Anyone Want To Talk About Two Weeks Ago?

by colintj on May 1, 2008 2:56 PM CDT

Wins_and_cost_effectiveness_medium

That right there is a graph comparing the average wins per season from 2001 - 2007 (y axis) and Forbes' cost/wins metric that they normalized the same way OPS+ is (x axis), except every playoff victory is worth twice a normal win. The article they posted before I left for LA about the total value of the 30 MLB clubs had the latter listed for each team going back to '00, iirc, so I c/p'd and excel'd and now we have this.

You're seeing, basically, how good each team has been over the course of those seven seasons and how much it cost them to be that good. If I had photoshop on this computer, I would have added two dotted lines. One going vertically from 100 and one going horizontally from 81. These of course would represent the average. Why 2001 to 2007? That's the extent of KW's reign. Since we always seem to be wondering about Kenny's legacy and his skill, this seems as good a way as any to address that on the macro level.

He comes off looking pretty good and, barring the utterly abhorrent '07 (assign blame as you will), he'd be doing even better. Kenny won't ever be declared a genius, but I think this graph indicates he's good at what he does.

**EDIT**

What exactly the X Axis is has caused some confusion. According to Forbes, the efficiency measure:

Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Postseason wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average.

100 is average, >100 is above average, <100 is below. Sorry about lack of clarity, but I threw this up quickly just because it'd been sitting on this computer for 2 weeks. Should've forwarded it to myself. I humbly beg forgiveness and note that I'm pretty new at this okay? Okay.

0 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

KW SUCKS!!

SO DOES OZZIE!!! HELL JR SUCKS TOO!!! WE SHOULD FIRE THAM ALL!!! BECAUSE THEY ALL SUCK!!! YOU’RE AN IDIOT FOR POSTING THIS COLIN!!! ARE THESE CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS GETTING MY POINT ACROSS???

by whitesoxmatt on May 1, 2008 3:36 PM CDT 0 recs

WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING WITH MY LIFE OH CRAP IT MUST BE TIME FOR MORE BONG WATER

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

STOP YELLING IT'S GIVING ME A HEADACHE!!!!

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on May 1, 2008 5:33 PM CDT up 0 recs

TOO BAD SOO SAD.

Repeat after me: reading comprehension, even a little bit of thought before posting, and basic research are not signs of weakness.

by Toonderstrook on May 1, 2008 5:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

ROFL!

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on May 1, 2008 5:54 PM CDT up 0 recs

THIS IS A GLOWING ENDORSEMENT FOR THE TWINS AND A'S MINOR LEAGUE SYSTEMS

i feel like if i don’t write in caps no one will hear me.

Ahh, Good times...

by MarketMaker on May 1, 2008 6:04 PM CDT 0 recs

i also think this shows how the marlins are a unique team

Ahh, Good times...

by MarketMaker on May 1, 2008 6:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

This is very cool

And I hate to nitpick on an English major, but isn’t that x-axis supposed to be $ per victory? If so, you’ve got the scale backwards. btw, this also proves once again that Cubs suck.

"The little things are always in my mind," he said. "I always like to move the guy over, I like to bunt."

by ChicagoPete on May 1, 2008 6:20 PM CDT 0 recs

It is normalized like the bell curve

so, much like IQ, 100 is average and then going to the left they spend more per victory and the right is less per victory

by whitesoxmatt on May 1, 2008 6:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

The math major chimes in

But I quote him

average wins per season from 2001 – 2007 (y axis) and Forbes’ cost/wins metric

...and I’m assuming he meant to say “Forbers cost/win metric on the x-axis”. Nice of you to try and bail him, but the kid fucked it up. Cheat, you need to take away his front page rights.

"The little things are always in my mind," he said. "I always like to move the guy over, I like to bunt."

by ChicagoPete on May 1, 2008 6:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

what's the issue exactly?

the x axis is dollars per victory.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

Get your nose out of that bong and look at your graph, that's the issue

The far left of the x-axis says 40.00, the far right says 160.00 – it’s backwards.

