Do you grade on a 0-100 scale or would you avoid numbers at the extreme ends? Would 20-80 or even 30-70 be more appropriate? or should it not matter if every column averages to 50.
We used the 20-80 scale, and every column should average out to 50, at least if you want your numbers to look anything like what ours will. I should probably add that information to the post.
ALE: NYY (73.75; 75-60-80-70), Boston (65; 55-60-75-70), Toronto (61.5; 55-60-65-70), Tampa Bay (48.25; 60-60-20-75), Baltimore (31.5; 20-40-40-30)
NLE: Philadelphia (65.5; 70-50-70-60), Atlanta (61.5; 60-60-60-70), Washington (48; 50-55-40-55), Miami (40.5; 50-55-25-40), NYM (37; 30-40-50-20)
Average was 53, which sounds about right for these divisions, I guess. I threw this together so a couple components may be out of whack. I think it’s overall decent but I’ll see. (Criticize, but please don’t eviscerate, since I’ll be able to see how wrong I was when the rankings come out.)
I’m going to attempt to collect and combine the ratings from anybody who’s interested. Just go here (it’s a copy of the spreadsheet Dave linked to) and follow the directions. My contact info is there if you have any questions.
I’m not going to pretend to know enough to critique the numbers you assigned to individual teams but it seems like the spread for future talent is too small. In every other category you utilize almost the entire range of values but for future talent the values are all between 40 and 60. I can see some logic in saying that there is slightly less of a spread there but 40 to 60 seems too tight.
keep in mind that anything below 30 is really substantial…a 31.5 for the orioles seems a little harsh…there have/are worse teams, as while the astros are terrible, they’re not necessarily historically bad and anything below 28 or so would be too low in my mind. the orioles arent that close in horribleness. your future talents are too high too…red sox yankees and jays all 70s NO. theyre all about avg farm systems. also the yankees nowhere on earth have 20 points of a better team than the sox and 15 more than the rays. the financial resources are about right though
Future talent does not simply refer to farm systems, but either way, they aren’t average farm systems. FG ranked the Sox #11, Yankees #10 and the Jays #2. That’s above average to excellent.
The Red Sox, Yankees and Jays all have key player locked up to good long term deals (Pedroia, Sabathia and Bautista, just to name one each). Be sure to consider the players the team has signed from 2013 and beyond as well.
Thanks to Sky agreeing to do the grunt work to compile the composite ratings, you can. See his comment just above this one for details on how to submit your ballot to his compiler.
I won’t pretend to know enough about each org to be able to score all of them, but I do love a good spreadsheet so I thought I’d offer a suggestion. I made a tab called “with rank column” where I added a formula in column G that will automatically calculate the rankings as spreadsheets are completed so each person who’s filling it out can quickly see how their rankings ended up, and so people dropping in can get a quick gauge of it. If you’re filling out a sheet, feel free to copy and paste that into your own, or Sky, if you want to add it to the template it might be useful.
Wish you could use formatting in the comment section to make things looks sexy. It’s where I’m at right now. After reviewing it, I wish I could rank the Padres a tad bit higher. But everything feels close, at least for a non-expert like myself. The hardest part was revenue in my opinion, as there are some question marks with the Dodgers, Padres, Mets, etc.
(Duplicate, put my response off the tree) Wish you could use formatting in the comment section to make things looks sexy. It’s where I’m at right now. After reviewing it, I wish I could rank the Padres a tad bit higher. But everything feels close, at least for a non-expert like myself. The hardest part was revenue in my opinion, as there are some question marks with the Dodgers, Padres, Mets, etc.
And just to add, it was real tough for me to rate anything an 80. I think to a certain extent, mistakes can be made in any situation.
Your “Finances” numbers are way off. Houston is the 4th largest city on the country, top 10 media market, has it’s own cable network starting next year, and pays next to nothing for it’s beautiful stadium. NYM are in the largest market by any measure. While they have had money problems recently, they’ve started to clear up their issues and will continue to have massive revenues. NYC and Houston also are the top two cities for corporate headquarters in the US. But you rank those two right there with Oakland – which plays in a horrible stadium, has terrible TV revenue, and split’s the bay area with SF. SF is ranked higher despite being in the smallest market that has two MLB teams and despite having huge payments on it’s privately financed stadium.
I totally understand your point Matt. When looking over the revenue equation, I also wanted to include the aspect of spending as well. Which teams can spend and are willing to spend. In the case of Houston, no doubt their market is a strong one. But I don’t see a translation into the team itself. In the case of the Met’s, that is a direct result of the Wilpon’s.
Again, that’s the reason why I stated the hardest part of this was scoring revenue.
Interestingly…I never saw the totals rows until I got to ATL. So for my own sake I guess I wasn’t all over the place. Is there a way to add a rankings column so I can sort by it?
Ballsy, I don’t like how heavily revenues are weighted, but since I’ll probably throw the odd stone or two I might as well throw out this completely off the top of my head, 0 research jambalaya:
1 NYY 77.0
2 BOS 74.0
3 TEX 71.5
4 LAA 68.5
5 DET 60.5
6 WAS 60.0
7 TB 59.5
8 PHI 59.5
9 LAD 57.5
10 STL 57.0
11 MIA 52.0
12 CHC 50.5
13 COL 50.0
14 MIL 50.0
15 SF 49.5
16 ATL 48.5
17 SEA 48.0
18 TOR 47.5
19 CIN 45.0
20 CLE 44.5
21 ARI 43.0
22 KC 42.5
23 CHW 40.5
24 NYM 40.5
25 PIT 36.0
26 HOU 36.0
27 OAK 35.5
28 SD 35.5
29 MIN 35.0
30 BAL 25.0
For anyone interested, basic math functions performed across Excel worksheets is really easy if they are all the same layout. So the effort required here by me is actually minimal. I’m excited to see the results.
This was a really fun exercise. I spent more time than I wanted to thanks to having to constantly look up information regarding other teams. There sure is a ton to think about. That’s not even considering information that is beyond our scope.
I printed my results as an Adobe file and will use them to compare to the main rankings. Looking forward to this.
The 40 or so rankings that have been completed thus far show some interesting clustering for Toronto and Tampa. One group has both orgs in the 4-8 range with the other group placing both anywhere from 12-19. Based on the new weightings Tampa was obviously going to take a hit in the rankings, but they should score well above average in everything category except Finances. The massive spread in Toronto’s rank is driven by a difference of opinion in their 2012 Outlook and Revenues as the two groups are scoring both as 40′s or 60′s.
It seems rather pointless to have the FanGraphs writers and readers evaluating revenues (financial resources). Isn’t the Forbes data infinitely better than what the readers and writers are being asked to guess at? Since the Forbes people have access to loads of team financial data that none of us do, I’d recommend using their data in that column and letting the writers/readers evaluate everything else.
Well, thanks for blessing us with your complete rankings.
If others do the same, this could be a very long, very boring comment section.
Send them to Sky.
Having just tried to do this, I get an appreciation for doing it right. Getting averages of 50 and standard deviations of 10 was difficult. I also found the 2013+ outlook particularly difficult. To do it right, I’d have to take a lot more time to look at what contracts each team has going forward. I’m sure my biases about front offices sneaked in there, though I tried to keep them out.
One contributor brought up a good point that each category (especially revenue) isn’t necessarily symmetric and/or normally distributed. I think that’s a solid observation and everyone should feel free not to force the issue. But another advantage of everyone having similar standard deviations is that one person doesn’t count more than anyone else. Wider ranges of scores will matter more than narrow ranges.
This exercise has really lost it’s interest for me. It was fun the first couple of years, and the Mariners thing gave it some legs, but honestly, not enough changes from year to year to make this an annual thing. Do it every 3 years.
Instead of the three categories you guys are using, why not take a more objective approach to organizational rankings? I love the top 50 values series, and you could easily approach these rankings the same way–simply add up the values of each player on a team, minus their contracts. A player like Evan Longoria would be a huge boost to the Rays, yet Vernon Wells would be a huge loss for the Angels. The dollar values for each player would be easy to calculate; you do similar stuff all the time on Fangraphs. Then you could add the value of the farm system using Victor Wang’s research. You would end up with the cumulative value for the entire organization, and this would be very interesting, both for comparing organizations and comparing an organization to how much value it has had in past years. You could see if your favorite organization was trending uphill or downhill.
What an awesome exercise, Thanks Dave and Sky. I realize the rationale behind the 20-80 scale is to get standard deviations of 10 but for revenue and 2012 outlook that doesn’t fit. Specifically in the AL for me the probabilities of playoff chances, basically all i cared about for 2012 outlook, are fairly high for some teams and almost zero for others. This led to a higher spread than the NL, which is more balanced IMO.
Also, Forbes conveniently released their 2012 franchise valuations 3 days ago and those can be used to develop z-scores for finances on that level. I created a spreadsheet which can be viewed here
Future talent needs to be regressed further than 2012 outlook due to a higher uncertainty. Prospect ranking is an inexact science. Players that far away have high variability, much higher than established major leaguers. For this reason a standard deviation below 10 makes sense.
The only place the 50 and 10 should be held firm is baseball ops, where a normal distribution should be assumed due to unknowns.
I used some objective procedures to generate my scores. I normalized Forbes’ 2011 revenue stats to a 50/10 distribution (Yankees had a 92, had to be reduced to 80). For 2012 outlook, I took number of 2011 wins and normalized to 50/10. For future outlook, I took John Sickels’ farm rankings and converted each system to a numerical value, then normalized to 50/10. Couldn’t find an objective way to do Baseball Ops, so everybody got a 50. Results:
1 NYY 65
2 BOS 58
3 PHI 58
4 TEX 56
5 STL 56
6 ATL 54
7 ARI 53
8 DET 53
9 LAD 53
10 WAS 52
11 TB 52
12 LAA 52
13 SFG 52
14 MIL 51
15 TOR 51
16 NYM 50
17 CHC 50
18 CHW 47
19 SDP 47
20 SEA 47
21 COL 47
22 CIN 46
23 OAK 45
24 CLE 45
25 KCR 45
26 MIN 45
27 PIT 45
28 BAL 44
29 MIA 42
30 HOU 40
Average=49.95, St. Dev.=5.4 (brought down by the all-50s baseball ops).
Seems about right. LAA should probably be bumped up after their offseason, as should maybe MIA. KCR should probably get a future talent bump with their young talent. Arizona and the Dodgers seem a little high. Not looking good for my O’s, it would seem.
Oh, and for those who want it, here is the renormalization of 2011 team revenues (according to Forbes) to 50/10. You will have to do something about the Yankees; I chose to drop them to 80 and add 2 to each other team. That keeps the average at 50 but reduces the standard deviation to 8.5. If you leave the Yanks at 80 and do nothing else, the average will drop by half a point and the deviation will drop by less.
NYY 92
BOS 61
PHI 55
TEX 48
STL 49
ATL 47
ARI 43
DET 46
LAD 56
WAS 56
TAM 41
LAA 51
SFG 53
MIL 43
TOR 41
NYM 53
CHC 58
CHW 49
SDP 39
SEA 48
COL 45
CIN 43
OAK 40
CLE 41
KCR 40
MIN 50
PIT 40
BAL 42
MIA 36
HOU 47
Crude methadology and I understand the mean for each category and the standard deviations are a bit off but it was fun. FANGRAPHS should give a tshirt to whoever produces a chart most similiar to your own findings.
Well, thanks for providing us with that informative and helpful comment Baltar.
I agree with Matt on the finance rankings. There’s a difference between ability to spend and willingness to do so.
Also on the subject of 80s: I too find it difficult to give the highest possible marks to any area on any team, with the exception of the Yankees and Revenues – if that’s not an 80, I don’t want to see what an 80 looks like.
Ryan says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Dave,
Do you grade on a 0-100 scale or would you avoid numbers at the extreme ends? Would 20-80 or even 30-70 be more appropriate? or should it not matter if every column averages to 50.
Dave Cameron says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:20 pm
We used the 20-80 scale, and every column should average out to 50, at least if you want your numbers to look anything like what ours will. I should probably add that information to the post.
Ryan says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:22 pm
gotcha. now my baltimore orioles row will (probably) no longer result in a 23….
Person says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Just ranking the NL and AL Easts.
ALE: NYY (73.75; 75-60-80-70), Boston (65; 55-60-75-70), Toronto (61.5; 55-60-65-70), Tampa Bay (48.25; 60-60-20-75), Baltimore (31.5; 20-40-40-30)
NLE: Philadelphia (65.5; 70-50-70-60), Atlanta (61.5; 60-60-60-70), Washington (48; 50-55-40-55), Miami (40.5; 50-55-25-40), NYM (37; 30-40-50-20)
Average was 53, which sounds about right for these divisions, I guess. I threw this together so a couple components may be out of whack. I think it’s overall decent but I’ll see. (Criticize, but please don’t eviscerate, since I’ll be able to see how wrong I was when the rankings come out.)
