The Value Production Standings: 2005-2007
It was all the way back in August of 2006 that we launched this long series, and now we’re finally completing the journey to the present day. Along the way, we’ve examined the competitive status of each major league franchise’s farm system production in each of the following periods:
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
1966-1970
1971-1975
1976-1980
1981-1985
1986-1989
1990-1993
1994-1997
1998-2001
2002-2004
For a review of our methodology, please see the References and Resources section below.
Here’s the key to the figures we’ve been examining:
WSP = Win Shares Produced: the total of major league Win Shares produced that season by all players credited to the organization
Lg. WSP = League Win Shares Produced: the percentage of the league total of WSP credited to the organization
MLB WSP = Major league baseball Win Shares Produced: the percentage of the MLB-wide total of WSP credited to the organization
W = Wins: the actual win total of the team that season
Lg. W = League Wins: the percentage of the league win total won by the team
W% – WSP% = League Wins minus League Win Shares Produced: a measure of how much better or worse a team actually performed than the league-wide value produced by its organization
Avg WSP = Average Win Shares Produced: the average WSP of the teams in a given division or league
%MLB Avg = Percentage of the major league baseball average: how the average WSP for a given division or league compares with the overall major league average
The 2005 Value Production Standings
AL Organization WSP Lg. WSP MLB WSP W Lg. W W% - WSP% Avg. WSP % MLB Avg. Blue Jays 425 12.4% 6.0% 80 7.0% -5.4% Yankees 274 8.0% 3.8% 95 8.3% 0.3% Red Sox 224 6.5% 3.1% 95 8.3% 1.8% Orioles 157 4.6% 2.2% 74 6.5% 1.9% Devil Rays 116 3.4% 1.6% 67 5.9% 2.5% East Division 1196 34.8% 16.8% 411 35.9% 1.1% 239 100.8% Indians 331 9.6% 4.7% 93 8.1% -1.5% Twins 229 6.7% 3.2% 83 7.3% 0.6% Royals 205 6.0% 2.9% 56 4.9% -1.1% White Sox 196 5.7% 2.8% 99 8.7% 3.0% Tigers 185 5.4% 2.6% 71 6.2% 0.8% Central Division 1146 33.3% 16.1% 402 35.1% 1.8% 229 96.6% Athletics 317 9.2% 4.5% 88 7.7% -1.5% Mariners 279 8.1% 3.9% 69 6.0% -2.1% Rangers 262 7.6% 3.7% 79 6.9% -0.7% Angels 238 6.9% 3.3% 95 8.3% 1.4% West Division 1096 31.9% 15.4% 331 28.9% -2.9% 274 115.5% AL Total 3438 100.0% 48.3% 1144 100% 0.0% 246 103.5% NL Organization WSP Lg. WSP MLB WSP W Lg. W W% - WSP% Avg. WSP % MLB Avg. Nationals 370 10.1% 5.2% 81 6.3% -3.8% Braves 339 9.2% 4.8% 90 7.0% -2.2% Phillies 221 6.0% 3.1% 88 6.8% 0.8% Mets 217 5.9% 3.0% 83 6.5% 0.6% Marlins 188 5.1% 2.6% 83 6.5% 1.3% East Division 1335 36.3% 18.8% 425 33.0% -3.2% 267 112.5% Astros 403 11.0% 5.7% 89 6.9% -4.0% Pirates 244 6.6% 3.4% 67 5.2% -1.4% Cardinals 217 5.9% 3.0% 100 7.8% 1.9% Cubs 206 5.6% 2.9% 79 6.1% 0.5% Brewers 177 4.8% 2.5% 81 6.3% 1.5% Reds 175 4.8% 2.5% 73 5.7% 0.9% Central Division 1422 38.7% 20.0% 489 38.0% -0.6% 237 99.9% Rockies 242 6.6% 3.4% 67 5.2% -1.4% Diamondbacks 182 4.9% 2.6% 77 6.0% 1.0% Giants 181 4.9% 2.5% 75 5.8% 0.9% Dodgers 168 4.6% 2.4% 71 5.5% 1.0% Padres 149 4.1% 2.1% 82 6.4% 2.3% West Division 922 25.1% 13.0% 372 28.9% 3.9% 184 77.7% NL Total 3679 100.0% 51.7% 1286 100.0% 0.0% 230 96.9% MLB Total 7117 n/a 100% 2430 n/a n/a 237 100.0%
Colorado had long been a franchise that was, shall we say, not noted for shrewd executive decision-making. After coming into existence in 1993, the Rockies had found some early success: They’d been a box-office smash from the get-go, leading the National League in attendance in each of their first seven seasons, and under GM Bob Gebhard they’d put a competitive team on the field for a few years in the mid-to-late 1990s.
