Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 Donald Fehr the best thing to end NHL Lock-outs? Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  05:00:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ok before anyone jumps all over me the following is a recount of an interesting point of view I herd on TSN 690 this morning. I do not agree or disagree at this point with this point of view which is why I am shareing it with you to get your take on this hypothesis.


This Morning On TSN 690 i caught the end of a callers phone call to the morning show. The caller was bashing Don Fehr and refferenceing he was the cause on the last lock out in Major League Baseball and so on. Now I am not 100% sure which morning show host was answering but i Believe it was Eliott Freeman who said
"yes but when was the last MLB labour dispute that caused a lock out?"
His argument was that Donald Fehr did such a great job negociating and unifying all his members that the owners got the message. that the players would not be pushed around and that the players will hold out as long as it takes to get what they want out of a deal. He also referenced Fehr's predassesor in the MLBPA aswell who's name escapes me.
This is a an interesting point of view that if the players so unity and strength the owners may be less willing to lock out the players in the futur and thus ending this streak of a lockout after every CBA expires we seem to be starting.

jsut thought again without knowing much about the MLB's cba and how it was negociated and all the details it seems like a valid argument, maybe someone here may know more and can explain to me why it may not be as valid as I percieve it though.

the only thing I wil say is the argument that in baseball only the big market teams like the Yankees and Red Soxs can win does not fly because the Cardinals Giants Reds Rangers Rays Oakland, Oriols, Washington, Atlanta, are all smaller market teams, you'll notice in there are a few recent world series champs they have all been playoff teams on a regular basis over the past decade.


Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  05:23:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A few points:

- MLB has a revenue of nearly $7 billion compared to the $3.3 billion in the NHL. The average player salary is $3.3 mil in MLB compared to $2.4 mil in the NHL. Point being, the owners are already making money.

- of the teams you listed, only Tampa Bay is outside of top ten biggest money spending teams. Small market in baseball does not mean small salary spend. If I recall, the year the Rays won the WS they were a top spending team as well.

-Donald Fehr was the MLBPA executive director between 1986-2009. There was a lockout in 1990, a strike in 1994, and the agreement in 2002 was only signed hours before the deadline or the players were going to strike again. His track recent track record might look ok but 2 and nearly 3 labour disputes in 18 years is not that much different from the NHL.

- if you do any reading from the other side of the coin you will find many who believe Donald Fehr extended the strike longer than needed and due to that strike and the resulting CBA Montreal Expo's had to move.


- the MLB system sucks for competitive parity in the league. The team that spends the most will likely win the most. Other teams can manage their assets down to nothing if they want to. Just look at the recent trade between Miami and Toronto or the deal last year between Boston and LA. When the top team is spending $197 million on salaries and the bottom team is spending just $55 million, the ability to have a competitive team is virtually impossible by spending less. The bad stay bad and the great stay great.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  05:57:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

A few points:

- the MLB system sucks for competitive parity in the league. The team that spends the most will likely win the most. Other teams can manage their assets down to nothing if they want to. Just look at the recent trade between Miami and Toronto or the deal last year between Boston and LA. When the top team is spending $197 million on salaries and the bottom team is spending just $55 million, the ability to have a competitive team is virtually impossible by spending less. The bad stay bad and the great stay great.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!



I'm Glad you brought those two teams up, the last place Red Sox and Last place Marlins yes were two teams spending ridiculous amounts of money, and they were last place teams, the Yankees have won only one world series in the last 13 years and they spend more money on 2 players than most teams spend on their entire rosters, the Rays havn't won the world series if you are refering to the year they lost in the WS they had a Payroll of 64 million which was close to the bottom of the league.
and of the teams I mentioned the Okland A's began this season with the lowest payroll of anyteam and were a division champ and playoff team, Of the teams i Mentioned only 3 went into the 2012 season in the top 10 spending the Giants the Rangers and the Cardinals, All three though were outside the top 15 when they won the World series or in the Rangers case when they went to the world series 2 years in a row, It's normal they spend more when they have a good team and are makeing more, BTW noe of these teams are in the top 5 of spending. the Nationals the best team in baseball last season spent 81 million only 10 teams spent less,

so you are wrong about baseball being a terrible league for parity.

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  07:57:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To bring this all back to a hockey related standpoint, you are right MLB revenu is more than double the Revenu produced by the NHL, and the players avg salary is signifgantly closer, which means you are right NHL players are makeing too much money.

but also maybe the baseball model isn't such a bad thing in 2011 the MLB that declared the most profit was the San Diego Padres they also had the lowest payroll in baseball and finished an impressive 90-72 2 games back from there divisional title (the Giants won the division)

Also in 2011 only three MLB teams did not turn a profit and they were the big spenders the red sox's were down 1 million the Mets were down 6.1 and the Tigers down more than 29 million.

so Beans you have been stressing througout the NHL lock out how important the Owners profits are and how they take all the risk and need to make more, which i do not entirly disagree, so it seems to me the CBA that Fehr negociated with the MLB is working pretty damn good when the equivilant of the Islanders in the MLB (padres) can turn the highest profit, and the only three teams in the MLB not makeing money are doing it to themselves because they have 3 of the highest payrolls in the game... Seems like this is what you want Beans

(all the stats and figures i have used in both posts are from Forbes btw)

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?

Edited by - Pasty7 on 11/16/2012 07:59:53
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  08:46:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hey Pasty, just because you can think of an example or two that supports your argument does not mean you are correct.

Let's look at this from a pure win/loss vs money spent situation.

Below is a list of the teams in the MLB by most payroll spend. It also includes their win/loss record.


Do you think it's a fluke that of the 10 teams that paid the most in payroll, only 2 of them finished out of the top 15 in the standings?? How about looking at the bottom 10 teams in payroll?? Only Oakland and Tampa Bay finished in the top 10 in the standings.