Sky Kalkman says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:29 pm
I’m going to attempt to collect and combine the ratings from anybody who’s interested. Just go here (it’s a copy of the spreadsheet Dave linked to) and follow the directions. My contact info is there if you have any questions.
http://goo.gl/WIeOc
Drakos says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:40 pm
I’m not going to pretend to know enough to critique the numbers you assigned to individual teams but it seems like the spread for future talent is too small. In every other category you utilize almost the entire range of values but for future talent the values are all between 40 and 60. I can see some logic in saying that there is slightly less of a spread there but 40 to 60 seems too tight.
wmcd says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Thanks for setting this up! Mine (albeit very quickly done) are up.
Dekker says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:46 pm
How about Yankees as #6?
Daniel says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:49 pm
keep in mind that anything below 30 is really substantial…a 31.5 for the orioles seems a little harsh…there have/are worse teams, as while the astros are terrible, they’re not necessarily historically bad and anything below 28 or so would be too low in my mind. the orioles arent that close in horribleness. your future talents are too high too…red sox yankees and jays all 70s NO. theyre all about avg farm systems. also the yankees nowhere on earth have 20 points of a better team than the sox and 15 more than the rays. the financial resources are about right though
Will says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Future talent does not simply refer to farm systems, but either way, they aren’t average farm systems. FG ranked the Sox #11, Yankees #10 and the Jays #2. That’s above average to excellent.
The Red Sox, Yankees and Jays all have key player locked up to good long term deals (Pedroia, Sabathia and Bautista, just to name one each). Be sure to consider the players the team has signed from 2013 and beyond as well.
futant462 says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:56 pm
It would be neat if we could submit these ala “Fan Projections” and compare us vs. the experts.
Dave Cameron says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Thanks to Sky agreeing to do the grunt work to compile the composite ratings, you can. See his comment just above this one for details on how to submit your ballot to his compiler.
futant462 says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Amazing. Thanks for reading my mind.
Shane says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:29 pm
NO! That position is reserved for a certain extremely special ballclub.They can have Pineda for Montero but #6org is ours.PERIOD!
placidity says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:41 pm
I won’t pretend to know enough about each org to be able to score all of them, but I do love a good spreadsheet so I thought I’d offer a suggestion. I made a tab called “with rank column” where I added a formula in column G that will automatically calculate the rankings as spreadsheets are completed so each person who’s filling it out can quickly see how their rankings ended up, and so people dropping in can get a quick gauge of it. If you’re filling out a sheet, feel free to copy and paste that into your own, or Sky, if you want to add it to the template it might be useful.
jaywrong says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:41 pm
2012 Outlook-2013+ Outlook-Revenues-Baseball Ops-Total
NYY 75 65 75 65 72
TEX 75 75 65 70 70.75
PHI 75 65 75 55 70.5
BOS 70 70 70 65 69.25
LAA 70 70 65 65 67.5
TOR 50 70 70 75 63.75
DET 65 60 70 45 63
STL 65 60 60 55 61
MIA 60 60 65 50 60.25
ATL 60 60 60 60 60
WAS 55 65 65 55 60
TB 65 75 35 75 57.5
SF 60 55 65 35 57.25
ARI 55 65 50 65 56.25
COL 60 60 50 55 55.75
CIN 60 60 50 55 55.75
MIN 55 55 55 55 55
MIL 60 55 50 55 55
CLE 60 50 50 55 54.25
CHW 60 45 60 30 53.25
CHC 35 40 70 70 53.25
KC 55 65 40 60 52
SEA 45 55 55 55 51.5
LAD 60 65 40 35 50
SD 50 65 35 70 50
HOU 30 30 40 45 35.75
OAK 40 45 40 65 44.5
NYM 40 40 40 50 41.5
PIT 40 50 30 50 39.5
BAL 30 30 55 25 38
jaywrong says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Wish you could use formatting in the comment section to make things looks sexy. It’s where I’m at right now. After reviewing it, I wish I could rank the Padres a tad bit higher. But everything feels close, at least for a non-expert like myself. The hardest part was revenue in my opinion, as there are some question marks with the Dodgers, Padres, Mets, etc.
jaywrong says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:45 pm
(Duplicate, put my response off the tree) Wish you could use formatting in the comment section to make things looks sexy. It’s where I’m at right now. After reviewing it, I wish I could rank the Padres a tad bit higher. But everything feels close, at least for a non-expert like myself. The hardest part was revenue in my opinion, as there are some question marks with the Dodgers, Padres, Mets, etc.
