. 12th.
Lost ALDS. As. 26th.
Lost ALDS. Twins. 18th.
Lost NLDS. Giants. 8th.
Lost NLDS. Braves. 6th.

2002 Season and Payroll Ranking.

Won WS. Angels. 15th.
Lost WS. Giants. 10th.
Lost ALCS. Twins. 27th.
Lost NLCS. Cardinals. 13th.
Lost ALDS. As. 28th.
Lost ALDS. Yankees. 1st.
Lost NLDS. D'Backs. 4th.
Lost NLDS. Braves. 7th.

OK, does having a high payroll help with sustained success? Sure. It it guarantee it? No. Can you win without a high payroll? Abso-fucking-lutely. It is possible to have sustained success with a smaller payroll? Yes.

Plus, with a few exceptions, payrolls change from year to year. The vast majority of teams that have a high payroll one year don't have a high one the next year. So it's not impractical to look at individual years to see how teams do with the amount of payrolls on singular seasons.

David "MVP" Eckstein said...

Actually, I think the rays just got insanely lucky. They traded away their bad highly touted prospects like Young to the Twins. Seriously. Madden thinks OBP is BS.

For fucks sake, they have a Rays cartoon series in which the villain is "Dr. Stat"