To the rich go the spoils...

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Roger Maynar » Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:26:08


This is a National Post story which purports to be a statistical
study proving the *** of large market sport teams.

I would print the article in its entirety but there are too many
stats in it to make it suitable for this ng and I have been banned
from rec.sport.baseball.anal-ysis...

"To the rich go the spoils"

http://SportToday.org/

cordially, as always,

rm

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Bronsius Mogat » Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:33:00

Quote:

> This is a National Post story which purports to be a statistical
> study proving the *** of large market sport teams.

> I would print the article in its entirety but there are too many
> stats in it to make it suitable for this ng and I have been banned
> from rec.sport.baseball.anal-ysis...

> "To the rich go the spoils"

> http://SportToday.org/

> cordially, as always,

> rm

I guess it would have nothing to do with the fact that the Yankees have a
great team. If you doubt this, check the record. 16-3 in World Series play
alone. Three World Series titles in a row. C'mon. I suppose Oakland who
ALMOST beat the Yankees fall into that category as well? Do you know
anything about baseball?

Regards,
Mogath

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by BJ VanDewate » Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:08:46

    So what is the point here?   I am getting sick of this circular
argument.   The best teams have the best players and in an open  market the
best players cost the most.  Any team that decides not to pay the market
rate to get the best players will not have the best team.  This is obvious,
and not rocket science, and the author of this article is just perpetuating
this idiocy.

--
BJ VanDewater


Quote:
> This is a National Post story which purports to be a statistical
> study proving the *** of large market sport teams.

> I would print the article in its entirety but there are too many
> stats in it to make it suitable for this ng and I have been banned
> from rec.sport.baseball.anal-ysis...

> "To the rich go the spoils"

http://SportToday.org/
l
Quote:

> cordially, as always,

> rm


 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Department Of Apocalyptic Affair » Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:19:17

Yes, it's obvious and that's what the market dictates.  It doesn't
mean it's desirable though imo.

The problem i had with this article was that the guy was giving
examples that were contradicting his own arguments, like the Orioles
having a high payroll and not winning anything, the White-Sox, the A's
and the Padres who were succesful without having a high payroll.
Also, his definition of success seems to be winning the WS.  Of
course, only one team/year can have the trophy.  That's pretty narrow.
And wheres's this 25% comes from?  Why not 33%?



Quote:
>    So what is the point here?   I am getting sick of this circular
>argument.   The best teams have the best players and in an open  market the
>best players cost the most.  Any team that decides not to pay the market
>rate to get the best players will not have the best team.  This is obvious,
>and not rocket science, and the author of this article is just perpetuating
>this idiocy.

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Voro » Mon, 30 Oct 2000 23:14:48

Quote:

>     So what is the point here?   I am getting sick of this circular
> argument.

BAsically that is what is always unsaid when the pissing and moaning
starts. They assume causation from correlation.

They assume:

High Payrolls cause Winning

when it is possible and even likely that the bigger factor is:

Winning causes High Payrolls.

The Yankees are a good example of the second as their two highest paid
position players are Yankee farmhands (Williams and Jeter) who eventually
started to cost money because of their talent. They certainly didn't
"buy" Williams and Jeter but once they established themselves as great
players that would help anybody win quite a few games, the Yankees were
forced to increase what they paid them.

I suppose people could want to "fix" this if they were so inclined, but
you always have to worry about the unintended consequences of making
radical changes to the financial structure of the game.

Plus if you really want every team to have an equal chance every year, you
can just do it roto-style and all of the players are returned to the pool
after the season and randomly distributed to the teams the following
season.  Anyone in favor of this?

What really worries me about this is that all of the pissing and moaning
about this only gives the owner the indication that they have public
support when the next offseason arrives. I'm personally not looking
forward to another stoppage.

--
Voros McCracken

http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Brett Wils » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:09:04

: What really worries me about this is that all of the pissing and moaning
: about this only gives the owner the indication that they have public
: support when the next offseason arrives. I'm personally not looking
: forward to another stoppage.

Personally, that's what I most dreaded about the possibility of another
Yankees win -- the ill-reasoned analysis that was sure to follow.  If only
Oakland had risen to the occasion.  Alas.  --BW.

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Paul Bott » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:13:23

Heh, as is often the case with such stories, the funniest thing
about them is that the statistics they cite actually support the
opposite of what the writer (and morons like Maynard) assume to be
the case.

Take a look at the actual 2000 MLB results listed at the end of
the article. What it does is use opening-day payroll to "predict"
who many games each team should win if payroll=winning.

Three franchises "predicted" to be under .500 actually won more
than 90 games. FIVE more which were "predicted" to be barely over
.500 ALL won at least 90 games. This is supposed to be evidence
that payroll rank "dictates" success? What idiots.

