|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 24, 2020 10:35:56 GMT -5
Great analysis as always. Thanks for the numbers. Like you addressed in the post, I do think the numbers are a bit misleading. Better teams in general will both make the playoffs and get budget increases. I think these stats almost make more sense inverted. If you make the playoffs you have a higher chance of having a bigger budget. Or, possibly better said, if you have built a playoff team you probably put yourself in a position to increase your budget along the way.
One thing that has become clear to me in these discussions and considerations is I believe manipulating budgets is probably not a good idea and I will be pretty resistant to those options. Rather, if we make any changes, I think we should focus on revenue which should in turn drive budget changes.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Feb 24, 2020 12:07:05 GMT -5
So, I made a spreadsheet, just using my tenure as GM of the Rockies. My goal was basically to see if I could see any root causes of what made my budget go up. I had the idea of comparing my Current Budget to the previous year's revenue and this is the graph I ended up with: They're not perfectly aligned, but damn are they close. I kept staring at years I made the playoffs and wondering why they only occasionally seemed to connect with my budget increases. Then I realized, that maybe playoffs do help, but only insofar as they make additional revenue. Now, I have no idea if this changes by Owner type. Would a less generous owner be less likely to reward an increased revenue? I'm not sure. For the statistically minded here are some pearson correlations (-1 being completely negative correlation, 0 being uncorrelated, and 1 being completely postive correlation) between my budget and various other measurements: My budget and the previous year's revenue: 0.95997 My budget and the previous year's WAR: 0.84833 My budget and the fan interest at the start of the year: 0.75358 My budget and the previous year's attendance: 0.74278 My budget and the previous year's wins: 0.54834 My budget and the previous year's playoff revenue: 0.53417 My budget and the previous year's division results (1st through 4th): 0.44354 My budget and whether I was in the playoffs the previous year: 0.43116 My budget and the previous year's balance (profit or loss): 0.36643 EDIT: Found an error in my sheet which I just fixed, so being in the playoffs the previous year is a moderate rather than a small positive correlation.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 24, 2020 12:18:04 GMT -5
I would echo this point. I’ve seen teams spend up to $13M on one player and not many small market teams can do that. Evening out the playing field raises the opportunity the small market teams get talent via this avenue as well. To be clear I am not supporting this because I am a small market team. I just think this is a good way to go about sharing talent in the league among teams to even it out a bit. Mets...small market...lmao I think this overall topic should be discussed further. The con is that you have a crapshoot on players getting multiple $5 mil offers, so it's just random who they sign with. Mets IRL may no loinger be Mets in PBL of course, because things evolve in OOTP (slowly, but they do). Also Market Siuze does not always dirrectly corelate to ones budget of course. Looks like PBL Mets are in fact a Huge market. statsplus.net/paramount/finance/currentAlso, and correct me if I am wrong, but having just purchased another (cheap) IAFA, pretty sure PBL is a $3M soft cap, which means (provided you can live with the subsequent year penalty - and have the money of course) you can toss money around for an IAFA. Other leagues with, your example a $5M hard cap, it is indeed a lottery among $5M offers. I think it's safe to say that the big boys in PBL would always have a better shot at IAFA if they really want one because of their resources. And hard to argue that. I think entertaining any change would not necessarily level the field, but could be something else to entertain?
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Feb 24, 2020 15:01:42 GMT -5
So a couple things in addition to the correlations I have above. The first is that, these were only measured from my team. I think the next step (for someone with more patience than I. Looking at you John) would be trying to run these correlations for the entire league over the past 20 years and see if they hold up. My instinct is the previous year's revenue correlation isn't a fluke, but it'd be interesting to find out.
With that in mind, I feel reasonably confident suggesting that the extent to which a change increases revenue (either directly or indirectly) should be how we determine whether it is valuable for leveling the budgetary playing field. Adding a luxury tax does this directly. Increasing the quality of players in the draft could increase fan interest and WAR, WINS and playoff appearances at lower player costs than free agency, thus increasing revenue indirectly (assuming a GM who drafts well and holds on to potential stars, which, admittedly is a big assumption).
