Here's a link to 2013 MLB team payrolls.
As for making the playoffs, if you include both wildcard teams, we had teams ranked 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, 23, 26, 27, and 28 (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers, Cardinals, Reds, Braves, Indians, Pirates, Athletics, and Rays) make the playoffs. This is an average of 15.8, almost exactly in the middle. Five teams from the upper half and five from the lower half made the playoffs. So, to a first approximation, team payroll was not correlated with the regular season, i.e. making the playoffs.
But, moving on into the second round, the League Championship Series, we have the Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers and Cardinals: teams 2, 4, 5, and 12. All teams in the top half of payroll. So far in 2013, there is perfect correlation between the highest payroll and getting to the next round of the playoffs.
How about 2012? Here's are the payrolls. And, in case you have forgotten, here's what happened last year. The teams making the playoffs were ranked 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 30. Six teams from the top half, four from the bottom. An average of 12.8. So payroll was very slightly correlated in 2012. But, as for success, the teams making the final four were ranked 1, 5, 6, 9. Again, all teams in the top half of payroll. (#5 and #6 ended up in the World Series).
I attribute this to the nature of the layoffs, where big stars become more important. Especially, in a 5 game series, expensive star pitchers, who, with the breaks between games, can appear two times. Two years in a row Justin Verlander has earned his $20 million a year salary vs. the Athletics. He's a great pitcher, a likely Hall of Famer. This year, he was greatly aided by Max Scherzer ($6.7 M), Victor Martinez ($13 M), with help from Prince Fielder ($23 M) and Miguel Cabrera ($21 M). These are all great players. Throw in a key homerun by Jhonny Peralta ($6 M) and you are at nearly $90 million dollars, which is close to the median payroll for an entire MLB team.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
ESPN Sweetspot is missing some good baseball
During the baseball season I follow the blogs / articles on ESPN's Sweetspot. They are usually interesting and sometimes informative. And, unlike most of ESPN, they seemed less focused on the New York, Boston and Los Angeles media markets.
Their MLB playoff coverage has relapsed. As of today, Oct 8th, the playoff coverage (besides generic articles covering all the matchups) has six articles on the Dodgers/Braves Series:
Their MLB playoff coverage has relapsed. As of today, Oct 8th, the playoff coverage (besides generic articles covering all the matchups) has six articles on the Dodgers/Braves Series:
- Where's Craig Kimbrel?
- Good move by Mattingly to start Kershaw
- Hanley great, Braves awful, Fredi messes up
- Braves-Dodgers: Managers key in Game 3
- Heyward delivers after Mattingly mistake
- Underrated McCann's last game in Atlanta?
There are three articles on the Sox/Rays Series:
- Rays pull out another must-win victory
- David Price ignores fact that nerds help him
- Lackey's remarkable Red Sox renaissance
There are two articles on Cards/Bucs:
and one whole article on Tigers/As:
I'm frankly surprised that Hollywood has takes over from ESPN's previous favorite Boston so quickly.
Can you explain this biased coverage by the quality of the games? Was the Dodger's/Braves series incredibly compelling. No. Two of the games were close, but two were blowouts. Did some player do something amazing? Not really - as you can tell by the article titles, a lot of the talk was about the managers. Ryu, who had a good regular season, disappointed on the national stage. Sweetspot needed some excuse to talk about Hollywood and came up with them. Need I add that the Dodgers "developed" most of their team with brute money, not skill?
Has the #2 rated series, Sox/Rays been compelling? Sortof. Game three was exciting, decided by a walkoff, well worthy of comment. Game two was pretty good, game one was a slaughter.
The Bucs/Cards series has been compelling. The first two games were slaughters, but each team took a win to Pittsburgh, where two close and exciting games went down to the wire. And the whole story of Pittsburgh being in the playoffs for the first time in 20 years is compelling. These are two very good teams who didn't buy all their players.
The series they haven't really covered, As/Tigers, has been the most compelling. Game three was pretty good and had some fireworks. Games one and two were incredible tense playoff baseball, each decided by one run, featuring awesome pitching performances by Max Scherzer (likely Cy Young), Justin Verlander (no introduction necessary) and rookie Sonny Gray who out-pitched Verlander and matched the exploits of Hall of Famer Chief Bender from over a century ago, 1910. None of these pitching performances has been mentioned on Sweetspot. None. I repeat, Scherzer and Verlander each going 7 strong innings and striking out a small city - unmentioned. A rookie matching a Hall of Famer from over a century past - ignored. Though the Tigers offense is struggling, many As position players have had good offensive or defensive plays. Not mentioned.
Not a shock from ESPN, but I'm calling BS.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
How much is hard work rewarded in Rotissery Baseball?
I just completed my 2nd year in a competitive rotisserie 5x5 baseball league as co-owner of the SF Marauders. After leading for a couple of months in the middle of the year, we finished a solid third.