But they’d been unable to convert their enormous revenue resources into a sustained program of on-field success, and among their organizational failings was an apparent inability to understand the nature of the playing conditions their mile-high home created. Over and over, the organization seemed to be fooled by altitude-inflated numbers into thinking it had a better-hitting ball club than it did.
By the 2000s, the bloom was off the rose. Denver fans tired of the mediocrity, and attendance dramatically waned. Dan O’Dowd took over as GM in late 1999, and for several seasons he seemed almost comically incapable of making headway. O’Dowd spent vast sums on high-profile free agent busts in pitchers Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle and he announced a new master strategy about every three months.
In general, he appeared eager to exploit high elevation as an excuse instead of acknowledging that the Rockies weren’t winning because they simply hadn’t done a good job of amassing and deploying talent. Under O’Dowd, through 2005 the Rockies had won, in succession, 82, 73, 73, 74, 68 and 67 games; worse than getting nowhere, the Rockies seemed to be slowly moving backwards.
But underneath that dismal surface, O’Dowd had been doing one thing extremely well. His executive team (in particular, scouting and farm system directors Bill Schmidt, Bill Geivett and Marc Gustafson) had taken the nascent farm system created by Gebhard and built on it with great skill.
In 2005, the Rockies were a loser, in last place in the NL West and in 14th among the 16 NL teams in attendance. But in value production, for the first time they led the NL West. The ball club that struggled in 2005 did so while providing space for outstanding young system-produced talent to develop, including outfielders Matt Holliday and Brad Hawpe, third baseman Garrett Atkins and pitchers Jeff Francis and Aaron Cook. It wasn’t yet obvious, but the foundation of the 2007 National League champions was being poured.
The 2006 Value Production Standings
AL Organization WSP Lg. WSP MLB WSP W Lg. W W% - WSP% Avg. WSP % MLB Avg. Blue Jays 396 11.4% 5.7% 87 7.5% -4.0% Yankees 293 8.5% 4.2% 97 8.3% -0.1% Red Sox 292 8.4% 4.2% 86 7.4% -1.0% Orioles 143 4.1% 2.0% 70 6.0% 1.9% Devil Rays 118 3.4% 1.7% 61 5.2% 1.8% East Division 1242 35.9% 17.7% 401 34.5% -1.4% 248 106.4% Indians 314 9.1% 4.5% 78 6.7% -2.4% Twins 237 6.9% 3.4% 96 8.3% 1.4% White Sox 237 6.9% 3.4% 90 7.7% 0.9% Tigers 200 5.8% 2.9% 95 8.2% 2.4% Royals 163 4.7% 2.3% 62 5.3% 0.6% Central Division 1151 33.3% 16.4% 421 36.2% 3.0% 230 98.6% Athletics 333 9.6% 4.8% 93 8.0% -1.6% Mariners 254 7.3% 3.6% 78 6.7% -0.6% Rangers 249 7.2% 3.6% 80 6.9% -0.3% Angels 230 6.6% 3.3% 89 7.7% 1.0% West Division 1066 30.8% 15.2% 340 29.3% -1.6% 267 114.2% AL Total 3459 100.0% 49.4% 1162 100% 0.0% 247 105.9% NL Organization WSP Lg. WSP MLB WSP W Lg. W W% - WSP% Avg. WSP % MLB Avg. Braves 337 9.5% 4.8% 79 6.2% -3.3% Nationals 291 