Forbes: Cubs Least Efficient Team in MLB in 2010

[jersey cubs fan]

I think the takeway is that it's a flawed measurement but the obvious result was always that the Cubs were the biggest waste of money in baseball.

[SouthSideRyan]

I was just pointing out that in fact the Yankees were in fact the least efficient team in MLB in terms of Forbes arbitrary analysis of wins/$. They just determined that the Yankees and Red Sox don't count because they won more games than they lost.

 

Aw man, I just skimmed through, they don't count the Red Sox due to a winning record? So if the Cubs spent an extra 100M to win 7 more games, they wouldn't have been wasteful?

[davell]

That number doesn't even take into account the luxury tax the Yankees had to pay, does it?

[dew1679666265]

I was just pointing out that in fact the Yankees were in fact the least efficient team in MLB in terms of Forbes arbitrary analysis of wins/$. They just determined that the Yankees and Red Sox don't count because they won more games than they lost.

 

I'll agree they were the least efficient. Whether or not that money was wasted is determined by the benefit they received in spending the money.

[dew1679666265]

I think the takeway is that it's a flawed measurement but the obvious result was always that the Cubs were the biggest waste of money in baseball.

 

That would be an accurate statement, I think.

[bukie]

I was just pointing out that in fact the Yankees were in fact the least efficient team in MLB in terms of Forbes arbitrary analysis of wins/$. They just determined that the Yankees and Red Sox don't count because they won more games than they lost.

 

I'll agree they were the least efficient. Whether or not that money was wasted is determined by the benefit they received in spending the money.

Even weirder was that they didn't count the Blue Jays in the "most efficient" category, because they didn't get at least 87 wins (which is a threshold only 11 teams reached this year), because the author wanted to set an efficiency threshold of "5 games over .500".

[dew1679666265]

I was just pointing out that in fact the Yankees were in fact the least efficient team in MLB in terms of Forbes arbitrary analysis of wins/$. They just determined that the Yankees and Red Sox don't count because they won more games than they lost.

 

I'll agree they were the least efficient. Whether or not that money was wasted is determined by the benefit they received in spending the money.

Even weirder was that they didn't count the Blue Jays in the "most efficient" category, because they didn't get at least 87 wins (which is a threshold only 11 teams reached this year), because the author wanted to set an efficiency threshold of "5 games over .500".

 

That's weird. You can be efficient and bad, I would think.

[SouthSideRyan]

I was just pointing out that in fact the Yankees were in fact the least efficient team in MLB in terms of Forbes arbitrary analysis of wins/$. They just determined that the Yankees and Red Sox don't count because they won more games than they lost.

 

I'll agree they were the least efficient. Whether or not that money was wasted is determined by the benefit they received in spending the money.

Even weirder was that they didn't count the Blue Jays in the "most efficient" category, because they didn't get at least 87 wins (which is a threshold only 11 teams reached this year), because the author wanted to set an efficiency threshold of "5 games over .500".

 

That's weird. You can be efficient and bad, I would think.

 

And conversely you can be inefficient and good.

[bukie]

I was just pointing out that in fact the Yankees were in fact the least efficient team in MLB in terms of Forbes arbitrary analysis of wins/$. They just determined that the Yankees and Red Sox don't count because they won more games than they lost.

 

I'll agree they were the least efficient. Whether or not that money was wasted is determined by the benefit they received in spending the money.

Even weirder was that they didn't count the Blue Jays in the "most efficient" category, because they didn't get at least 87 wins (which is a threshold only 11 teams reached this year), because the author wanted to set an efficiency threshold of "5 games over .500".

 

That's weird. You can be efficient and bad, I would think.

That's just it, the Jays finished 85-77. I wouldn't even consider it bad considering the author made a special exception for the Red Sox having to play in a tough division.

 

I guess I'm just bothered that it's quite apparent the author had some assumptions he was going to roll with, and when his data didn't match up that well, he fudged the conditions until it did.

 

That's not to say the Cubs weren't a terrible model of a franchise this year (along with the Mets), but many high-spending teams failed to make the playoffs this year, so the correlation between payroll and wins was an awful basis for an article trying to analyze this year.

[dew1679666265]

And conversely you can be inefficient and good.

 

True.

[dew1679666265]

That's just it, the Jays finished 85-77. I wouldn't even consider it bad considering the author made a special exception for the Red Sox having to play in a tough division.

 

I guess I'm just bothered that it's quite apparent the author had some assumptions he was going to roll with, and when his data didn't match up that well, he fudged the conditions until it did.

 

That's not to say the Cubs weren't a terrible model of a franchise this year (along with the Mets), but many high-spending teams failed to make the playoffs this year, so the correlation between payroll and wins was an awful basis for an article trying to analyze this year.

 

Wow, didn't realize the Jays were that good. Yeah, this seems overall a pretty good model, but the author took too many liberties with it I think.

[fiver]

anyone else grilling burgers for dinner now?

[jersey cubs fan]

Not no $2 burger.

[imb]

how long did it take them to come to this conclusion, 8 minutes?

[Tyrant]

I just read two pages of this thread in hopes of being entertained.

 

A totally inefficient effort on my part.

[TruffleShuffle]

man now i want a burger