And just to add, it was real tough for me to rate anything an 80. I think to a certain extent, mistakes can be made in any situation.
Matt says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Your “Finances” numbers are way off. Houston is the 4th largest city on the country, top 10 media market, has it’s own cable network starting next year, and pays next to nothing for it’s beautiful stadium. NYM are in the largest market by any measure. While they have had money problems recently, they’ve started to clear up their issues and will continue to have massive revenues. NYC and Houston also are the top two cities for corporate headquarters in the US. But you rank those two right there with Oakland – which plays in a horrible stadium, has terrible TV revenue, and split’s the bay area with SF. SF is ranked higher despite being in the smallest market that has two MLB teams and despite having huge payments on it’s privately financed stadium.
jaywrong says:
March 23, 2012 at 2:59 pm
I totally understand your point Matt. When looking over the revenue equation, I also wanted to include the aspect of spending as well. Which teams can spend and are willing to spend. In the case of Houston, no doubt their market is a strong one. But I don’t see a translation into the team itself. In the case of the Met’s, that is a direct result of the Wilpon’s.
Again, that’s the reason why I stated the hardest part of this was scoring revenue.
Sky Kalkman says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Great idea, I’ll add that at some point today.
Big Oil says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Did mine.
AVG’s: 52/52/50/54 – total avg: 51.575
SD: 10/9/11/10
Interestingly…I never saw the totals rows until I got to ATL. So for my own sake I guess I wasn’t all over the place. Is there a way to add a rankings column so I can sort by it?
Thanks!
Big Oil says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:13 pm
did not see comment above.
Sandy Kazmir says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Ballsy, I don’t like how heavily revenues are weighted, but since I’ll probably throw the odd stone or two I might as well throw out this completely off the top of my head, 0 research jambalaya:
1 NYY 77.0
2 BOS 74.0
3 TEX 71.5
4 LAA 68.5
5 DET 60.5
6 WAS 60.0
7 TB 59.5
8 PHI 59.5
9 LAD 57.5
10 STL 57.0
11 MIA 52.0
12 CHC 50.5
13 COL 50.0
14 MIL 50.0
15 SF 49.5
16 ATL 48.5
17 SEA 48.0
18 TOR 47.5
19 CIN 45.0
20 CLE 44.5
21 ARI 43.0
22 KC 42.5
23 CHW 40.5
24 NYM 40.5
25 PIT 36.0
26 HOU 36.0
27 OAK 35.5
28 SD 35.5
29 MIN 35.0
30 BAL 25.0
Big Oil says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm
that was fast. Awesome. thanks!
Sky Kalkman says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm
For anyone interested, basic math functions performed across Excel worksheets is really easy if they are all the same layout. So the effort required here by me is actually minimal. I’m excited to see the results.
Sandy Kazmir says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Great idea, Sky, I’ll post mine
Person says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:59 pm
@Daniel the last number is baseball ops, not 2013+. otherwise good points and thanks, same @Drakos
ThundaPC says:
March 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm
This was a really fun exercise. I spent more time than I wanted to thanks to having to constantly look up information regarding other teams. There sure is a ton to think about. That’s not even considering information that is beyond our scope.
I printed my results as an Adobe file and will use them to compare to the main rankings. Looking forward to this.
Eric B says:
March 23, 2012 at 5:14 pm
The 40 or so rankings that have been completed thus far show some interesting clustering for Toronto and Tampa. One group has both orgs in the 4-8 range with the other group placing both anywhere from 12-19. Based on the new weightings Tampa was obviously going to take a hit in the rankings, but they should score well above average in everything category except Finances. The massive spread in Toronto’s rank is driven by a difference of opinion in their 2012 Outlook and Revenues as the two groups are scoring both as 40′s or 60′s.
Fascinating stuff!
reillocity says:
March 23, 2012 at 5:30 pm
It seems rather pointless to have the FanGraphs writers and readers evaluating revenues (financial resources). Isn’t the Forbes data infinitely better than what the readers and writers are being asked to guess at? Since the Forbes people have access to loads of team financial data that none of us do, I’d recommend using their data in that column and letting the writers/readers evaluate everything else.
Ben Hall says:
March 23, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Sky,
This is great. Thanks a lot. The SD column (which obviously isn’t so hard to do) is a great idea.