8.2% 4.2% 71 5.6% -2.6% Marlins 238 6.7% 3.4% 78 6.2% -0.6% Phillies 231 6.5% 3.3% 85 6.7% 0.2% Mets 223 6.3% 3.2% 97 7.7% 1.4% East Division 1320 37.3% 18.9% 410 32.4% -4.9% 264 113.1% Astros 347 9.8% 5.0% 82 6.5% -3.3% Pirates 283 8.0% 4.0% 67 5.3% -2.7% Cardinals 194 5.5% 2.8% 83 6.6% 1.1% Cubs 166 4.7% 2.4% 66 5.2% 0.5% Brewers 132 3.7% 1.9% 75 5.9% 2.2% Reds 125 3.5% 1.8% 80 6.3% 2.8% Central Division 1247 35.2% 17.8% 453 35.8% 0.5% 208 89.1% Rockies 247 7.0% 3.5% 76 6.0% -1.0% Dodgers 225 6.4% 3.2% 88 6.9% 0.6% Diamondbacks 207 5.8% 3.0% 76 6.0% 0.2% Giants 168 4.7% 2.4% 76 6.0% 1.3% Padres 128 3.6% 1.8% 88 6.9% 3.3% West Division 975 27.5% 13.9% 404 31.9% 4.4% 195 83.6% NL Total 3542 100.0% 50.6% 1267 100.0% 0.0% 221 94.9% MLB Total 7001 n/a 100% 2429 n/a n/a 233 100.0%
For a decade, the National League East Division had presented a curious juxtaposition. The Montreal Expos, recently relocated to Washington and re-christened the Nationals, had dominated in value production, leading the division in WSP every season since 1992. But their inability to retain the best of their talent in the face of free agent defections rendered them chronically noncompetitive on the field; they hadn’t been a serious contender since 1996, and their 71-91, last-place performance of 2006 was typical.
Meanwhile the Atlanta Braves had been phenomenally dominant on the field, winning the division title every year since 1995, after having finished second to the Expos in ’94. Yet the Braves accomplished this extraordinary success with good-but-not-great farm production.
They had long featured a core of system-produced stars, most notably third baseman-outfielder Chipper Jones, center fielder Andruw Jones, and pitcher Tom Glavine, but their championship status had been achieved primarily through the tremendous work of GM John Schuerholz in filling nearly every hole with the just the right free agent signing, trade acquisition, or scrap-heap scavenge, as well as the equally tremendous skill of field manager Bobby Cox and pitching coach Leo Mazzone in getting the very most out of the resources at hand.
But in 2006, two unexpected things occurred: At last, the Braves nosed ahead of the Nationals in organizational value production, yet simultaneously Atlanta failed to present a winning ball club for the first time since 1990, struggling in at 79-83. This Braves team still retained the Jones boys as veteran stars, and they were now joined by younger system-produced standouts in catcher Brian McCann, second baseman Marcus Giles and first baseman Adam LaRoche, but they were unable to mount a sufficient supporting cast around them, especially in the pitching staff—perhaps significantly, with Mazzone having now departed.
Atlanta products excelling elsewhere in 2006 included shortstop Rafael Furcal (Dodgers), outfielder Jermaine Dye (White Sox), pitchers Jason Schmidt (Giants) and Kevin Millwood (Rangers) and infielder-outfielder Mark DeRosa (Rangers).
