Moneyball II

[Mitchrapp]

Traditionally more money means a better chance for a title? I'm curious the last time a team won a title with less than 70m. It's been a while hasn't it..

 

[Rebbiv]

Traditionally more money means a better chance for a title? I'm curious the last time a team won a title with less than 70m. It's been a while hasn't it..

There were 5 teams with less than $70 Mil payroll last year. Isn't that being too restrictive? Maybe the median at $90 Mil?

 

[Rebbiv]

Last 20 World Series = 8.8 salary ranking, 8.8 attendance ranking

Average salary ranking for winner = 6.4, 9.3 attendance ranking

Average salary ranking for loser = 11.2, 8.3 attendance ranking


Once there, the team with the higher payroll generally wins. IMHO, that means they can afford to spend more on bench/utility players and bullpen. Or at least not counting on rookies or younger players in those areas.


In the last 15 World Series, the WS winner had a Top 5 Payroll in only 5 of those (BOS x 3, NYY x 2).


There is pretty much a correlation between payroll and attendance figures. I doubt teams maintain high payrolls if the attendance isn't there.

 

[Mitchrapp]

There were 5 teams with less than $70 Mil payroll last year. Isn't that being too restrictive? Maybe the median at $90 Mil?

I'm talking title..check out who wins title and their payroll.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Last 20 World Series = 8.8 salary ranking, 8.8 attendance ranking

Average salary ranking for winner = 6.4, 9.3 attendance ranking

Average salary ranking for loser = 11.2, 8.3 attendance ranking


Once there, the team with the higher payroll generally wins. IMHO, that means they can afford to spend more on bench/utility players and bullpen. Or at least not counting on rookies or younger players in those areas.


In the last 15 World Series, the WS winner had a Top 5 Payroll in only 5 of those (BOS x 3, NYY x 2).


There is pretty much a correlation between payroll and attendance figures. I doubt teams maintain high payrolls if the attendance isn't there.

My point being how many WS titles in the past 15 years with payroll where Oakland is now..

 

[Rebbiv]

I'm talking title..check out who wins title and their payroll.

8 of the last 20 World Series champions (40%) were not in the Top 10 in payrolls.

There was also 8 of the last 20 World Series losers (40%) that were not in the Top 10 in payrolls.

16 of the last 40 participants = 40.0% of teams that make it to the World Series are not in the Top 10 in payroll.

 

[Rebbiv]

My point being how many WS titles in the past 15 years with payroll where Oakland is now..

That is a sliding scale.


Teams with at least $70 Mil, Teams with at least $90 Mil and Max

1999 = 9 with 70, 1 with 90, $91.9 Mil

2004 = 13 with 70, 6 with 90, $182.8 Mil

2009 = 21 with 70, 12 with 90, $201.4 Mil

2014 = 28 with 70, 21 with 90, $235.3 Mil

Heck, I make over 3 times the money as I did in 1999.

 

[Mitchrapp]

That is a sliding scale.


Teams with at least $70 Mil, Teams with at least $90 Mil and Max

1999 = 9 with 70, 1 with 90, $91.9 Mil

2004 = 13 with 70, 6 with 90, $182.8 Mil

2009 = 21 with 70, 12 with 90, $201.4 Mil

2014 = 28 with 70, 21 with 90, $235.3 Mil

Heck, I make over 3 times the money as I did in 1999.

Am I not making myself clear..

 

[Rebbiv]

Am I not making myself clear..

OAK is 25th in Payroll in 2014 and is within 8% of the median payroll.

FLA won it in 2003 with being 28th in Payroll and was with 7% of the median payroll.


My point is there are a lot of teams within 7-8% of median. What actually drives their payroll is attendance. And yes, neither FLA (MIA) or OAK draw great attendance and are probably stuck in their payroll.

 

[Mitchrapp]

OAK is 25th in Payroll in 2014 and is within 8% of the median payroll.

FLA won it in 2003 with being 28th in Payroll and was with 7% of the median payroll.


My point is there are a lot of teams within 7-8% of median. What actually drives their payroll is attendance. And yes, neither FLA (MIA) or OAK draw great attendance and are probably stuck in their payroll.

I'm asking a simple question, how many teams won a title in the past 15 years with a payroll of 70m or less? If you don't want to answer that's okay..I was just curious..

 

[byco42]

I don't know how anyone can disparage the model that the A's have built that continually puts them in a position to compete for a playoff berth 11 of the last 15 seasons, with seven appearances.

 

[gotime909]

I'm asking a simple question, how many teams won a title in the past 15 years with a payroll of 70m or less? If you don't want to answer that's okay..I was just curious..

Angels in 2002 and Marlins in 2003

 

[Mitchrapp]

Angels in 2002 and Marlins in 2003

Thanks. That tells me it doesn't happen a lot..not in the past 10 years anywhere. I'm all for Moneyball..but it has its drawbacks when you consider the teams with much higher payrolls..

