tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-684119683005319088.post7500083604523285178..comments2021-03-01T07:37:17.793-08:00Comments on Bayes Ball: A closer look at payroll and performanceMartin Monkmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05582544453619381290noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-684119683005319088.post-76786513042630287702010-06-24T22:24:19.788-07:002010-06-24T22:24:19.788-07:00Tom,
There's an interesting table in "The...Tom,<br />There's an interesting table in "The Wages of Wins" (Table 3.4, p.40) that shows the percentage of wins explained by relative payroll. The percentage was highest in the period immediately following the 1994 lock-out (32.5%), but lowest in the years previous (6.2%). Over the entire period 1988-2005, the explanation was in the 18% range. <br /><br />Somewhere else in the chapter they say something about the Yankees being an extreme outlier that has a profound influence on the model, and without the Yankees there is no relationship between payroll and wins at all.<br /><br />But with all that said, there has been some good critiques leveled at the methods used in "The Wages of Wins". I'd suggest starting here: http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2006/11/wages-of-wins-on-r-and-r-squared.htmlMartin Monkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05582544453619381290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-684119683005319088.post-29145535970863388032010-06-24T10:17:32.147-07:002010-06-24T10:17:32.147-07:00Martin, interesting stuff. How consistent are the ...Martin, interesting stuff. How consistent are the relationships in earlier years you refer to in the last paragraph?<br /><br />- TomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com