SO OT: Yankees done, Mariners right behind them

[Runscott]

One of the headlines in today's sports section referred to the Yankees finally being out of the race. It got me thinking about how payroll equates to victories, or doesn't. See results below.

Next data-crunching effort is to see how effectively dollars are being spent by the 'vintage 16' vs 'the new guys'. At first glance, the failures are led by vintage teams - Phillies, Reds, Red Sox and Yankees; however, the vintage teams also have some of the best bang for the buck: A's, Pirates and Orioles.

In any event, here are this season's final standings, based on March payroll (calculated within each league). Victories were calculated based on average wins of 81 per team, and average payroll per team; thus, the Dodgers losing negative 10 games

[Jay Wolt]

Dodgers have the largest payroll be far at $241 million & they look to be the strongest team out there.
Sometimes $$$ can buy results

[packs]

Just taking a quick look at the last ten World Series champs, here's where the teams ranked in payroll:

2013: Boston - 4th
2012: Giants - 8th
2011: Cards - 11th
2010: Giants - 10th
2009: Yanks - 1st
2008: Phils - 12th
2007: Boston - 2nd
2006: Cards - 11th
2005: White Sox - 13th
2004: Boston - 2nd

[Runscott]

You would think that if your payroll was one of the top 8 in the Majors, and you spent making 'average' decisions, you would be in the playoffs. At that point anyone can win. I wonder if any teams have used the philosophy of spending enough just to get in, but concentrating on team characteristics that historically result in playoff victories?

[packs]

Hard to say. Looking at this year's list it's interesting that the Nationals jumped from 12th in 2013 to 9th in 2014 and it resulted in a first place finish and playoff berth. But at the same time KC came in at 19th in 2013 and 2014 but the results this year are a likely wild card spot. Tampa Bay had the reverse. Was 28th last year but ended up with a wild card spot. Same position this year and not even close.

[Scott36153]

Spending $$$ is just a way to get good (or supposedly good players) on your team to give your team a chance to make postseason. Paying big $$$ does not mean there won't be season ending injuries, locker room conflicts, too big to coach egos, etc etc etc.

[nolemmings]

Nice to see that my beloved Twins are outperforming their projected finish as based on payroll--barely. Not even that close to 100 losses--94 max. Ha! Gardy for manager of the year.

[pgellis]

Another interesting stat to look at is "Cost Of Each Win". In other words, take the payroll that Scott laid out above and divide each teams total wins into that number. You then have "Cost Of Each Win". I did that using last night's updated standings.

TOP 10 MOST EXPENSIVE COST PER WIN:

1. Dodgers $ 2,649,762
2. Yankees $ 2,578,156
3. Phillies $ 2,493,348
4. Red Sox $ 2,237,397
5. Rangers $ 2,038,332
6. Tigers $ 1,853,165
7. BlueJays $ 1,597,872
8. Diamondbacks $ 1,774,584
9. Giants $ 1,743,990
10. Reds $ 1,539,558



LOWEST COST PER WIN

1. Marlins $ 557,825
2. Astros $ 651,968
3. A's $ 897,917
4. Pirates $ 905,186
5. Indians $ 993,985


Some interesting findings. Does "paying for wins" translate into making the playoffs? Well, of the Top 10 Most Expensive Wins teams, only 3 look to be making the playoffs this year: Dodgers (Most Expensive at $ 2.65 Million per Win), Tigers & Giants.

But, 2 of the Least Expensive Wins teams are also making the playoffs: A's & Pirates.

I also think that a factor involved in the teams with the highest payrolls and also the Most Expensive Per Win teams are due to recent success. Of the last 10 World Series Champions, 7 of those Championship Franchises are among the Top 10 Most Expensive Per Win teams.

5 teams spent more than $ 2 Mill. per win this season and 5 teams spent less than $ 1 Mill. this season. Of the 5 teams that spent more than $ 2 Mill. per win this season, only 1 will be making the playoffs: DODGERS.
But, 2 of the 5 teams that spent less than $ 1 Mill. per win will be making the playoffs: A's & Pirates.

[1880nonsports]

giving the Yankees 153 wins. There's a Yankee fan somewhere inside of you :-)

[packs]

A couple interesting notes from recent winners:

Starting Rotation:

2013 Red Sox: 3 / 5 drafted by the Red Sox.

2012 Giants: 4 /5 drafted by Giants.

2011 Cards: only 1 /5 drafted by Cards


Starting Line Ups:

2013 Red Sox: 3 / 9 of the starting 9 were home grown

2012 Giants: 4 / 8 drafted by Giants

2011 Cards: 5 / 8 drafted by Cards


Seems like a team needs a solid core of home grown talent if they're going to contend.

