Royals

[pdub]

"But the dirty little (open) secret is that spending at the very VERY top (in other words, the spending that takes you from, like, the 5-8th range to the top-3) has proven to be highly inefficient."

Sigh.
No dude, it has not.
You win more games and make it to the playoffs by spending at the top.

Again, repeated three times now, the top 5 teams have averaged 91 wins.
That's wayyyyy better than the league average.

And then only 1 of the last 10 champions hasn't been in the top half of spending.
And only 2 of the last 10 hasn't been in the top 3rd.

Spending clearly gets you wins. Why are you arguing?
There is a direct correlation.

[pdub]

Last season 3 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 10 in payroll.
2022 4 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 8 in payroll.
2021 4 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 10 in payroll. 3 were in the top 6.
2020 2 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 5 in payroll. The team with who spent the most - 5 times the payroll of another team - won it all.
2019 4 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 8 in payroll.
2018 3 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 8 in payroll. The team who spent the most won.

Hm.
I think there's a pattern but I can't quite put my finger on it.
You'd almost think spending more gives you a greater chance at making it to the playoffs and advancing...I dunno, it's a mystery.

[pdub]

Imagine in the NFL if another team spent 5 times the amount of another.
Do you think that NFL team would have an advantage?
Hm.

I dunno man, it's a stretch maybe.

But like if it were the Chiefs, Mahomes would be throwing to Tee Higgins, Michael Pittman and Keenan Allen this season with Saquon Barkley AND Derrick Henry as his running backs.
We'd have Tyron Smith of the Cowboys replacing whiffer of a signing Jawaan Taylor.

Sneed would be back and we'd have Justin Madubuike lining up next to Chris Jones.
Throw in Kyle Dugger and Bryce Huff in the rotation.

[jfish26]

Last season 3 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 10 in payroll.
2022 4 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 8 in payroll.
2021 4 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 10 in payroll. 3 were in the top 6.
2020 2 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 5 in payroll. The team with who spent the most - 5 times the payroll of another team - won it all.
2019 4 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 8 in payroll.
2018 3 of the 4 teams in the championship series were top 8 in payroll. The team who spent the most won.

Hm.
I think there's a pattern but I can't quite put my finger on it.
You'd almost think spending more gives you a greater chance at making it to the playoffs and advancing...I dunno, it's a mystery.

All of that data supports the importance of the distinction you even quoted in the post above this one: "spending at the very VERY top (in other words, the spending that takes you from, like, the 5-8th range to the top-3) has proven to be highly inefficient."

You are 100% correct that spending correlates with winning. I have NOT ONE TIME argued against that, as inconvenient as that might be for the arguments you want to make.

What I am arguing against is the suggestion that "the spending that takes you from, like, the 5-8th range to the top-3" is what is breaking the competitiveness of the game. The data does not support this conclusion.

The data supports a conclusion that spending at the very highest reaches of the payroll spectrum (spending for wins 101-105, say) does not improve your chances as much as spending to get into the tournament (spending for wins 91-95, say). The reasons for this difference in efficiency are obvious.

And I also think focusing solely on spending at the very top is being FAR too generous to the too-many owners who are turning operating profits on central revenue alone. Owners turning a profit before a single ticket, hot dog, beer or local ad is sold. That should piss off every single fan of every one of those teams.

[jfish26]

Imagine in the NFL if another team spent 5 times the amount of another.
Do you think that NFL team would have an advantage?
Hm.

I dunno man, it's a stretch maybe.

But like if it were the Chiefs, Mahomes would be throwing to Tee Higgins, Michael Pittman and Keenan Allen this season with Saquon Barkley AND Derrick Henry as his running backs.
We'd have Tyron Smith of the Cowboys replacing whiffer of a signing Jawaan Taylor.

Sneed would be back and we'd have Justin Madubuike lining up next to Chris Jones.
Throw in Kyle Dugger and Bryce Huff in the rotation.

Instead, we have a whole different kind of fundamental competitive issue in the NFL. One that happens to favor the Chiefs more and more each year.

[pdub]

Jesus.
Like arguing with an articulate randy today.

We've gone over Mahomes and Brady already.

[pdub]

The 5th place team is spending 70 million more than the 15th place ( middle - 10 spots lower ) team.
The 8th place team is spending 90 million more than the 18th place team ( 10 spots lower ) team.

Do you think having 70-90 million more of a payroll might be an advantage?
Could you correct multiple misses with 70-90 million dollars in players every season?

[Back2Lawrence]

Could you correct multiple misses with 70-90 million dollars in players every season?

Doesn’t San Diego try?

[Back2Lawrence]

Instead, we have a whole different kind of fundamental competitive issue in the NFL. One that happens to favor the Chiefs more and more each year.

You mean the NFL putting skirts on QBs, and other rules changes designed to ‘protect’ a position grossly out-earning every other in the sport.
I know the importance of an ‘elite’ QB, but holy fuck the amount of money QBs make relative to other position groups is laughable.

[jfish26]

Jesus.
Like arguing with an articulate randy today.

We've gone over Mahomes and Brady already.

Ok.

It matters.

If you want to hold the NFL up as an example of the competitive virtues of a capped league, then it's important to at least acknowledge its own competitive problems.

Right this second:

* 9/30 baseball teams are +1000 or shorter to win their 2024 pennant
* 8/32 NBA teams are +1000 or shorter to win their 2024-2025 conference
* 9/32 NHL teams are +2000 or shorter to win the 2025 Stanley Cup finals
* 10/32 NFL teams are +1000 or shorter to win their 2024-25 conference
* 9/29 MLS teams are +2000 or shorter to win the 2024 MLS Cup

The sports get there in VERY different ways, but it doesn't seem like any one of these sports is materially more or less competitive than the others.

[jfish26]

Instead, we have a whole different kind of fundamental competitive issue in the NFL. One that happens to favor the Chiefs more and more each year.

You mean the NFL putting skirts on QBs, and other rules changes designed to ‘protect’ a position grossly out-earning every other in the sport.
I know the importance of an ‘elite’ QB, but holy fuck the amount of money QBs make relative to other position groups is laughable.

And yet, it's probably not ENOUGH, the rules being what they are. It won't be long before the Jerry Joneses of the world try to sell all of us on the magic beans of creating a QB exception to the cap.

[jfish26]

The 5th place team is spending 70 million more than the 15th place ( middle - 10 spots lower ) team.
The 8th place team is spending 90 million more than the 18th place team ( 10 spots lower ) team.

Do you think having 70-90 million more of a payroll might be an advantage?
Could you correct multiple misses with 70-90 million dollars in players every season?

Of course. That is why there is a strong correlation between spending and winning.

But any owner who tells you that he or she cannot afford that 70-90 million is either lying, or should sell their team. No fan should support an owner who uses the horror of occasional (or even frequent!) operating losses as an excuse for not spending to field a competitive team.

[pdub]

That's why you find a middle ground to where the revenue will generally be agreeable for the average team without taking a loss and make the cap somewhere around there so baseball can more competitive.

Every single team in the NFL had the opportunity to draft Mahomes.

[jfish26]

That's why you find a middle ground to where the revenue will generally be agreeable for the average team without taking a loss and make the cap somewhere around there so baseball can more competitive.

Every single team in the NFL had the opportunity to draft Mahomes.

That's still, in my opinion, WAY too much slack to give to the billionaires. It's just another manifestation of the stadium game, where we (you and me) socialize capital investment, but not profit.

There is no way around it: a cap is a financial windfall to the owners.

In my opinion (and as supported by data from other sports), it is a windfall that is unlikely to have the competitive effect that the owners (who want a cap, because it is a windfall!) are selling.

[pdub]

"In my opinion (and as supported by data from other sports)"

Not in MLB - as shown there is a clear correlation between spending and success.
Not in NFL either as there are no instances where a team spends more than twice than another - so you have no data set that is anyway similar to the situation in MLB.
The largest increase in spending from top to bottom in the NFL last season was 10%.

Not 100%. Or 500%.

[Sparko]

"In my opinion (and as supported by data from other sports)"

Not in MLB - as shown there is a clear correlation between spending and success.
Not in NFL either as there are no instances where a team spends more than twice than another - so you have no data set that is anyway similar to the situation in MLB.
The largest increase in spending from top to bottom in the NFL last season was 10%.

Not 100%. Or 500%.

To me, pretty clearly the unfortunate winning argument. The Dodgers and Yankees in particular are killing the game. I said the Royals lost by 150,000,000 to the Dodger the other day, but it was probably more. We just went through a week of watching all stars from other teams thump the home towners. And some pretty bad umpires too. Really want the robot balls and strikes.

[jfish26]

"In my opinion (and as supported by data from other sports)"

Not in MLB - as shown there is a clear correlation between spending and success.
Not in NFL either as there are no instances where a team spends more than twice than another - so you have no data set that is anyway similar to the situation in MLB.
The largest increase in spending from top to bottom in the NFL last season was 10%.

Not 100%. Or 500%.

You barbered the quote, and you are again arguing against a point I am not making.

It is TRUE that there is a correlation between spending and winning in baseball. I have not argued otherwise.

It is TRUE that there is a much greater disparity (between teams) in spending in baseball than there is in football. I have not argued otherwise.

And yet, the data - the results from seasons and championships - shows that football is not any more competitive than baseball. There are good arguments that is it less competitive.

Despite having a strong cap, and despite having substantially equivalent spending.

To me, that supports, not refutes, the argument I made.

Which is that a cap is a windfall that is unlikely to have the competitive effect that the owners (who want a cap, because it is a windfall!) are selling.

I strongly agree with you that baseball could be improved, competitively. I just do not think that a cap - which the owners want, because it is a windfall - is likely to result in nearly the degree of improvement that you would hope for.

[pdub]

If you filter out the money and make that fairly uniform then no one has a uniquely competitive advantage over another team. So if a team is then winning a lot it has to do with something any other team could have done had they done it correctly.

Mahomes and Brady are hall of famers.
Of course they are going to win a lot.
They were drafted by their respective teams. Good on those teams.
The Chiefs were 23rd in spending last season on player personnel. The 9ers were last. But again the differences between the 9ers and teams at the top is 20 million dollars from a 200 million dollar base.

The Broncos have failed and failed and failed recently because of bad decisions...not because they were outspent by 500%.

[jfish26]

If you filter out the money and make that fairly uniform then no one has a uniquely competitive advantage over another team. So if a team is then winning a lot it has to do with something any other team could have done had they done it correctly.

Mahomes and Brady are hall of famers.
Of course they are going to win a lot.
They were drafted by their respective teams. Good on those teams.
The Chiefs were 23rd in spending last season on player personnel. The 9ers were last. But again the differences between the 9ers and teams at the top is 20 million dollars from a 200 million dollar base.

The Broncos have failed and failed and failed recently because of bad decisions...not because they were outspent by 500%.

Exactly!

[pdub]

OK.

So now let's filter out the differences in money with a salary cap and now, if a team sucks, it sucks because it has made the wrong moves, has had the wrong coaches or the wrong players...instead of being outspent by 500%.