Payroll Efficiency since 2000

[Stomp]

Which MLB, NBA, NFL Teams Are Most Cost-Efficient With Payrolls?

 

[SeizeTheCarp]

Had to be painful, posting this as a Lions fan.

 

[cdumler7]

The baseball one is screwed up in my opinion. A lot of the teams in the top ten are only there because of a few decent seasons while spending very little. I would think winning a championship would be worth more. I understand the Marlins being on the list but I would think a team like St. Louis with multiple championships and playoffs almost every year while usually being middle of the pack spending wise would be higher than they are.

 

[night]

The baseball one is screwed up in my opinion. A lot of the teams in the top ten are only there because of a few decent seasons while spending very little. I would think winning a championship would be worth more. I understand the Marlins being on the list but I would think a team like St. Louis with multiple championships and playoffs almost every year while usually being middle of the pack spending wise would be higher than they are.

I thought they overvalued championships by counting them as an entire season's worth of wins.

 

[SonnyCID]

I thought they overvalued championships by counting them as an entire season's worth of wins.

I think that works with football more than the other sports.

 

[tducey]

Interesting, thanks for posting. Would be nice to see it done for the NHL.

 

[Southieinnc]

Which MLB, NBA, NFL Teams Are Most Cost-Efficient With Payrolls?

No surprise with the Spurs and Patriots at the top.
Patriots #1 is inarguable with the great record and history of cutting players when they get too expensive.
Good enough organization to play for that veterans often take a cut to stay there.....

 

[Ravskins]

No surprise with the Spurs and Patriots at the top.
Patriots #1 is inarguable with the great record and history of cutting players when they get too expensive.
Good enough organization to play for that veterans often take a cut to stay there.....

and they have their part time ball boys do the dirty work for them too.

 

[cdumler7]

I thought they overvalued championships by counting them as an entire season's worth of wins.

I guess I look at it as the goal is to win championships and those that have shown to be the most efficient at finding ways to win year in and year out while also winning championships but not spending the top level money to do it should be at the top. The fact that they have Tampa Bay who made one world series but didn't win, Oakland #3 without ever making a world series in that time span, Padres in that same boat, Royals with only 1 World Series and a ton of losing seasons in that stretch, Nationals without a World Series appearance, and the Twins without a World Series appearance all in the top-10 just doesn't make much sense. Those teams the only thing they have done is spend very little money and have some average seasons for the most part. To me they haven't put enough emphasis on winning and have put too much emphasis at least on the baseball part of it on the money side of things. I mean most years St. Louis is outside of the top-10 in payroll yet continually make it to the NL Championship Game while also having won the World Series twice in that time span they are talking about. They once again this year are outside the top-10 in payroll for the season yet have the best record in baseball. They have shown year in and year out to have one of the best farm leagues around and most teams seem to want to adopt the St. Louis way of doing things because they have shown to be the most consistent team in baseball for the last 15 years and even beyond that.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

This is more useful for baseball where the payroll discrepancies are painfully obvious; especially when evaluating FO's. Football gets all weird because you have one position that skews everything wildly in the QB. It's hard to take anything marrying wins/$ together in football with a 16 game schedule and the QB skew seriously. Very mediocre teams can get by with excellent QB play.

 

[cdumler7]

This is more useful for baseball where the payroll discrepancies are painfully obvious; especially when evaluating FO's. Football gets all weird because you have one position that skews everything wildly in the QB. It's hard to take anything marrying wins/$ together in football with a 16 game schedule and the QB skew seriously. Very mediocre teams can get by with excellent QB play.

To me I just disagree though with how they have done this no matter what the league. For baseball it does seem that having one really great year (playoff wise) while spending very little money in a 15 year stretch meant more than actually consistently winning year in and year out while also winning World Series in that span. A great example is that of the Royals in they have had I think 4 winning seasons in that 15 year stretch with only making the playoffs once in that entire time. Yes they made the World Series in that one time but yet here they are ranked 6th in the Major Leagues according to this. I mean they had some of the worst seasons in the MLB during that stretch. Now compare that to the Cardinals who yes spent more but they also had a lot more success. Such as I think they only had 1 losing season in the past 15 years and made the playoffs almost every single year while also winning the World Series twice. So to me it is much more efficient to spend a little more and have great success winning than to spend very little and only have 1 year of success in a 15 year stretch. I thought the point of sports was to win the Championship not be a bottom feeder most years.

 

[Southieinnc]

Colts were 2nd to the Patriots in this - sound familiar?