Say it ain't so, Joe.

[Edgy MD]

Here's the same data for 2014, with the National League topping the American League by 2.08%.

NL Team	Projected 2014 Payroll	AL Team	Projected 2014 Payroll
LA Dodgers	$235,295,219	NY Yankees	$203,812,506
Philadelphia Phillies	$180,052,723	Boston Red Sox	$162,817,411
San Francisco Giants	$154,185,878	Detroit Tigers	$162,228,527
Washington Nationals	$134,704,437	LA Angels	$155,692,000
Arizona Diamondbacks	$112,688,666	Texas Rangers	$136,036,172
Cincinnati Reds	$112,390,772	Toronto Blue Jays	$132,628,700
St. Louis Cardinals	$111,020,360	Baltimore Orioles	$107,406,623
Atlanta Braves	$110,897,341	Seattle Mariners	$92,081,943
Milwaukee Brewers	$103,844,806	Kansas City Royals	$92,034,345
Colorado Rockies	$95,832,071	Chicago White Sox	$91,159,254
San Diego Padres	$90,094,196	Minnesota Twins	$85,776,500
NY Mets	$89,051,758	Oakland A's	$83,401,400
Chicago Cubs	$89,007,857	Cleveland Indians	$82,534,800
Pittsburgh Pirates	$78,111,667	Tampa Bay Rays	$77,062,891
Miami Marlins	$47,565,400	Houston Astros	$44,544,174
Sum:	$1,744,743,151	Sum:	$1,709,217,246
Mean:	$116,316,210	Mean:	$113,947,816

[batmagadanleadoff]

More of the obscenely rich Dodgers. You can explain the same numbers in a multituide of ways. Here's one point of view I found that's on point. It's from the Frank McCourt era, from before when the Dodgers could outspend the next closest team by almost $100M.

[fimg=222]https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/espn-grantland/img/grantland-logo@2x.png[/fimg]