"The little things are always in my mind," he said. "I always like to move the guy over, I like to bunt."

by ChicagoPete on May 1, 2008 6:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

that's right

below average is to the left of 100 and above average efficiency is to the right. why does this only make sense to me?

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:40 PM CDT up 0 recs

BECAUSE THE AXES AREN'T LABELED AND DON'T HAVE UNITS ON THEM

Wow, writing in all caps, although wretchedly annoying to look at, is kinda fun. But I think that’s only because of today’s ongoing commentary.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on May 1, 2008 6:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

IT IS A PRETTY GREAT THING AND IN FACT IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE

TO DERIVE HUMOR FROM IT BY SPEAKING IN SUCH A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE ONE THINK THAT CAPS WOULD BE OUT OF PLACE. THE IDEA IS TO SOUND FORMAL AND RATIONAL WHILE AT THE SAME TIME USING THE CAPITALIZATION POWER OF SHIFT AND/OR THE CAPS LOCK I PREFER CAPS AND ALSO I NEVER USE A COMMA WHEN I AM ALL CAPSING IT EVEN WHEN IT IS GOOD TO DO SO IT LEADS TO SOME RUN ON SENTENCES I WOULD SAY FOR SURE.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:44 PM CDT up 0 recs

THE ISSUE IS THAT IT APPEARS AS IF THE MARLINS SPEND MUCH MORE PER VICTORY THAN THE YANKEES

THIS CANNOT BE TRUE, SINCE THE MARLINS WIN MORE THAN 20 GAMES PER YEAR.

I’LL ALSO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THE AXES AREN’T LABELED AND LACK UNITS. AMATEUR HACKS, I TELL YOU WHAT.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on May 1, 2008 6:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

IT IS LIKE EIGHTH GRADE ALL OVER AGAIN

I DIDN’T LABEL MY AXES!!!

I GUESS I FIGURED YOU GUYS WOULD SEE THE ONE THAT RAN FROM 60 TO 100 AND DETERMINE THAT WOULD BE THE VICTORIES PER SEASON AXIS

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:41 PM CDT up 0 recs

AHHHH!!!

ALL THESE CAPITAL LETTERS ARE MAKING MY HEAD EXPLODE!

WHAT ARE THE UNITS FOR THE X-AXIS?

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on May 1, 2008 6:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

dollars/win, normalized with the average like OPS+

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

Now I understand the units

but to be quite honest, the “normalized with the average like OPS+” has lost me.

If I am to compare Oak, CHW, and NYY. I see that OAK is 140 dollars / win, CHW 100 dollars / win, and NYY at 60 dollars / win. Where I am lost is how the normalization occurs. Since CHW is in the middle, I assume that they are average, but what numbers divided by what numbers produce OAK to be highly efficient at 140?

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on May 1, 2008 6:49 PM CDT up 0 recs

oh right okay i see

the actual unit isn’t dollars/win, it’s just raw efficiency set to a scale where 100 is average, less than 100 is below average and greater than 100 is above average. so 140 is actually unit-less, really, unless “units of efficiency” is a unit.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:56 PM CDT up 0 recs

yeah, i get it now, the OPS+ thing is confusing

because we’re all thinking cost per win when its actually cost per win efficiency. it’s like explaining to a non-golfer that better scores are lower, it goes against instincts.

Ahh, Good times...

by MarketMaker on May 1, 2008 6:59 PM CDT up 0 recs

well i'm pretty sure i'm to blame

i threw it up quick because i liked the graph but everything i had to say dried up when i finished it two weeks ago. the graph was finished and then the cab for the airport got here.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 7:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

yeah, though i can draw conclusions from the graph

it would be easier with the x-axis being an ascending cost per win. (with playoff wins being worth 2X) right?

