Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
It seems that the intrigue surrounding the Cubs is down to when Dusty Baker will get his walking papers. I received this email earlier today:
Hi Mike,
I don't know if you have this kind of data available to you, but with the Cubs spending gobs of money for an offense barely better than the Kansas City Royals, I was curious what the worst ratio of money spent on payroll to wins in a season is. At this pace, I imagine the Cubs might top the list, but I don't know of a good way to find out on my own. Also, if you found out the best money spent/win ratio that'd be interesting too, accouting for inflation of course (I'd guess that the '05 Indians and the Moneyball A's of the early '00s are up there).
Thanks and keep up the great work,
Mike Jansen
Do I have the data available? I'm lousy with it.
I ran the historical numbers. That was a snap, but then I added in the numbers for this season based on the USA Today's payroll data and the projected records for all teams (based on the standings as of Monday night). Keep in mind that the payrolls may grow as the season progresses.
The Cubs are pretty bad, but can't compare to the Yankees of late. The Yankees have been good, but their spending outstrips their on-field success when it comes to this sort of analysis. I don't think the Boss minds much. Here are the numbers for the most extravagant based on overall dollars per win (by which I hereby risk ticking off two sets of people with whom I share this site):
| Yr | Team | Total payroll | W | $ per W |
| 2005 | New York Yankees | $208,306,817 | 95 | $2,192,703 |
| 2006 | New York Yankees | $194,663,079 | 96 | $2,030,330 |
| 2004 | New York Yankees | $184,193,950 | 101 | $1,823,702 |
| 2003 | New York Mets | $116,876,429 | 66 | $1,770,855 |
| 2006 | Chicago Cubs | $ 94,424,499 | 62 | $1,533,861 |
| 2003 | New York Yankees | $152,749,814 | 101 | $1,512,374 |
| 2006 | Los Angeles Angels | $103,472,000 | 70 | $1,480,660 |
| 2002 | Texas Rangers | $105,526,122 | 72 | $1,465,641 |
| 2003 | Texas Rangers | $103,491,667 | 71 | $1,457,629 |
| 2004 | Arizona Diamondbacks | $ 69,780,750 | 51 | $1,368,250 |
| 2004 | New York Mets | $ 96,660,970 | 71 | $1,361,422 |
| 2001 | Boston Red Sox | $110,035,833 | 82 | $1,341,900 |
| 2006 | Seattle Mariners | $ 87,959,833 | 67 | $1,308,045 |
| 2005 | Boston Red Sox | $123,505,125 | 95 | $1,300,054 |
| 2004 | Boston Red Sox | $127,298,500 | 98 | $1,298,964 |
| 2004 | Seattle Mariners | $ 81,515,834 | 63 | $1,293,902 |
| 2005 | Seattle Mariners | $ 87,754,334 | 69 | $1,271,802 |
| 2001 | Los Angeles Dodgers | $109,105,953 | 86 | $1,268,674 |
| 2002 | New York Mets | $ 94,633,593 | 75 | $1,261,781 |
| 2003 | Los Angeles Dodgers | $105,572,620 | 85 | $1,242,031 |
| 2002 | New York Yankees | $125,928,583 | 103 | $1,222,608 |
| 2005 | New York Mets | $101,305,821 | 83 | $1,220,552 |
| 2001 | Texas Rangers | $ 88,633,500 | 73 | $1,214,158 |
| 2006 | Boston Red Sox | $120,099,824 | 99 | $1,210,883 |
| 2005 | San Francisco Giants | $ 90,199,500 | 75 | $1,202,660 |
| 2006 | Kansas City Royals | $ 47,294,000 | 40 | $1,192,081 |
I had to extend the list to get this year's Royals in there.
You'll note that there are no teams before 2001 on the list. So have teams just discovered overpaying for talent in the last five years or are we biased by the ever-inflating salaries in the majors? I think it's the latter.