Ben Hall says:
March 23, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Dave–I found putting a SD cell at the bottom of each column (as Sky did) very helpful. It would be great if you put one in the basic spreadsheet.
Baltar says:
March 23, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Well, thanks for blessing us with your complete rankings.
If others do the same, this could be a very long, very boring comment section.
Send them to Sky.
Ben Hall says:
March 23, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Having just tried to do this, I get an appreciation for doing it right. Getting averages of 50 and standard deviations of 10 was difficult. I also found the 2013+ outlook particularly difficult. To do it right, I’d have to take a lot more time to look at what contracts each team has going forward. I’m sure my biases about front offices sneaked in there, though I tried to keep them out.
Thanks for this, Dave.
Sky says:
March 23, 2012 at 8:39 pm
One contributor brought up a good point that each category (especially revenue) isn’t necessarily symmetric and/or normally distributed. I think that’s a solid observation and everyone should feel free not to force the issue. But another advantage of everyone having similar standard deviations is that one person doesn’t count more than anyone else. Wider ranges of scores will matter more than narrow ranges.
Andrew says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:09 am
This exercise has really lost it’s interest for me. It was fun the first couple of years, and the Mariners thing gave it some legs, but honestly, not enough changes from year to year to make this an annual thing. Do it every 3 years.
2012 says:
March 24, 2012 at 11:40 am
Dave,
Instead of the three categories you guys are using, why not take a more objective approach to organizational rankings? I love the top 50 values series, and you could easily approach these rankings the same way–simply add up the values of each player on a team, minus their contracts. A player like Evan Longoria would be a huge boost to the Rays, yet Vernon Wells would be a huge loss for the Angels. The dollar values for each player would be easy to calculate; you do similar stuff all the time on Fangraphs. Then you could add the value of the farm system using Victor Wang’s research. You would end up with the cumulative value for the entire organization, and this would be very interesting, both for comparing organizations and comparing an organization to how much value it has had in past years. You could see if your favorite organization was trending uphill or downhill.
Angelsjunky says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Everything is subjective except for revenues. Maybe you can provide information on that so we can enter it in without guessing?
peachesnnuts says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:23 pm
What an awesome exercise, Thanks Dave and Sky. I realize the rationale behind the 20-80 scale is to get standard deviations of 10 but for revenue and 2012 outlook that doesn’t fit. Specifically in the AL for me the probabilities of playoff chances, basically all i cared about for 2012 outlook, are fairly high for some teams and almost zero for others. This led to a higher spread than the NL, which is more balanced IMO.
Also, Forbes conveniently released their 2012 franchise valuations 3 days ago and those can be used to develop z-scores for finances on that level. I created a spreadsheet which can be viewed here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgKBy8MDb9ZPdE8…
Future talent needs to be regressed further than 2012 outlook due to a higher uncertainty. Prospect ranking is an inexact science. Players that far away have high variability, much higher than established major leaguers. For this reason a standard deviation below 10 makes sense.
The only place the 50 and 10 should be held firm is baseball ops, where a normal distribution should be assumed due to unknowns.
peachesnnuts says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:25 pm
awesome link in the previous post, try this one
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgKBy8MDb9ZPdE80MUpYdzVUdk5hTWthRUtpYlRTc1E#gid=0
Os Fan says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:50 am
I used some objective procedures to generate my scores. I normalized Forbes’ 2011 revenue stats to a 50/10 distribution (Yankees had a 92, had to be reduced to 80). For 2012 outlook, I took number of 2011 wins and normalized to 50/10. For future outlook, I took John Sickels’ farm rankings and converted each system to a numerical value, then normalized to 50/10. Couldn’t find an objective way to do Baseball Ops, so everybody got a 50. Results:
1 NYY 65
2 BOS 58
3 PHI 58
4 TEX 56
5 STL 56
6 ATL 54
7 ARI 53
8 DET 53
9 LAD 53
10 WAS 52
11 TB 52
12 LAA 52
13 SFG 52
14 MIL 51
15 TOR 51
16 NYM 50
17 CHC 50
18 CHW 47
19 SDP 47
20 SEA 47
21 COL 47
22 CIN 46
23 OAK 45
24 CLE 45
25 KCR 45
26 MIN 45
27 PIT 45
28 BAL 44
29 MIA 42
30 HOU 40
Average=49.95, St. Dev.=5.4 (brought down by the all-50s baseball ops).
