Win Shares per Dollar (November 20, 2003)
Average major league value last year was .3 Win Shares for every hundred thousand dollars.
This would be 0.1 wins per 100,000$, or 1 million $ per win.
I agree with the comment at the bottom of the above link with a better metric: just do Performance in money above actual money.
So, if Bonds has 42 win shares, that's 14 wins. At 1 million$ per win, he delivered 14 million $ of salary. If he earned 16 million$, then he was overpaid by 2 million$.
Dave?
--posted by TangoTiger at 12:04 PM EDT
Posted 12:15 p.m.,
November 20, 2003
(#1) -
studes
(homepage)
Yes, that's a very good suggestion. I'll do it tonight.
Personally, I like the graph.
Posted 5:36 p.m.,
November 20, 2003
(#2) -
Denver Lou
(homepage)
I don't think it necessarily means that Bonds is less 'valuable' than an average rookie. It's just that rookies are so cheap they are more cost-effective.
It's the old team wins-per-payroll measure. The leaders in that measure aren't good teams like the Giants or Braves--they're not even well-run teams like the A's and Twins. It's Tampa and Montreal in 2003.
Bonds won't help you as much in the wins-per-dollar department as, say, Rocco Baldelli.
Overall, very interesting stuff.
Posted 5:52 p.m.,
November 20, 2003
(#3) -
Michael
Lou is right, which is why marginal wins for marginal payroll is interesting to look at. And, like many things, one can imagine that there are decreasing marginal returns (win) for increases in the payroll.
Posted 10:54 p.m.,
November 20, 2003
(#4) -
studes
(homepage)
I've updated the comments, added a graph and data.
Posted 8:30 p.m.,
November 24, 2003
(#5) -
Scoriano
Studes, I know the sample sizes are small but have you run playoff win shares?
Posted 9:44 p.m.,
November 24, 2003
(#6) -
studes
(homepage)
I haven't run playoff numbers, Scoriano. I think Pete was going to do that, so I'll check with him and see what's up.
Posted 10:01 a.m.,
November 25, 2003
(#7) -
Robert Dudek
It's true that Bonds probably produces less value per dollar than a decent player making near the minimum, but there isn't the roster space to accomodate all those cheap players. You'd end up with an average club with a total payroll of about half the median, at best. That won't win championships or generate revenue.
Since the really good players are rare, and a contending has to have a number of them, you'll generally have to pay them more per win share than ordinary players.
So, I don't think we can draw any conclusion when comparing a high-priced top player to an ordinary low paid one. We ought to look at how expensive a player is relative to players of similar quality.
Posted 12:38 p.m.,
November 25, 2003
(#8) -
Scoriano
Thanks, Studes. I think they would be interesting. Of course, I hope to use the data to further infer that Jeter has been very good in the post-season.
Posted 1:51 p.m.,
November 25, 2003
(#9) -
studes
(homepage)
Robert, you may want to check out the thread on the baseballgraphs site. That's exactly where it goes.