Beaneball

Here's a semi-annotated bibliography of the A's blog links about the Kendall trade:

• A win shares analysis from Andrew Koch that doesn't bother with silly things like payroll implications.
• A quick post from Blez at Athletics Nation that appears unabashedly happy.
• An entry from Faust at Athletics Nation that goes more in-depth than any other piece I've seen, mine included. He uses different numbers than I have (notably that the A's will receive $7 million in 2007, rather than $5, which changes things rather drastically), but he comes to the same basic conclusion: the A's got better on the field, but paid a price to do so. I miss the days when the A's methods were unknown and they could basically grab great, unheralded players for cheap, essentially getting better on the field without having to pay a price. Of course, those were also the days immediately following their 75-win days, so getting better was a much easier proposition.
• Mad Dog at Barry Zito Forever adds a roster analysis that I have a few quibbles with:
  1. Is lefty-righty-ness of a lineup really more important than getting your top OBP guy more at bats? If not, as I suspect, then Kendall should be leading off next year.
  2. I really can't see Nick Swisher starting the year batting fifth.
  3. I figure Justin Duchscherer for the fifth spot in the rotation to start the year, with Joe Blanton in Sacramento. When Blanton proves he's ready and Duchscherer proves he's not a long-term solution (the latter of which, by the way, I'm not convinced is going to happen), then we can figure out where to go. Duchscherer's place in the 'pen can be taken by some random lefty Rule 5 pick or a Kirk Saarloos type.
• Finally, Elephants in Oakland adds this, mentioning the A's depth at catcher and talking about the replacements at the pitcher spots recently vacated by Redman and Rhodes, all in his rather inimitable style.

Posted by jason in Baseball, Oakland A's at 11:22 | |

I've built the spreadsheet and run the numbers. Here are the Marginal Dollars per Marginal Win data for 2004, ordered alphabetically first.

MWpMD, alpha

Team	Wins	Losses	Win %	Marginal Wins	Payroll	Marginal Payroll	Marginal Dollars per Marginal Win
Anaheim	92	70	.568	43.4	$101,084,667	$92,684,667	$2,135,591
Arizona	51	111	.315	2.4	$70,204,984	$61,804,984	$25,752,077
Atlanta	96	66	.593	47.4	$88,507,788	$80,107,788	$1,690,038
Baltimore	78	84	.481	29.4	$51,212,653	$42,812,653	$1,456,213
Boston	98	64	.605	49.4	$125,208,542	$116,808,542	$2,364,545
Chicago (A)	83	79	.512	34.4	$65,212,500	$56,812,500	$1,651,526
Chicago (N)	89	73	.549	40.4	$91,101,667	$82,701,667	$2,047,071
Cincinnati	76	86	.469	27.4	$43,067,858	$34,667,858	$1,265,250
Cleveland	80	82	.494	31.4	$34,569,300	$26,169,300	$833,417
Colorado	68	94	.420	19.4	$64,590,403	$56,190,403	$2,896,413
Detroit	72	90	.444	23.4	$46,353,554	$37,953,554	$1,621,947
Florida	83	79	.512	34.4	$42,118,042	$33,718,042	$980,176
Houston	92	70	.568	43.4	$74,666,303	$66,266,303	$1,526,873
Kansas City	58	104	.358	9.4	$47,609,000	$39,209,000	$4,171,170
Los Angeles	93	69	.574	44.4	$89,694,342	$81,294,342	$1,830,954
Milwaukee	67	94	.416	18.8	$27,518,500	$19,118,500	$1,016,069
Minnesota	92	70	.568	43.4	$53,585,000	$45,185,000	$1,041,129
Montreal	67	95	.414	18.4	$43,197,500	$34,797,500	$1,891,168
New York (A)	101	61	.623	52.4	$182,835,513	$174,435,513	$3,328,922
New York (N)	71	91	.438	22.4	$100,629,303	$92,229,303	$4,117,380
Oakland	91	71	.562	42.4	$59,825,167	$51,425,167	$1,212,858
Philadelphia	86	76	.531	37.4	$93,219,167	$84,819,167	$2,267,892
Pittsburgh	72	89	.447	23.8	$32,227,929	$23,827,929	$999,192
San Diego	87	75	.537	38.4	$54,639,503	$46,239,503	$1,204,154
San Francisco	91	71	.562	42.4	$82,019,167	$73,619,167	$1,736,301
Seattle	63	99	.389	14.4	$81,543,833	$73,143,833	$5,079,433
St. Louis	105	57	.648	56.4	$75,633,517	$67,233,517	$1,192,084
Tampa Bay	70	91	.435	21.8	$29,506,667	$21,106,667	$966,653
Texas	89	73	.549	40.4	$54,825,973	$46,425,973	$1,149,158
Toronto	67	94	.416	18.8	$50,017,000	$41,617,000	$2,211,770

