From the book, "The Book on the Book". Bill Felber. Pgs 139-154.
They wanted to study how GM's spent the payroll and the effects on winning baseball games.
All teams 1999-2004.
Asset Allocation Avg Games Number of Number of
Focus Avg Winning Percentage From expct wins teams Playoff teams
Rotation-Pitching Combo .540 + 7.2 18 7
(Combined payroll of 5 starters exceeds 34.5%, combined payroll of all pitchers
exceeds 49% of payroll)
Balanced Teams .509 +.6 48 17
(Payroll for each of the groups outlined above fits within one standard deviation
of the average)
Pitching (not rotation) .508 -.4 9 2
(Combined payroll of all pichers exceeds 49% of payroll, but combined payroll
of rotation starters does not exceed 34.5%)
Rotation only .501 -.8 11 5
(Combined payroll of expected 5 starters exceeds 34.5% of payroll, but combined
payroll of all pitchers does not exceed 49%)
Borrowers .496 -1.2 44 9
(Teams that are no about the ceilings listed above, but fall below 1 standard deviation
from the average in one or more areas so they are not ballanced)
Middle defense .489 -2.4 23 5
(Combined payroll of middle defenders exceeds 28.5% of team payroll)
Heart of order .460 -2.8 26 2
(Combined payroll of 3-4-5 hitters exceeds 39% of team payroll)
Single Star teams .457 -4.5 19 1
(Highest paid player exceeds 23% of team payroll)
I'd say the reds have spent a lot of money building either a Single Star, Heart of Order or currently a Middle Defense style teams (although I drifted away from baseball for a while so I can't remember much about the 1999-2003 teams).
Interestingly, those are the three least effective uses of money (at least historically).
Seems to me this is saying that you either spend all your money on pitching (either starters, bullpen or both) or you ballance it out. Focus soley on offense or defense at your own risk.
Thoughts? Comments? Agree? Dissagree?