Greinke for How Much?

We’ve all been duped. What we’ve been told time and again has permeated our thinking, and now we simply accept it as true. We’ve all bought into a theory that starting pitching – especially, spending big bucks on it – will give a team the greatest number of wins.

However, this theory has one giant problem: it just doesn’t add up. When looking at the composition of a team, the percentage of payroll that goes toward starting pitching would appear to have nothing to do with how many wins the team ends up with.

Take a look at some percentages, based on 2012 starting rosters and final results (these are estimates based on USA Today salary records):

Pitching-Wins Correlation

Look at the Rangers, Braves, Reds, and Orioles in particular (you can include the Yankees, too, if you want, though the total they spent on pitching was more than double that of the Braves). Now look at the Phillies, Red Sox, Marlins, and Mets. Notice something strange?

Contrary to what you would expect, the four teams who used less of their budget on starting pitching made the playoffs. There is really only one legitimate excuse as to why the teams who spent more on starters underachieved – injury. While the Phillies were certainly in that camp, though, I don’t think it gets them out of this startling possibility: perhaps the “best” pitchers are not worth their money in comparison to “lesser” pitchers who are still moderately effective.

In the rush for the best available players, teams needlessly bid each other to the sky. Perhaps I’m the lone voice here. Or maybe it’s just me and Billy Beane. But I’m starting to think that the salary of an elite starter can hold a team down – or, at the very least, be far less effective than what general managers are prone to believe.

The Dodgers signing Zack Greinke to a six-year, $147 million contract is indicative of this pervasive mindset. Dodgers ownership decided to throw money at the best available option, justifying the deal by saying it would solidify the rotation and they would continue to stay in games.

I don’t know about anyone else, but if I were trying to be the most efficient with my money (especially if I were in a smaller market), I would much rather take a starter with an ERA half a run higher for a third of the price.

I know there’s a whole lot more to this discussion, but this is one element that just blows me away.


3 thoughts on “Greinke for How Much?

  1. Colin Cowherd made a observation about overpaid players as a whole, while talking about the Dodgers on his radio show. You take a lion and overfeed him, he becomes a housecat. Cowherd’s point was that it’s better to take a hungry team (the Giants) than a team of overpaid stars.

  2. Another good point………and I agree. When you have a top dollar pitcher (starters) ,”only” going every other 5th day , which gives him an “impact” to , say , 30-35 games , while a position player may play 150 – 162 games a year………………………..I am spending Million$$$ on a player, I want him out there every day . and agree, on spending a bit less on pitching and dropping a tier or two on the pitching talent level . Glad I stumbled upon you site, via———— happy holidays, february is on 6 weeks away .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s