|Win-Values (at the All-Star Break)||| Print |||Send|
Written by The Mudge (Contact & Archive) on July 24, 2007
But who knows which major league teams, in particular the contenders, are getting the ‚Äúmost bang for the buck‚ÄĚ in 2007?¬† It‚Äôs just past the midway point of the season, and therefore it‚Äôs an appropriate time to begin to assess what I call WIN-VALUE.¬† What teams are spending their money most effieciently.
My homespun methodology (entirely unscientific) is that a team gets 2 points for a win and -1 for a loss. By design, system benefits those teams whose records are over .500, mainly because it is each and every one of those wins over the .500 mark that are crucial for a team if they wish to contend.¬† The vast majority of major league teams finish with winning percentages somewhere between .400 and .600; those who approach‚ÄĒor exceed‚ÄĒthe .600 plateau (98 wins) are clear favorites to be in the hunt for the post-season festivities.
So under the WIN-VALUE rubric, a team with a 44-44 record (as several teams actually had at the All-Star Break) gets 44 Win Points [(44W times 2) minus 44L = 44WP].¬† This seems fair enough.¬† So, teams with a 43-45 record get 41 WP, and those with a 45-43 record get 47WP; again, all on the assumption that each win over .500 is worth more than a win under .500.
I then take each team‚Äôs WP and divide it into that team's player payroll to determine which teams have been most "efficient" with their allocation of on-field resources.¬† Note, this methodology takes into account only player payroll, not total organizational payroll.
Obviously, the Yankees will be in a class by themselves, what with the highest payroll, and a sub-.500 season (at the ASB), having managed to spend $4,620,000 per win. On the other end of the spectrum, the Marlins have spent the least amount of money for each win ($820,000), but by the same token they are not really in contention (yet).
Of the contenders
at the All-Star Break, here are the leaders: