NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for BSelling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-25-2014, 10:21 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,638
Default SO OT: Yankees done, Mariners right behind them

One of the headlines in today's sports section referred to the Yankees finally being out of the race. It got me thinking about how payroll equates to victories, or doesn't. See results below.

Next data-crunching effort is to see how effectively dollars are being spent by the 'vintage 16' vs 'the new guys'. At first glance, the failures are led by vintage teams - Phillies, Reds, Red Sox and Yankees; however, the vintage teams also have some of the best bang for the buck: A's, Pirates and Orioles.

In any event, here are this season's final standings, based on March payroll (calculated within each league). Victories were calculated based on average wins of 81 per team, and average payroll per team; thus, the Dodgers losing negative 10 games
__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 11-30-2014 at 01:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-25-2014, 10:45 AM
Jay Wolt's Avatar
Jay Wolt Jay Wolt is offline
qualitycards
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Gettysburg PA area
Posts: 2,434
Default

Dodgers have the largest payroll be far at $241 million & they look to be the strongest team out there.
Sometimes $$$ can buy results
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-25-2014, 10:53 AM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,408
Default

Just taking a quick look at the last ten World Series champs, here's where the teams ranked in payroll:

2013: Boston - 4th
2012: Giants - 8th
2011: Cards - 11th
2010: Giants - 10th
2009: Yanks - 1st
2008: Phils - 12th
2007: Boston - 2nd
2006: Cards - 11th
2005: White Sox - 13th
2004: Boston - 2nd
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:14 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,638
Default

You would think that if your payroll was one of the top 8 in the Majors, and you spent making 'average' decisions, you would be in the playoffs. At that point anyone can win. I wonder if any teams have used the philosophy of spending enough just to get in, but concentrating on team characteristics that historically result in playoff victories?
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:34 AM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,408
Default

Hard to say. Looking at this year's list it's interesting that the Nationals jumped from 12th in 2013 to 9th in 2014 and it resulted in a first place finish and playoff berth. But at the same time KC came in at 19th in 2013 and 2014 but the results this year are a likely wild card spot. Tampa Bay had the reverse. Was 28th last year but ended up with a wild card spot. Same position this year and not even close.

Last edited by packs; 09-25-2014 at 11:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:39 AM
Scott36153's Avatar
Scott36153 Scott36153 is offline
Scott
member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 18
Default

Spending $$$ is just a way to get good (or supposedly good players) on your team to give your team a chance to make postseason. Paying big $$$ does not mean there won't be season ending injuries, locker room conflicts, too big to coach egos, etc etc etc.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:40 AM
nolemmings's Avatar
nolemmings nolemmings is offline
Todd Schultz
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,953
Default

Nice to see that my beloved Twins are outperforming their projected finish as based on payroll--barely. Not even that close to 100 losses--94 max. Ha! Gardy for manager of the year.
__________________
Little darling, the smile's returning to their faces
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been here
Here comes the sun, do, dun, do, do
Here comes the sun, and I say
It's all right
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:43 AM
pgellis's Avatar
pgellis pgellis is offline
P.hil €lli$
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Posts: 784
Default

Another interesting stat to look at is "Cost Of Each Win". In other words, take the payroll that Scott laid out above and divide each teams total wins into that number. You then have "Cost Of Each Win". I did that using last night's updated standings.

TOP 10 MOST EXPENSIVE COST PER WIN:

1. Dodgers $ 2,649,762
2. Yankees $ 2,578,156
3. Phillies $ 2,493,348
4. Red Sox $ 2,237,397
5. Rangers $ 2,038,332
6. Tigers $ 1,853,165
7. BlueJays $ 1,597,872
8. Diamondbacks $ 1,774,584
9. Giants $ 1,743,990
10. Reds $ 1,539,558



LOWEST COST PER WIN

1. Marlins $ 557,825
2. Astros $ 651,968
3. A's $ 897,917
4. Pirates $ 905,186
5. Indians $ 993,985


Some interesting findings. Does "paying for wins" translate into making the playoffs? Well, of the Top 10 Most Expensive Wins teams, only 3 look to be making the playoffs this year: Dodgers (Most Expensive at $ 2.65 Million per Win), Tigers & Giants.

But, 2 of the Least Expensive Wins teams are also making the playoffs: A's & Pirates.

I also think that a factor involved in the teams with the highest payrolls and also the Most Expensive Per Win teams are due to recent success. Of the last 10 World Series Champions, 7 of those Championship Franchises are among the Top 10 Most Expensive Per Win teams.

5 teams spent more than $ 2 Mill. per win this season and 5 teams spent less than $ 1 Mill. this season. Of the 5 teams that spent more than $ 2 Mill. per win this season, only 1 will be making the playoffs: DODGERS.
But, 2 of the 5 teams that spent less than $ 1 Mill. per win will be making the playoffs: A's & Pirates.

Last edited by pgellis; 09-25-2014 at 11:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:47 AM
1880nonsports's Avatar
1880nonsports 1880nonsports is offline
Hen.ry Mos.es
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,308
Default interesting error

giving the Yankees 153 wins. There's a Yankee fan somewhere inside of you :-)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:50 AM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,408
Default

A couple interesting notes from recent winners:

Starting Rotation:

2013 Red Sox: 3 / 5 drafted by the Red Sox.

2012 Giants: 4 /5 drafted by Giants.

2011 Cards: only 1 /5 drafted by Cards


Starting Line Ups:

2013 Red Sox: 3 / 9 of the starting 9 were home grown

2012 Giants: 4 / 8 drafted by Giants

2011 Cards: 5 / 8 drafted by Cards


Seems like a team needs a solid core of home grown talent if they're going to contend.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-25-2014, 11:54 AM
freakhappy's Avatar
freakhappy freakhappy is offline
Mike C@.v3
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: OHIO
Posts: 1,669
Default

Interesting stats, Scott...thanks for posting. Love the -10 for the Dodgers

We know it's impossible to determine what a team's record should be based on their payroll, but the two big factors IMO that will always make it for sure impossible to predict are injuries and bad signings. Some signings you really can't predict going south, but Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander are prime examples of players that aren't worth half of what they are being paid. I don't think many people saw Verlander falling off so quickly, but Fielder was somewhat evident with his decline over the past few years. Pujols, although he has had a nice year, is being paid mostly due to his past and not what he will do in the coming years. I think we all can agree his best years are behind him.

I really believe that some of these teams pay some of these overrated players the amount of money they do because they will undoubtedly bring in revenue from avenues other than their on-field performance...or maybe it is just plain fan reputation. I believe winning is a top priority, but let's be real here...money has to be a priority for every team, but some teams might even prefer money to winning.
__________________
T206's Graded low-mid 219/520
T201's SGC/PSA 2-5 50/50
T202's SGC/PSA 2-5 10/132
1938 Goudey Graded VG range 37/48
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:00 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakhappy View Post
I really believe that some of these teams pay some of these overrated players the amount of money they do because they will undoubtedly bring in revenue from avenues other than their on-field performance...or maybe it is just plain fan reputation. I believe winning is a top priority, but let's be real here...money has to be a priority for every team, but some teams might even prefer money to winning.
Huge point. If you re-ranked the teams based on $'s brought in per $ spent, some of the huge payrolls will certainly seem more valid.

For instance, average price per bobble head, per team, on ebay. I bet the Astros are near the bottom and the Yankees are at the top. Certainly a Jeter game-used item goes for more than the Altuve version.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:07 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,638
Default

It seems to be a real spending advantage to be in one of the 'Central' divisions - not competing against Coastal big-spenders. And, with the exception of the A's and the Rangers, the bang for the buck also seems to be concentrated in Midwest. I was always told that overall, they were more educated in that part of the country.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 09-25-2014 at 12:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:09 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,408
Default

That is a really good point. I think part of the Angels thinking in bringing in Pujols had to be that he'd hit his 500 homer as an Angel and most likely pick up his 3,000th hit as one too.

Yankees were thinking about Arod's milestones when they signed him too.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:13 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,291
Default

Yankees have a habit of signing players to big contracts after they are past their prime. They are sitting with a whole lot of 35-40 year olds on the roster, and that does not bode well for the near future. They have to either start developing young talent and keeping it, or spending a little less money for younger players. They just spend money poorly. I knew before the season that they were a brittle team, and despite having a lot of talent on paper, that injuries were going to do them in.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:20 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,408
Default

Signing Beltran was a huge mistake. McCann hasn't been too great and Mark Tex is awful.

There are some bright spots coming though. Severino and Lindgren should be pitching in NY soon barring injuries. I'm really glad they kept Gardner. Tanaka, Pineda, and Betances are all very young. Shane Green showed some promise.

Prado was a good trade. Him and Ellsbury are just 30. If they can resign Robertson they'll be back on track in terms of getting younger.

Last edited by packs; 09-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:32 PM
freakhappy's Avatar
freakhappy freakhappy is offline
Mike C@.v3
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: OHIO
Posts: 1,669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packs View Post
That is a really good point. I think part of the Angels thinking in bringing in Pujols had to be that he'd hit his 500 homer as an Angel and most likely pick up his 3,000th hit as one too.



Yankees were thinking about Arod's milestones when they signed him too.

I didn't think of this point...which is a really good one. Pujols will have spent the majority of his years with the Cardinals, but hit some major milestones with the Angels...definitely significant.

Barry, I was going to post about the Yankees poor spending habits, but must've forgot! I will never understand why they bring in guys like Stephen Drew or Kelly Johnson for the amount of money they do. These players are well passed their prime and haven't produced in a few years, so why knowingly bring in players that struggle to hit .200, that you know won't produce? Is the market that bad? They really do need to assess their farm clubs and the way they generate youngsters...it could relieve them of some of their poor signings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
T206's Graded low-mid 219/520
T201's SGC/PSA 2-5 50/50
T202's SGC/PSA 2-5 10/132
1938 Goudey Graded VG range 37/48
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:36 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakhappy View Post
I will never understand why they bring in guys like Stephen Drew or Kelly Johnson for the amount of money they do.
Perhaps they are trying to re-capture some lost magic that New York City baseball has lost, and have no idea what the formula is.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:41 PM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,291
Default

The Yankees do seem to be snakebit because even their young guys get injured. Tanaka might have been their best signing in I don't know how long, and he's only 25. He is also one pitch away from Tommy John surgery and missing a whole season. I still think you have to go with youth.

Look at the Mets. Despite still being a poor overall team, with almost no offense, they have an incredible group of young arms playing or about to play, and I do think they have a bright future if they can somehow get some offense. It's very hard for an old team to stay healthy and produce.

Last edited by barrysloate; 09-25-2014 at 12:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-25-2014, 12:43 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,408
Default

I think the Starlin Castro sweepstakes will come down to the Yankees and the Mets. Tough break for the Yankees because they could really use Castro. But I think the Mets have the arms to get the deal done.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mariners trump Jerry Jones Runscott Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk 6 11-16-2012 07:29 PM
yankees / mariners 1995 may 30th program martiniqueln Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 1 08-06-2012 10:13 AM
AL West: Mariners and Astros - hopeless? Runscott Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk 5 01-10-2012 12:45 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:39 AM.


ebay GSB