I'm not saying money wins Championships every single time. That's absurd. There are many other factors (injuries, team chemistry, etc) that can impact getting to the WS. However, it can proven that in every MLB baseball season in past 30 years the teams that spend the most money will win more often than the teams that don't spend the money.

TEAM TOTAL PAYROLL Wins
New York Yankees - $197,962,289.00 - 95
Philadelphia Phillies - $174,538,938.00 - 81
Boston Red Sox - $173,186,617.00 - 69
Los Angeles Angels - $154,485,166.00 - 89
Detroit Tigers - $132,300,000.00 - 88
Texas Rangers - $120,510,974.00 - 93
Miami Marlins - $118,078,000.00 - 69
San Francisco Giants - $117,620,683.00 - 94
St. Louis Cardinals - $110,300,862.00 - 88
Milwaukee Brewers - $97,653,944.00 - 83
Chicago White Sox - $96,919,500.00 - 85
Los Angeles Dodgers - $95,143,575.00 - 86
Minnesota Twins - $94,085,000.00 - 66
New York Mets - $93,353,983.00 - 74
Chicago Cubs - $88,197,033.00 - 61
Atlanta Braves - $83,309,942.00 - 94
Cincinnati Reds - $82,203,616.00 - 97
Seattle Mariners - $81,978,100.00 - 75
Baltimore Orioles - $81,428,999.00 - 93
Washington Nationals - $81,336,143.00 - 98
Cleveland Indians - $78,430,300.00 - 68
Colorado Rockies - $78,069,571.00 - 64
Toronto Blue Jays - $75,489,200.00 - 73
Arizona Diamondbacks - $74,284,833.00 - 81
Tampa Bay Rays - $64,173,500.00 - 90
Pittsburgh Pirates - $63,431,999.00 - 79
Kansas City Royals - $60,916,225.00 - 72
Houston Astros - $60,651,000.00 - 55
Oakland Athletics - $55,372,500.00 - 94
San Diego Padres - $55,244,700.00 - 76


Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  08:57:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To the financial side. I have and only need one argument for the reason the baseball system works. The owners make money because they produce more revenue and spend less on players.

In 2011, MLB produced $7 billion in revenue
Their operating income, as a league, was $494 million
The pay roll for the entire MLB was $2.79 billion

That's 39.8% of revenues going to the players.

If you were to do nothing other than change that players share in the MLB to NHL's 57%, the player's share goes up to $3.99 billion and the $494.2 million profit turns into a $706 million loss.


Get the picture?? MLB makes more money for two reasons. Firstly, they have nearly double the revenues. Secondly, the pay nearly 1/2 the players cost as a % of revenue. As a result, they had over 7% return on revenues. The NHL was less than 3% return on revenue.


Thanks for bring up this point Pasty. It paints a pretty amazing picture about how messed up the system in the NHL is today.



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Guest4178
( )

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  09:09:03  Reply with Quote
Very good points raised by Pasty.

And Beans, in fairness, I think you are doing the same thing you "allege" Pasty is doing. And that is being bringing up an example or two points which support your position.

Even using the numbers you provided (which is just one season after all), one could say that there are twice as many teams with 90 or more wins in the bottom half of MLB than in the top half. (There are 6 teams with 90 or more wins in the bottom half, and only three in the top half.)

But I would be the first to admit that I'm using the statistics to support (skew) my own argument.

In looking at the statistics you provided for MLB, I would suggest that the amount a team spends on player personnel does not necessarily correlate to success on the field, and least in an overly significant fashion.

I don't have the time to check out the stats for the past number of years (because one year could be an anomaly after all), but I would admit that a small correlation could be found that the teams which spent the most money had some advantage, but I don't think it would be demonstrably significant. And what one person might think is demonstrably significant may not be viewed the same by another person.

Baseball is different than hockey though (obviously), where player personnel spending does not deliver the same significant results.

One last comment. Take a look at the Oakland A's record the last ten years. (And what their payroll costs were.). If you've read the book "Moneyball," you will know what I'm talking about. Seeing the movie delivers some of this insight, but the book is way more revealing.

Once again, this is off topic to some extent, but all very interesting stuff!
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  09:30:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Hey Pasty, just because you can think of an example or two that supports your argument does not mean you are correct.

Let's look at this from a pure win/loss vs money spent situation.

Below is a list of the teams in the MLB by most payroll spend. It also includes their win/loss record.


Do you think it's a fluke that of the 10 teams that paid the most in payroll, only 2 of them finished out of the top 15 in the standings?? How about looking at the bottom 10 teams in payroll?? Only Oakland and Tampa Bay finished in the top 10 in the standings.

I'm not saying money wins Championships every single time. That's absurd. There are many other factors (injuries, team chemistry, etc) that can impact getting to the WS. However, it can proven that in every MLB baseball season in past 30 years the teams that spend the most money will win more often than the teams that don't spend the money.

TEAM TOTAL PAYROLL Wins
New York Yankees - $197,962,289.00 - 95
Philadelphia Phillies - $174,538,938.00 - 81
Boston Red Sox - $173,186,617.00 - 69
Los Angeles Angels - $154,485,166.00 - 89
Detroit Tigers - $132,300,000.00 - 88
Texas Rangers - $120,510,974.00 - 93
Miami Marlins - $118,078,000.00 - 69
San Francisco Giants - $117,620,683.00 - 94
St. Louis Cardinals - $110,300,862.00 - 88
Milwaukee Brewers - $97,653,944.00 - 83
Chicago White Sox - $96,919,500.00 - 85
Los Angeles Dodgers - $95,143,575.00 - 86
Minnesota Twins - $94,085,000.00 - 66
New York Mets - $93,353,983.00 - 74
Chicago Cubs - $88,197,033.00 - 61
Atlanta Braves - $83,309,942.00 - 94
Cincinnati Reds - $82,203,616.00 - 97
Seattle Mariners - $81,978,100.00 - 75
Baltimore Orioles - $81,428,999.00 - 93
Washington Nationals - $81,336,143.00 - 98
Cleveland Indians - $78,430,300.00 - 68
Colorado Rockies - $78,069,571.00 - 64
Toronto Blue Jays - $75,489,200.00 - 73
Arizona Diamondbacks - $74,284,833.00 - 81
Tampa Bay Rays - $64,173,500.00 - 90
Pittsburgh Pirates - $63,431,999.00 - 79
Kansas City Royals - $60,916,225.00 - 72
Houston Astros - $60,651,000.00 - 55
Oakland Athletics - $55,372,500.00 - 94
San Diego Padres - $55,244,700.00 - 76


Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!



sure they won more games Beans but their they only 6 times in the last 12 years did they when a world series, and My point is this is what you want for the NHL for the poorer teams to make more money well the MLB does that in spades the only three teams that don't make a profit are 3 of the MLB's top spenders,

but if you want to talk wins lets talk then, The San Fran Giants have won more games than any team in MLB history and untill 2011 they have never exceeed 96 milion $ payroll, (they have won 2 of the last 3 world series btw) So their payroll is almost 90 million less than the teams that always win. Futhur more what has pushed their team salary over the 100 million mark is their rentention of homegrown talent like Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum, Cain being consistently the best pitcher in baseball over the last 5 years. They havn't gone out and bought a championship this team grew a championship, somthing that has nothing to do with salary. 80 to 90 million is pretty well middle of the pack in what MLB teams spend so the Giants havn't been spending over the avg team untill the 2012 season in which they gave Matt Cain the huge contract he earned, a player they drafted and developped into a star,

You don't like the Giants lets talk the Reds then

spent 82 million in 2012 the most they have ever spent in their history, they have been a consistent contender over the last few years, they also managed to keep their superstar and perhaps the best first basemen in the league Joey Votto and remain competative 97 win season and the second most wins this past season,, second only too the washington Nationals who also spen in the 80 million $ range, seems to me the best teams in baseball are spending pretty much the avg amount,

the yankees have been able to sustain a poorly managed competative team with money over the last 5 or so years but they are trulely the only example,

again beans you re wrong about baseball parity

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  10:22:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You can say the Giants have the most wins of any team in history, but they are also one of the oldest and most storied franchises. Do you math and tell me what they have done in the past 10 years?? Last 15 years?? Since the last CBA??

For every example you give for that, I can give the example of the Yankees or Red Sox. The team with the highest payroll in MLB for decades. Let's compare the NYY against the Giants since the last labour dispute (18 seasons)

-Playoff Appearances - NYY - 17 vs Giants - 6
-Division Championships - NYY - 13 - Giants 5
-Yrs with at least one playoff series win - NYY - 10 - Giants 3
-Trips to the World Series NYY - 7 - Giants 3
-World Series wins NYY - 5 - Giants 2
-Total Wins - NYY - 1731 - Giants 1527
-Ave win/season - NYY - 96 - Giants 84


Other examples of teams that have spent more money as of late and have found success are the Rangers and Tigers.


If you do the math it tells the same story. The teams that spend the most money in baseball have proven to have the most regular season success and have given themselves the best chance at winning the WS. Doesn't mean they will. There are upsets all the time. But over time, the teams who spend the most money will make the playoffs more often than the teams who don't spend as much money.

You can say I am wrong all you want, but you can also stand on a corner and scream the sky is green too. It doesn't make it true.






Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Edited by - Beans15 on 11/16/2012 10:33:03
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/16/2012 :  13:04:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
ok Bean i'll give you the Yankees, after that?
the Mets have been big spender in the 2000's if not some of the biggest buying up free agents and they have been pretty pitful excuse for a ball club,
the Marlins bought everything that moved last season last place finish,
the Red sox have how many world seris rings in the last 100 years,, yup 2, and the first one came before they were spending up to the amount they did the last 3 season, oh and they finished last this year,
the Tigers havn't been a powerhouse year in and year out despite spending a putt load of $$,
the fact is the teams that do well in the MLB consistently spend around the avg amount teams do for team salary, draft well and manage their teams and the owners make a profit,


again beans sounds like what you have been saying you want for the NHL all along

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4608 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  04:42:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Pasty, I don't understand why you are wasting your metaphorical breath on trying to prove an unproveable point.

In the end, no matter the outliers, SPENDING MORE MONEY OVER THE LONG HAUL WILL WIN YOU MORE GAMES.

OVER. THE. LONG. HAUL.

It is extremely simple logic. You are able to spend more money to get better players, and you win more.

Yes, there will be high spending teams that do it foolishly at times, every league in every sport has them. Yes, there will always be some poor teams that have a great run here or there through wily managing or the luck of drafting some great players (who later leave for big money, of course).

But those are outliers to the average.

Why can't you see that, Pasty? Can you also see that now with a cap system, and the bottom and top spending teams not so far apart in salary, that it's a MUCH more competetive league?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  07:53:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Full moon out tonight?? Slozo and Beans in full agreement on something??? Strange.

To Pasty, nothing could not be further from what I want to see in the NHL. The MLB system is (other than soccer) the purest example of a system where money buys wins. That is not what I want to see in the NHL at all.

Imagine for a second a baseball league where each team has to pay about the same amount on salaries. Meaning the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rangers can not spend $180+ million a season and the Padres, Pirates, and A's have to spend more than $50 million??? Over time, teams can not keep every one of their top talents and they get reasonably distributed through the league. All teams are about the same caliber and they all compete on a night in night out basis. Sure, they will still be a few teams near the top and a few teams near the bottom, but over all the teams are all competative.

That is what I want for the NHL. Wait a second, isn't that what we have in the NHL??? Damn that salary cap!! Damn it all to h*ll!!!

