The Price of a Win So Far in 2007

[camisadelgolf]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

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]

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]

The first 60 wins cost almost nothing. The next 20 cost considerably more. The next 10 even more. The next 10 are priceless.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

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]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

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]

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]

Getting MLB teams to reveal profit numbers that are accurate is impossible

[camisadelgolf]

Yeah, they all break even or lose money ever year.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

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.