PDA

View Full Version : Football Mellinger: The NFLís salary paradox


Tribal Warfare
08-14-2011, 10:17 AM
The NFLís salary paradox (http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/13/3075053/the-nfls-salary-paradox.html)
SAM MELLINGER COMMENTARY

What if the money that NFL teams spend on players had no connection with their chances of winning? What if that correlation simply did not exist?

What if you knew that all the talk about what the Chiefs are and are not spending is wasted energy about an irrelevant fact, the equivalent of arguing the shade of red in the Arrowhead Stadium end zone?

Would it change the way you think about Chiefs chairman and CEO Clark Hunt? Would it change how you view general manager Scott Pioliís reluctance to chase big-name free agents?

Would it change the way you follow the business side of football?

Think about it for a moment, because the following words are both shocking and true: The amount of cash that teams commit to players has no impact on their success.

Not some impact. Not a little impact. Zero impact.

Thatís according to documents obtained by The Star through league sources, numbers that show that todayís NFL can be conquered equally by big spenders and small. Analysis by third-party sources confirms that there is no connection in the amount of money teams spend and the amount of on-field success they have.

Chiefs officials have spent a lot of time lately defending the organizationís spending habits, but it turns out they could have saved their breath. The team figures to rank in the middle of the league in spending, which recent history says is plenty.

Since 2001, the highest-spending team in each season won an average of 8.3 games. The Packers and Colts won the Super Bowl in years they spent the most money, but six other seasons the biggest spender didnít even make the playoffs. The Giants won their Super Bowl while being ranked 30th in spending.

Over the same period, the top quarter of spenders each year won an average of 8.4 games. Itís consistent too: No year averaged more than 9.4 wins (in 2009) or fewer than 7.1 (2005).

The last 10 Super Bowl winners have ranked, on average, 15th in spending. The Super Bowl loser ranked 16th.

A connection between spending and winning just does not exist.

Keep in mind these numbers reflect actual cash spent, not the funny-money manipulation of salary-cap numbers.

Through deeper analysis and conversations with personnel men throughout the league, logical reasons for the disconnect between big spending and big winning begin to surface.

First, as Washington and Dallas and a few others have proved, free agency is an extremely inefficient talent pool.

Second, big-spending teams are often desperate teams with a coach or GM clinging to his job. Free agency is often used to cover holes or chase bad investments, so steady and improving teams are better at resisting those temptations.

And third, under the old collective-bargaining agreement, top draft picks commanded huge contracts from bad teams.

Those first two factors are the ones most commonly agreed upon by the men who spoke for this column. The importance of top draft pick contracts drew some disagreement, and, anyway, figures to lessen with the new limits on rookie wages.

The consensus is that teams win by how they spend, not by how much. Itís good to have the option to spend big money, but it can be detrimental if money is spent carelessly.

The personnel men make a good point about the middle spenders, too. Like the other major professional leagues, NFL payrolls often have more to do with the age of players than their current ability. Young players are generally cheaper than older players.

And perhaps more than the other leagues, the best NFL teams are typically a mix of young and old. If some are expensive and others are cheap, it makes sense that the middle spenders would be in a good spot.

The Packersí spending last year was largely driven by a handful of contracts they either redid or extended for players both young (quarterback Aaron Rodgers) and old (cornerback Charles Woodson).

When the Colts led the league in spending, it also coincided with big contracts, most notably Peyton Manning.

This is relevant with the Chiefs, too, because they have some bills coming due. Theyíve signed Matt Cassel, Jamaal Charles, Derrick Johnson, Andy Studebaker and Tamba Hali for the long term.

Soon they will face decisions about Dwayne Bowe, Brandon Flowers and Brandon Carr, among others.

That process will begin to happen this season, and it will drastically change the Chiefsí financial commitments.

At least a decadeís worth of NFL history says the dollar figures will be irrelevant to whether it leads to a championship.

Marcellus
08-14-2011, 10:36 AM
Since 2001, the highest-spending team in each season won an average of 8.3 games. The Packers and Colts won the Super Bowl in years they spent the most money, but six other seasons the biggest spender didn’t even make the playoffs. The Giants won their Super Bowl while being ranked 30th in spending.

Over the same period, the top quarter of spenders each year won an average of 8.4 games. It’s consistent too: No year averaged more than 9.4 wins (in 2009) or fewer than 7.1 (2005).

The last 10 Super Bowl winners have ranked, on average, 15th in spending. The Super Bowl loser ranked 16th.

The next fool that bitches about Clark and saying what the Chiefs spend shows they don't care about wining etc... needs shot. End of story STFU.

Okie_Apparition
08-14-2011, 10:42 AM
I fell asleep like Muir in this morning's oatmeal after 3 sentences

Smed1065
08-14-2011, 10:55 AM
Since 2001, the highest-spending team in each season won an average of 8.3 games. The Packers and Colts won the Super Bowl in years they spent the most money, but six other seasons the biggest spender didnít even make the playoffs. The Giants won their Super Bowl while being ranked 30th in spending.

Over the same period, the top quarter of spenders each year won an average of 8.4 games. Itís consistent too: No year averaged more than 9.4 wins (in 2009) or fewer than 7.1 (2005).

The last 10 Super Bowl winners have ranked, on average, 15th in spending. The Super Bowl loser ranked 16th.

The next fool that bitches about Clark and saying what the Chiefs spend shows they don't care about wining etc... needs shot. End of story STFU.

This is why football rules.

Count Zarth
08-14-2011, 11:07 AM
http://i53.tinypic.com/o5cdx4.jpg

Pablo
08-14-2011, 11:24 AM
NEED MOAR BIG NAMEZ FREE AGENZZZ

BossChief
08-14-2011, 11:54 AM
Paging Billay and whats left of the drafturbators

Pasta Giant Meatball
08-14-2011, 11:57 AM
Since 2001, the highest-spending team in each season won an average of 8.3 games. The Packers and Colts won the Super Bowl in years they spent the most money, but six other seasons the biggest spender didnít even make the playoffs. The Giants won their Super Bowl while being ranked 30th in spending.

Over the same period, the top quarter of spenders each year won an average of 8.4 games. Itís consistent too: No year averaged more than 9.4 wins (in 2009) or fewer than 7.1 (2005).

The last 10 Super Bowl winners have ranked, on average, 15th in spending. The Super Bowl loser ranked 16th.

The next fool that bitches about Clark and saying what the Chiefs spend shows they don't care about wining etc... needs shot. End of story STFU.

88 he's looking directly at you

OnTheWarpath58
08-14-2011, 11:58 AM
Paging Billay and whats left of the drafturbators

Man, you're pathetic. Who was advocating going out and gobbling up a bunch of A-Tier FA's?

Answer: No one.

Billay had a hard-on for Franklin, (who turns out wasn't a big $ FA afterall) but other than that, most of us were looking for them to be active in getting some B/C tier guys in here that could fill a lot of holes.

It took Scott a while, but he accomplished that, for the most part. I think we really missed out on Lawson (or at least improving the other OLB spot) but otherwise did a decent job. Hopefully they all pan out.

OnTheWarpath58
08-14-2011, 11:58 AM
Oh, and BC, I need a response to the PM I sent.

Marcellus
08-14-2011, 12:03 PM
88 he's looking directly at you

Yes because 88 has won multiple SB's since leaving KC and had we resigned him e would have as well.


He WANTED out. Deal with it.

Pasta Giant Meatball
08-14-2011, 12:04 PM
Yes because 88 has won multiple SB's since leaving KC and had we resigned him e would have as well.


He WANTED out. Deal with it.

ROFL I was talking about that douche KCChiefsfan88

BossChief
08-14-2011, 12:27 PM
Man, you're pathetic. Who was advocating going out and gobbling up a bunch of A-Tier FA's?

Answer: No one.

Billay had a hard-on for Franklin, (who turns out wasn't a big $ FA afterall) but other than that, most of us were looking for them to be active in getting some B/C tier guys in here that could fill a lot of holes.