Now, ordered by winning percentage:

MWpMD, win%

Team	Wins	Losses	Win %	Marginal Wins	Payroll	Marginal Payroll	Marginal Dollars per Marginal Win
St. Louis	105	57	.648	56.4	$75,633,517	$67,233,517	$1,192,084
New York (A)	101	61	.623	52.4	$182,835,513	$174,435,513	$3,328,922
Boston	98	64	.605	49.4	$125,208,542	$116,808,542	$2,364,545
Atlanta	96	66	.593	47.4	$88,507,788	$80,107,788	$1,690,038
Los Angeles	93	69	.574	44.4	$89,694,342	$81,294,342	$1,830,954
Anaheim	92	70	.568	43.4	$101,084,667	$92,684,667	$2,135,591
Houston	92	70	.568	43.4	$74,666,303	$66,266,303	$1,526,873
Minnesota	92	70	.568	43.4	$53,585,000	$45,185,000	$1,041,129
Oakland	91	71	.562	42.4	$59,825,167	$51,425,167	$1,212,858
San Francisco	91	71	.562	42.4	$82,019,167	$73,619,167	$1,736,301
Chicago (N)	89	73	.549	40.4	$91,101,667	$82,701,667	$2,047,071
Texas	89	73	.549	40.4	$54,825,973	$46,425,973	$1,149,158
San Diego	87	75	.537	38.4	$54,639,503	$46,239,503	$1,204,154
Philadelphia	86	76	.531	37.4	$93,219,167	$84,819,167	$2,267,892
Chicago (A)	83	79	.512	34.4	$65,212,500	$56,812,500	$1,651,526
Florida	83	79	.512	34.4	$42,118,042	$33,718,042	$980,176
Cleveland	80	82	.494	31.4	$34,569,300	$26,169,300	$833,417
Baltimore	78	84	.481	29.4	$51,212,653	$42,812,653	$1,456,213
Cincinnati	76	86	.469	27.4	$43,067,858	$34,667,858	$1,265,250
Pittsburgh	72	89	.447	23.8	$32,227,929	$23,827,929	$999,192
Detroit	72	90	.444	23.4	$46,353,554	$37,953,554	$1,621,947
New York (N)	71	91	.438	22.4	$100,629,303	$92,229,303	$4,117,380
Tampa Bay	70	91	.435	21.8	$29,506,667	$21,106,667	$966,653
Colorado	68	94	.420	19.4	$64,590,403	$56,190,403	$2,896,413
Milwaukee	67	94	.416	18.8	$27,518,500	$19,118,500	$1,016,069
Toronto	67	94	.416	18.8	$50,017,000	$41,617,000	$2,211,770
Montreal	67	95	.414	18.4	$43,197,500	$34,797,500	$1,891,168
Seattle	63	99	.389	14.4	$81,543,833	$73,143,833	$5,079,433
Kansas City	58	104	.358	9.4	$47,609,000	$39,209,000	$4,171,170
Arizona	51	111	.315	2.4	$70,204,984	$61,804,984	$25,752,077

And finally, sorted by Marginal Wins per Marginal Dollar:

MWpMD, mpwmd

Team	Wins	Losses	Win %	Marginal Wins	Payroll	Marginal Payroll	Marginal Dollars per Marginal Win
Cleveland	80	82	.494	31.4	$34,569,300	$26,169,300	$833,417
Tampa Bay	70	91	.435	21.8	$29,506,667	$21,106,667	$966,653
Florida	83	79	.512	34.4	$42,118,042	$33,718,042	$980,176
Pittsburgh	72	89	.447	23.8	$32,227,929	$23,827,929	$999,192
Milwaukee	67	94	.416	18.8	$27,518,500	$19,118,500	$1,016,069
Minnesota	92	70	.568	43.4	$53,585,000	$45,185,000	$1,041,129
Texas	89	73	.549	40.4	$54,825,973	$46,425,973	$1,149,158
St. Louis	105	57	.648	56.4	$75,633,517	$67,233,517	$1,192,084
San Diego	87	75	.537	38.4	$54,639,503	$46,239,503	$1,204,154
Oakland	91	71	.562	42.4	$59,825,167	$51,425,167	$1,212,858
Cincinnati	76	86	.469	27.4	$43,067,858	$34,667,858	$1,265,250
Baltimore	78	84	.481	29.4	$51,212,653	$42,812,653	$1,456,213
Houston	92	70	.568	43.4	$74,666,303	$66,266,303	$1,526,873
Detroit	72	90	.444	23.4	$46,353,554	$37,953,554	$1,621,947
Chicago (A)	83	79	.512	34.4	$65,212,500	$56,812,500	$1,651,526
Atlanta	96	66	.593	47.4	$88,507,788	$80,107,788	$1,690,038
San Francisco	91	71	.562	42.4	$82,019,167	$73,619,167	$1,736,301
Los Angeles	93	69	.574	44.4	$89,694,342	$81,294,342	$1,830,954
Montreal	67	95	.414	18.4	$43,197,500	$34,797,500	$1,891,168
Chicago (N)	89	73	.549	40.4	$91,101,667	$82,701,667	$2,047,071
Anaheim	92	70	.568	43.4	$101,084,667	$92,684,667	$2,135,591
Toronto	67	94	.416	18.8	$50,017,000	$41,617,000	$2,211,770
Philadelphia	86	76	.531	37.4	$93,219,167	$84,819,167	$2,267,892
Boston	98	64	.605	49.4	$125,208,542	$116,808,542	$2,364,545
Colorado	68	94	.420	19.4	$64,590,403	$56,190,403	$2,896,413
New York (A)	101	61	.623	52.4	$182,835,513	$174,435,513	$3,328,922
New York (N)	71	91	.438	22.4	$100,629,303	$92,229,303	$4,117,380
Kansas City	58	104	.358	9.4	$47,609,000	$39,209,000	$4,171,170
Seattle	63	99	.389	14.4	$81,543,833	$73,143,833	$5,079,433
Arizona	51	111	.315	2.4	$70,204,984	$61,804,984	$25,752,077

So, let's first congratulate Arizona on their accomplishment. Not since all the way back in 2003, when the Tigers actually won fewer games than a random team of minimum-wage players should, has a team put up such an astounding number. In Detroit's case, it was hard to notice, because it just turned everything negative, so that they, in some way, paid about $7 million for each loss below replacement they managed to be. Anyway, that $25, almost $26, million figure is astounding, five times worst than the next worse team and three and a half times worst the second worst team in payroll efficiency from 1995 to present, the 2002 Detroit Tigers, who won four more games than these Diamondbacks while spending about $15 million fewer bucks. The top of the list is dominated by the usual bad teams with low payrolls: Tampa Bay, PIttsburgh, and Milwaukee are three of the top five. They're not spending much money, but they're not winning much, either. Of the three, only Milwaukee can get many people excited about their future, so these aren't your 1997-1998 Oakland A's here. On the other hand, Cleveland's team is quite exciting, and this list shows why their front office is so well regarded in the right circles: they appear to be on their way to winning with cheap, homegrown talent. Their payroll is coming down from the excesses of the late '90's and early '00's, but their win total seems to be now moving in the opposite direction, after tracking with the payroll since 1999: 97, 90, 91, 74, 68, and then back to 80 this year. There's no reason to think they won't fight it out with the Twins for the rest of the decade, at least. Minnesota used to lose on the cheap and now they win on the cheap. They're going to have one of the lower MDpMW numbers regardless, but right now, it's a positive one. They make their share of mistakes (Shannon Stewart), but, as slow and methodical as they are about it, they've let a number of their young players come in and have an impact (Johan Santana, Justin Morneau). As I mentioned before, Oakland is slipping: this is the first time they've been over a million bucks per marginal win in the Beane era. That can be chalked up to two things off the top of my head: bad luck combined with overpayment to Jermaine Dye, and four disappointing lefties (Mulder, Zito, Redman, Rhodes, in order of level of disappointment), two of which should have been avoided by the front office (Redman, Rhodes). Having those two guys on the team wasn't negative in itself. Paying them what the A's were paying them was the problem. Somehow, they've managed to turn it into a good thing for the next two years, getting Jason Kendall, but they way they've pushed the punishment for the mistakes back to 2007 reminds me too much of the Forty Niners of the mid- to late-nineties for comfort. I'm sure I'll be able to have plenty of fun with these numbers over the next year. UPDATE: Jesus Christmas. BP just published these numbers on the 19th. I wonder why they didn't Google. Maybe they're subscriber-only. Oh well. I'm leaving this here, though, especially since they don't have their numbers run together as a whole league or in the various sortings I have.

Posted by jason in Baseball at 01:45 | |