[freakhappy]

Interesting stats, Scott...thanks for posting. Love the -10 for the Dodgers

We know it's impossible to determine what a team's record should be based on their payroll, but the two big factors IMO that will always make it for sure impossible to predict are injuries and bad signings. Some signings you really can't predict going south, but Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander are prime examples of players that aren't worth half of what they are being paid. I don't think many people saw Verlander falling off so quickly, but Fielder was somewhat evident with his decline over the past few years. Pujols, although he has had a nice year, is being paid mostly due to his past and not what he will do in the coming years. I think we all can agree his best years are behind him.

I really believe that some of these teams pay some of these overrated players the amount of money they do because they will undoubtedly bring in revenue from avenues other than their on-field performance...or maybe it is just plain fan reputation. I believe winning is a top priority, but let's be real here...money has to be a priority for every team, but some teams might even prefer money to winning.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

I really believe that some of these teams pay some of these overrated players the amount of money they do because they will undoubtedly bring in revenue from avenues other than their on-field performance...or maybe it is just plain fan reputation. I believe winning is a top priority, but let's be real here...money has to be a priority for every team, but some teams might even prefer money to winning.

Huge point. If you re-ranked the teams based on $'s brought in per $ spent, some of the huge payrolls will certainly seem more valid.

For instance, average price per bobble head, per team, on ebay. I bet the Astros are near the bottom and the Yankees are at the top. Certainly a Jeter game-used item goes for more than the Altuve version.

[Runscott]

It seems to be a real spending advantage to be in one of the 'Central' divisions - not competing against Coastal big-spenders. And, with the exception of the A's and the Rangers, the bang for the buck also seems to be concentrated in Midwest. I was always told that overall, they were more educated in that part of the country.

[packs]

That is a really good point. I think part of the Angels thinking in bringing in Pujols had to be that he'd hit his 500 homer as an Angel and most likely pick up his 3,000th hit as one too.

Yankees were thinking about Arod's milestones when they signed him too.

[barrysloate]

Yankees have a habit of signing players to big contracts after they are past their prime. They are sitting with a whole lot of 35-40 year olds on the roster, and that does not bode well for the near future. They have to either start developing young talent and keeping it, or spending a little less money for younger players. They just spend money poorly. I knew before the season that they were a brittle team, and despite having a lot of talent on paper, that injuries were going to do them in.

[packs]

Signing Beltran was a huge mistake. McCann hasn't been too great and Mark Tex is awful.

There are some bright spots coming though. Severino and Lindgren should be pitching in NY soon barring injuries. I'm really glad they kept Gardner. Tanaka, Pineda, and Betances are all very young. Shane Green showed some promise.

Prado was a good trade. Him and Ellsbury are just 30. If they can resign Robertson they'll be back on track in terms of getting younger.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by packs

That is a really good point. I think part of the Angels thinking in bringing in Pujols had to be that he'd hit his 500 homer as an Angel and most likely pick up his 3,000th hit as one too.



Yankees were thinking about Arod's milestones when they signed him too.

I didn't think of this point...which is a really good one. Pujols will have spent the majority of his years with the Cardinals, but hit some major milestones with the Angels...definitely significant.

Barry, I was going to post about the Yankees poor spending habits, but must've forgot! I will never understand why they bring in guys like Stephen Drew or Kelly Johnson for the amount of money they do. These players are well passed their prime and haven't produced in a few years, so why knowingly bring in players that struggle to hit .200, that you know won't produce? Is the market that bad? They really do need to assess their farm clubs and the way they generate youngsters...it could relieve them of some of their poor signings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

I will never understand why they bring in guys like Stephen Drew or Kelly Johnson for the amount of money they do.

Perhaps they are trying to re-capture some lost magic that New York City baseball has lost, and have no idea what the formula is.

[barrysloate]

The Yankees do seem to be snakebit because even their young guys get injured. Tanaka might have been their best signing in I don't know how long, and he's only 25. He is also one pitch away from Tommy John surgery and missing a whole season. I still think you have to go with youth.

Look at the Mets. Despite still being a poor overall team, with almost no offense, they have an incredible group of young arms playing or about to play, and I do think they have a bright future if they can somehow get some offense. It's very hard for an old team to stay healthy and produce.

[packs]

I think the Starlin Castro sweepstakes will come down to the Yankees and the Mets. Tough break for the Yankees because they could really use Castro. But I think the Mets have the arms to get the deal done.