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  09:58:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Wow, have you crunched the numbers Bean's. Of the top 15 spenders 1.858 Billion went to payroll for 1221 wins. Of the bottom 15 spenders 1.158 Billion went to payroll for 1270 wins. Moneyball in the MLB is alive and well. Parity seems pretty good here. As we all understand playoff teams spend close to the deadline which is probably why championship teams are at a higher ratio of top end pay and championship %. Maybe Fehr really did institute parity without a cap. Maybe this player solidarity thing he is great at instituting will help with future negotiations, by sacrificing this season to show the owners what he and the players are capable of. If I was the owners I would see him as the devil across the table too.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Hey Pasty, just because you can think of an example or two that supports your argument does not mean you are correct.

Let's look at this from a pure win/loss vs money spent situation.

Below is a list of the teams in the MLB by most payroll spend. It also includes their win/loss record.


Do you think it's a fluke that of the 10 teams that paid the most in payroll, only 2 of them finished out of the top 15 in the standings?? How about looking at the bottom 10 teams in payroll?? Only Oakland and Tampa Bay finished in the top 10 in the standings.

I'm not saying money wins Championships every single time. That's absurd. There are many other factors (injuries, team chemistry, etc) that can impact getting to the WS. However, it can proven that in every MLB baseball season in past 30 years the teams that spend the most money will win more often than the teams that don't spend the money.

TEAM TOTAL PAYROLL Wins
New York Yankees - $197,962,289.00 - 95
Philadelphia Phillies - $174,538,938.00 - 81
Boston Red Sox - $173,186,617.00 - 69
Los Angeles Angels - $154,485,166.00 - 89
Detroit Tigers - $132,300,000.00 - 88
Texas Rangers - $120,510,974.00 - 93
Miami Marlins - $118,078,000.00 - 69
San Francisco Giants - $117,620,683.00 - 94
St. Louis Cardinals - $110,300,862.00 - 88
Milwaukee Brewers - $97,653,944.00 - 83
Chicago White Sox - $96,919,500.00 - 85
Los Angeles Dodgers - $95,143,575.00 - 86
Minnesota Twins - $94,085,000.00 - 66
New York Mets - $93,353,983.00 - 74
Chicago Cubs - $88,197,033.00 - 61
Atlanta Braves - $83,309,942.00 - 94
Cincinnati Reds - $82,203,616.00 - 97
Seattle Mariners - $81,978,100.00 - 75
Baltimore Orioles - $81,428,999.00 - 93
Washington Nationals - $81,336,143.00 - 98
Cleveland Indians - $78,430,300.00 - 68
Colorado Rockies - $78,069,571.00 - 64
Toronto Blue Jays - $75,489,200.00 - 73
Arizona Diamondbacks - $74,284,833.00 - 81
Tampa Bay Rays - $64,173,500.00 - 90
Pittsburgh Pirates - $63,431,999.00 - 79
Kansas City Royals - $60,916,225.00 - 72
Houston Astros - $60,651,000.00 - 55
Oakland Athletics - $55,372,500.00 - 94
San Diego Padres - $55,244,700.00 - 76


Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  10:20:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
talk talk talk beans you are wrong look at the above numbers posted by Joshua, look at the dozens of examples i have given you of teams spending nmiddle of the pack money and winning more games then the big spenders and also turning more of a profit, look at the one sole example you have been able to provide to support your argument compared to the facts that simply trump it. be a mann for once and admitt you are wrong,

seems to me baseball is a very competative league, seems to me that all the teams except 3 are makeing money and it seems to me the payers are makeing a very good wage aswell, is this not win win win? Seems to me Fehr negociated this CBA

and slozo i can`t see what is not there,

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  10:32:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This reminds me a lot of the "hit to the neck" forum or the 'an overtime loss is a wash in the standings' forums of the past. Why do people insist on arguing math?? I don't get it.

Joshua, if you want to use averages to describe parity, so be it. It's wrong, but you can be wrong if you want. .

Based purely on the numbers:

Top 10 money spending teams :
849 wins/771 losses = .524 win %

Middle 10 money spending teams
829 win/791 losses = .512 win %

Bottom 10 money spending teams
752 wins/868 losses = .464 win %

So, everyone together, spending more money means more wins in baseball.

Math. It's awesome............

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

sahis34
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
575 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  11:09:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

This reminds me a lot of the "hit to the neck" forum or the 'an overtime loss is a wash in the standings' forums of the past. Why do people insist on arguing math?? I don't get it.

Joshua, if you want to use averages to describe parity, so be it. It's wrong, but you can be wrong if you want. .

Based purely on the numbers:

Top 10 money spending teams :
849 wins/771 losses = .524 win %

Middle 10 money spending teams
829 win/791 losses = .512 win %

Bottom 10 money spending teams
752 wins/868 losses = .464 win %

So, everyone together, spending more money means more wins in baseball.

Math. It's awesome............

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!



Remember the realignment forums. People just don't like math.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4178
( )

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  11:13:59  Reply with Quote
Beans Ė you could make a compelling argument that the earth is flat, but it doesn't change the fact that the earth is round.

You're a good debator, but as far as "facts" go, I think the facts are that money doesn't necessarily buy success in baseball.

And your comment that "you can use averages to describe parity, so be it, you'd be wrong," and then go on to use averages to support your argument is very interesting to say the least.

As I stated earlier, my belief is that there is a slight advantage to baseball teams who spend more money, but it is isn't overly significant.

In looking at what has been provided by Joshua and Pasty (and even to an extent what you have provided), I think the facts show that in baseball, spending more on player personnel does not significantly improve your chances of winning.

But then it comes down to interpretation, and what significantly means to one person is not the same as it means to another person.

But that's baseball, and hockey is different. In hockey, I think you will find a more significant difference in how payroll costs determine success on the ice.

I think if you did an analysis of wins per dollar spent by NHL teams over the past 10 seasons, and compared this with baseball, I think this argument would be well supported.

Baseball is baseball, and hockey is different. In baseball, you can be competitive, and not have to spend like the Yankees to field a competitive team.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  13:00:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
1 - Math is what it is. I didn't make it up and it's not my opinion.

