January 13, 2009
Spending and Winning
Peter Bernstein looks at the impact of opening day payroll on winning. The Athletics and Twins did the best over the last ten years, the Orioles and Tigers the worst. I do disagree with his take on the Yankees, however:
In the Yankees' case, despite their success and ability to get into position for title runs, they are in the bottom half of the league over the last 10 years in terms of wins per dollar spent. When they lock up Mark Teixeira at $180 million, a player whose stats are equal to or worse in many cases than Milton Bradley, who the Cubs just secured for a sixth of that total ... Well, you get the idea.
According to the chart, the Yankees are slightly negative in expected wins per salary. In other words, the Yankees got their money's worth. They weren't terribly efficient, but they didn't waste money either. The Twins and A's use young players effectively, but they're constantly rebuilding. The Orioles and Tigers didn't spend well on their stars. The Yankees get it just right; when they pay for a win, they get a win, no more, no less. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by David Pinto at
02:51 PM
|
Salaries
|
TrackBack (0)
Also, Teixeira is in his prime, not exiting it and stays healthy, unlike Milton Bradley. And Teixeira is one of the top 1B defensively, Bradley is almost definitely not one of the top OF defensively.
I don't know if win/dollar is the best way to measure the impact. Teams must overpay to sign the top free agents. So, the Yanks would naturally have a lower ratio, even if they don't waste money.
Maybe someone could create a point scale based on where the club finished and how far they went in the playoffs. (E.g., win world series = 10; lose WS =6, win 1st round of playoffs = 4, etc.) Points per dollar on that scale might better measure what the Yanks are seeking to achieve.
The rewards system is also not linear (and to some extent, unpredictable). For example, the Blue Jays would have made the playoffs in other divisions or in previous years with the same record and payroll.
This creates disproportionate rewards for identical spending and win totals e.g. the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals at 83 wins cannot be judged a front office failure even if they paid more for those wins than other teams at 90 wins that missed the playoffs.
Still, this is interesting data. Baseball Prospectus has had a similar concept based on every team starting with 30-40 wins and a minimum payrolls and figuring out what payroll over that minimum got them. In general, each additional $2M should get you another win, although that figure varies a great deal over time.
Career OPS numbers...
Teixeira .919
Bradley .827
Hey, what's a hundred points or so among friends? Not to mention all the difference in the world in durability and defensive value.
This has always been my problem with people who accuse the Yankees of "buying championships." First of all, you can't and second, the Yankees overpay unbelieveably for talent, with out a commensurate lift in performance.