This league is a good test bed to try to estimate how important daily moves and work are to maintain your team. Because we had one team manager, the Jolly Jayhawks, who spends a lot of time on fantasy baseball, making moves basically every day, as he was researching matchups and streaming a starting pitcher almost every day. Another team, the Los Angeles Sad Pandas, paid no attention all year, making no trades, no drops or pickups, nor, as best as I can tell, did he even make internal moves to correct for players on the DL, starters who needed to be put in, etc. In effect, "his" team, including, so far as I know, the Draft, was entirely computer driven. And for my team, the SF Marauders, most of the time I was pretty active, but was away on a long vacation for nearly two months (August and September) with limited internet access.
In a rotisserie league with ten teams, each earning scores of 1-10 on 10 categories, the average score for a team should be 55. How did the three teams fare?
Jolly Jayhawks won the league and ended up with a phenomenal 85.5, 30 points above average. Is constant work is worth +30? If we break that down by month, one could argue that constant, smart, savvy work on your roto team is worth about 5 points a month, or about 1 point a week. The second place team, the Pac Bell Bombers, was also quite active and finished with 82 points, roughly supporting this calculation.
The completely inactive Sad Pandas did end up last, at 23 points. 32 points below average. Again, roughly 5 points a month. Now, part of the blame probably lies in his initial draft, since this particular league (and the managers) places less emphasis on starting pitchers and more on relievers than the computer AI seems to understand. The Sad Pandas have way too many starters and zero relievers to fare well in our league. Pulling a number somewhat out of my butt, let's ascribe -8 points to his lousy draft. He should have ended up at 31, -24 off average, for a net loss due to neglect of -4 a month, or -1 a week.
Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to get the ESPN site to show me some graph of the standings over time to find out exactly how my team did during my vacation. But, based on memory, the Marauders dropped from the high 70s to the low 70s. (After my return, we rallied in the final weeks to get back to 75.5) Let's say a net loss of 6, or 3 a month. Now, I did have some internet access, so if we call my activities "50% active", you come up with a loss of 6 a month for complete inactivity. Not far from the 4 and 5 above.
In conclusion, it appears that continuous, smart, high activity in a roto league is worth about 5 points a month, relative to "average activity". Complete inactivity costs about the same, 4 points a month. And the difference between high activity and complete inactivity is nearly 10 points a month. These results are based upon a very small sample size of one league, so take them with a huge grain of salt!
This league is a good test bed to try to estimate how important daily moves and work are to maintain your team. Because we had one team manager, the Jolly Jayhawks, who spends a lot of time on fantasy baseball, making moves basically every day, as he was researching matchups and streaming a starting pitcher almost every day. Another team, the Los Angeles Sad Pandas, paid no attention all year, making no trades, no drops or pickups, nor, as best as I can tell, did he even make internal moves to correct for players on the DL, starters who needed to be put in, etc. In effect, "his" team, including, so far as I know, the Draft, was entirely computer driven. And for my team, the SF Marauders, most of the time I was pretty active, but was away on a long vacation for nearly two months (August and September) with limited internet access.
In a rotisserie league with ten teams, each earning scores of 1-10 on 10 categories, the average score for a team should be 55. How did the three teams fare?
Jolly Jayhawks won the league and ended up with a phenomenal 85.5, 30 points above average. Is constant work is worth +30? If we break that down by month, one could argue that constant, smart, savvy work on your roto team is worth about 5 points a month, or about 1 point a week. The second place team, the Pac Bell Bombers, was also quite active and finished with 82 points, roughly supporting this calculation.
The completely inactive Sad Pandas did end up last, at 23 points. 32 points below average. Again, roughly 5 points a month. Now, part of the blame probably lies in his initial draft, since this particular league (and the managers) places less emphasis on starting pitchers and more on relievers than the computer AI seems to understand. The Sad Pandas have way too many starters and zero relievers to fare well in our league. Pulling a number somewhat out of my butt, let's ascribe -8 points to his lousy draft. He should have ended up at 31, -24 off average, for a net loss due to neglect of -4 a month, or -1 a week.
Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to get the ESPN site to show me some graph of the standings over time to find out exactly how my team did during my vacation. But, based on memory, the Marauders dropped from the high 70s to the low 70s. (After my return, we rallied in the final weeks to get back to 75.5) Let's say a net loss of 6, or 3 a month. Now, I did have some internet access, so if we call my activities "50% active", you come up with a loss of 6 a month for complete inactivity. Not far from the 4 and 5 above.
In conclusion, it appears that continuous, smart, high activity in a roto league is worth about 5 points a month, relative to "average activity". Complete inactivity costs about the same, 4 points a month. And the difference between high activity and complete inactivity is nearly 10 points a month. These results are based upon a very small sample size of one league, so take them with a huge grain of salt!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
