Do Baseball Salaries Correspond with winning

 

††††††††††† The Oakland Aís immediately come to mind when you ask that question. They are one of the ďsmall marketĒ clubs that has to have a low payroll, and they regularly lose good players to free agency and yet still do quite well. In the BCBL we donít care about salaries at all, so I was wondering if the teams that have higher priced baseball players won more than teams that did not. I have created a $ís per win table <actually millions of dollars per win table is more like it>.

 

Club

wins

payroll

$ per win

 

 

 

 

Maryland

115

96

0.83

North

114

49

0.43

Rhode Island

106

105

0.99

Devon

101

93

0.92

New Castle

97

91

0.94

Crimea

86

136

1.58

Hillsboro

85

51

0.60

Blacksburg

85

74

0.87

Central Jersey

82

118

1.44

Raritan

81

49

0.60

New Jersey

80

70

0.88

Fairfield

77

116

1.51

Bug Tussle

71

73

1.03

Macon

71

75

1.06

Parkside

70

35

0.50

Point Loma

69

51

0.74

West Side

65

60

0.92

Alaska

64

79

1.23

Frankfort Sq

61

48

0.79

Jedi

60

42

0.70

 

The short answer is no. The North club has one of the smallest payrolls in the BCBL, and you canít argue with its success this year. My own Fairfield club has the 3rd highest payroll in the BCBL and the cost per win is a whopping 1.5 million. North does it with 430,000. Of course I carried Aaron Sele with a $7 million plus salary and didnít even play him at all this year. Baseballs odd system ofunderpaying the young players, and then signing long term contracts for old players that seemingly can never make economic sense in their later years (Mo Vaughn and his $12 million plus comes to mind), seem to make sure that in our league the cost of the players and their value donít have any correlation. At least we get to cut the guys that deserve it, instead of being forced to play them because we are paying them too much.