PDA

View Full Version : The Price of a Win So Far in 2007



camisadelgolf
08-14-2007, 11:25 PM
Basically, this stat says that you're paying your players a lower salary, your team is getting a lot of wins, and/or you have a nice balance of both. It might kind of give you an idea of what each team could do if it had an equal amount of player budget to work with.

Thousands of Dollars per Win
Devil Rays 536
Marlins 555
Nationals 692
Diamondbacks 777
Pirates 786
Rockies 892
Padres 922
Indians 949
Brewers 1145
Twins 1232
Royals 1292
Rangers 1340
Reds 1378
Blue Jays 1389
Athletics 1392
Braves 1408
Phillies 1442
Tigers 1464
Angels 1583
Mariners 1613
Cardinals 1642
Astros 1656
Cubs 1661
Orioles 1733
Mets 1773
Giants 1804
Dodgers 1808
White Sox 2012
Red Sox 2014
Yankees 2830

vaticanplum
08-14-2007, 11:28 PM
I guess it's a question of what it's worth to you to win ;)

I don't think it's a uniform answer. I think it's a question of how a team is built financially and how its management is structured with regard to that. I firmly believe that any team has the potential to be successful, even if some have to work harder than others...but that's also a question of what you consider hard work. For some, that's fronting the money. For some, that's creative thinking.

For Steinbrenner, winning has always been commensurate with spending large amounts of money. To a large degree, that's worked for him. It hasn't for everybody -- and in recent years, it hasn't for him. For Beane, it's been being clever. I don't care if, for the Reds, it meant walking on stilts down Main Street to collect donations and understand the plight of the little man. (and frankly, for the Reds, that may be what it takes.)

SteelSD
08-15-2007, 12:08 AM
Basically, this stat says that you're paying your players a lower salary, your team is getting a lot of wins, and/or you have a nice balance of both. It might kind of give you an idea of what each team could do if it had an equal amount of player budget to work with.

That's not at all what the data tells us. In fact, there's a 32.5% correlation (slight) between high $ per Win and high team Win Percentage this season.

When properly coupled with Win %, this statistic only shows us which teams are likely more wasteful than others. And yes, the Reds are qualify as one of the most wasteful teams in MLB. In fact, of the teams paying more than a million dollars per Win thus far, only one (San Francisco) has posted a lower Win % (.420) this season.

camisadelgolf
08-15-2007, 12:17 AM
I meant to imply that that the stat says if your team is at the top of the list, you either have a low salary, a lot of wins, and/or a nice balance of both.

BCubb2003
08-15-2007, 01:56 AM
The first 60 wins cost almost nothing. The next 20 cost considerably more. The next 10 even more. The next 10 are priceless.

jojo
08-15-2007, 07:33 AM
The first 60 wins cost almost nothing. The next 20 cost considerably more. The next 10 even more. The next 10 are priceless.

Yep and it's recklessly incompetent to overpay to get those middle 20 and patently silly to not overpay to get a chunk of those last 20....

Kc61
08-15-2007, 07:48 AM
That's not at all what the data tells us. In fact, there's a 32.5% correlation (slight) between high $ per Win and high team Win Percentage this season.

When properly coupled with Win %, this statistic only shows us which teams are likely more wasteful than others. And yes, the Reds are qualify as one of the most wasteful teams in MLB. In fact, of the teams paying more than a million dollars per Win thus far, only one (San Francisco) has posted a lower Win % (.420) this season.

That's one way to look at it. The other way is in terms of playoff potential. There are a number of teams paying more per win than the Reds who, like the Reds, won't make the playoffs and are essentially out of the race right now.

Toronto, Baltimore, Oakland, Houston, San Francisco, White Sox all pay more per win than the Reds. And all of them (possible exception Houston) are out of it by now, Aug 15.

nate
08-15-2007, 08:59 AM
I don't know if these figures are available but I wonder what the profit margins look like per win. I know its more complicated than player salaries and attendance but that might be interesting to see as well.

KronoRed
08-15-2007, 01:30 PM
Getting MLB teams to reveal profit numbers that are accurate is impossible ;)

camisadelgolf
08-15-2007, 01:36 PM
Yeah, they all break even or lose money ever year.

PuffyPig
08-15-2007, 02:00 PM
The first 60 wins cost almost nothing. The next 20 cost considerably more. The next 10 even more. The next 10 are priceless.

It's nice to see that someone gets it.

The low payroll team always fare better on this list, as it's easy to spend almost nothing and get to 60 wins.

It becomes very, very expensive to start paying for a team once you get to 80 wins, unless you are lucky (skillful) to have a couple of great, but still cheap, starting pitchers.