OnlyBucs

Interesting article, quotes Tony Watson:



http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/23/do ... ation-age/

It is an interesting article and it also highlights a big problem the Pirates have - when the Dodgers and Yankees and teams like that were going on instinct and the eye test alone, they ended up signing people at the end of their careers for big salaries. While they had more to spend on payroll, they wasted it in the wrong areas. No longer. And it's really hard for a small budget team to compete with a big budget team when the latter is making decisions that are at least, and likely more informed than the small budget people.

Someone pointed out a while ago on how the Pirates were one of the first teams to do some unusual, out of the box things (shifts for example). Now, teams are catching up to them. Teams are now passing them. Teams have more resources to analyze more.



It's like their (and other smaller markets) success opened up some eyes and now all the team are on board. This is another reason why I don't think highest payroll always wins. The Dodgers and Astros rely on a lot of younger players who haven't really had their payday yet.

363D35393C3D266365122B333A3D3D7C313D520 wrote: Someone pointed out a while ago on how the Pirates were one of the first teams to do some unusual, out of the box things (shifts for example).  Now, teams are catching up to them.  Teams are now passing them.  Teams have more resources to analyze more. 



It's like their (and other smaller markets) success opened up some eyes and now all the team are on board.  This is another reason why I don't think highest payroll always wins.  The Dodgers and Astros rely on a lot of younger players who haven't really had their payday yet.
The Dodgers have the highest payroll in MLB. The Astros are at about the MLB average payroll. The top 3 payrolls all made the playoffs. Five of the top 10 payrolls made the post season. The teams with the 10 lowest payrolls failed to make the post season.



So while the highest payroll doesn't always win (but it sure got the Dodgers to the WS), maintaining the lowest payrolls sure doesn't help.

684548595E4F58181B2A0 wrote: Someone pointed out a while ago on how the Pirates were one of the first teams to do some unusual, out of the box things (shifts for example).  Now, teams are catching up to them.  Teams are now passing them.  Teams have more resources to analyze more. 



It's like their (and other smaller markets) success opened up some eyes and now all the team are on board.  This is another reason why I don't think highest payroll always wins.  The Dodgers and Astros rely on a lot of younger players who haven't really had their payday yet.
The Dodgers have the highest payroll in MLB. The Astros are at about the MLB average payroll. The top 3 payrolls all made the playoffs. Five of the top 10 payrolls made the post season. The teams with the 10 lowest payrolls failed to make the post season.



So while the highest payroll doesn't always win (but it sure got the Dodgers to the WS), maintaining the lowest payrolls sure doesn't help.




Ya, I think the talk about the Pirates not spending money (while valid) is masking the larger, much more pravaling issue that the economics are way off kilter in MLB compared to the other major sports. One or two pauper teams break the barrier every year and everyone declares the matter dead.

7A575A4B4C5D4A0A09380 wrote: Someone pointed out a while ago on how the Pirates were one of the first teams to do some unusual, out of the box things (shifts for example).  Now, teams are catching up to them.  Teams are now passing them.  Teams have more resources to analyze more. 



It's like their (and other smaller markets) success opened up some eyes and now all the team are on board.  This is another reason why I don't think highest payroll always wins.  The Dodgers and Astros rely on a lot of younger players who haven't really had their payday yet.
The Dodgers have the highest payroll in MLB. The Astros are at about the MLB average payroll. The top 3 payrolls all made the playoffs. Five of the top 10 payrolls made the post season. The teams with the 10 lowest payrolls failed to make the post season.



So while the highest payroll doesn't always win (but it sure got the Dodgers to the WS), maintaining the lowest payrolls sure doesn't help.




The Dodgers are always one of the highest paid. They reached the World Series last twenty-nine years ago.



The Astros had the 10th highest payroll in the AL and 15th overall.



It is not just highest payroll wins. That's been proven false over and over. A lot of high payroll teams are because they have aging veterans who keep getting paid more and more. It's the teams with the young cores who are winning for the most part. The highest paid Astros are Carlos Beltran and Brian McCann. Others have contributed much, much more for their success.



Do you think it is just a coincidence that the Dodgers increased their analytical team and finally made the World Series? Or do you think it was because of Adrian Gonzales, Andre Either, and Curtis Granderson helping Clayton Kershaw?

59525A565352490C0A7D445C555252135E523D0 wrote: Someone pointed out a while ago on how the Pirates were one of the first teams to do some unusual, out of the box things (shifts for example).  Now, teams are catching up to them.  Teams are now passing them.  Teams have more resources to analyze more. 



It's like their (and other smaller markets) success opened up some eyes and now all the team are on board.  This is another reason why I don't think highest payroll always wins.  The Dodgers and Astros rely on a lot of younger players who haven't really had their payday yet.
The Dodgers have the highest payroll in MLB. The Astros are at about the MLB average payroll. The top 3 payrolls all made the playoffs. Five of the top 10 payrolls made the post season. The teams with the 10 lowest payrolls failed to make the post season.



