Offseason Status Update: Arbitration, 40-Man Pruning, Vázquez Rumors

1 hour ago, saviking said:

Fair points. Guess we need to let another year go by to have this conversation again. I would love nothing more than you be right, but other than a great last month of the year in 2022 and a very good playoff series I just see a shell of what he used to be. Sure hope he doesn't get off to a horrible start the first half of next year like he has in 2022 and 2023

Also fair points. I do recall that Correa had something of a breakthrough (literally) with his plantar fasciitis late last season, so perhaps that is a portent of things to come.

On 11/26/2023 at 8:41 AM, DJL44 said:

All the evidence says higher payroll directly correlates to on-field success

viewcontent.cgi (valpo.edu)

Pay to Play: An Analysis of Payroll and Performance in the MLB and NBA – The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective

The strong connection between MLB payrolls and wins (axios.com)

In 2019, Team Payroll and Wins Are Closely Linked | FanGraphs Baseball

viewcontent.cgi (iwu.edu)

Chapter 18 Assignment: Moneyball | Data Analytics Coding Fundamentals (bookdown.org)

The Influence of Money in MLB, 1985-2014 - Bluebird Banter

If the Twins lose all of their TV revenue this offseason they're completely incompetent at running the team and should sell it to someone else who knows how to make money.

It's not nearly as simple (things rarely are) as this 'higher payroll directly correlates to on-field success' claim. First, you like to 'thumbs down' the FACT that the top three payrolls in MLB all missed the play-offs last year, and the FACT that the team with the 21st/30 payroll was in the World Series. I've never understood how a person disagrees with clear facts.

These clear facts from 2022 suggest that the 'direct correlation' is only by using a long-run regression analysis - and, in the immortal words of JM Keynes, 'in the long run we're all dead.' The point is that higher payroll teams don't always make the play-offs, and emerging, low-payroll teams can and do.

If you delve into the paper from the Harvard Sports Collective, there was a fascinating discussion about payroll concentration (where they use the Herfindahl Hirschman index, or HHI) to measure spending a lot on a handful of players. Interestingly, they find no statistically significant correlation between those high impact player purchases and positive outcomes (and think back to some of those, and tell me how the Mets did with their starting pitching purchases, or the Angels when they signed Albert Pujols, or lots of other big splash signings).

The conclusion they reach is that "In practice, there is essentially 0 correlation between relative salary and HHI (correlation = positive 0.008).  This means that holding budget constraints constant, teams with lower HHIs tend to have higher winning percentages.  Holding relative salary constant, a team may be able to increase their winning percentage by 0.018 points (i.e., the difference between a 0.500 and 0.518 team) by decreasing their HHI by one standard deviation.  Thus, teams on a budget might want to sit out of the bidding war for top free agents that has occurred in the 2022 offseason, and instead focus on signing some good lesser known names."

5 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Anecdotes are not good data, especially when they're cherry picked. The teams with the #4, #7, #8, #9 and #10 payroll were all in the playoffs. #9 won the World Series.

The direct correlation between payroll and wins does not explain ALL of the factors that go into creating a winning team (or it would be a 100% correlation) but it is clearly there in study after study after study after study after study.

So, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 were not in the play-offs - half of the 'top ten' and four of the top five - and you're telling me I live in anecdotal evidence? 

45 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

5 was the Dodgers, they were in the playoffs. You do realize that 1, 2, 3 and 6 were competing against 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, right? There aren't playoff spots for everyone. They don't have 15 playoff berths but 6 of the top 10 spenders got into the playoffs. Teams 2 and 3 had winning records (and team 12) and were in the pennant race until the end. Money couldn't overcome incompetence and injuries for teams 1 and 6.

I was using your numbers - you didn't list #5 as making the play-offs. 

There are 12 teams in the play-offs. That means 6 teams that were not in the top 10 were in, including number 21. Did you actually read the Harvard study? It suggests this 'spend big on a few free agents' mantra, which you seem to encourage, isn't statistically significant in terms of actual results. Better to be smart than just spend big. Ask the Padres and Mets fans about that.

20 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That's not what the Harvard study says at all. It says that payroll directly correlates to regular season success but that postseason success is a crapshoot.

6 of the top 10 teams were in and 8 of 10 were in the pennant race until the end. 6 of the next 20 teams also made the playoffs and 8 of them were in the race. Spending money DOUBLES your chances of making the playoffs in 2023. It's better to be smart AND spend money. It's best to be smart and healthy and spend money.