The 2007 Value Production Standings
AL Organization WSP Lg. WSP MLB WSP W Lg. W W% - WSP% Avg. WSP % MLB Avg. Blue Jays 340 10.3% 5.0% 83 7.2% -3.1% Red Sox 243 7.4% 3.6% 96 8.4% 1.0% Yankees 227 6.9% 3.3% 94 8.2% 1.3% Devil Rays 160 4.9% 2.3% 66 5.8% 0.9% Orioles 147 4.5% 2.2% 69 6.0% 1.6% East Division 1117 34.0% 16.3% 408 35.6% 1.7% 223 98.1% Indians 347 10.5% 5.1% 96 8.4% -2.2% White Sox 236 7.2% 3.5% 72 6.3% -0.9% Twins 185 5.6% 2.7% 79 6.9% 1.3% Tigers 175 5.3% 2.6% 88 7.7% 2.4% Royals 168 5.1% 2.5% 69 6.0% 0.9% Central Division 1111 33.8% 16.3% 404 35.3% 1.5% 222 97.6% Mariners 305 9.3% 4.5% 88 7.7% -1.6% Athletics 292 8.9% 4.3% 76 6.6% -2.2% Rangers 237 7.2% 3.5% 75 6.6% -0.7% Angels 228 6.9% 3.3% 94 8.2% 1.3% West Division 1062 32.3% 15.5% 333 29.1% -3.2% 266 116.6% AL Total 3290 100.0% 48.2% 1145 100% 0.0% 235 103.2% NL Organization WSP Lg. WSP MLB WSP W Lg. W W% - WSP% Avg. WSP % MLB Avg. Nationals 305 8.6% 4.5% 73 5.7% -2.9% Braves 286 8.1% 4.2% 84 6.5% -1.5% Phillies 235 6.6% 3.4% 89 6.9% 0.3% Marlins 234 6.6% 3.4% 71 5.5% -1.1% Mets 209 5.9% 3.1% 88 6.8% 0.9% East Division 1269 35.8% 18.6% 405 31.5% -4.3% 254 111.4% Astros 286 8.1% 4.2% 73 5.7% -2.4% Pirates 256 7.2% 3.7% 68 5.3% -1.9% Cardinals 212 6.0% 3.1% 78 6.1% 0.1% Brewers 200 5.6% 2.9% 83 6.5% 0.8% Cubs 188 5.3% 2.8% 85 6.6% 1.3% Reds 81 2.3% 1.2% 72 5.6% 3.3% Central Division 1223 34.5% 17.9% 459 35.7% 1.2% 204 89.5% Rockies 288 8.1% 4.2% 90 7.0% -1.1% Diamondbacks 252 7.1% 3.7% 90 7.0% -0.1% Dodgers 211 6.0% 3.1% 82 6.4% 0.4% Giants 152 4.3% 2.2% 71 5.5% 1.2% Padres 147 4.2% 2.2% 89 6.9% 2.8% West Division 1050 29.6% 15.4% 422 32.8% 3.2% 210 92.2% NL Total 3542 100.0% 51.8% 1286 100.0% 0.0% 221 97.2% MLB Total 6832 n/a 100% 2431 n/a n/a 228 100.0%
The American League East has been widely noted for displaying an extraordinary degree of competitive stability. Since the Devil Rays were hatched in 1998, every season the division’s standings, with minimal exceptions, have been (1) New York, (2) Boston, (3) Toronto, (4) Baltimore and (5) Tampa Bay. Through this period, the value production of the AL East has been remarkably stable as well, with the Blue Jays virtually always on top, then the Yankees and the Red Sox, and then the Orioles and Devil Rays trailing in the distance.
While obviously displeasing in the extreme for Baltimore and Tampa Bay fans, this circumstance has probably been most frustrating for Toronto. The vast talent reservoir emanating from the Blue Jays’ system isn’t merely a legacy of long-departed veterans, like Jeff Kent (Dodgers), Carlos Delgado and Shawn Green (Mets), Shannon Stewart (Athletics), David Wells (Padres-Dodgers) and Woody Williams (Astros).
