Bringing Baseball Back

2007 Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Baseball is officially open for business. And, as always, I think their top 12 O-Rank, which is defined as "the player's overall Yahoo! Sports ranking, based on current and prior seasons," is worth examining.

1. Albert Pujols - no argument here
2. Johan Santana - funny, that's where I had him too
3. Jose Reyes - clearly a big upside, but this high?
4. Alfonso Soriano - seems about right
5. Ryan Howard - also seems about right
6. Alex Rodriguez - did I predict this would happen, or what?
7. Carlos Beltran - I'm still a little gun-shy after 2005
8. David Ortiz - Ryan Howard, just a few picks later
9. Chase Utley - positional scarcity with 5-category production
10. Miguel Cabrera - exactly where I had him
11. David Wright - I'd be happy to get him with pick 11
12. Vladimir Guerrero - I'd be happy to get him with pick 12

Now, just for fun, here's the top 12 statistically (in 5x5 leagues) from 2006

1. Albert Pujols
2. Johan Santana
3. Ryan Howard
4. Alfonso Soriano
5. Jose Reyes
6. Joe Nathan (seriously)
7. David Ortiz
8. Derek Jeter
9. Matt Holliday
10. Carlos Beltran (maybe he is a first-rounder)
11. Lance Berkman
12. Jermaine Dye

So what does this tell us? Well, a few things. If you have one of the first five picks this year, chances are, no matter who you take (so long as it's Albert, Johan, Howard, Reyes or Soriano), they are going to perform like a first-round pick. It's later in the first round that things get interesting. For example, if you got the unlucky 12th pick last year, I'd be willing to bet Matt Holliday and Derek Jeter were still around. If you took them back-to-back, you would have drawn immense criticism from the other 11 teams in the league, but you also would have drawn the names of two top-10 performers without one top-10 pick. Not bad.

I guess the real challenge is determining who are going to be this year's Joe Nathans (almost impossible to predict a reliever's win total, which is why he's so high), Derek Jeters, Matt Hollidays (could be Matt Holliday again), and Jermaine Dyes. It might be even more important to try to predict this year's Alex Rodriguez (could be Alex Rodriguez again), so you don't end up paying for a name, rather than paying for stats.

You Want Mor? Neau.

On the heels of my post about the Minnestoa Twins achieving the perfect balance of winning and thriftiness, I read this. Justin Morneau, the reigning MVP, who turns just 26 in May, who hit .321 with 34 homeruns and 130 RBI last year, who is no doubt an integral part of the Twins' future (along with Joe Mauer, Johan Santana, and to a lesser extent Joe Nathan), signed a one-year deal for $4.5 million dollars.

In the words of Porky Pig, "That's all folks."

I know it's arbitration, not free agency. But the fact that he only asked for $5M, the fact that the Twins wouldn't even give him that, and the fact that Morneau actually agreed to take less, blows my mind.

To put this contract into perspective, here's a starting lineup and a few pitchers who make a whole lot more than will make in '07.

C Jason Kendall $11.6M
1B Mike Sweeney $11.0M
2B Kaz Matsui $8.1M (the Rockies aren't laughing)
SS Edgar Renteria $10.0M
3B Adrian Beltre $12.9M
OF JD Drew $11.4M
OF Luis Gonzalez $10.7M
OF Shawn Green $10.2M

SP Andy Pettitte $16.4M
SP Randy Johnson $15.6M
SP Mike Hampton $14.5M
SP Javier Vazquez $12.0M
RP Eric Gagne $10.0M

Ouch for the A's, Royals, Rockies, Braves, Mariners, Red Sox, Angels, Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Diamondbacks, Braves (agian), White Sox, and Rangers. What I find interesting about this list is that, with the exception of Mike Sweeney, every single guy will get this outrageous amount of money because they signed a big free agent contract. That really shows the value of being able to build from within, like Minnesota has, rather than having to build from without (via free agency) where you have to outbid and ultimately overpay for players who simply aren't worth it.

Moneyball

Which baseball teams are getting the most for their money? That's the question I was hoping to answer, and I figured there would be an easy mathematical way to do it. But after looking at team payrolls and win totals, I ran into a big problem. It's not that simple.

Baseball's payrolls last year ranged from as little as $14.345 million dollars (Florida Marlins) to $198.662 million dollars (New York Yankees). And even though the Marlins paid a paltry $180K for each of their 78 wins last season (by far, the lowest dollar amount of all 30 teams) I have a hard time concluding that more teams should try to be like the Marlins. After all, this is a team that finished below .500, and in 4th place in the NL East, 19 games out of first.

