tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post5501667509375135473..comments2008-06-03T03:11:14.341-04:00Justinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-36725466779726989832008-06-03T03:11:00.000-04:002008-06-03T03:11:00.000-04:00it's pretty simple: young pitching making the minimum.<BR/><BR/>-------------------------<BR/>pauloscar<BR/><BR/>Highly relevant, efficient advertising to forum, blog, wiki and other types of web sites. Drive large number of visitors to your website and build quality links. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http:// http://www.widecircles.com " REL="nofollow">http:// http://www.widecircles.com <BR/></A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-64290112568751703162008-02-19T06:27:00.000-05:002008-02-19T06:27:00.000-05:00It's kind of hard to say, based on this little analysis. I tend to think that the majority of the effect is that efficient teams have good, effective young pitching making very little money. And that's kind of hard to do, as pitchers are so difficult to project and develop reliably. -jJustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-24406923911786708672008-02-18T04:33:00.000-05:002008-02-18T04:33:00.000-05:00Quite interesting! Is it that efficient teams are investing their money in their starting pitching?Poly Muthumbihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18039413974261796541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-25343474658555134162006-10-10T23:50:00.000-04:002006-10-10T23:50:00.000-04:00I looked up the Reds' rotation salaries out of curiousity. No question that Milton's K brings down the "efficiency" here, but they certainy got some bang for their buck from Harang and Arroyo. There are some wasted dollars on Wilson and Williams that have to be factored, though. I count the total at about $19mm (opening day salary, so not counting Lohse), which seems proportionate to the overall payroll of $61mm.<br /> <br />2006:<br />Harang - $2.35mm<br />Arroyo - 2.75<br />Milton - 8.5<br />Williams - 1.4 (this was his '06 salary; not sure if any of this is wiped out bc he was DFAd)<br />Lizard, Claussen - close to min<br />Wilson - 3.75<br />[Lohse - 3.95 won in arb; not sure how Twins and Reds split it]<br /><br />Next year will be more, assuming that they give Harang a big raise (hopefully a multi-year deal) and they offer arb to Lohse. It looks to be about $19mm plus what they offer Harang, so it will be a slightly higher fraction of the overall payroll. <br /><br />2007:<br />Harang - arb eligible<br />Arroyo - 3.8<br />Lohse - 5 (arb guess)<br />Milton - 9<br />Lizard, Claussen, Bailey - peanuts<br />[Wilson - $0.85mm buyout]<br /><br />Thankfully Milton comes off the books after next year, while Arroyo is still under contract. This will help cushion the blow of Harang's probable raise. At this point, the youngsters should (I hope) also be contributing significantly, at a minimum cost.kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10183862563859527826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-76882828693304312032006-10-10T19:12:00.000-04:002006-10-10T19:12:00.000-04:00I'll be interested to see your conclusions, and to see how well they jive with what I come up with in my own work. Thanks for visiting! -jJinAZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-61495643365444188462006-10-10T18:57:00.000-04:002006-10-10T18:57:00.000-04:00I'll be writing about this subject in the THT Annual, but it's pretty simple: young pitching making the minimum.Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16997355084010474450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-3673139993440190032006-10-10T16:33:00.000-04:002006-10-10T16:33:00.000-04:00No, I didn't -- that's what I was getting at in my final caveat, and is the logical next step of what to do. It's just that the data aren't as readily available for that study. I plan to do it in the future -- I whipped up the above little study in about an hour's time.<br /><br />I still think these data are meaningful though. The question these data answer is this: what are teams with high payroll efficiency good at? The answer is that they tend to have better starting pitching than less efficient teams. Otherwise, they're the same. Same offense, same bullpen, and by extension from the bullpen data, they have the same fielding ability. It's just that efficient teams have better starters than inefficient teams.<br /><br />The cause of that finding is still at question. Is it that efficient teams are investing their money in their starting pitching? The Twins have done that to an extent, with both Santana and Radke making over 8.5 million, which accounts for 28% of their total payroll (granted, their other two top starters are making the league minimum). Or is it that teams that get good, cheap starting pitching tend to perform better, and thus are more efficient? I can't answer that with these data, but I do plan to follow this up later this offseason.<br />-jJinAZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-68924125802047058592006-10-10T15:51:00.000-04:002006-10-10T15:51:00.000-04:00Interesting stuff. One question: when comparing offense and defense, did you look at just salary spent for offense and salary spent for defense?<br /><br />Not sure why it would be meaningful if you didn't.Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16997355084010474450noreply@blogger.com