5 ms·

The soccer team would be Real Madrid. The baseball team the New York Yankees. They seem to do OK.

by sien 10y ago

saghm 10y ago
The baseball team currently with the highest roster salary is not the Yankees, but the Los Angeles Dodgers by almost 20%. They're currently in third place, behind teams with the 16th and 26th highest roster salaries (out of 30 MLB teams)[1]. Obviously it's early on the season, but we can look at last year's season to get a better heuristic. The top two teams in terms of roster salary were once again the Dodgers and Yankees. The Dodgers did come in first in their division but finished the season 12.5 games behind the eventual World Series winners, the Chicago Cubs, whose roster salary was barely 2/3 of the Dodgers. Oh, and the Yankees came in fourth place (of five) in their division, a whole nine games out of first place. So yes, spending money helps you be a contender, but spending the most money is not a good metric for the best team (at least, not in baseball, and I'd imagine that being smarter about spending your money rather than spending more is useful in other fields as well). http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2017/ http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2017/ http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2016/ http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2016/ http://m.mlb.com/standings/?yyyy=2016&view=divisional http://m.mlb.com/standings/?yyyy=2016&view=divisional
- ethbro 10y ago
  I'd imagine the majority of sports have a fairly loose correlation between money spent and winning due to (a) limited sample size leading to high variance (even with a superior player selection strategy), (b) limited number of games played (though baseball does better than other sports here), and (c) games consisting of more dependent than independent events (leading to low chance events having cascading repurcussions). At least in MLB, 40 multi-year players isn't that large a sample!
  - saghm 10y ago
    I don't disagree, but I also don't think that's indicative that paying the most money is the optimal strategy. I'd much rather play for a team that does win rather than one that "should" but doesn't. My point, which I alluded to in the last paragraph, was not that teams shouldn't spend a lot of money, but that spending a lot of money is not a good substitute for spending money intelligently.
kristianc 10y ago
I can't speak for the New York Yankees, but the 'Galacticos' policy of Fiorentino Perez, where Real Madrid would try to sign one expensive, world-famous footballer every year, is widely considered to have been a failure despite initial success - partly because of a lack of interest in signing defensive players (they didn't want to pay Makelele's salary despite it being relatively low), locker room egos, and constant interference from the Club President over hiring. To throw another example on the list, the New England Patriots are 30/33 for salary money spent. The Miami Dolphins are 5th. Spending big money for rockstars is neither necessary nor sufficient. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-nflpa-salary-cap-chart-shows-patriots-are-money-smart-eagles-arent/ http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-nflpa-salary-cap-char...

The soccer team would be Real Madrid. The baseball team the New York Yankees. They seem to do OK.

by sien 10y ago

The soccer team would be Real Madrid. The baseball team the New York Yankees. They seem to do OK.

saghm 10y ago

The baseball team currently with the highest roster salary is not the Yankees, but the Los Angeles Dodgers by almost 20%. They're currently in third place, behind teams with the 16th and 26th highest roster salaries (out of 30 MLB teams)[1]. Obviously it's early on the season, but we can look at last year's season to get a better heuristic. The top two teams in terms of roster salary were once again the Dodgers and Yankees. The Dodgers did come in first in their division but finished the season 12.5 games behind the eventual World Series winners, the Chicago Cubs, whose roster salary was barely 2/3 of the Dodgers. Oh, and the Yankees came in fourth place (of five) in their division, a whole nine games out of first place. So yes, spending money helps you be a contender, but spending the most money is not a good metric for the best team (at least, not in baseball, and I'd imagine that being smarter about spending your money rather than spending more is useful in other fields as well). http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2017/ http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2017/ http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2016/ http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2016/ http://m.mlb.com/standings/?yyyy=2016&view=divisional http://m.mlb.com/standings/?yyyy=2016&view=divisional

ethbro 10y ago
I'd imagine the majority of sports have a fairly loose correlation between money spent and winning due to (a) limited sample size leading to high variance (even with a superior player selection strategy), (b) limited number of games played (though baseball does better than other sports here), and (c) games consisting of more dependent than independent events (leading to low chance events having cascading repurcussions). At least in MLB, 40 multi-year players isn't that large a sample!
- saghm 10y ago
  I don't disagree, but I also don't think that's indicative that paying the most money is the optimal strategy. I'd much rather play for a team that does win rather than one that "should" but doesn't. My point, which I alluded to in the last paragraph, was not that teams shouldn't spend a lot of money, but that spending a lot of money is not a good substitute for spending money intelligently.

kristianc 10y ago

I can't speak for the New York Yankees, but the 'Galacticos' policy of Fiorentino Perez, where Real Madrid would try to sign one expensive, world-famous footballer every year, is widely considered to have been a failure despite initial success - partly because of a lack of interest in signing defensive players (they didn't want to pay Makelele's salary despite it being relatively low), locker room egos, and constant interference from the Club President over hiring. To throw another example on the list, the New England Patriots are 30/33 for salary money spent. The Miami Dolphins are 5th. Spending big money for rockstars is neither necessary nor sufficient. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-nflpa-salary-cap-chart-shows-patriots-are-money-smart-eagles-arent/ http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-nflpa-salary-cap-char...