Designated Hitters and the Economics of Baseball

July 12, 2011
by Dan McLaughlin

Baseball is a game of traditions. It comes as no surprise, then, that nearly four decades after it was adopted, the game and its fans still have not fully embraced the Designated Hitter rule. Most of us can recite in our sleep the traditionalist arguments against the DH — it creates halfway players, it reduces strategy, it’s not The Way Things Have Always Been. But those arguments are matters of taste. Other arguments against the DH — the havoc it creates with postseason and interleague play, especially in the age of the unbalanced schedule — are more a function of the rule existing in only one league. Still others, such as whether the DH rule contributes to the ever-diminishing workloads carried by frontline pitchers, remain open to debate; it’s hard to separate the evidence from other long-term trends in the game. But let’s instead focus on another aspect of the DH rule: the practical effect of the rule on the game’s economic structure, and why the economic effects of the DH rule are precisely why we can neither get rid of it nor extend it to the National League. A major league roster has 25 players, but the cost of those players is not evenly distributed, and neither is their impact on the team’s success. Most teams carry 11 or 12 pitchers, of whom five starters and perhaps three relievers will play critical roles. A National League roster has eight everyday players and a four- to six-man bench; in the American League, the DH means there’s one extra everyday player, generally at the expense of one bench job. Due in part to the expansion of bullpens, platooning is far rarer today than it was two decades ago, so there’s a wide gap in pay and playing time between true regulars and bench players. So, an NL team has about 16 crucial jobs, an AL team 17. But wait: A typical team will be able to fill about seven of those jobs with players who don’t have enough service time to demand high salaries. The reality is that adding another regular can take a team from nine to 10 jobs that truly require a major outlay of cash. The numbers bear this out. The average AL payroll was $92.8 million from 2006 to 2010, while the average NL payroll was $80.1 million. If you look only at teams with winning records — working under the theory that those are the teams actually trying to spend enough money to compete and succeed — the disparity is even larger: The average winning AL team had a payroll of $108.4 million compared to $88.7 million in the NL. That’s a $20 million-a-year difference. Is the DH rule to blame for this? It’s obviously not the only reason, but certainly it’s a contributing factor. Over the same five-year period, the 14 American League teams employed something like a full-time DH in 57 out of 70 possible seasons. (“Full time” is defined here as 300 or more plate appearances with at least half the player’s games at DH.) The average salary of those players? $6.8 million. And that doesn’t include the cost of DHs who break down due to age or injury. Travis Hafner made more than $8 million in 2008, Ken Griffey $2.3 million in 2010, and neither made it to 300 plate appearances. Frank Thomas had a $12.5 million salary when he was with the Blue Jays in 2008, Pat Burrell was making $9 million from the Rays in 2010, Shea Hillenbrand $6 million from the Angels in 2007. All three were cut early in the year and were signed for a song by other teams. The financial impact of the Designated Hitter rule also widens the gap between big- and small-market teams. Just compare the haves and have-nots: Over the same five seasons, the average AL team that finished .500 or worse had a payroll of $71.1 million, indistinguishable from the $72.0 million average in the NL but $37.3 million behind the winning teams, while the NL teams trailed the winners in their league by $17.6 million. Some of those American League teams kept their costs down by just giving up. Sure, a well-run small-market team can compete by filling roster spots with players who haven’t reached free agency yet and thus are paid below their market value. But the more roster spots there are to fill, the harder it is to use the farm system to keep up with the teams that are buying high-end veterans on the open market, especially the big sluggers who generally fill the ranks of DHs. The average age of the starting DHs in the AL over that period? 32.7 years old. Aside from Billy Butler on the 2007-08 Royals, no American League team employed a DH under the age of 25, and the only AL franchises to use a regular DH under age 29 were the Royals, Twins, Rays, and Blue Jays. And the DH gives roster flexibility to the biggest players in the free-agent market. The Yankees, for example, could move guys like Jason Giambi and Hideki Matsui there near the end of big contracts to make room for still more high-priced acquisitions. The disparity in labor costs makes the National League more attractive to owners in the free-agency era. Two teams were added to the National League when Major League Baseball expanded in 1993, matching it with the American League. Then came the 1998 expansion and realignment. Tampa Bay and Arizona were added, and Commissioner Bud Selig managed to move the Brewers from the American League to the National League. The Rays and the Diamondbacks agreed that they could be shifted to another league without their consent, but when Selig floated a plan to realign them in 2001, the Rays expressed interest in going to the NL; the D-Backs, facing transfer to the AL, fought the plan. With another realignment scheme in the air this year, Astros owner Drayton McLane is singing the same tune. Yet the same payroll considerations are why we are stuck with the DH. The MLB Players Association will fight tooth and nail to avoid losing those high-paying jobs, and, as was the case with steroid testing, owners seem to have higher priorities in the zero-sum negotiations with the union than fixing structural problems for the greater good of the game. In the case of the DH, the big-market AL teams have no financial incentive to reduce their competitive advantage, and the NL owners have no real stake in reducing the AL owners’ cost of doing business. Unless and until all the owners are willing to make financial concessions in other areas to bring an end to the DH rule in the AL, we’re stuck with it as is.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/designated-hitters-and-the-economics-of-baseball/

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You can explain the same numbers in a multituide of ways.

McLaughlin seems to be measuring them the same way.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: You can explain the same numbers in a multituide of ways. McLaughlin seems to be measuring them the same way.

Mclaughlin is saying that the DH increases payroll costs, especially at the high end of the team payroll spectrum. It's precisely what I wrote when I first posted in this thread.

[Edgy MD]

And I thought I was presenting data that suggested that may not be true.

I certainly disagree that the McCourt-era Dodgers somehow represent a more authentic version of what the Dodgers truly are.

Dodgers Shmodgers. A mean is a mean. If the players are getting the money, they are.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: And I thought I was presenting data that suggested that may not be true. I certainly disagree that the McCourt-era Dodgers somehow represent a more authentic version of what the Dodgers truly are. Dodgers Shmodgers. A mean is a mean. If the players are getting the money, they are.

It's not a question of the Dodgers authenticity, whatever that even means. The Dodgers are skewing the recent data. They're outspending the Yankees by about 30%. They're not a normal team payroll-wise, by any measure. They're an outlier.

[Edgy MD]

It's not a question of the Dodgers authenticity, whatever that even means.

It means to respond to your implication that their status as an outlier somehow invalidates this data.

To which I'd ask why? If the players in the National League are getting paid, they're getting paid. If the advantage of the designated hitter has been offset, it has.

If it helps iron out the Dodgers' supremacy to use a median instead of a mean, the National League had the higher median payroll in 2014. The American League in 2015.

