Who paid the most (and least) for wins in 2011?

by Veni Vidi Vici on Jan 20, 2012 1:46 AM EST

I thought it would be fun to look at the 2011 payrolls around the MLB in relation to their final regular season record. Fun with averages after the jump.

The average MLB player salary in 2011 was $3.1 million. If one were to put together a roster of 25 guys making the league average, then that team's payroll would be $77.5 million. Furthermore if said team were to have an average season of 81-81, then they would be paying $957,000 per win (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars). This functions as the "mean" price for wins in 2011, although as is always the case with statistics this is far from a perfect number. Just as an example, if every team in baseball were expecting to pay $957,000 per win in 2011 then three teams (the Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox) would actually be expecting more than 162 wins, which of course is impossible. Here is the full list of what every team paid per win in 2011. Only regular season wins were counted, and all numbers are in millions:

1: Yankees: 2.090

2: Red Sox: 1.797

3: Twins: 1.789

4: Cubs: 1.761

5: Phillies: 1.696

6: White Sox: 1.618

7: Angels: 1.611

8: Mets: 1.543

9: Giants: 1.374

10: Mariners: 1.291

11: Dodgers: 1.271

12: Astros: 1.262

13: Orioles: 1.237

14: Rockies: 1.208

15: Cardinals: 1.171

16: Tigers: 1.113

17: Braves: 0.978

18: Rangers: 0.961

19: Reds: 0.961

-------------------

Average: 0.957

-------------------

20: Athletics: 0.899

21: Brewers: 0.891

22: Nationals: 0.798

23: Marlins: 0.791

24: Blue Jays: 0.772

25: Padres: 0.646

26: Pirates: 0.626

27: Indians: 0.615

28: D'Backs: 0.571

29: Royals: 0.509

30: Rays: 0.451

A few thoughts:

Although it is no surprise to see the teams with the three biggest payrolls in the top five, the Twins and Cubs find themselves there due to less than stellar seasons. In fact, the Cubs often find themselves near the top of similar lists.

All things considered, the Phillies are about where they need to be. Sure, they overpaid for wins but were more efficient than a number of other big market teams and it's hard to downplay 102 wins.

What the Rays did is astounding. They paid quite literally a fraction for the cost of wins as most of the teams in their division, and were still able to get into the playoffs.

Many of the teams at the bottom of the list (with the exception of the Diamondbacks and Rays) are there more because of their low payrolls and less for how well they spent money. The Royals' payroll was only a little over $36 million in 2011, so they weren't going to pay that much for wins no matter what. So in the end, most of the big market huge payroll teams are also paying more for wins and the small market small payroll teams are expectantly paying less for wins.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Awesome, VVV. This makes me feel especially sorry for the Twins and Cubs. Holy crap.

by Phrozen on Jan 20, 2012 3:10 AM EST reply actions

Yeah- particularly the Twins- the Cubs did not surprise me, as there are so many really bad contracts on that team- until they get the bad contracts out, they are going to be paying a lot per win. It will be interesting to see if the new front office there can make a difference.

The Twins was disappointing and saddening,a s it was hard to see a team that had been a perennial contender go that bad that fast. I am looking forward to seeing if they can rebound this year.

"Valdez can pitch, Lee can hit... and pigs can fly."

by dannijd on Jan 21, 2012 7:00 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting. This is probably more a measurement of how good each team has been at player development, than how wise they are at negotiating contracts. It would also be interesting to see a breakdown of cost-controlled, arbitrated, and veteran players, although I’m not exactly sure how that would work.

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2012 7:21 AM EST reply actions

Marginal wins over replacement

The overall cost per win is interesting. I’d be interested in seeing the cost per win over the “replacement” level. The cost of the Mets and Cubs (and to a lesser extent, teams like the O’s) would be even worse on that metric, since cheap-o Brand X Dreck can get you 40 wins, more or less.

I mean, it takes real talent to lose 90+ games and spend $90 million+ – O’s — $85M for 93 losses; Mets — $120M for 85 losses; Cubs — $126M for 91 losses; Twins $113M for 99 losses).

Admittedly, getting ravaged by injuries and going “all-in” on rookies/young-uns at the end of the year can make this look worse when teams fold after realizing they are screwed, but still…whew…

In a nutshell, a team can have a monster payroll like PHI/NYY/BOS, but the team can still suck if there is poor luck or poor management of how the filthy lucre is spent. Efficiency matters greatly, even in the top third.

Why look'st thou so?' -"With my crossbow
I shot the Albatross."

by RememberthePhitans on Jan 20, 2012 11:45 AM EST reply actions

Twins

I forget where I came up with a replacement level team costing $11M last year, but just accept it. If you don’t like it, just re-jigger the numbers using a different baseline.

If the Twins paid $101M (113 – 11) for 63 wins, and a replacement team wins 48 games a year, then their marginal wins (15 of them) cost them $101M, or $6.73M per marginal win.

The Phillies had 102 wins, or 54 marginal wins (102 – 48). With a payroll of $173M last year per ESPN, the marginal wins cost $3.2M.

The Rays are surely the champs on the marginal wins, though. It’d be fun to re-run the list, though.

Why look'st thou so?' -"With my crossbow
I shot the Albatross."

by RememberthePhitans on Jan 20, 2012 1:04 PM EST up reply actions