I’ve always wanted to run this calculation. I looked at the spread between defensive payroll and defensive ranking.
The theory is, if you have the largest payroll you should have the highest ranking. If there is a difference, then that means the unit is either outperforming or underperforming it’s payroll.
Is this indicative of good DCs or good GMs, if anything at all ?
Personally, I think you’re better off rating teams by total weight.
I’m also reminded of a story, probably apocryphal, about a university professor who used to grade papers by throwing them down a flight of stairs; the heaviest fell farther down before settling which earned them lower grades. The idea being that excessive wordiness (which translated to more weight) was not itself a reliable sign of quality. Big ticket players are almost never worth their cost. It’s a market thing, not a measure of intrinsic worthiness.
I disagree. In theory, salary should align with impact. Are there exceptions? Of course.
But if you are the Steelers and you are spending the most money in the league on defense, you should expect to have a top defense.
The fundamental goal of the organization is to maximize talent within a limited budget.
RE: GM vs Coach - It is definitely a reflection of both. GM to acquire talent that performs better than their cost and the coach to maximize the talent per dollar spent.
There are FAR more egs of teams/units that “should” be good when you use the $$ criterion to indicate that the relationship is not strong, imo. It’s not the exception.
I hate the term “Garbage Time” every moment is important during games and point swings between teams as to who might win games or how they do it , IT could be the final moment of any game !