Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
Taking a sample of which teams get to the finals is simply a poor means of analysis. I'd be more intersted to see a analsyis of overall winning percentage of teams in relation to size of payroll. If you can prove through that means that there is no relationship I listen to that argument, otherwise your dealing with the wrong data. The success of a team over 82 games (or in MLB 162 games) is a much more meaningful basis to look at this then "who gets to the final".
|
i happen to think comparing payroll to winning percentage is a poor means of analysis as well. considering that if you have a good team (ie win alot) you will have good players and therefore be required to pay them as such.
i disagree that whether you make it to the finals is a poor look into the results of a team. who cares if you win 50 games or 30 games, all that matters in pro sports is if you win your last (playoff) game.
by that measure, the money spent by PHI, TOR and NYR (as three of the biggest spenders) gave them no more advantage than teams that build differently (ie BUF, WSH, ANA, TBY and CRL).
i say, let NYR blow their money, it gives them ZERO advantage and history has proven me correct. i see nothing wrong with them having an 80m payroll and CRL having a 25m payroll, as it created no advantage for NYR.
anyhow, i know the battle is lost, i just wanted to show further real life proof that money doesnt buy championships, yet most people still want to live in hypothetical world, despite the evidence proving me correct over and over again.