2 - I never said a high payroll aways wins so comments like, "money doesn't necessarily buy success in baseball," are pointless. I agree it doesn't necessarily buy success, but high spending teams have succeeded more more often than lower spending teams.


3 - My original point was, is, and still is that the teams that spend the most money are more likely to win more games. Period. I don't care if this season a few teams did this or a another season a few teams did that. There are COUNTLESS studies that have been done on baseball that say the same thing. Just look it up if you don't believe me.

Finally, I had the advantage of having some very wise mentors in my life. One of the greatest things I have learned is that you can not reason with the unreasonable. The math is there, proven, and undisputable. Choosing not to agree with that, to quote a great quote, is like arguing the earth is flat.




Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  13:28:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So I looked again at the numbers if you break down the numbers again into 5 team segments by winning percentages, the best ratio for winning percentages were 1-5 6-10 and 21-25. The lowest were 11-15, 16-20 and 26-30. The highest individual group was 21-25. So money gives you a higher chance, but its not always a lock. I still maintain the payroll % for win % in baseball shows a similar parity to the capped NHL.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

1 - Math is what it is. I didn't make it up and it's not my opinion.

2 - I never said a high payroll aways wins so comments like, "money doesn't necessarily buy success in baseball," are pointless. I agree it doesn't necessarily buy success, but high spending teams have succeeded more more often than lower spending teams.


3 - My original point was, is, and still is that the teams that spend the most money are more likely to win more games. Period. I don't care if this season a few teams did this or a another season a few teams did that. There are COUNTLESS studies that have been done on baseball that say the same thing. Just look it up if you don't believe me.

Finally, I had the advantage of having some very wise mentors in my life. One of the greatest things I have learned is that you can not reason with the unreasonable. The math is there, proven, and undisputable. Choosing not to agree with that, to quote a great quote, is like arguing the earth is flat.




Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  13:42:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
ok beans math is not your opinion but its easy to ignore when it doesn;t support your opinion,

top 10 spenders in the NHL win % 539%

middle 10 spenders .467%

bottom 10 .493%

so i gues in your cap world that has ever so much parity you still have to buy your wins right? since on avg if you re not spending top $ you can`t even play for a .500 record,

looks to me like baseball has just as much parity as hockey

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  14:06:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Joshua. Now that someone has recognized my point for exactly what it is, I can continue to the parity question. I don't care if you agree with me or not, but acknowledging facts is the minimal starting point for any debate.

Now, to your question on parity. First we need to define parity. I, for one, like this defintion (stolen from Wikipedia):

In sports, parity is when participating teams have roughly equivalent levels of talent. In such a league, the "best" team is not significantly better than the "worst" team. This leads to more competitive contests where the winner cannot be easily predicted in advance.

If that is the definition, let's look at the MLB vs that in the NHL in their last respective seasons.

MLB's top team had 98 wins compared to their worst team with 55 wins. Looking deeper into the top 5 and bottom 5 teams, gap is 96 wins vs 63 wins. There are 13 of the 30 teams within 10% of the average while 17 teams are greater or less than 10% away from the average.


The NHL, on the other hand has their top team with 51 wins and the bottom team with 29 wins. The average of the top 5 teams is 50 wins and the bottom 5 teams is 32 wins. Surprisingly, the NHL has the exact same number of teams within 10% of the average. The parity between the leagues is almost identical.

Let's look at the NHL based purely on regulation and overtime wins. The NHL's top team had 47 wins and the worst team had 25 wins. The top 5 teams averaged 44 wins and the bottom 5 averaged 26 wins. Not substantial but that pushes the NHL ahead of the MLB. But where the real difference comes into is how many teams are within 10% of the average. There are 18 NHL teams within 10% of the average when considering regulation and overtime wins.


So, it's a matter of interpretation. Looking straight at wins including the shootout, both league seem equal in the parity department. But looking at specifically at wins, the NHL has nearly 2/3 of their teams within 10 of the average where MLB is closer to 1/3 of the teams.

Without the shootout, I think you can say the NHL is the league with more teams in the 'middle' and a smaller gap between the top and bottom teams.



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Guest4178
( )

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  14:14:23  Reply with Quote
"Math is what it is." ???

Joshua and Pasty have used math, so what's your point? Is your "math" or selection of statistics better? Or more relevant?

I would offer that your statistics have some merit, but how can you dismiss others' statistics, especially so well presented?

"I'm right, so you're wrong" seems a little playground-like to me.

By the way, in my business and professional life, I've mentored a lot of people, so I believe you "can't reason with the unreasonable." Telling who's who can be the challenge sometimes.

I would also offer that it takes a big man to admit when they're wrong. Or at the very least, that they don't know everything. (Or dismiss other points of view as being unreasonable, or without merit.)

I don't see Joshua or Pasty as being unreasonable. In fact, they seem to be invoking quite a bit of reason in their arguments.

But now we're really getting off topic.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  15:08:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7

ok beans math is not your opinion but its easy to ignore when it doesn;t support your opinion,

top 10 spenders in the NHL win % 539%

middle 10 spenders .467%

bottom 10 .493%

so i gues in your cap world that has ever so much parity you still have to buy your wins right? since on avg if you re not spending top $ you can`t even play for a .500 record,

looks to me like baseball has just as much parity as hockey

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?





Um, no they don't have as much parity. You are trying to use the argument that a team that spends more money wins more to argue parity. They are not the same things. But you did show that in both the NHL and MLB, the teams with the high payrolls also win the most.


Simple put : The NHL has more teams closer to the 'average' than MLB.

Mathwise:

Number of team more than 10% better or worst than the average:
NHL = 12 vs MLB = 17

Number of teams within 10% of average:
NHL = 18 vs MLB = 13

This means that when the 17 top and bottom MLB teams are playing you can more likely predict a win or a loss compared to only 12 in the NHL. The NHL has more teams closer to the average and therefore more games where the winner is unlikely to predict.