Ahh, Good times...

by MarketMaker on May 1, 2008 6:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

The x-axis is costs per win

My guess is the Yankees CPW should be 160k, and the Marlins s/b 40k – this is bass ackwards.

"The little things are always in my mind," he said. "I always like to move the guy over, I like to bunt."

by ChicagoPete on May 1, 2008 6:33 PM CDT up 0 recs

maybe if it were in all caps you'd be able to figure it out, you pollock.

Repeat after me: reading comprehension, even a little bit of thought before posting, and basic research are not signs of weakness.

by Toonderstrook on May 1, 2008 6:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

ROFL!

Man, who slipped this board the humor juice today?

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on May 1, 2008 6:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

it's like OPS+

so the lower below average you are, the farther to the left. it makes sense to me. that’s how it would look on a distribution.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'm sorry, I gotta give you a D- here

You can make it up on the final.

"The little things are always in my mind," he said. "I always like to move the guy over, I like to bunt."

by ChicagoPete on May 1, 2008 6:41 PM CDT up 0 recs

hey sophomore year advanced math!

i didn’t make it up on the final that year.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

You know who knew how to draw a graph?

yaz

"The little things are always in my mind," he said. "I always like to move the guy over, I like to bunt."

by ChicagoPete on May 1, 2008 6:42 PM CDT up 1 recs

speaking of yaz

seems hawk build a website for his idol

http://www.yaz.com/

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on May 1, 2008 6:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

Hawk doesn't want to get knocked up by Yaz or anything

He’s both playing it safe and complementing Yaz at the same time.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

by rhythm on May 1, 2008 6:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

i love that commercial

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:57 PM CDT up 0 recs

Colin

I’m curious what the standard deviation of the cost/win data is and then what the sox’s normalized cost/win is

by whitesoxmatt on May 1, 2008 6:27 PM CDT 0 recs

i'm glad you asked matt!

the raw data

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

which is to say

“feel free to find out because i did not and am trying to earn 250 dollars by writing some deal about Michigan’s football team”

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 6:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

Because I feel like being an ass

i dont know who calculated the statistics, but giving 2008 as much value as the other 5 years doesn’t seem correct to me considering we’ve played 1/6 of the season, and since i know i’m too damn lazy to figure all this out i’ll assume that it just isn’t going to happen. taking out 2008 KW looks like is he doing an even better job than the graph would indicate.

i’m not sure if there are any outliers, but with everything bunched that close together i would guess that the standard deviation is very small, so the difference in 5 units if you take out 2008 would probably be fairly statistically significant. my guess is that this makes the white sox in the top 30-35% in cost/win. throw in the amount of money they’ve spent and it adds up to a well run baseball team.

by whitesoxmatt on May 1, 2008 6:57 PM CDT up 0 recs

yeah i think they mean like "2008 fiscal year"

it’s actually just the 2007 season, so you can count it equally. i was confused too, but then I realized that ‘08 was the Sox least efficient year and looked back and saw that there were similarly confusing results with the rest of the teams unless 2008 refers to the 2007 season. weird but true. your conclusions sound right to me, though. i just went based on those teams who were winning nearly half their games and looked at who was most efficient. it may not be by a ton, but the Sox come out looking like a well run team in a sufficiently large secondary market.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 7:00 PM CDT up 0 recs

that makes more sense to me

i was confused because i looked at 2007 and it was only 91 when i expected it to be lower, and then would’ve thought 2005 would be the highest when it was 2006

by whitesoxmatt on May 1, 2008 7:04 PM CDT up 0 recs

right, exactly.

i think the whole graph really nicely represents how teams are run because it’s raw and macro (well aside from the efficiency bit, but that really isn’t smoothing the data)

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on May 1, 2008 7:06 PM CDT up 0 recs

Payroll

So I guess total payroll is kind of important, huh? Not a big surprise that the Orioles are one of the worst teams out there. Kind of a surprise that the Mets are right there with them.

Optimist

by Peder on May 1, 2008 9:23 PM CDT 0 recs