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.
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.
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.
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.
Everything is subjective except for revenues. Maybe you can provide information on that so we can enter it in without guessing?
Comment by Angelsjunky — March 24, 2012 @ 12:24 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
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.
Comment by peachesnnuts — March 24, 2012 @ 8:23 pm
Comment by peachesnnuts — March 24, 2012 @ 8:25 pm
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.
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.