So while the highest payroll doesn't always win (but it sure got the Dodgers to the WS), maintaining the lowest payrolls sure doesn't help.




The Dodgers are always one of the highest paid.  They reached the World Series last twenty-nine years ago. 



The Astros had the 10th highest payroll in the AL and 15th overall. 



It is not just highest payroll wins.  That's been proven false over and over.  A lot of high payroll teams are because they have aging veterans who keep getting paid more and more.  It's the teams with the young cores who are winning for the most part.  The highest paid Astros are Carlos Beltran and Brian McCann.  Others have contributed much, much more for their success.



Do you think it is just a coincidence that the Dodgers increased their analytical team and finally made the World Series?  Or do you think it was because of Adrian Gonzales, Andre Either, and Curtis Granderson helping Clayton Kershaw?






You can have a lot of money and be dumb and still blow it.  I don't think that's the question here. 



Do you think the Pirates (or other SM team if someone doesn't like the Pirates management) stand the same chance yearh-to-year as the dodgers and their multi-billion dollar TV deal? Which team do you think will make the playoffs more often?

Teams have to build that young core. To answer your question: Yes, in a window they can compete.



I am not saying it is easy. When something goes bad, small markets can't replace those guys. The big markets can just go out and get a different player or a replacement.



I don't see why teams can't do what the Royals just did. What Cleveland is doing now. Even the Astros lost 100 games three seasons in a row. Young, cheap players in a good core win games. If that wasn't the case, the Yankees and Dodgers would be in the WS every year. The Yankees haven't been to the WS since 2009.



For teams to do this and have that window of opportunity, they have to do the analytical stuff too. The Pirates were big believers when not many were doing it. They won because of that and a young core. Now, that every team is doing it and doing it better, they need to catch up or do something different.

39323A363332296C6A1D243C353232733E325D0 wrote: Teams have to build that young core.  To answer your question: Yes, in a window they can compete.



I am not saying it is easy.  When something goes bad, small markets can't replace those guys.  The big markets can just go out and get a different player or a replacement. 



I don't see why teams can't do what the Royals just did.  What Cleveland is doing now.  Even the Astros lost 100 games three seasons in a row.  Young, cheap players in a good core win games.  If that wasn't the case, the Yankees and Dodgers would be in the WS every year.  The Yankees haven't been to the WS since 2009.



For teams to do this and have that window of opportunity, they have to do the analytical stuff too.  The Pirates were big believers when not many were doing it.  They won because of that and a young core.  Now, that every team is doing it and doing it better, they need to catch up or do something different. 
Dog, you seem to be bending over backwards to excuse the cheapness of the Pirates. No one says the highest payroll wins the WS. But your comment that, "I don't think highest payroll always wins. The Dodgers and Astros rely on a lot of younger players who haven't really had their payday yet" was rather odd considering you were referencing the highest payroll in MLB to make that point. You noted that the Dodgers haven't won the WS in 29 years. But since that WS win in 1988 they have made the playoffs 11 times, advancing to the NLCS 5 times. So it's not like they haven't had their chances. Since 1988 the Pirates made the playoffs 3 times and never advanced to the NLCS. 



As noted, most teams are now using advanced metrics for player evaluation. A team willing to spend more can analyze a FA or a potential trade candidate, decide they want him, and trade/pay for him. A team like the Pirates can use the same analysis and bypass that player because they won't pay him. A team willing to spend more can analyze multiple players and obtain them because they are willing to pay for them. A team like the Pirates can use the same analysis and decide they can only take one of those players if even that. If the analyzed player fails to perform up to expectations, a team willing to spend more can obtain another player to replace him. A team like the Pirates has to live with their Daniel Hudsons.



So, while it's fair to say the highest payroll doesn't always win, it's also fair to say that teams that spend more have a huge advantage over teams that don't.

2F242C2025243F7A7C0B322A2324246528244B0 wrote: Teams have to build that young core.  To answer your question: Yes, in a window they can compete.



I am not saying it is easy.  When something goes bad, small markets can't replace those guys.  The big markets can just go out and get a different player or a replacement. 



I don't see why teams can't do what the Royals just did.  What Cleveland is doing now.  Even the Astros lost 100 games three seasons in a row.  Young, cheap players in a good core win games.  If that wasn't the case, the Yankees and Dodgers would be in the WS every year.  The Yankees haven't been to the WS since 2009.



For teams to do this and have that window of opportunity, they have to do the analytical stuff too.  The Pirates were big believers when not many were doing it.  They won because of that and a young core.  Now, that every team is doing it and doing it better, they need to catch up or do something different. 




didn't you just say a month or so ago that the Bucs have done better than the Royals and Indians? (at least during the time of NH). This was when others were posting, why couldn't the Pirates be more like the Indians and Royals.