Once Charles Dolan bought the team, it was the beginning of the end, as he went about dismantling the team. . Instead of the thrilling baseball landscape around the Jake,during this period, you have now slipped back to the bad old days. A louzy team with a small payroll, with no chance of competing.

The moral of the story? If you want to be a Big League owner, you have a civic responsibility to the community to present a contending team, every year.. It must be frustrating for long time fans to have tasted succsess, only to have it slip away because of cheapskate carpetbagger named Charles Dolan

]]>Examples off the top of my head:, Longoria has been “worth” roughly $117 million based on fWAR and has been paid $4 million so far. Ryan Braun’s been worth $110 mil and has made roughly $6.5mil, and Lincecum has made $25 mil and has been worth $122 mil.

I’m sure there’s more, albeit less extreme, examples probably including the likes of Prince, David Wright, certainly Matt Kemp, etc.

]]>So, it’s not that money gets you so many more wins, it’s that it gets you more wins consistently. Small market teams scout, draft, develop, and then a guy is ready, he plays for 3-6 years, then they start all over again. The payroll swells and falls through this cycle. Large market teams just keep reloading with Free Agents.

I’d like to see how the teams who are consistently in the top 5 in payroll perform over the same period. Maybe a moving average, or you could group teams together.

]]>Doing a plot of dollars per win would be quite deceiving. It would make the Yankees ($2M/win in 2009) look horrible, the Padres ($570K/win in 2009) look amazing, and belittle the achievements of the 2008 Rays ($450K/win).

Instead, consider what a typical league-minimum team would look like ($10M for 67.5 wins). Now look at what the 2009 Yankees ($207M, 103 wins) bought with that extra payroll: $5.6M/extra win. The 2009 Padres ($42.7M, 75 wins) paid a little less: $4.4M/extra win. The 2008 Rays ($43.7M, 97 wins), meanwhile, got fire-sale prices: $1.2M/extra win. (The 2009 Rays were still efficient, but less ridiculously so, at $3.4M/extra win.)

]]>The three-year salary/wins correlation is a little higher.

Salary in year Y correlates with wins in year Y with R=0.459 (R^2=0.216).

Salary in year Y correlates with wins in year Y+1 with R=0.400.

Salary in year Y correlates with wins in year Y-1 with R=0.530.

Salary in years Y to Y+2 correlates with wins in years Y to Y+2 with R=0.607 (R^2=0.371).

Still, that’s 63% of the variation in wins determined by things other than payrolls.

]]>The “mainstream media” as a whole assumes that winning is directly attained by spending. Thankfully this kind of study shows that it is not completely accurate.

I love the example of the Minaya Mets. From what I read during his time, he was constantly heralded as some brilliant GM (outside of NY anyways). That was a disaster that is still being felt.

Simply spending money doesn’t make you great. Spending money wisely does. ]]>

The Yankees’ success or failure counts fairly substantially toward the correlation. Let’s use 2009 figures for comparison.

For a typical non-Yankee team, an extra win would move the correlation coefficient 0.0019.

For the Yankees, an extra win would move the correlation coefficient 0.0093.

No other team has an effect half as big as the Yankees.

Teams that have an effect 40%+ as big as the Yankees:

Marlins (49%)

Padres (43%)

Mets (41%)

Cubs (40%)

Teams with an effect on the fit less than 10% as big as the Yankees (i.e., close to average payrolls):

Brewers (9.9%)

Blue Jays (9.7%)

Indians (9.0%)

Mariners (6.7%)

White Sox (5.7%)

Braves (5.2%)

Giants (2.5%)

Cardinals (1.7%)

The change to the correlation coefficient for an additional win for one team (with a generic team taking the corresponding loss) can be calculated via a partial derivative. The formula works out to: delta_r = Z / (N sigma).

Z is the z-score of the team’s salary (3.32 for the Yankees).

N is the number of teams (30).

sigma is the standard deviation in wins (11.9).