Cost Efficiency/Cost Efficient Players - What does this mean??

[mofowitdahat]

Hi all, I'm really interested in this screen here.

I've been thinking about a way to evaluate WAR per $ I've spent. I don't really know how to do that without really recording all sorts of values in a spreadsheet. I don't have a problem with that except I'm not very versed in the proper math and will most likely head in the wrong direction!

So I come to this wonderful forum for help. By surfing the budget screen I noticed some really interesting views. This may be at least an introduction to what I am looking to evaluate.

Can someone please translate these screens? What exactly is $/Stat and $/WAR?





What does a cost efficient team look like? Am I overspending or just having bad luck in not having the players perform to their potential?

Anyway, I am available to share player ratings and have a deep dive with this. Anyone of you can also just share with me any previous research with this. Thank you!

[LansdowneSt]

Those screens are just what you are looking for. It is the player salary for that year divided by their WAR (or the other stats) for that year.

So, what are you paying for each win that you've gotten in the standings? Where does that rank relative to the other teams? And for players, who gives you the most bang for the buck. That's the gist of those views. If you are the Rays or a small market team, you need to be efficient. If you are the Yankees, you can afford to not be quite so efficient as you have resources to spare.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by mofowitdahat

What does a cost efficient team look like? Am I overspending or just having bad luck in not having the players perform to their potential?

I don't know what kind of budget you have and if you're using it all up, but my goal is to keep my teams ranked in the bottom third for payroll. I can't always do it... it's kind of hard to predict what other teams are going to spend.. but I usually make it.

Generally I have a couple players who are really good who I was able to sign to a 6 to 8 year contract that over time develops into a below market rate of annual pay. Sometimes good players will sign for below market rate from the beginning. After the 69 expansion I rarely have a player in the top 25 list for pay.

Then there are some decent players who get decent pay and usually some players in years 1-3 making minimum wage. These players usually won't be the top players on the team but they'll be at the top for cost effectiveness.

I usually have a veteran or two around that I signed as a free agent for minimum wage or a bit over for one year, two years, or one year plus an option year. If one of these guys has a good year he'll be at the top of the cost efficiency list. If he has a sudden decline he can be released without it being a terrible payroll penalty.

Don't play to finish first every year. If you have several free agents who want to leave the team and you can't sign them for under market, let them go. Or better yet, if you're not in contention at the trade deadline, trade them. Better to start a rebuild now than having to do it in three or four years when those highly paid players suddenly aren't worth their paychecks.

In my current save for about the last ten years (game time) I've posted my team's payroll. If you want to look click the link in my sig.

[billyray1984]

I'd argue that a cost efficient organization doesn't only look at the amount spent per wins or per statistical output in the present, but it projects for this cost to be the same or lower in 3-5 years too (or perhaps even moreso). The salary screen should be your bible.

I do always try to be in the bottom third in the league in term of payroll like Brad K. This allows for money to be spent on scouting, player dev, the draft and IFA, which are crucial. I also try to always get cheaper, since this pretty much always mean younger.

A cost effective organization will, in theory, never need to rebuild since it will never get bloated to the point of needing a rebuild. Being as cost efficient as possible is more of an art than strict number crunching imho. A few easy pointers though :

1. Extending or not extending players long term : this is the first thing many teams get wrong. Franchise cornerstones (real ones) can be extended long term at a high AAV but I try to have at most two of these contracts at any given time. On the other hand, if I can get a player to sign a nothing deal long term when he is young, I'll jump on it since the contract will remain tradeable even if the player gets injured or slumps.

2. Free agency : most years, I do not sign any free agent. Free agency is to patch holes with cheap guys or acquire franchise players who you cannot trade for. This is again where many teams fail : instead of trying to trade for a AAAA guy with options on the minimum, they'll sign some overpaid 33 year old vet to be a backup outfielder. Don't do that. Try to be as deep as possible in AAA so you won't have to sign guys in free agency.

3. Every player in an asset/trade chip : don't be afraid to trade away players when they still have value (1-2 years of team control) or when their options run out. This is especially true of pitchers. Always strive to get younger.

4. Give your guys a shot or trade them : it comes a time between 22-24 year old when you have to make a decision. Either the guy gets a shot and possibly becomes a regular, he becomes depth or he is a trade chip to be traded when his value is still high. This is especially true for guys in the top100 prospect list. There's no point in hoarding blocked guys when they still have value or prospects who are highly valued but have lackluster statistical output in the upper level of the minor leagues. They will only wilt and you won't get anything for them.

5. There's value in older guys too : older guys, especially pitchers, who you can get for cheap or even for free, can be recycled as stoppers or even as closers.