The cost of a win, part 3

Part 3 in my ongoing look at who is getting the most and who is getting the least for their money. Below you will find a spreadsheet with my analysis (click to enlarge).


Next to each team's name is the projected 2008 payroll for that team. The next column is the payroll number divided by 162 (the number of games in the full season), this is essentially the payroll cost per game. Then we have wins and losses and win percentage. The next column is the payroll per game multiplied by the total number of games played (or payroll expended to date). And finally the last column is the payroll expended to date divided by wins (or the cost per win).

As in the previous two looks at the cost per win, the Marlins are getting the most for their money. That will likely be the case for the rest of season given the payroll disparity between the Marlins and the rest of the teams in the Major Leagues.

But there's something else to look at, the TOP FIVE most efficient clubs in terms of cost per win are division leaders (or tied for the division lead).

Something else to consider is that of the 30 major league clubs, 25 have worse winning percentages than the Marlins. To date those 25 clubs have spent almost $350 million to achieve a combined winning percentage of .467. The average cost per win for those 25 teams is $1.224 million. When compared to what the Marlins are paying per win ($224,655) one might be tempted to say that Beinfest and company are making most of MLB's clubs look foolish.