It took Scott a while, but he accomplished that, for the most part. I think we really missed out on Lawson (or at least improving the other OLB spot) but otherwise did a decent job. Hopefully they all pan out.
I was talking about all the "Clark Hunt is cheap" in relation to the "Clark Hunt doesn't care about this team enough to spend the money it takes to be competitive" talk...sorry that you couldn't pick up on that.

Your posts have fallen off a cliff this year as far as quality goes.

Get a grip, man.
Oh, and BC, I need a response to the PM I sent.
Funny how you send a PM labeling it "to CPs best and brightest" and list me as the first poster it was sent to...but because I disagree with a few of your takes and call you on it to make conversation...you cant take it and chose "that time" to tell me that you have others that want my spot in your precious little FFB league....and now Im "pathetic"...I obviously struck a nerve there, eh?

Someone has a serious problem when someone disagrees with them...you get a little too emotionally invested into this internet stuff, big guy.

Like I said days before your response, I have a lot of obligations that I need to devote a lot of time on and if you have someone that would be able to focus on the ffb league...go ahead and give them my spot.

If you dont, I will make it a point to beat you (and the rest of the good posters the pms were sent to) even though I dont play a lot of FFB and would be dealing with very little time to prepare my team.

Your choice...

Just Passin' By
08-14-2011, 01:12 PM
The three best teams of the last decade were the Patriots, Steelers and Colts. All were in the top 10 in spending in a breakdown of committed cash from 2004-2008. La Coanfora did an interesting look at this.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/06/26/moneyball-nfl-style/

http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/06/29/more-moneyball-the-economics-of-wins-and-losses/

Money alone doesn't get you to the top and keep you there. Money plus good management plus good players gets you to the top and keeps you there.

OnTheWarpath58
08-14-2011, 01:18 PM
I was talking about all the "Clark Hunt is cheap" in relation to the "Clark Hunt doesn't care about this team enough to spend the money it takes to be competitive" talk...sorry that you couldn't pick up on that.

Your posts have fallen off a cliff this year as far as quality goes.

Get a grip, man.

Funny how you send a PM labeling it "to CPs best and brightest" and list me as the first poster it was sent to...but because I disagree with a few of your takes and call you on it to make conversation...you cant take it and chose "that time" to tell me that you have others that want my spot in your precious little FFB league....and now Im "pathetic"...I obviously struck a nerve there, eh?

Someone has a serious problem when someone disagrees with them...you get a little too emotionally invested into this internet stuff, big guy.

Like I said days before your response, I have a lot of obligations that I need to devote a lot of time on and if you have someone that would be able to focus on the ffb league...go ahead and give them my spot.

If you dont, I will make it a point to beat you (and the rest of the good posters the pms were sent to) even though I dont play a lot of FFB and would be dealing with very little time to prepare my team.

Your choice...

Wow, Frankie.

Last I checked, YOU sent me THIS:

Is there anybody pissed they didnt get into the FF league?

I might be busier than I anticipated and if someone else (that would be a good fit) wants in bad enough Id be willing to give up my spot.

let me know

I responded the following day:

Neither is pissed, but I know XXXX and XXXX both wanted in. XXXX would be first on my list because he's also in a pay league I play in, and I know he takes this shit serious.

Let me know.

You've yet to respond. And now you're claiming I'M the one driving this?

Adios. We don't need this kind of petty shit in this league.

Grow the fuck up.

BossChief
08-14-2011, 01:33 PM
What a joke...so your claiming that it was just a coincidence that your demanding a response nearly a week later (almost a month before the actual draft, mind you) during a time we are having a difference in opinion... doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it. It surely has NOTHING TO DO with the timing of our argument...haha keep telling yourself that as if its realistic.

sure...anyone with common sense can tell what happened there.

You got your feeling hurt that I dont agree with everything of what you post and decided you didnt want me in your precious little club anymore...like I give a shit.