The overtime points situation makes that situation in the NHL more cloudy and I still think the NHL has parity issues as the gap between top and bottom is too high.

Fortunately for me the argument today is which system produces more parity. The answer is hockey. See above.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/19/2012 :  15:21:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4178

"Math is what it is." ???

Joshua and Pasty have used math, so what's your point? Is your "math" or selection of statistics better? Or more relevant?

I would offer that your statistics have some merit, but how can you dismiss others' statistics, especially so well presented?

"I'm right, so you're wrong" seems a little playground-like to me.

By the way, in my business and professional life, I've mentored a lot of people, so I believe you "can't reason with the unreasonable." Telling who's who can be the challenge sometimes.

I would also offer that it takes a big man to admit when they're wrong. Or at the very least, that they don't know everything. (Or dismiss other points of view as being unreasonable, or without merit.)

I don't see Joshua or Pasty as being unreasonable. In fact, they seem to be invoking quite a bit of reason in their arguments.

But now we're really getting off topic.




Yes, very off topic. But just to reply, I have no issue being the 'bigger person' and saying when I am wrong. But I do that when I am a) wrong, or b) there is some kind of benefit to letting the other person think they are right.

Even if Joshua's original numbers were correct and Pasty's comments about certain teams winning without having spent money, neither were factual arguments against more $ means more wins most of the time.

I am self-aware enough to know when I am wrong and there are times in my life where pride doesn't allow me to admit it as freely as I could. This is a situation where it is, "I'm right, so you are wrong." This is not a matter of opinion. The facts are black and white. I admit I do not know everything and it's also easy to admit that there are far more things I don't know compared to things I do know.

There is one things I do know and that is MOST OF THE TIME, the team who spends the most money has the players with the most talent and will win more often than a team who doesn't spend as much and has less talent.



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/20/2012 :  09:01:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
alright lets recap,

this is how you began this argument,

"- the MLB system sucks for competitive parity in the league. The team that spends the most will likely win the most. Other teams can manage their assets down to nothing if they want to. Just look at the recent trade between Miami and Toronto or the deal last year between Boston and LA. When the top team is spending $197 million on salaries and the bottom team is spending just $55 million, the ability to have a competitive team is virtually impossible by spending less. The bad stay bad and the great stay great."


your next argument is that teams who spend more money will win more games,

JashuaCanada then provides you with numbers that prove the bottom 15 teams in spending won more games than the top 15 in spending, useing the numbers you provided to support your argument no less,

Next you come forward with the New York Yankee`s argument showing how dominant a team they have been over the last 20 years,

I then conceed the yankee`s are a great example of a team that supports your argument, but also mention their is no other team that consistenly spends that kind money and wins by bringing up specific examples 4 to be exact and their are more,

you then you wonder why people insist on argueing math and then provide these mathmatical stats, again trying to show the MLB only the rich win,

"Based purely on the numbers:

Top 10 money spending teams :
849 wins/771 losses = .524 win %

Middle 10 money spending teams
829 win/791 losses = .512 win %

Bottom 10 money spending teams
752 wins/868 losses = .464 win %

So, everyone together, spending more money means more wins in baseball.

Math. It's awesome............"


you also reference the NHL as a league with the ultinate parody, so i then calculate the same stats for the NHL since it has soo much more parity, I provide you with the same stats showing that infact ther is much less parity between the teams spending money

top 10 spenders in the NHL win % 539%

middle 10 spenders .467%

bottom 10 .493%

a 7.2 % difference between the top spending teams in the NHL and the middle spending teams only a 1.2 % difference between the the top spending teams in baseball and the middle spending teams,

you then show that yes their is indeed more parity between in the NHL by showing the difference in top teams and bottom teams in their respective leagues,

my answer to that is simple I never meant to imply the MLB had more parity than the NHL. My point is the salary a team spends is not the reason for the small difference in parity, you prove it yourself with you last set of stats it has nothing to do with what teams are rich or poor in the mlb that creates the difference.

A. the MLB plays 162 games double the NHL so a bad team with say a .468 win percentage with obviously lose a greater amount of games, they play more games hence wideing the gap between the first place teams and last,

B. their are no ties in baseball, it is all based on wins and loses, losers don`t go anywhere in the standings just because they brought a game to extra innings.

In my opinion beans nothing you have argued has not been shot down and proven untrue in this thread, and you continue to spit out stats and numbers and when someone brings up numbers to counter yours you simply dismiss them or ignore their existance and move on to another argument. You rarely address the things that prove you wrong and then try and spin your way to appear less wrong, you began this argument by useing words like "impossible" and "the bad stay bad and the great stay great" and now you are trying to say "oh i never said its a lock that if you spend money everytime you will win bla bla bla i was just saying it helps" well thank you captain obvious,

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 11/20/2012 :  12:42:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I must admit the numbers do show that in a capless league of the MLB the more you spend does increase your winning percentage%. Have you watch moneyball. They showed how one team used this strategy of moving money players with similar stats to create a smaller budget without affecting wins. The team in question went on an incredible winning streak and highlighted that GM business and management acumen. But take the winning streak out of the equasion and look at the results. He dumped high playing players because there was no floor and other teams picked them up because there was no cap. If one of the buyers became successful or increased there winning percentage as a result great. The teams with lower ability for payroll relied on what parts they could afford. Hence why in the slanted view of the MLB the lower to middle payroll pack teams had success. Take out the dumping of salaries prepost season in the MLB and the ability prepost season to add incredible amounts of salary which usually results in a higher winning % towards the end of the season and the NHL shootout schewing the math and I think the math for parity would be similar.

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 11/20/2012 12:46:21
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/20/2012 :  13:31:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To continue with the thought about Moneyball, here is an interesting quote:

Measuring the success of the luxury tax in bringing the benefits of parity has brought mixed results. A team with a $100 million plus payroll has won the World Series three times (the 2009 Yankees, and the 2004 and 2007 Red Sox); however, $100 million plus payrolls have only existed since 2000. In the past 30 years, 20 different teams have won World Series titles, compared to 14 different teams winning the NFL Super Bowl, 13 winning the NHL Stanley Cup and 9 winning the NBA championship. While a top tier payroll increases a team's chances of making the playoffs, it does not guarantee they will consistently win championships. Others disagree, citing the New York Yankees having consistently the highest salary in baseball and have won approximately a quarter of all world series.

