So my first thought for this posting was to do a salary comparison or "cost per win" sort of metric for this 2011 MLB season. However, thinking more about those plots I came up with very basic flaws. The straight salary would only tell you that the Yankees ($201 Mil), Phillies ($171 Mil), and Red Sox ($161 Mil) spend a crap load of money every year, especially in comparison to teams like the Padres ($45 Mil), Rays ($41 Mil), and Royals ($36 Mil). Though, looking at slaries I was kind of surprised to see Giants kick in at #8 with $118 Mil. I guess that I always pictured them as this smaller market team (read $70-80 million) with homegrown talent and less big money players (well outside of Zito).
The second thought of a "cost per win" weighted by the number of games played by each team. This weighting is necessary as some teams have played 70 games and others only 65 games, representing a 3% of the season difference. However, when presented individually, this "cost per win" metric is also flawed because it will only generate highly positive results for teams that don't spend any money, but still might be terrible, and therefore have low costs per each win. This was affirmed with the Royals, Rays, Pirates, Padres, and Indians leading the way.
The final plot that I'm posting is a composite of cost per win and record. I've given record a two times multiplier, because who cares if your players costs are cheap if your team doesn't produce? Teams near the top of the plot have found a good balance of player cost and productivity, while teams at the bottom ... not so much.
I'm pretty happy with the results of this, as you can see the Cubs, Twins, and Astros checking in near the end due to poor records and/or financial management while the surprising Brewers and Indians join the Rays near the top. I was also surprised to see two things. One, the Phillies checking in around 8 and the Yankees at 12, proving that you can spend money to win. Two, that all the teams who spend significant money (ie top 10) are bunched into two clumps, as noted by the blue bars, one in the 8-12 range and another in the bottom 10 range.
Source: www.ESPN.com
No comments:
Post a Comment