If the Twins are not going to spend money then they need to be healthy and smart. In 2022 they weren't healthy and no amount of smart was going to overcome that. I don't think this management group is more than average in smarts so it's good they play in the one division in baseball where nobody else wants to spend money. They can rack up division titles and take their chances in the playoff crapshoot.

I quoted directly from the Harvard study: "In practice, there is essentially 0 correlation between relative salary and HHI (correlation = positive 0.008).  This means that holding budget constraints constant, teams with lower HHIs tend to have higher winning percentages.  Holding relative salary constant, a team may be able to increase their winning percentage by 0.018 points (i.e., the difference between a 0.500 and 0.518 team) by decreasing their HHI by one standard deviation.  Thus, teams on a budget might want to sit out of the bidding war for top free agents that has occurred in the 2022 offseason, and instead focus on signing some good lesser known names."

So now the standard is 'in contention' not makes the play-offs? Set the parameters for that - my guess is 20-ish teams would meet that standard. You know who weren't in contention? Numbers 1, 2, and 3.

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

You should read the whole study, and all the other studies. This is a minor point in the Harvard study relating to concentrating all of your payroll in a couple of players (the HHI). I'll agree that putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea and a stars and scrubs approach doesn't usually work. The really high payroll teams are going to have a lower HHI because they spread a LOT of money among many players.

Here's the important conclusion from the same study:

You are using a debate trick by pointing out an exception and using that to try to throw out the overwhelming amount of data that doesn't support your argument. It isn't convincing at all. There clearly is a direct correlation between spending money and team success. It is not the only factor for team success but it is definitely one of them. If the Twins want to compete without spending money they need to be better than everyone else at everything else.

I'm not sure the Twins really want to compete. They're fine with winning games as long as it doesn't cost them much but they're much more interested in having the best balance sheet than the best winning percentage.

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

You should read the whole study, and all the other studies. This is a minor point in the Harvard study relating to concentrating all of your payroll in a couple of players (the HHI). I'll agree that putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea and a stars and scrubs approach doesn't usually work. The really high payroll teams are going to have a lower HHI because they spread a LOT of money among many players.

Here's the important conclusion from the same study:

You are using a debate trick by pointing out an exception and using that to try to throw out the overwhelming amount of data that doesn't support your argument. It isn't convincing at all. There clearly is a direct correlation between spending money and team success. It is not the only factor for team success but it is definitely one of them. If the Twins want to compete without spending money they need to be better than everyone else at everything else.

I'm not sure the Twins really want to compete. They're fine with winning games as long as it doesn't cost them much but they're much more interested in having the best balance sheet than the best winning percentage.

I read the whole study - the line of reasoning you seem to favor is the Twins should go out and make a splash with big free agent signings, and the part I quoted to you says that is not necessarily the case. This 'the Twins don't really want to compete' is backed by what evidence exactly? Given the division titles they have won, they want to compete, but they have a budget to do so. As a former budget director of a $16 billion operation, I can tell you that is the way the real world works. Funny, I looked at the metrics of organizations that spent more all the time and didn't hit the industry benchmarks for performance and outcomes - but they spent more.

Regression analysis is not the Holy Grail - it is, after all, based on the past with the expectation that similar results will occur - only they don't always (hence the Mets, Padres, and Yankees from last year). The Twins have a nice core of young players that will not cost much for several years. They can also unload some veterans who will probably not out-perform that young core. Cutting payroll this year, in this set of circumstances, is not a 'they don't want to compete' conclusion.

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Another debate trick - the strawman argument.

It's the best way to tell if something directly correlates with something else.

Regression analysis describes linear relationships and is susceptible to outliers - like last year's Padres, Mets, and Yankees, and, on the other end of the spectrum, last year's Diamondbacks. Wailing and gnashing of teeth over a budget cut and 'proving' it means the Twins can't win is sophistic, even when backed with regression 'evidence.' 

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

More strawman

Whatever. Look, I did revenue projections for a couple decades using ARIMA models. I understand the utility (and lack thereof) of regression models. They are not the be-all and end-all to these discussions. If they were, well, you know, the World Series would always have a top (pick a number) team payroll-wise, and that number would never include 21 (i.e., the Diamondbacks). There will ALWAYS be outliers, especially in baseball, the way it limits salaries for players in their early years who may very well be the best players in the game.

8 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I don't think the Diamondbacks are as much of an outlier as you think they are. They only won 84 games in the regular season and they spent $120M.

Well, duh - the point of the post-season is it is a crapshoot, I recall you saying that. Winning 84 games isn't that difficult - your whole point of view is the Twins are doomed because they are cutting their budget. They can win 84 games, and they have enough pitching to win a series against most any team if it holds up.