The thing I want to do next is look at the ranges between different teams revenue. My instinct is that market size is a huge factor in determining whether a team has the capacity to make revenue. And more importantly, it determines how wide a range of results you can theoretically achieve revenue-wise. That is, bigger market teams have the capacity for a tremendous upper limit of revenue, which small market teams have a ceiling far below that.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 24, 2020 17:18:11 GMT -5
Attached are graphs showing revenue and budget changes over the last 10 seasons for the two franchises that have grown their budgets the most and the two that have had it dropped the most.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Feb 24, 2020 17:30:07 GMT -5
Mets...small market...lmao I think this overall topic should be discussed further. The con is that you have a crapshoot on players getting multiple $5 mil offers, so it's just random who they sign with. Mets IRL may no loinger be Mets in PBL of course, because things evolve in OOTP (slowly, but they do). Also Market Siuze does not always dirrectly corelate to ones budget of course. Looks like PBL Mets are in fact a Huge market. statsplus.net/paramount/finance/currentAlso, and correct me if I am wrong, but having just purchased another (cheap) IAFA, pretty sure PBL is a $3M soft cap, which means (provided you can live with the subsequent year penalty - and have the money of course) you can toss money around for an IAFA. Other leagues with, your example a $5M hard cap, it is indeed a lottery among $5M offers. I think it's safe to say that the big boys in PBL would always have a better shot at IAFA if they really want one because of their resources. And hard to argue that. I think entertaining any change would not necessarily level the field, but could be something else to entertain? I see a lot of teams saving money back to be players in the IAFA market that are some of the lower budgets in the league. Perhaps tanking and allowing a budget to decline as revenue also does isn't a great idea?
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Feb 24, 2020 17:43:46 GMT -5
Mets IRL may no loinger be Mets in PBL of course, because things evolve in OOTP (slowly, but they do). Also Market Siuze does not always dirrectly corelate to ones budget of course. Looks like PBL Mets are in fact a Huge market. statsplus.net/paramount/finance/currentAlso, and correct me if I am wrong, but having just purchased another (cheap) IAFA, pretty sure PBL is a $3M soft cap, which means (provided you can live with the subsequent year penalty - and have the money of course) you can toss money around for an IAFA. Other leagues with, your example a $5M hard cap, it is indeed a lottery among $5M offers. I think it's safe to say that the big boys in PBL would always have a better shot at IAFA if they really want one because of their resources. And hard to argue that. I think entertaining any change would not necessarily level the field, but could be something else to entertain? I see a lot of teams saving money back to be players in the IAFA market that are some of the lower budgets in the league. Perhaps tanking and allowing a budget to decline as revenue also does isn't a great idea? Bingo! So when tanking is a form of managing a team that’s not frowned upon or feared, then why should we concern ourselves with teams who decide to go the opposite direction?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 24, 2020 18:26:17 GMT -5
Attached are graphs showing revenue and budget changes over the last 10 seasons for the two franchises that have grown their budgets the most and the two that have had it dropped the most. Do Montreal!
Edit: And I'm not trying top prove anything, I am just curious if you can spot a pattern that is similar to (or nowhere near) the graphs in this thread. Strictly for my own benefit. Send it privately if you like? Just curious what it looks like.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 24, 2020 18:34:05 GMT -5
As an aside, while we discuss, at least my Expos are "cost-efficient"! If not actually successful.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 24, 2020 19:26:41 GMT -5
Attached are graphs showing revenue and budget changes over the last 10 seasons for the two franchises that have grown their budgets the most and the two that have had it dropped the most. Do Montreal!
Edit: And I'm not trying top prove anything, I am just curious if you can spot a pattern that is similar to (or nowhere near) the graphs in this thread. Strictly for my own benefit. Send it privately if you like? Just curious what it looks like.