I adjusted the payrolls based on the major-league average for the given season (actually, the average salary per player based on 25-man roster). Last year's Yanks still top the list:
| Yr | Team | Total payroll | W | $ per W | Avg per 25 | $ per W Adj |
| 2005 | New York Yankees | $208,306,817 | 95 | $2,192,703 | $2,918,285 | 0.7514 |
| 1995 | Toronto Blue Jays | $ 50,590,000 | 56 | $ 903,393 | $1,359,242 | 0.6646 |
| 2004 | New York Yankees | $184,193,950 | 101 | $1,823,702 | $2,760,888 | 0.6605 |
| 2006 | New York Yankees | $194,663,079 | 96 | $2,030,330 | $3,102,276 | 0.6545 |
| 2003 | New York Mets | $116,876,429 | 66 | $1,770,855 | $2,837,683 | 0.6240 |
| 1994 | Toronto Blue Jays | $ 43,433,668 | 55 | $ 789,703 | $1,325,480 | 0.5958 |
| 1994 | Detroit Tigers | $ 41,446,501 | 53 | $ 782,009 | $1,325,480 | 0.5900 |
| 1994 | San Francisco Giants | $ 42,638,666 | 55 | $ 775,248 | $1,325,480 | 0.5849 |
| 1992 | Los Angeles Dodgers | $ 44,788,166 | 63 | $ 710,923 | $1,239,297 | 0.5737 |
| 1994 | Chicago Cubs | $ 36,287,333 | 49 | $ 740,558 | $1,325,480 | 0.5587 |
| 1987 | Atlanta Braves | $ 16,544,560 | 69 | $ 239,776 | $ 434,911 | 0.5513 |
| 1994 | Atlanta Braves | $ 49,383,513 | 68 | $ 726,228 | $1,325,480 | 0.5479 |
| 2002 | Texas Rangers | $105,526,122 | 72 | $1,465,641 | $2,698,770 | 0.5431 |
| 1988 | Baltimore Orioles | $ 13,532,075 | 54 | $ 250,594 | $ 462,081 | 0.5423 |
| 1998 | Baltimore Orioles | $ 72,355,634 | 79 | $ 915,894 | $1,704,377 | 0.5374 |
| 2003 | New York Yankees | $152,749,814 | 101 | $1,512,374 | $2,837,683 | 0.5330 |
| 1994 | Boston Red Sox | $ 37,859,084 | 54 | $ 701,094 | $1,325,480 | 0.5289 |
| 1999 | Los Angeles Dodgers | $ 80,862,453 | 77 | $1,050,162 | $1,992,305 | 0.5271 |
| 1986 | Chicago Cubs | $ 17,208,165 | 70 | $ 245,831 | $ 473,674 | 0.5190 |
| 1999 | Baltimore Orioles | $ 80,605,863 | 78 | $1,033,409 | $1,992,305 | 0.5187 |
| 1993 | New York Mets | $ 39,043,667 | 59 | $ 661,757 | $1,288,200 | 0.5137 |
| 2003 | Texas Rangers | $103,491,667 | 71 | $1,457,629 | $2,837,683 | 0.5137 |
| 2001 | Boston Red Sox | $110,035,833 | 82 | $1,341,900 | $2,614,218 | 0.5133 |
| 1988 | Atlanta Braves | $ 12,728,174 | 54 | $ 235,707 | $ 462,081 | 0.5101 |
| 1995 | Chicago White Sox | $ 46,961,282 | 68 | $ 690,607 | $1,359,242 | 0.5081 |
This year's rendition of the Cubs come in at number 33. So maybe Dusty's not doing such a bad job after all.
By the way, here are the teams that did the best at adjusted payroll per win (ignoring certain teams from 1987 with incomplete data). Surprise, this year's gutted Marlins come in at number 2:
| Yr | Team | Total payroll | W | $ per W | Avg25 | $ per W Adj |
| 1997 | Pittsburgh Pirates | $ 10,771,667 | 79 | $ 136,350 | $1,610,252 | 0.0847 |
| 2006 | Florida Marlins | $ 14,998,500 | 53 | $ 283,536 | $3,102,276 | 0.0914 |
| 1998 | Montreal Expos | $ 10,641,500 | 65 | $ 163,715 | $1,704,377 | 0.0961 |
| 1992 | Cleveland Indians | $ 9,373,044 | 76 | $ 123,330 | $1,239,297 | 0.0995 |
| 2000 | Minnesota Twins | $ 16,519,500 | 69 | $ 239,413 | $2,221,513 | 0.1078 |
| 2001 | Minnesota Twins | $ 24,130,000 | 85 | $ 283,882 | $2,614,218 | 0.1086 |
| 2003 | Tampa Bay Devil Rays | $ 19,630,000 | 63 | $ 311,587 | $2,837,683 | 0.1098 |
| 2000 | Florida Marlins | $ 19,872,000 | 79 | $ 251,544 | $2,221,513 | 0.1132 |
| 1993 | Colorado Rockies | $ 10,353,500 | 67 | $ 154,530 | $1,288,200 | 0.1200 |
| 2001 | Oakland Athletics | $ 33,810,750 | 102 | $ 331,478 | $2,614,218 | 0.1268 |
You may notice that aside from the 2001 A's there's not a ton of success on the list.
And is there any data available to find some sort of correlations between payroll $ and attendance? For example, the 2005 Yankees spent $208mil but also drew a team record 4+ million people, versus the 2003 Mets who spent "only" $116mil and drew 2.1 million fans; these might be some interesting sets of numbers to play around with.
So the 2006 Cubs at 62 wins (you know they'll do beter than that) and $94 million is $6.5 million for each WARP. The 2006 Yankees at 96 wins and $194 miilion is $5 million per WARP. Some quick math shows if the Cubs get to 67 wins and the Yanks 96 the Cubs will be more cost efficient by this method.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.