I guess you failed to read this part of my post, so Ill go ahead and post it again:

"Like I said days before your response, I have a lot of obligations that I need to devote a lot of time on and if you have someone that would be able to focus on the ffb league...go ahead and give them my spot."

Just keep claiming that our coaching blew a monumental opportunity to take advantage of the first preseason game.

Seriously, your hatred for all things "GM of the decade" has clouded your objectivity the last couple offseasons to the point you cant even tell when the team hits a homerun anymore.

Its sad, billay.

OnTheWarpath58
08-14-2011, 01:41 PM
What a joke...so your claiming that it was just a coincidence that your demanding a response nearly a week later (almost a month before the actual draft, mind you) during a time we are having a difference in opinion... doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it.

sure...anyone with common sense can tell what happened there.

You got your feeling hurt that I dont agree with everything of what you post and decided you didnt want me in your precious little club anymore...like I give a shit.

I guess you failed to read this part of my post, so Ill go ahead and post it again:

"Like I said days before your response, I have a lot of obligations that I need to devote a lot of time on and if you have someone that would be able to focus on the ffb league...go ahead and give them my spot."

Just keep claiming that our coaching blew a monumental opportunity to take advantage of the first preseason game.

Seriously, your hatred for all things "GM of the decade" has clouded your objectivity the last couple offseasons to the point you cant even tell when the team hits a homerun anymore.

Its sad, billay.

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that you've never agreed with me, therefore I decided to demand a response within a week of YOU initiating leaving the league.

I offered you a spot because I thought you'd be good for the league.

You were 100% part of the league until YOU sent me a PM a week ago

Is there anybody pissed they didnt get into the FF league?

I might be busier than I anticipated and if someone else (that would be a good fit) wants in bad enough Id be willing to give up my spot.

let me know

I "let you know" the following day and asked you to respond. You seemed up in the air and I wanted you to be sure before you quit for good and I offered up your spot.

You never responded. I gave you a week, and pushed the issue. I'm not interested in having non-committal folks in this league. I want people who WANT to be in this league.

You'd rather start a pissing match claiming this was all my idea. It wasn't.

So adios. You've been deleted from the league and the spot has been offered to another poster.

-King-
08-14-2011, 01:54 PM
http://images.media.nscdn.com/index.php?src=http://www.esreality.com/files/placeimages/2010/76895-grandpa-simpson.gif&size=400x1000

OnTheWarpath58
08-14-2011, 01:56 PM
http://images.media.nscdn.com/index.php?src=http://www.esreality.com/files/placeimages/2010/76895-grandpa-simpson.gif&size=400x1000

No worries. I'm done with it. I won't hijack the thread.

Just wanted to show that he's full of shit, and that HE initiated his departure, not me.

Love the .gif, BTW.

LMAO

Dylan
08-14-2011, 01:59 PM
http://images.media.nscdn.com/index.php?src=http://www.esreality.com/files/placeimages/2010/76895-grandpa-simpson.gif&size=400x1000

LMAO @ the gif.

BossChief
08-14-2011, 02:07 PM
No worries. I'm done with it. I won't hijack the thread.

Just wanted to show that he's full of shit, and that HE initiated his departure, not me.

Love the .gif, BTW.

LMAO

haha

The only part that you are right about is that I initiated the thought of not being part of the league....I even said as much in my post that I even requoted later on to show as much.

You were the one that demanded a response to my concern while we were in an argument.

The timestamps are in-between your posts in the argument.

Sure, it had NOTHING to do with it.

butthurt?

Like I said, If I wasnt able to do so, I wanted someone to be able to participate that would be able to devote more time to it than I would be able to and I think that was fair, but I wanted to make sure I wouldnt have enough time before deciding...it was you that demanded a response nearly a month before the draft. I am a competitive person and would have liked to have been able to compete with you guys and win the damn thing.

I even sent you another post with some very personal information because I feel that if I am going to chat with someone over the course of a few years, its nice to know a little more about them...its just a shame that you get so butthurt when someone doesnt agree with you on such petty things and chose to act the way you have been.

Good luck in the league.