[Centerfield]

NL Team Projected 2015 Payroll AL Team Projected 2015 Payroll Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 New York Yankees $219,282,196 San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 Washington Nationals $164,920,505 Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 Texas Rangers $142,140,873 Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 New York Mets $101,409,244 Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 San Diego Padres $100,675,896 Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 Oakland A's $86,086,667 Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 Miami Marlins $68,479,000 Houston Astros $70,910,100 Sum: $1,858,231,275 Sum: $1,882,979,838 Mean: $123,882,085 Mean: $125,531,989

I think what batmags is saying is that the trend he's citing doesn't affect the outliers as much. If you look at the side by side comparisons, if you exclude the top 2 teams and the bottom 2 teams, 9 of 11 AL clubs outspend their counterpart.

I kinda lost the point of what you guys were arguing, and I have no idea if it makes sense to artificially exclude the teams on both ends.

[Centerfield]

Here's the same data for 2014, with the National League topping the American League by 2.08%. NL Team Projected 2014 Payroll AL Team Projected 2014 Payroll LA Dodgers $235,295,219 NY Yankees $203,812,506 Philadelphia Phillies $180,052,723 Boston Red Sox $162,817,411 San Francisco Giants $154,185,878 Detroit Tigers $162,228,527 Washington Nationals $134,704,437 LA Angels $155,692,000 Arizona Diamondbacks $112,688,666 Texas Rangers $136,036,172 Cincinnati Reds $112,390,772 Toronto Blue Jays $132,628,700 St. Louis Cardinals $111,020,360 Baltimore Orioles $107,406,623 Atlanta Braves $110,897,341 Seattle Mariners $92,081,943 Milwaukee Brewers $103,844,806 Kansas City Royals $92,034,345 Colorado Rockies $95,832,071 Chicago White Sox $91,159,254 San Diego Padres $90,094,196 Minnesota Twins $85,776,500 NY Mets $89,051,758 Oakland A's $83,401,400 Chicago Cubs $89,007,857 Cleveland Indians $82,534,800 Pittsburgh Pirates $78,111,667 Tampa Bay Rays $77,062,891 Miami Marlins $47,565,400 Houston Astros $44,544,174 Sum: $1,744,743,151 Sum: $1,709,217,246 Mean: $116,316,210 Mean: $113,947,816

But that trend doesn't exist in 2014, where looking at the teams side by side, the NL clubs win over their counterpart.

[Frayed Knot]

So to sum up: the DH rule increases payrolls except in those cases where it doesn't.

[Ceetar]

I think the sample size and the volume is too small for it to show up in the data that clearly. in a way we're comparing 4% of one set of players to 4% of another set.

But who knows, maybe the NL generally compensates by paying middle relievers a wee bit more to get those crunch time 7th inning outs. But there doesn't seem to be any particularly obvious gap in innings pitched or even starter value between the leagues of the last 3 years so maybe not.

[Edgy MD]

The data knows.

[Centerfield]

Yup. You would need to do a long-term breakdown to see.

I would guess there wouldn't be much difference. I think clubs have a certain amount they can spend, and tend to use it all up, whatever that amount is.

If they have money left over, I'm guessing they buy middle relievers. They're like the checkout line bait of baseball.

[Vic Sage]

Generalization is good. Specialization is bad. In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified.

i was right there with you, right up to that last bit... but mileage varies on that point, so... yeah.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: So to sum up: the DH rule increases payrolls except in those cases where it doesn't.

That'll work for me.

Edgy MD wrote: That's certainly worthwhile speculation, but it's not like the Dodgers haven't been on top for a few years now. The same perspective could say any of a number of teams (the Mets?) is skewing the data. The only answer is a linear study. The Dodgers, after loading up down the stretch with the likes of Jimmy Rollins, were actually closer to $300 million.

And if the Phillies were in the AL, they woulda had a $325M payroll!

The post-McCourt Dodgers are an outlier, payroll-wise. And the thing to do, statistically, with outlier data is to exclude it. That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit. The DH increases costs, especially at the top end, among the teams that spend the most. What more can I say? If you don't wanna believe it, you don't have to.

[Edgy MD]

That's not science. That's arbitrary. It's real money real people are being paid.

You don't have to tell me about math. I'm the one presenting math.

I can't understand your Phillies comment at all.

Just trying to have a discussion here.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: That's not science. That's arbitrary. It's real money people are being paid. You don't have to tell me about math. I'm the one presenting math. I can't understand your Phillies comment at all. Just trying to have a discussion here.

I'm having a discussion here, too. I just don't see it the way you wanna see it. Your position reminds me of the old line where if you put Bill Gates and 20 average people in the same room, each person in that room would, on average, be worth over a billion dollars. Which technically, would be true.

[Edgy MD]

I'm having a discussion here, too.

