Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company   

The Boston Globe
November 11, 2001

  By the numbers, the Red Sox finished just behind the Orioles and Rangers for the distinction of 
most underachieving team in baseball, according to a Globe comparison of payrolls and 
performance.

  The Red Sox started the 2001 season with the second-highest payroll, $109.6 million, but they 
finished with the 15th-best winning percentage out of 30 teams. So they finished 13 places 
below what they paid for.

  The most overachieving teams: the A's, Twins and Astros. Of course, baseball owners may have a 
different calibration of expectations. The overachieving Astros fired their manager, Larry Dierker, 
and hired Jimy Williams, who managed the underachieving Sox.

  And these teams got just about what they paid for: Brewers, Angels, Royals, White Sox, the champion 
Diamondbacks, Yankees and Indians.

  By another measure, salary dollars spent per victory, the Red Sox paid the most, $1,336,084 per win. 
The Twins were again the most cost-effective team, paying only $286,471 per win.

  Some of the teams on this year's list of overachievers might surprise their disappointed fans. After 
the A's (who made the playoffs, and finished plus-27 comparing ranks in spending with victories) 
come the Twins (plus-17). Both have been mentioned as teams that could be eliminated as baseball 
contracts. The Phillies and Mariners are also among the teams that didn't make the playoffs but 
got more than they paid for.

  There was more parity in baseball this year and last than in the 1990s, by at least one measure. 
From 1995 to 1999, all but one team that made the eight-team playoffs ranked among the top 10 in payrolls.

  But this year, as in 2000, the high-payroll teams did not hold all the cards. The playoff teams 
were mostly, but not all, big spenders: first in spending (Yankees), fifth (Indians), sixth (Braves), 
eighth (Diamondbacks), ninth (Cardinals), 11th (Mariners), 17th (Astros) and 29th (A's).

Bill Dedman