Seems about right. LAA should probably be bumped up after their offseason, as should maybe MIA. KCR should probably get a future talent bump with their young talent. Arizona and the Dodgers seem a little high. Not looking good for my O’s, it would seem.
Os Fan says:
March 25, 2012 at 1:56 am
Oh, and for those who want it, here is the renormalization of 2011 team revenues (according to Forbes) to 50/10. You will have to do something about the Yankees; I chose to drop them to 80 and add 2 to each other team. That keeps the average at 50 but reduces the standard deviation to 8.5. If you leave the Yanks at 80 and do nothing else, the average will drop by half a point and the deviation will drop by less.
NYY 92
BOS 61
PHI 55
TEX 48
STL 49
ATL 47
ARI 43
DET 46
LAD 56
WAS 56
TAM 41
LAA 51
SFG 53
MIL 43
TOR 41
NYM 53
CHC 58
CHW 49
SDP 39
SEA 48
COL 45
CIN 43
OAK 40
CLE 41
KCR 40
MIN 50
PIT 40
BAL 42
MIA 36
HOU 47
Shane says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:39 am
Thanks Sky that was fun. You know fun in a nerdy Saturday kinda way. Seriously thanks
Shane H says:
March 25, 2012 at 9:52 am
Here it is!
Template 2012 Outlook 2013+ Outlook Revenues Baseball Ops Total Rank
NYY 65 60 80 65 69.5 1
BOS 60 65 75 60 66 3
TOR 45 65 50 70 53.5 13
BAL 35 35 45 45 40 27
TB 70 70 35 70 57.75 8
CHW 40 40 60 35 46.25 21
DET 60 60 60 50 58.5 7
CLE 50 45 45 55 48.25 18
KC 40 55 35 65 44.25 25
MIN 35 40 40 45 39 29
SEA 35 45 50 55 44.75 23
OAK 40 50 35 65 43.5 26
TEX 70 65 65 70 67.5 2
LAA 65 55 65 45 60.5 4
LAD 50 55 60 40 52.75 14
SD 35 45 35 55 39.5 28
COL 45 50 55 45 49.25 17
SF 60 55 55 40 54.5 11
ARI 60 65 50 55 56.5 10
MIL 55 45 35 45 45 22
STL 60 50 60 50 57 9
CIN 55 60 40 50 49.75 16
PIT 45 50 35 60 44.5 24
CHC 35 45 65 60 50.75 15
HOU 30 30 55 30 38.75 30
PHI 60 55 65 50 59.5 5
NYM 35 45 65 35 47 19
ATL 60 60 55 65 59 6
WAS 50 60 55 55 54 12
MIA 55 45 40 45 46.75 20
Average 50 52 52 53 51.4583333333333
SD 12 10 13 11
Crude methadology and I understand the mean for each category and the standard deviations are a bit off but it was fun. FANGRAPHS should give a tshirt to whoever produces a chart most similiar to your own findings.
Shane H says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:40 am
Let me try this again.
Team 2012 2013+ Revenue Operations Total Rank
NYY 65 60 80 65 69.5 1
TEX 70 65 65 70 67.5 2
BOS 60 65 75 60 66 3
LAA 65 55 65 45 60.5 4
PHI 60 55 65 50 59.5 5
ATL 60 60 55 65 59 6
DET 60 60 60 50 58.5 7
TB 70 70 35 70 57.75 8
STL 60 50 60 50 57 9
ARI 60 65 50 55 56.5 10
SF 60 55 55 40 54.5 11
WAS 50 60 55 55 54 12
TOR 45 65 50 70 53.5 13
LAD 50 55 60 40 52.75 14
CHC 35 45 65 60 50.75 15
CIN 55 60 40 50 49.75 16
COL 45 50 55 45 49.25 17
CLE 50 45 45 55 48.25 18
OAK 40 55 35 65 47.5 19
NYM 40 50 65 40 47.25 20
MIA 55 45 40 45 46.75 21
CHW 40 40 60 35 46.25 22
Daniel says:
March 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Well, thanks for providing us with that informative and helpful comment Baltar.
I agree with Matt on the finance rankings. There’s a difference between ability to spend and willingness to do so.
Also on the subject of 80s: I too find it difficult to give the highest possible marks to any area on any team, with the exception of the Yankees and Revenues – if that’s not an 80, I don’t want to see what an 80 looks like.
2012 says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm
You missed Seattle. They should be right between Atlanta and Detroit, I’m pretty sure.
2012 says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:57 pm
#7org