 

[Thumb]

I'm asking a simple question, how many teams won a title in the past 15 years with a payroll of 70m or less? If you don't want to answer that's okay..I was just curious..

You say last 15 years of 70 million or less, but those figures aren't consistent.

15 years ago payrolls were a fraction of what they are now, because player salaries have all jumped so much.

15 years ago (1999) the top payroll was NYY @ $91,990,995; Oakland was 24th @ $25,208,858 and Detroit was 22nd @ $36,954,666 and FLA's payroll was a whopping $14,650,000.

2014 lowest opening day payroll is $44,544,174 a difference of just under +$30MM in 15 years. The top 2014 payroll is $235,995,219; minus 1999 top payroll of $91,990,995 for a difference of +$144,004,224.


So your simple question is not really simple unless you want it to have no quantitative meaning whatsoever.

 

[Rebbiv]

You say last 15 years of 70 million or less, but those figures aren't consistent.

15 years ago payrolls were a fraction of what they are now, because player salaries have all jumped so much.

15 years ago (1999) the top payroll was NYY @ $91,990,995; Oakland was 24th @ $25,208,858 and Detroit was 22nd @ $36,954,666 and FLA's payroll was a whopping $14,650,000.

2014 lowest opening day payroll is $44,544,174 a difference of just under +$30MM in 15 years. The top 2014 payroll is $235,995,219; minus 1999 top payroll of $91,990,995 for a difference of +$144,004,224.


So your simple question is not really simple unless you want it to have no quantitative meaning whatsoever.

Exactly

 

[Mitchrapp]

You say last 15 years of 70 million or less, but those figures aren't consistent.

15 years ago payrolls were a fraction of what they are now, because player salaries have all jumped so much.

15 years ago (1999) the top payroll was NYY @ $91,990,995; Oakland was 24th @ $25,208,858 and Detroit was 22nd @ $36,954,666 and FLA's payroll was a whopping $14,650,000.

2014 lowest opening day payroll is $44,544,174 a difference of just under +$30MM in 15 years. The top 2014 payroll is $235,995,219; minus 1999 top payroll of $91,990,995 for a difference of +$144,004,224.


So your simple question is not really simple unless you want it to have no quantitative meaning whatsoever.

Okay point taken. But I still wanted to know ..no harm no foul.

 

[LGRW_9]

Hey guys - some of you are missing the original point (I think). Oakland plays money ball because it is forced to. Their owner is cheap, they play in an absolute shithole of a ballpark, they've tried to move to a proposed complex in San Jose but MLB won't let them (fuck you Selig and Sabean), and thus they've been forced to exist on a budget.

What they have done with that budget, from a competitive standpoint, is nothing short of amazing. Yes, the ultimate goal (as Beane himself says in the movie) is to win the last game played, and they haven't done that yet. They may never in our lifetime. But they put a scary good, fun to watch product on the field year in and year out when just about everyone says they can't or won't. A big part of the reason they do this is the scouting approach they take (as one of the posters earlier had said), wherein they don't take risks on the marquee prospects, but rather draft players to fit a high OBP style of play.

I admire what they've been able to do with what little they have each year.

 

[gotime909]

Hey guys - some of you are missing the original point (I think). Oakland plays money ball because it is forced to. Their owner is cheap, they play in an absolute shithole of a ballpark, they've tried to move to a proposed complex in San Jose but MLB won't let them (fuck you Selig and Sabean), and thus they've been forced to exist on a budget.

What they have done with that budget, from a competitive standpoint, is nothing short of amazing. Yes, the ultimate goal (as Beane himself says in the movie) is to win the last game played, and they haven't done that yet. They may never in our lifetime. But they put a scary good, fun to watch product on the field year in and year out when just about everyone says they can't or won't. A big part of the reason they do this is the scouting approach they take (as one of the posters earlier had said), wherein they don't take risks on the marquee prospects, but rather draft players to fit a high OBP style of play.

I admire what they've been able to do with what little they have each year.

I just think they get too much press. I'd rather see people give Tampa more love for what they've been able to do with a small budget.

 

[Rebbiv]

It isn't just about OBP. It is the walk rate, both as a hitter and and as a pitcher.

Tommy Milone, Derek Norris and A.J. Cobb for Gio Gonzalez is the the of package we should have received for Fister

 

[gotime909]

It isn't just about OBP. It is the walk rate, both as a hitter and and as a pitcher.

Tommy Milone, Derek Norris and A.J. Cobb for Gio Gonzalez is the the of package we should have received for Fister

Gio was younger and cheaper than Doug. Also, when they made that deal they(baseball America) ranked Peacock #3, Cole #4, Norris #9(1 spot ahead of Lombardozzi) and Milone wasn't in the Nationals top 10.

Peacock is no longer with them and Cole is still in the minors. So the 2 lower ranked prospects worked out and the 2 top prospects in that deal haven't.

Again, another example that you have to wait it out before making a judgement on a trade like that. IMO