Reminds me of the chart that appeared in the Chicago Tribune a
year ago which was supposed to make the same point, but in fact
displayed an almost perfect lack of correlation between payroll
rank and 1999 on-the-field results. Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Quote:

> > This is a National Post story which purports to be a
statistical
> > study proving the *** of large market sport teams.

> > I would print the article in its entirety but there are too
many
> > stats in it to make it suitable for this ng and I have been
banned
> > from rec.sport.baseball.anal-ysis...

> > "To the rich go the spoils"

http://SportToday.org/
444870.html
Quote:

> > cordially, as always,

> > rm

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by tpag.. » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 06:41:12



Quote:
> when it is possible and even likely that the bigger factor is:
> Winning causes High Payrolls.

If winning causes high payrolls, and your team eventually can't pay for
those high payrolls, winning is less likely to occur (unless you
introduce other variables).

I also think that spending lots of money wisely can certainly increase
your chances of winning.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Voro » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:53:51

Quote:

> Heh, as is often the case with such stories, the funniest thing
> about them is that the statistics they cite actually support the
> opposite of what the writer (and morons like Maynard) assume to be
> the case.
> Take a look at the actual 2000 MLB results listed at the end of
> the article. What it does is use opening-day payroll to "predict"
> who many games each team should win if payroll=winning.
> Three franchises "predicted" to be under .500 actually won more
> than 90 games. FIVE more which were "predicted" to be barely over
> .500 ALL won at least 90 games. This is supposed to be evidence
> that payroll rank "dictates" success? What idiots.
> Reminds me of the chart that appeared in the Chicago Tribune a
> year ago which was supposed to make the same point, but in fact
> displayed an almost perfect lack of correlation between payroll
> rank and 1999 on-the-field results. Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

I actually just ran a correlation for Opening Day Patroll and winning
percentage for 2000. It clocked in at a whopping .327.

If we did forecasts from it, the Yankees projected to have a .535 win %
and the Twins projected to have a .463 win% with the standard error being
.059.

Here's a scatter graph of Opening Day Payroll against eventual regular
season winning percentage:

http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/2000payr.gif

--
Voros McCracken

http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Voro » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:28:30

Quote:



>> when it is possible and even likely that the bigger factor is:
>> Winning causes High Payrolls.
> If winning causes high payrolls, and your team eventually can't pay for
> those high payrolls, winning is less likely to occur (unless you
> introduce other variables).

But until teams show they _can't_ afford certain players rather than
choosing not to, I'm not about to advocate an overhaul of the current
system.

Quote:
> I also think that spending lots of money wisely can certainly increase
> your chances of winning.

But spending little amounts of money wisely increases your chance of
winning.

As far as I'm concerned, when a team does something wisely, getting upset
at their success is illogical. I would be very upset if the league
suddenly said that the Pirates get to take one player of their choice from
every team because the Pirates haven't done anything to deserve such a
windfall.

I find it ironic that Carl Pohlad's "give up" statement occurred a few day
after Denny Hocking was inked to a contract near a million dollars a
year. If these teams can't stop wasting their money on these sorts of
guys, why should they get more to***away.

--
Voros McCracken

http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Paul Bott » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:55:08


Quote:

> I actually just ran a correlation for Opening Day Patroll and
winning
> percentage for 2000. It clocked in at a whopping .327.

> If we did forecasts from it, the Yankees projected to have a
.535 win %
> and the Twins projected to have a .463 win% with the standard
error being
> .059.

> Here's a scatter graph of Opening Day Payroll against eventual
regular
> season winning percentage:

> http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/2000payr.gif

Can you create another one using payroll rank, rather than salary
dollars? That's the other way people sometimes try to make the
case for a causal relationship.
 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Ben Fliege » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:25:53


Quote:

> > This is a National Post story which purports to be a statistical
> > study proving the *** of large market sport teams.

> > I would print the article in its entirety but there are too many
> > stats in it to make it suitable for this ng and I have been banned
> > from rec.sport.baseball.anal-ysis...

> > "To the rich go the spoils"

http://SportToday.org/
.html

Quote:

> > cordially, as always,

> > rm

> I guess it would have nothing to do with the fact that the Yankees
have a
> great team. If you doubt this, check the record. 16-3 in World Series
play
> alone. Three World Series titles in a row. C'mon. I suppose Oakland
who
> ALMOST beat the Yankees fall into that category as well? Do you know
> anything about baseball?

I won't reply to our resident Yankee fanboy/troll/chronic CAPITALIZER,
but the article was interesting.

This article is up there in terms of stupidity with the Ted Williams
article of a few months ago(wherein some Post hack tried to demean
Williams' 1941).

His statistical model is flawed. Immensely. None of the teams are
predicted to win more than 87 games. None are predicted to win fewer
than 74. Odd.

