 |
| Rockies: Matt Holliday (r.), was introduced before Game 3 of the World Series at Coors Field in Denver. The second-highest-paid
player for his team has a yearly salary of less than $4.5 million. Jack Dempsey/AP |
Red Sox are rich, but more than fat payrolls at work
Although some experts see justification for high-paid players, they also cite other factors in winning such as solid management and player development.
By Clayton Collins | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitorfrom the October 29, 2007 edition
Page 1 of 2
When Daisuke Matsuzaka worked the mound against the Colorado Rockies in Denver Saturday night in the World Series, his strike counts and earned-run average – even two RBIs from a rare at-bat – were the numbers generating chatter.
Yet lurking in the background, as always, is that other number: the $103 million it took the Boston Red Sox last November to sign the former Seibu Lions ace in a move that encapsulates the big-franchise, fat-wallet approach to roster-building.
The two teams' payroll disparity – $143.1 million versus $54.4 million this year – became a major means of comparison before the Series began, even renewing years-old talk of a salary cap for Major League Baseball, the only big professional league that lacks one.
But framing this year’s Fall Classic – which Boston won Sunday night with a four-game sweep – as some kind of athletic class struggle might be an act of oversimplification. "If you do a statistical analysis [of] the relationship between team payroll and team win percentage, you find that 75 to 80 percent of win percentage is determined by things other than payroll," says Andrew Zimbalist, a noted sports economist and professor at Smith College in Northampton, Mass.
Other things being equal, an ability to dangle bigger checks provides a bit of an advantage, Mr. Zimbalist says. "But clearly if three-quarters or more of the variation in win percentage is affected by nonpayroll factors, then good management, good drafting, good player development, good trades, good chemistry, good luck – all of those things are going to come into it."
Boston – which has now won two MLB titles in this decade and seven total in franchise history – is a team stacked with high-paid stars including Manny Ramírez (about $18 million per year) David Ortiz ($13 million), and Curt Schilling ($13 million). But so far, success has really come from well-distributed player contributions, says Alan Matthews, an analyst and writer for Baseball America.
"What makes the Red Sox such a compelling team … is that, yes, their payroll is higher than, what, 27 other teams out there," says Mr. Matthews. "But … when they really started going was when [Kevin] Youkilis and [Dustin] Pedroia started hitting down the stretch in August, when Ramírez was out of that lineup."
"And those guys are home-grown," developed from within, Matthews says in an interview from Florida, where he is watching high-school teams.
First-baseman Youkilis, he says, is another key "lunch pail" performer.
Sizing up the Rockies
Not that the Rockies players are all recent minor-league call-ups making short money. Todd Helton is paid more than $16.5 million. But his highest-paid teammate, star Matt Holliday, earns less than $4.5 million.
To some degree, Boston's success with players like Youkilis – as well as with luring superstars – reflects the so-called "moneyball" approach pioneered by Oakland A's manager Billy Beane. The approach takes a deeper look at up-and-coming, even bargain, players who don't necessarily display overpowering skills but who perform very well, statistically, in specific situations.
RSS feed
