Cubs payroll versus performance

[Lefty]

Copied from baseball prospectus.com. The article is much longer, so I think I am within my rights to post this much. If I am wrong, someone please set me straight.

 

The Marginal Payroll/Marginal Wins (MP/MW) system evaluates the efficiency of a club's front office by comparing its payroll and record to the performance it could expect to attain by fielding a roster of replacement-level players, all of whom are paid the major league minimum salary. The formula is:

(club payroll - (28 x major league minimum) / ((winning percentage - .300) x 162)

 

How do the clubs break down in terms of spending per marginal win? One might think that the Yankees would own this category, but another club beat the Yankees handily in this department. The underachieving Chicago Cubs take the award for spending the most per win this season at a whopping $4,900,488 per marginal win. The Yankees, by comparison, pulled in at $3,832,791.

 

By division, the least and most efficient clubs break down as follows.

 

 

AL East Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Yankees 48.4 $3,832,791

Most Efficient Blue Jays 38.4 $1,634,349

 

AL Central Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Royals 13.4 $2,846,119

Most Efficient Twins 47.4 $1,144,304

 

AL West Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Mariners 29.4 $2,680,402

Most Efficient A's 44.4 $1,195,655

 

NL East Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Braves 30.4 $2,664,503

Most Efficient Marlins 29.4 $198,724

 

NL Central Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Cubs 17.4 $4,900,488

Most Efficient Reds 31.4 $1,648,201

 

NL West Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Giants 27.7 $2,920,593

Most Efficient Padres 39.4 $1,541,628

[Pinktermite]

Another indictment of the Cubs front office. I'd kill to know if they pay attention to ANY statistic like this, or something goofy like OBP...

[Mephistopheles]

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/baseball_prospectus_warp1_is_wrong/

[Geech]

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/baseball_prospectus_warp1_is_wrong/

 

Regardless of the ability of WARP1 to accurately measure wins above true replacement level, the BP marginal cost comparison still stands as a qualitative indictment of the Cobs organization.

[Mephistopheles]

I wasn't really saying anything. I do wish they used VORP or something else. It doesn't take a sabermetric study to show that a team with a payroll in the top 10 that finishes third to last in wins will pay more for each of their win. Edited October 9, 2006 by Mephistopheles

[A New Era]

I'd just like to add something, not based on statistics but simple understood observations. .

 

1) JH overpays for mediocre players

2) something I've always beleived and was further affirmed when Bruce Miles mentioned this here. But Dusty and his Staff didn't have much of a drive to win, and wasn't very hard working. Therefore they didn't get the most performance out of their players. It has been agreed here that over the last few years while our team on a whole is not good. There are several players who had underacheived. That lays on the coaches and manager.

[moorecg]

NL Central Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Cubs 17.4 $4,900,488

Most Efficient Reds 31.4 $1,648,201

 

We paid almost 5 mill per win this year? Wow. Just Wow.

[sethuel1]

NL Central Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Cubs 17.4 $4,900,488

Most Efficient Reds 31.4 $1,648,201

 

We paid almost 5 mill per win this year? Wow. Just Wow.

 

5 mil per MARGINAL win. not per win. Not that it's not still terrible.

[moorecg]

NL Central Club Marginal Wins Cost per Marginal Win

Least Efficient Cubs 17.4 $4,900,488

Most Efficient Reds 31.4 $1,648,201

 

We paid almost 5 mill per win this year? Wow. Just Wow.

 

5 mil per MARGINAL win. not per win. Not that it's not still terrible.

 

Oh...well that does make more sense...still...we were bad. very bad.

[frostwyrm]

So, if I interpret it correctly, the formula assumes 48.6 wins(.300 ball) are a given, and form a baseline. I do agree with that assumption. I've always believed about 50 wins should be attainable by even the worst/unluckiest team and that such a record represents no measurable achievement.

[Lefty]

I wasn't really saying anything. I do wish they used VORP or something else. It doesn't take a sabermetric study to show that a team with a payroll in the top 10 that finishes third to last in wins will pay more for each of their win.

 

Yeah I don't think this is about WARP. They could have won 49 games with a minimum salary team; they won 66 with a $100 million payroll. It's just a hilarious number, but intuitively we know they were terrible this year. No surprise.

 

But what would that team look like?

 

OF-Murton, Pie & Restovich

3B-?

SS-Cedeno

2B-Theriot

1B-Pena, Choi or Hoffpaur

C-Soto

 

SP-Marshall, Guzman, Hill, Mateo,Marmol

BP-Wuertz, Novoa, Aardsma & 3 other stiffs

 

Looks like the team that actually played a little bit, no?