Others pundits, such as Michael Lewis, the author of the bestseller Moneyball, have argued that using World Series championships as an example of parity may be misleading, and playoff appearances may be a better indicator of relative team strength. The playoff system used in baseball comprises a small number of games compared to success over a long season, and has been described as a "crapshoot" by Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane. Teams with consistently high payrolls including the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox have secured high numbers of playoff berths while teams with low payrolls such as the Pittsburgh Pirates and Tampa Bay Rays have only made the playoffs four times combined, all by the Rays, over the past decade.


Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/20/2012 :  16:14:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans you are a good debater when you are loseing or don`t know what to say you just ignore the person you are loseing too wonderfull

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 11/20/2012 :  16:47:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ok well lets continue the theme here. In the NHL, how many of these teams have made the playoffs consistantly over the past decade (Flames, Oilers, NYI, Florida, Tampa, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Columbus, Pheonix) Thats a pool of greater than 25% of the NHL. These teams consistantly are out of the playoff picture. In the case of the Oilers, Calgary, and Tampa these are not low paying teams. In the case of the other 5 they are the lowest payroll teams consistantly. This leaves the other 22 teams fighting for the 16 playoff spots with 2 to 3 wildcard positions filled by the bottom 8 teams in the league. So in the NHL, salary is more directly tied to playoff berths. The crapshoot and parity in the league is more likely in the NHL in the Playoffs were a unproven playoff contender can win the cup on a close to 50% basis. See Chicago, Tampa, LA, Carolina. Detroit and Pittsburg being the only consistant teams to advance past the 2nd round in the last 10 years.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

To continue with the thought about Moneyball, here is an interesting quote:

Measuring the success of the luxury tax in bringing the benefits of parity has brought mixed results. A team with a $100 million plus payroll has won the World Series three times (the 2009 Yankees, and the 2004 and 2007 Red Sox); however, $100 million plus payrolls have only existed since 2000. In the past 30 years, 20 different teams have won World Series titles, compared to 14 different teams winning the NFL Super Bowl, 13 winning the NHL Stanley Cup and 9 winning the NBA championship. While a top tier payroll increases a team's chances of making the playoffs, it does not guarantee they will consistently win championships. Others disagree, citing the New York Yankees having consistently the highest salary in baseball and have won approximately a quarter of all world series.

Others pundits, such as Michael Lewis, the author of the bestseller Moneyball, have argued that using World Series championships as an example of parity may be misleading, and playoff appearances may be a better indicator of relative team strength. The playoff system used in baseball comprises a small number of games compared to success over a long season, and has been described as a "crapshoot" by Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane. Teams with consistently high payrolls including the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox have secured high numbers of playoff berths while teams with low payrolls such as the Pittsburgh Pirates and Tampa Bay Rays have only made the playoffs four times combined, all by the Rays, over the past decade.


Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/20/2012 :  17:13:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7

Beans you are a good debater when you are loseing or don`t know what to say you just ignore the person you are loseing too wonderfull

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?




I thought I was pretty clear in a pervious post that I refuse to reason with the unreasonable. You have not added anything new to the argument so I don't need to respond. Any response required has already been stated and it's a waste of time to repeat any points if they will simply fall on deaf ears.

I have proven with factual evidence both the parity issue and the money spent means more wins.

Why do I have to do it again?

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Guest6546
( )

Posted - 11/21/2012 :  06:13:13  Reply with Quote
Where Beans? I don't think anyone can say with out bias that any of your arguments have not been proven invalid in this thread. I think you have been unreasonable and actually quite childish.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2012 :  10:15:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Understanding posters here are taking things personal, shouldn't we be trying to get back on topic?
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2012 :  10:43:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ok, so countless studies and reports can be found by a simple google search proving that the teams who have spend more money in baseball have won more games.

Just because a poster can point out a few teams here and there who have won a championship with a lower payroll disproves that statistically evidence???

Let me use a hockey example. If I was to say that Sam Gagner was one of the most prolific scorers in NHL history based on his 8 pt game, people would attack the crap out of me.

So why is it 'proof' that high salary doesn't mean more wins when the A's or Ray's win a WS. Teams like Boston and NY (who have won substantially more over a longer period of time) spent more more money, have won more World Series, and won more reg season games.

I have shown the numbers above that compare the parity between MLB and NHL that shows more teams near the average in NHL proving better partiy.

Because someone say, "I don't agree," does that disprove it???


Finally, my words have been bent so far out of contexts it is not even funny. Consider that Pasty's past few post accuse me of not responding to his continued arguments that I have already responded to at length. Yet, I asked him to provide me with a single point where I called the NHL "ulimate example of parity," (his statement on 11/20) to which I vehemitely deny.

He completely disregarded that complete. Yet I am the one ignoring things??

I still have not found a single post that disproves anything I have presented.

As I said in another post, Hello Pot! My name is Kettle. I heard you said something about me............



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
2283 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2012 :  19:13:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Really beans really? Are you that [moderator edit - profana language] or that [moderator edit - profane language]! Really I'm done with you , yes countless studies a Google lengths away prove you eternally right yet you have posted zero links. You have however posted your usual half assed six ways backwards stats to support your argument which I have each time shown completely wrong. Each time you moved on to new stats even easier to prove as ridiculous. As. You are and yet you still think you believe I am the one who has been unreasonable and there is no point in continuing to argue with me. It must suckered being god
You re a joke and I'm glad I don't need a keyboard to live in a world where people actually respect me

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?