Please try it without the un-necessary and undeserved sarcasm.

I just don't see it the way you wanna see it.

I don't want to see it any way. I'm looking at what the data tells me.

Your position reminds me of the old line where if you put Bill Gates and 20 average people in the same room, each person in that room would, on average, be worth over a billion dollars. Which technically, would be true.

I looked beyond the mean and spoke to the median, too, so what I've presented is meaningfully different.

[Centerfield]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The post-McCourt Dodgers are an outlier, payroll-wise. And the thing to do, statistically, with outlier data is to exclude it. That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit. The DH increases costs, especially at the top end, among the teams that spend the most. What more can I say? If you don't wanna believe it, you don't have to.

Understood. I see the correlation.

If you exclude the Dodgers (and their AL counterpart MFY's), the next 5 AL teams all have higher payrolls than the next 5 NL teams in 2015.

In 2014, it's 4 out of 5.

I'll leave it to you and Edgy to determine if that is significant, or if the Dodgers should properly be excluded.

[metsmarathon]

NL Team Projected 2015 Payroll AL Team Projected 2015 Payroll Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 New York Yankees $219,282,196 San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 Washington Nationals $164,920,505 Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 Texas Rangers $142,140,873 Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 New York Mets $101,409,244 Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 San Diego Padres $100,675,896 Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 Oakland A's $86,086,667 Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 Miami Marlins $68,479,000 Houston Astros $70,910,100 Sum: $1,858,231,275 Sum: $1,882,979,838 Mean: $123,882,085 Mean: $125,531,989 I think what batmags is saying is that the trend he's citing doesn't affect the outliers as much. If you look at the side by side comparisons, if you exclude the top 2 teams and the bottom 2 teams, 9 of 11 AL clubs outspend their counterpart. I kinda lost the point of what you guys were arguing, and I have no idea if it makes sense to artificially exclude the teams on both ends.

the charts would look a lot more comparable, cross-wise, if you scooch the mets up to a $185M-ish payroll where they fuckin' belong.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm having a discussion here, too. Please try it without the un-necessary and undeserved sarcasm. I just don't see it the way you wanna see it. I don't want to see it any way. I'm looking at what the data tells me. Your position reminds me of the old line where if you put Bill Gates and 20 average people in the same room, each person in that room would, on average, be worth over a billion dollars. Which technically, would be true. I looked beyond the mean and spoke to the median, too, so what I've presented is meaningfully different.

Speaking to the median wouldn't do anything here. The .median would remain the same even if the Dodgers spent a trillion dollars on payroll.

[Edgy MD]

That's the point of a median. It stays the same despite the presence of extreme outliers on the top and bottom.

You're complaining that the mean is thrown off because of how much the Dodgers spend. But now you dismiss the median, because it's not thrown off by how much the Dodgers spend.

[Ceetar]

screw team based, I want to see it on a player level.

[Edgy MD]

I then invite you to look it up, and please present what you find here.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I then invite you to look it up.

Not sure it's available anywhere.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: That's the point of a median. It stays the same despite the presence of extreme outliers on the top and bottom. You're complaining that the mean is thrown off because of how much the Dodgers spend. But now you dismiss the median, because it's not thrown off by how much the Dodgers spend.

That's exactly right. . What is it that you're trying to prove with .median data?

[batmagadanleadoff]

How would median data help to understand that there's a trillion dollar payroll skewing the data?

[Edgy MD]

The median isn't skewed by a trillion-dollar team. That's the point of a median. It's the standard reply to the Bill Gates example. An outlier like Bill Gates moves the mean, but not the median.

You're on both sides of this now. You rejected the mean, because it was skewed by the Dodgers and therefore somehow misrepresentative. Now you reject the median, because it isn't skewed by the Dodgers.

Anybody want in?

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: Anybody want in?

No way! I'll take some popcorn and a pint...

Edited January 19, 2016 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: The median isn't skewed by a trillion-dollar team. That's the point of a median. It's the standard replay to the Bill Gates example. An outlier like Bill Gates moves the mean, but not the median. You're on both sides of this now. You rejected the mean, because it was skewed by the Dodgers and therefore somehow misrepresentative. Now you reject the median, because it isn't skewed by the Dodgers. Anybody want in?

Of course the median remains unchanged even with a trillion dollar payroll. But all of the other data is skewed to give the false impression tbat DHs dont add costs. Just like its .misleading to say that the average person is worth billions when its Gates and 19 destitute people that comprise the sample.