You bet. I'll do it tomorrow. The spread sheet is on my work computer.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 24, 2020 19:27:38 GMT -5
Mets IRL may no loinger be Mets in PBL of course, because things evolve in OOTP (slowly, but they do). Also Market Siuze does not always dirrectly corelate to ones budget of course. Looks like PBL Mets are in fact a Huge market. statsplus.net/paramount/finance/currentAlso, and correct me if I am wrong, but having just purchased another (cheap) IAFA, pretty sure PBL is a $3M soft cap, which means (provided you can live with the subsequent year penalty - and have the money of course) you can toss money around for an IAFA. Other leagues with, your example a $5M hard cap, it is indeed a lottery among $5M offers. I think it's safe to say that the big boys in PBL would always have a better shot at IAFA if they really want one because of their resources. And hard to argue that. I think entertaining any change would not necessarily level the field, but could be something else to entertain? I see a lot of teams saving money back to be players in the IAFA market that are some of the lower budgets in the league. Perhaps tanking and allowing a budget to decline as revenue also does isn't a great idea? I am not buying that all of the teams that are struggling are struggling as a result of tanking.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Feb 24, 2020 20:01:38 GMT -5
I would echo this point. I’ve seen teams spend up to $13M on one player and not many small market teams can do that. Evening out the playing field raises the opportunity the small market teams get talent via this avenue as well. To be clear I am not supporting this because I am a small market team. I just think this is a good way to go about sharing talent in the league among teams to even it out a bit. Mets...small market...lmao I think this overall topic should be discussed further. The con is that you have a crapshoot on players getting multiple $5 mil offers, so it's just random who they sign with. It was not intended to read I am a small market team. I intended it to read I am not a small market team, but my support is still to reel in the large market teams signing any talent they wish, as the small market teams sit idly by because they do not have the money to compete with $13M player signings.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Feb 24, 2020 20:13:52 GMT -5
Okay, so I ran the numbers. I took all the team revenues from the past 21 seasons (2032-2052) and organized them by market size. The black line is the median revenue from each market size. The dark blue zones is the middle 50%, and the light blue zones represent the extreme 50% of the highest and lowest revenues. One caveat so far. These are only illustrations of what has happened over the last 20 years, not what could happen. In theory it might be possible for Small market team to make more than 150 million in revenue. I'm just reporting that it hasn't happened over the past 2 decades. I should also mention the breakdown of how many of each market size was recorded over the 21 year period: - Small: 55 teams
- Below Average: 68 teams
- Average: 168 teams
- Above Average: 143 teams
- Big: 94 teams
- Very Big: 60 teams
- Huge 39 teams
- Astronomical: 45 teams
So how to read this for non-stats folks. Basically, it's a box an whisker plot that I connected together. The larger areas are places where the data is more spread out. The smaller areas is where data was very close together. I read a couple things from this: - The large area in the upper quartile (light blue) region indicates the presence of several outiier revenues that are quite high rather. They indicate that it's possible to to get revenues that high, but that the scores are spread out. In other words, those upper revenues are possible but less likely to happen consistently.
- The other quartiles are pretty consistent, so it's possible to compare them market by market. I would focus on the middle fifty 50% (dark blue) region. Half of all teams of that market size have revenues in that zone. Notice for instance, that the highest revenue in that zone for Small Market teams is beneath the lowest revenue for Huge an Astronomical. That's the biggest issue I see. The ceiling for Small Market teams has been the floor for Huge and Astronomical market teams, for the most part.
- Weird, but true, no one's really had a run away season of revenue with a Very Big Market team. That's really weird. Got no answers there.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Feb 24, 2020 20:15:19 GMT -5
I see a lot of teams saving money back to be players in the IAFA market that are some of the lower budgets in the league. Perhaps tanking and allowing a budget to decline as revenue also does isn't a great idea? I am not buying that all of the teams that are struggling are struggling as a result of tanking. I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Based on the graphs, why did Milwaukee's revenue drop so quickly?
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Feb 24, 2020 20:33:32 GMT -5
I am not buying that all of the teams that are struggling are struggling as a result of tanking. I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Based on the graphs, why did Milwaukee's revenue drop so quickly? I'm guessing that it's because 1) the team was hot garbage and 2) the new GM unloaded every good player he could for prospects and picks, torching the fan interest pretty hard.
|
|