 |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Crucial
Valuation
Let's Drink to the Salt of the Earth 01/20/04 Andy Brown Let me start by emphasizing that I do realize this is kind of a cop-out article and many of this type show up constantly in the press. However, I'm not sure how many of them, if any, will use a sabermetric influenced approach. The purpose of this exercise is two-fold. First, to point out some players who perform very well without notice by the majority of observers. Second, to emphasize that it is just as important, if not more so, to spend your money wisely than it is to have a huge payroll. Some quick words on methodology. I'll be using a number of different metrics, but for this exercise win shares will be used to measure how the team as a whole would perform. I will then total up the win shares, divide by three, and determine an approximate won-loss record. With that done, I will then calculate the payroll and we can compare them in a number of ways with actual, rather than hypothetical, teams. Also, I have tried to avoid picking young budding stars like Nick Johnson and instead focused on players who could have been acquired without a great deal of difficulty prior to this season, either through free agency or trade. There are obviously some logical problems with this approach. First, while win shares are the best to use for this exercise, they are not perfect. It is rather obvious that an actual team composed of these players would not win the exact number of games this will project them to win. This will be further skewed by players actually playing more, or less, than they would if this were a real club. Furthermore, the absence of these players from their actual team would obviously affect those team's results which would, as a result, affect our hypothetical team. Also bear in mind that I am only using last season's performance here. Some of these players have a proven track record at this level, some do not. Many look much better in retrospect than they did prior to 2003. Lastly, the combination of price and performance here is going to be phenomenal and it is highly unlikely that even Beane, Ricciardi, or Epstein could ever put this club together. Regardless, this is not meant to be perfect, just a quick and dirty illustration of the points laid out in the first paragraph. Anyway, on with the team:
Total Win Shares: 347 Projected Record: 116-46 Payroll: $31,744,333 Dollars Spent Per Win: $273,658
Record: 91-71 Payroll: $63,281,152 Dollars Spent Per Win: $695,397
New York Yankees Record: 101-61 Payroll: $180,322,403 Dollars Spent Per Win: $1,785,370
Boston Red Sox Record: 95-67 Payroll: $104,873,607 Dollars Spent Per Win: $1,103,932
Chicago Cubs Record: 88-74 Payroll: $86,576,763 Dollars Spent Per Win: $983,826
New York Mets Record: 66-95 Payroll: $116,253,927 Dollars Spent Per Win: $1,761,423
Los Angeles Dodgers Record: 85-77 Payroll: $109,248,680 Dollars Spent Per Win: $1,285,278
Texas Rangers Record: 71-91 Payroll: $106,277,880 Dollars Spent Per Win: $1,496,871
Oakland Athletics Record: 96-66 Payroll: $56,596,691 Dollars Spent Per Win: $589,548
Kansas City Royals Record: 83-79 Payroll: $48,475,322 Dollars Spent Per Win: $584,040
Montreal Expos Record: 83-79 Payroll: $45,853,889 Dollars Spent Per Win: $552,456 As expected, there are a couple of conclusions that can safely be derived from this exercise which more than back up my initial notions expressed above. While virtually no one would have expected all the players on our hypothetical team to have the seasons they did in '03, almost without exception they had all shown a level of ability that was above the consensus opinion and one which smart GM's were able to identify. It also confirms, although I was most definitely cherry-picking here, that you do not need to have a monster payroll and a roster filled with established stars to make it to the postseason, let alone win the World Series. The Marlins series victory combined with four straight playoff appearances from the Athletics should have confirmed this, but many are slow to abandon the dogma of the past. In any case, the players on our hypothetical team are almost without exception overlooked and most could have been had for a bargain basement price prior to '03. While teams like the Dodgers, Mets, Rangers, and, yes, even the Yankees feel the need to spend money on players who are "proven" in the eyes of most baseball observers, clubs like the Red Sox, A's, Blue Jays, and, somewhat surprisingly, Pirates are willing to take chances on players who they feel will provide more bang for the buck than would be expected by most. With the gap between large and small markets ever increasing, I believe that it is the ability to identify those players that will give low-payroll clubs their chance to survive. Based on recent history, they should be successful. This article may suck, or it may rule, but Andy Brown is above such petty sentiments. You can e-mail him, but he will most likely play it off. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
©Copyright 2003
Phil Orr
|