His conclusion isn't supported by the chart at all, as there was simply
massive variance in the results. 17+ for Chicago, 16- for... Chicago.

The oddly mediocre predictions(no 90 game winners or losers) got me to
thinking. If that ever happened, it would be the greatest thing to ever
happen to the MLBPA. Only a handful teams would ever give a prospect a
shot at a starting job(prospects are not good union members making only
$200K). A single quality free agent is the difference between first
place and the cellar.

In his AL Central, the Indians won 84 and the Royals won 76. The Royals
signing Manny Ramirez would reverse those positions, and as such they'd
offer wbatever it takes to get him. The market for veteran relief
pitchers would be off the charts. Every team would be "win now mode". As
we've seen, teams that think they are contending do incredibly stupid
things in terms of overpaying for "veteran hitters who make contact",
"guys who know how to win", and any left handed reliever with ML
experience. Imagine if every team was bidding for those guys?
Arthur Rhodes would be making $7 million a year.

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Voro » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:20:05

Quote:



>> I actually just ran a correlation for Opening Day Patroll and
> winning
>> percentage for 2000. It clocked in at a whopping .327.

>> If we did forecasts from it, the Yankees projected to have a
> .535 win %
>> and the Twins projected to have a .463 win% with the standard
> error being
>> .059.

>> Here's a scatter graph of Opening Day Payroll against eventual
> regular
>> season winning percentage:

>> http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/2000payr.gif

> Can you create another one using payroll rank, rather than salary
> dollars? That's the other way people sometimes try to make the
> case for a causal relationship.

My next maneuver will be to calculate the change in ODP (opening day
payroll from here on out) from 1999 to 2000. Then I'll test the
correlation between change in payroll and change in win%.

There will still be correlation/causation questions there, an increase in
winning will cause an increase in payroll the next season (arbitration,
extra revenue), but it should filter out some of the problem with
causation and correlation.

The only other problems I can think of with that is that there would be a
bias for good teams in 1999 to decline and poor teams in 1999 to improve
so that would somewhat confound any relationship that might exist between
increased payroll and increased winning.

As far as correlation by rank in 2000 goes the coeff. is basically the
same at .326 (.327 was the other).

An any event, there is a graph of the ranks at:

http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/2000rank.gif

It's got a little more color than the last to differntiate it, and also
since they are ranks the points are backward with the high payroll high
win teams in the southwest corner and the low payroll low win teams in the
northeast corner.

--
Voros McCracken

http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Voro » Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:26:31

Quote:




>> > This is a National Post story which purports to be a statistical
>> > study proving the *** of large market sport teams.

>> > I would print the article in its entirety but there are too many
>> > stats in it to make it suitable for this ng and I have been banned
>> > from rec.sport.baseball.anal-ysis...

>> > "To the rich go the spoils"

> http://SportToday.org/
> .html

>> > cordially, as always,

>> > rm

>> I guess it would have nothing to do with the fact that the Yankees
> have a
>> great team. If you doubt this, check the record. 16-3 in World Series
> play
>> alone. Three World Series titles in a row. C'mon. I suppose Oakland
> who
>> ALMOST beat the Yankees fall into that category as well? Do you know
>> anything about baseball?
> I won't reply to our resident Yankee fanboy/troll/chronic CAPITALIZER,
> but the article was interesting.
> This article is up there in terms of stupidity with the Ted Williams
> article of a few months ago(wherein some Post hack tried to demean
> Williams' 1941).
> His statistical model is flawed. Immensely. None of the teams are
> predicted to win more than 87 games. None are predicted to win fewer
> than 74. Odd.

Actually it's exactly as expected when trying to predict based on not a
particularly strong correlation.

The point of his predictions _ought_ to be that there are quite obviously
factors other than payroll which play _heavily_ into the relative
success or failure of a team. The fact that he can't establish a wide gap
in results due to payroll refutes the point he is trying to make.

Basically all he's done is show that people good in math can try and
predict one set of numbers from another and that they have ways of doing
such things. The fact that the results from doing so (payroll doesn't
predict win% all that well in 2000) don't support his point is glossed
over.

--
Voros McCracken

http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

To the rich go the spoils...

Post by Jabberwoc » Thu, 02 Nov 2000 22:50:00

I found this interesting simply because the extra $60 million the
Yanks spent over what the A's spent should have netted them, according
to his projection, only 9 more wins.  I wonder how many wins a payroll
of $39.95 would have gotten with his model.  



Quote:
>This is a National Post story which purports to be a statistical
>study proving the *** of large market sport teams.

>I would print the article in its entirety but there are too many
>stats in it to make it suitable for this ng and I have been banned
>from rec.sport.baseball.anal-ysis...

>"To the rich go the spoils"

>http://SportToday.org/

>cordially, as always,

>rm

http://SportToday.org/