On the flip-side, I have an equally hard time saying the New York Yankees were a complete failure last year too, even though they paid $2.05 million dollars per win. The Yanks did win the division (uh-gain) and led Major League Baseball with 97 wins.

For the record, here's a list (from lowest to highest) of what teams paid per win last season.

1. Florida - $180K
2. Colorado - $540K
3. Tampa Bay - $580K
4. Minnestoa - $660K
5. Oakland - $670K
6. Milwaukee - $670K
7. Pittsburgh - $700K
8. Cleveland - $730K
9. Cincinnati - $740K
10. Kansas City - $760K
11. Arizona - $770K
12. San Diego - $780K
13. Texas - $810K
14. Toronto - $830K
15. Detroit - $870K
16. Washington - $890K
17. Philadelphia - $1.03M
18. Baltimore - $1.04M
19. NY Mets - $1.04M
20. St. Louis - $1.05M
21. Houston - $1.12M
22. LA Dodgers - $1.13M
23. Seattle - $1.13M
24. Chicago White Sox - $1.14M
25. LA Angels - $1.16M
26. Atlanta - $1.17M
27. San Francisco - $1.20M
28. Boston - $1.40M
29. Chicago Cubs - $1.44M
30. NY Yankees - $2.05M

Now, here's a list of win totals from 2006 (from highest to lowest)

1. NY Yankees - 97
1. NY Mets - 97
3. Detroit - 95
4. Minnesota - 96
5. Oakland - 93
6. Chicago White Sox - 90
7. LA Angels - 89
8. LA Dodgers- 88
8. San Diego - 88
10. Toronto - 87
11. Boston - 86
12. Philadelphia - 85
13. St. Louis - 83
14. Houston - 82
15. Texas - 80
15. Cincinnati - 80
17. Atlanta - 79
18. Seattle - 78
18. Cleveland - 78
18. Florida - 78
21. Arizona - 76
21. Colorado - 76
21. San Francisco - 76
24. Milwaukee - 75
25. Washington - 71
26. Baltimore - 70
27. Pittsburgh - 67
28. Chicago Cubs - 66
29. Kansas City - 62
30. Tampa Bay - 61

A few things jump out at me (and probably you too). First, the Chicago Cubs were really bad. They had the second highest cost per win ($1.44M) and third lowest win total (66). Also, Minnesota and Oakland were really good. They were both in the top 5 in wins, and in the bottom 5 in cost per win.

That gave me an idea. Teams want to be at the top of both lists those lists to be considered (a) cost-effective, and (b) successful. So what if I took their average ranking on the two lists? Here's how that panned out...

1. Minnesota - 4
2. Oakland - 5
3. Detroit - 9
4. Florida - 9.5
5. NY Mets - 10
5. San Diego -10
7. Colorado - 11.5
8. Toronto - 12
8. Cincinnati -12
10. Cleveland - 13
11. Texas - 14
12. Philadelphia - 14.5
13. Milwaukee - 15
13. LA Dodgers - 15
13. Chicago White Sox - 15
16. NY Yankees - 15.5
17. Arizona - 16
18. LA Angels - 16
19. Tampa Bay - 16.5
19. St. Louis - 16.5
21. Pittsburgh - 17
22. Houston - 17.5
23. Kansas City - 19.5
23. Boston - 19.5
25. Seattle - 20.5
25. Washington - 20.5
27. Atlanta - 21.5
28. Baltimore - 22
29. San Francisco - 24
30. Chicago Cubs - 28.5

While I don't agree with exactly how this panned out, a lot does make sense. Minnesota and Oakland, two franchises known for making the most out of the least, are ranked #1, and 2. In fact, five of the top six teams made the playoff last year, and the team that didn't (Florida) was one of the biggest surprises. The Cubs, Giants, Orioles and Braves all had big payrolls and poor results last year. And the Yankees (most wins, most money spent) rank in the middle.

I found the Cardinals (19th, tied with the D-Rays) and the Red Sox (23rd, tied with the Royals) a bit puzzling. The Cards have a big payroll, and did only finish 2 games over .500, they just happened to win the whole thing. As for the Red Sox/Royals debate I guess I'd say this, which is worse, having a big payroll and just missing the playoffs, or having a tiny payroll and missing the playoffs by a lot? I guess it's about equal.