Originally posted by Team Tuck
lgj, thanks for all the info. Now, based on YOUR analysis, the years we should have won more were '93, '96 and '97. Is that really what you were suggesting? In those three years, 40 teams with lower payrolls finished with better records and 0 teams with higher payrolls finished with worse records. Fair enough.
Over the past 5 years (1998-2002), when payroll inequities and competitive balance has been at its worst, only 14 teams with lower payrolls have won more, while 46 teams with higher payrolls have won less. So based on how you chose to look at it, recent history suggests that the Reds are doing quite well given their low payroll. That's what I suspected. Hey lgj, Bowden appreciates your support!!
Point is, if you want to start comparing wins and payrolls, we may look bad compared to Oakland, but we look pretty good relative to quite a few other organizations. Your theory works a lot better if you're talking about the Pirates, Brewers, Tigers, Orioles, Dodgers, Blue Jays, Rockies, Rangers - shall I keep going?
Your point is that we should now crown Lindner, Allen, and Bowden kings of the universe because we have done better the last 5 years compared to the Rangers, Pirates, Tigers, and Devil Rays? That's like saying a kid with a C on his report card did really good because a few idiots got an F. You have stated countless times on this board "Who does better with less?" Even looking at the last 5 years, in which several clueless GM's walked around the Free Agent Market with credit cards, we still have an average
of three teams a year beating us while using less revenue to do it.
My point is that it is ridiculous to assume that 78 wins should be our crowning achievement with a $45 M payroll.
In the 10 year tenure of Bowden, we have had more teams beat us using less revenue than we have beaten teams using more revenue. It's as simple as that.
You used the competitive balance argument from 1998-2002, which is fine. But how about when Marge was running the team early on, and countless teams beat us despite having smaller payrolls? We have been at both ends of the spectrum in Bowden's tenure, yet we have one playoff appearance and 0 World Series trophies to show for it.
Other teams, such as Atlanta and Cleveland, have experienced that same changing of the guard. Being at the bottom of the heap and then climbing to the top (or the reverse). So why is it they have a lot more hardware? Because they are run better.
You continue to change your argument on this matter. A few weeks ago, you asked "Which teams with LESS have done better"?
Now that it has been proven that through Bowden's tenure, more teams with less have done better than teams with more have done worse, all of a sudden you are compromising your argument to the Reds are doing pretty good (and not the best penny-pinching organization out there?)
My point was that the Reds have been beaten out more consistently by low budget teams in the past ten years. There is no refuting that. To compromise it by saying that the Tampa Bay's, Detroit's, Kansas City's of the world make us look like a first-rate organization is specious. The bottom line is that, maybe ten organizations are run worse. But twenty are run better. Not the penny-pinching organizational wonder that you portray.