Edited by - slozo on 11/22/2012 05:16:01
Go to Top of Page

Guest4377
( )

Posted - 11/21/2012 :  20:01:05  Reply with Quote
Beans is full of himself, which essentially means that Beans is full of beans!

Really, when you look at what's being discussed, there are valid points being raised on both sides. To arrogantly dismiss other people's point of view is disrespectful.

I did google and find an interesting article which presents an interesting point of view. If one has a bias (or remains stubborn with their own opinion), I'm sure you will find a snippet or two to support your own opinion (bias). But try to read the article objectively. Why is being open-minded and embracive of other opinions such a lost art?

Here's the article: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/money-wins-is-there-enough-parity-in-baseball/
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4608 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2012 :  05:14:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7

Really beans really? Are you that [ moderator edit - profane language ] or that [moderator edit - profane language]! Really I'm done with you , yes countless studies a Google lengths away prove you eternally right yet you have posted zero links. You have however posted your usual half assed six ways backwards stats to support your argument which I have each time shown completely wrong. Each time you moved on to new stats even easier to prove as ridiculous. As. You are and yet you still think you believe I am the one who has been unreasonable and there is no point in continuing to argue with me. It must suckered being god
You re a joke and I'm glad I don't need a keyboard to live in a world where people actually respect me

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?




This is your first and last warning for using profanity and personal attacks. Next time, your post gets deleted.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4608 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2012 :  05:23:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7

ok beans math is not your opinion but its easy to ignore when it doesn;t support your opinion,

top 10 spenders in the NHL win % 539%

middle 10 spenders .467%

bottom 10 .493%

so i gues in your cap world that has ever so much parity you still have to buy your wins right? since on avg if you re not spending top $ you can`t even play for a .500 record,

looks to me like baseball has just as much parity as hockey

Hello, 911? It's an emergency, my teddy bear's been kidnapped!
[pause] Hello? Hello?




Can I ask you a question, Pasty?

What in the heck does this have to do with Donald Fehr building a "strong union" that will prevent further lockouts/strikes after this one?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8191 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2012 :  08:10:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4377

Beans is full of himself, which essentially means that Beans is full of beans!

Really, when you look at what's being discussed, there are valid points being raised on both sides. To arrogantly dismiss other people's point of view is disrespectful.

I did google and find an interesting article which presents an interesting point of view. If one has a bias (or remains stubborn with their own opinion), I'm sure you will find a snippet or two to support your own opinion (bias). But try to read the article objectively. Why is being open-minded and embracive of other opinions such a lost art?

Here's the article: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/money-wins-is-there-enough-parity-in-baseball/



Firstly, I laughed heartily outloud when I read the first line. Thank you. If you can't laugh at yourself once in a while, who can you laugh at???

Secondly, this article was excellent and does look at both sides of the coin.

I look back on my post and do recognize my delivery was confrontational in a lot of ways. I don't think I dismissed anyone's arguments completely but I did (on several occasions) say the points of others did not disprove my point.

In many ways I recognize that I was saying, "The sky is blue," to have a response from someone else saying, "Yeah, but the grass is green." Circle and repeat. I don't think anyone was 'wrong' in their argument but I don't think anyone was arguing to defend the same point.

Hopefully this message can be understood by everyone and put this to bed:

I appreciate that there are a number of examples of team who have won in baseball(and all sports) without maximizing their spending to whatever length was legal. The Rays, the A's, et al. I appreciate that point completed. My point is this(from the story posted by the guest):

Stark focused a lot on the playoff successes of small market and low budget teams like the Tampa Bay Rays and Arizona Diamondbacks, but having success in the playoffs is like having success invading France ó the hardest part is getting through the Ardennes, but anyone can do it once they arrive. Teams have much more control over their success in the regular season, so thatís what we need to examine here.

I never said that money wins every single time. But money has been proven to produce more reg season wins and give a team a shot at the WS. Using the example above, teams who spend the most money will arrive at Ardennes most years, but it doesn't mean they will take over France.

As far as the parity question goes comparing the NHL to MLB, I stand very firmly on my position as I have never once stated the NHL as an example of good parity, regardless of what some may want you do believe. The words have never been in any of my posts. I did say the NHL has better parity than MLB, but not good by any stretch of the words. I will use another quote by the author of this story:

HOWEVER, if my foot has less gangrene than your foot, does that mean I donít need a doctor? No. I probably still need a doctor, and I probably need to stop playing barefoot tag on Rusty Nails Pier.

Both are bad, but the one that has less gangrene is the NHL.


Finally, to hopefully answer some questions to the relevance of this argument, the original point was from a conversation during a radio show that suggested Donald Fehr and his work with the MLB and their relatively long period of time between labour disputes is a good thing. My point was the system in MLB has almost nothing to do with their CBA. It has to do with 2 things:

1 - MLB produces more than double the revenue of the NHL
2 - The owners are spending less than 40% of that revenue on players.



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4608 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2012 :  05:18:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The gangrene story . . . barefoot tag on Rusty Nails Pier . . . now THAT is comedy gold! Had me laughing out loud, good stuff.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3598 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2012 :  08:39:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Rusty Nails Pier...if I'm not mistaken, it overlooks Broken Glass Lake. Beautiful sunsets in the summer...
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 11/24/2012 :  08:49:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All right. Nobody is making personal attack and handshakes made here is a article that relates to this topic

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/11/24/nhl-lockout-donald-fehr-has-avoided-the-mistakes-of-former-nhlpa-head-bob-goodenow/

In the Article it relates the differences between former head Bob Goodenow and Fehr and why Fehr's position is stronger with his membership. I don't know if the title of this topic fits Fehr's ability to end lockouts as he may be the reason it has extended. I don't know if a weaker head would have caved and hockey would be played and the players would have lost more. As far as ending future lockouts Fehr might be the man for the job. If at the end of this lockout the players feel no matter what they lose that it was worth the effort and Fehr is the man for the job, I dont see future negotiations with Fehr at the head being taken so lightly by the League.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page