Baseball Spending

[The_Admiral]

Just some numbers you guys might find interesting.

What this measures is the cost per win for each team, in dollars as well as a differential between spending rank and victory rank.

2001 Costs Per Win

2002 Costs Per Win

2003 Costs Per Win

2004 Costs Per Win

2005 Costs Per Win

[Guest]

2006 Costs Per Win

Costs Per Win From 2001-2006

[

[The Nation]

theres an error with the 2006 assessment, boston had 86 wins, the jays had 87.

[FiddySicks]

Kinda proof that Oakland's system is working a bit better than most think, eh?

[Cyclopsis Joe]

Yep. But as the Mariners of '01 will tell you, you have to win the World Series.

[rams80]

Kinda proof that Oakland's system is working a bit better than most think, eh?

Which is why they've won a grand total of one playoff series since they installed the system.

[Epiphanic]

Yet they are consistently getting to the playoffs. I'd take consistently losing in the playoffs than consistently not getting to the playoffs.

[FiddySicks]

Yet they are consistently getting to the playoffs. I'd take consistently losing in the playoffs than consistently not getting to the playoffs.

My point exactly.

[Guest]

Glad you caught that Toronto/Boston error. That improves Toronto a bit and drops Boston down.

Anyway, I'd have to tell you, I'd rather have Oakland's loaded farm system over New York's loaded wallet. The playoffs are basically a total crapshoot. Those poor Twins were the organization of the year in 2006, winning 96 games at $660,375 each, but all their achievements over the course of 162 games were wiped out in just 3 by Oakland, whose comparable achievements were simiarly wiped out in 4 games in the next round against Detroit. I think the stuff about Oakland teams "not being built for October" is crap. They just had terrible luck.

Some surprises: the White Sox had been smarter spenders over the last few years than I'd expected. Kudos to them. Also, for all the credit that Atlanta got the last few years for getting to the playoffs with nothing, they've always been in the top 10 in payroll. The Mets finally had a smart spending year in 2006, tying the Yanks in wins at about half the price, but in the long run they still rank dead last. And at both ends of the spectrum over the long run, both Tampa Bay and New York got exactly what they paid for, though they paid for two entirely different things.

World Series winners:

St. Louis: $88,891,371, 83 wins, $1,070,980 per win, 11th in payroll, 13th in wins, 11th in cost per win, -2

White Sox: $75,178,000, 99 wins, $759,374 per win, 13th in payroll, 2nd in wins, 18th in cost per win, +11

Boston: $127,298,500, 98 wins, $1,298,964 per win, 2nd in payroll, 3rd in wins, 4th in cost per win, -1

Florida: $48,750,000, 91 wins, $535,714 per win, 25th in payroll, 7th in wins, 27th in cost per win, +18

LA Angels: $61,721,667, 99 wins, $623,451 per win, 15th in payroll, 4th in wins, 24th in cost per win, +11

Arizona: $85,247,999, 92 wins, $926,609 per win, 8th in payroll, 6th in wins, 12th in cost per win, +2

So yeah, all over the map, but usually mid-level payrolls.

[rams80]

Yet they are consistently getting to the playoffs. I'd take consistently losing in the playoffs than consistently not getting to the playoffs.

Yeah...about that, they missed the playoffs in '04, and '05.

EDIT-honestly thought they missed the playoffs in '03

[Guest]

The Twins are in the same boat as the A's, in that they parlay these lower-third payrolls into four division championships in five years, yet they don't take crap from Joe Morgan and the establishment about being "built only for the regular season" the same way the A's do, nor are they put on a pedestal as The Smart Front-Office Team like the A's are. All you hear about is what a dump the Metrodome is. I tip my Chicago Cubs cap to Terry Ryan and the Minnesota Twins, for cultivating one hell of a farm system and just, cliche as it may be, doing everything the right way. I was thinking to myself that they might be in for a rough 2007 without Radke and Liriano, but then I remembered that they'll find a way. And to think, this club was almost voted out of existence.

[Epiphanic]

Exactly, teams like the Twins and the A's may not make the post-season every year, but they are always in the mix until the end.

Looking forward to the Twins 2007 campaign, I don't think they are in that bad of shape. Radke was stable, but replaceable. With Liriano gone for the year the rotation is looking like Santana, Silva, and Bonser, as their starting 3 probably. Garza could be in the mix if he has a decent spring training (the Twins front office seems pretty high on him). The twins should spend the off-season trying to find a solid veteran pitcher to help "stablize" the rotation for a year or two, while Liriano is out. Their position players are pretty much set maybe a couple of role guys. In short, the Twins will be contending for more Central titles (and inexpensive playoff appearances ) next year and beyond.

Anyway back to the topic at hand....Yay small-market teams!

[Guest]

I was also surprised that San Diego has kept spending so low. Now granted, they haven't done much, but they still exceeded expectation juuuuust barely. Should we say that +/-5 is the acceptable range of where one ought to finish?

[marlinfan]

I was also surprised that San Diego has kept spending so low. Now granted, they haven't done much, but they still exceeded expectation juuuuust barely. Should we say that +/-5 is the acceptable range of where one ought to finish?

Maybe calculating with a W/L based on Pythagorean Theorem?

[Guest]

I was thinking about using Pythagorean record in here somewhere but I didn't bother.

[OnWis97]

Kinda proof that Oakland's system is working a bit better than most think, eh?

Which is why they've won a grand total of one playoff series since they installed the system.

The Twins and A's have been the poster teams for small markets finding a way. And each has won one playoff series over the last several year. The A's beat the twins (2006) and the Twins beat the A's (2002).

Perhaps just an anomole. or perhaps they just don't have the money to get over the top.

Anyway, i like being a fan of a small market team that gives me a reason to pay attention every year.

[marlinfan]

With all this talk of small payroll teams that are quickly eliminated in the play offs, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the big spending Braves and their 'ineptitude' in getting it done in the play offs.

[Cyclopsis Joe]

Hey, do they not teach reading comprehension in Florida?

"Also, for all the credit that Atlanta got the last few years for getting to the playoffs with nothing, they've always been in the top 10 in payroll."

Also, if ESPN is to be believed, 50% of that is the Jones'/Smoltz trio.

[OnWis97]

With all this talk of small payroll teams that are quickly eliminated in the play offs, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the big spending Braves and their 'ineptitude' in getting it done in the play offs.

Actually, I think Atlanta (and the Yanks of the last few years) provides great evidence to the benefit of the expanded playoffs. You can buy your way into the playoffs but anyone can win a short series. You can't really buy a championship.

Atlanta at least made the postseason every year. I think the more notable things are teams that spend tons of money and don't even contend--Baltimore for example.

[Epiphanic]

Atlanta at least made the postseason every year.

'Cept this year!

I think the more notable things are teams that spend tons of money and don't even contend--Baltimore for example.

Precisely. Certainly, money isn't going to hurt a team's chances of making the post-season. But it doesn't guarantee wins. Teams like Baltimore or the Angels this year show that spending uber-amounts of money doesn't get you in. It's not how much you spend, its how you spend it.