None among standout middle infielders Michael Young (Rangers), Orlando Hudson (Diamondbacks) and Felipe Lopez (Nationals) was over 30 in the 2007 season, but all three were among the latest bountiful cohort that Toronto hasn’t adequately leveraged. Without the financial resources to compete with the Yankees and Red Sox in payroll, the Blue Jays haven’t been a serious contender since the early 1990s, despite continuously pumping from a talent well that neither the Yankees nor Red Sox has been able to match.
Not that the value production of either of the big-bucks behemoths hasn’t been solid. Yankee organizational products currently on their roster include not just the familiar veterans in shortstop Derek Jeter, catcher Jorge Posada, starter Andy Pettite and closer Mariano Rivera, but also second baseman Robinson Cano, pitcher Chien-Ming Wang and outfielder Melky Cabrera. Former Yankee farmhands include third baseman Mike Lowell (Red Sox) and outfielder Alfonso Soriano (Cubs).
On the 2007 World Champion Boston roster, the only home-grown stars were first baseman Kevin Youklilis, second baseman Dustin Pedroia and closer Jonathan Papelbon, but the list of Red Sox products now elsewhere includes shorstops Hanley Ramirez (Marlins) and David Eckstein (Cardinals), third baseman Freddy Sanchez (Pirates) and relief ace Rafael Betancourt (Indians).
In contrast, the standings in the AL Central have been topsy-turvy, producing four different post-season qualifiers in the past three years, and with all the division’s winners having experienced hard times as well in recent seasons. Yet meanwhile, the division’s value production picture has been rather static, with the Cleveland Indians dominating the top spot, leading in WSP in 10 of the past 11 years.
The young Indians team that advanced to the ALCS this year has been largely home-grown, including catcher Victor Martinez, pitchers C. C. Sabathia and Fausto Carmona, shortstop Jhonny Peralta and first baseman Ryan Garko.
Cleveland’s talent production has been so robust that the Indians are thriving despite having unloaded designated hitter Jim Thome (White Sox), outfielders Brian Giles (Padres), Manny Ramirez (Red Sox), Ryan Church (Nationals), Willy Taveras (Rockies) and Luke Scott (Astros), infielders Kevin Kouzmanoff (Padres) and Maicer Izturis (Angels) and pitcher Jeremy Guthrie (Orioles).
The Arizona Diamondbacks achieved extraordinarily immediate success, reaching the postseason three times in their first five seasons while featuring a roster studded with high-priced free agent veterans. But the morning after that party was a harsh one, with the D-backs collapsing into a 51-111 heap in 2004.
Following that, Arizona’s recovery again has been swift, as the farm system constructed under former GM Joe Garagiola Jr. is yielding exceptional results. This season’s division-winning Diamondbacks club was led by organizationally produced pitchers Brandon Webb, Jose Valverde, Micah Owings and Tony Pena, catcher Chris Snyder, shortstop Stephen Drew, third baseman Mark Reynolds and first baseman Conor Jackson.
While the Giants’ and Padres’ systems remain quite unimpressive, the remarkable young talent emerging not only in Arizona and Colorado, but also now from the Los Angeles Dodgers suggests that the National League West, long the weak sister in value production, may be poised for an era of WSP leadership.
Meanwhile, just what in the world has happened to the farm system of the Cincinnati Reds? One has to look back all the way to the Kansas City Athletics of the late 1950s/early 1960s to find a non-expansion franchise with a talent well as dry as that of the 2007 Reds. Just two players (outfielders Adam Dunn and Austin Kearns, with 21 Win Shares apiece) accounted for more than half of Cincinnati’s extremely meager organizational production this season.
The Value Production Standings Summary, 1946-2007
American League
Year NYY DET BOS CLE OAK MIN BAL CHW CAL WAS AL WSP 1946 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x x 56.5% 1947 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 x x 55.3% 1948 1 3 4 2 5 7 6 8 x x 55.6% 1949 1 3T 3T 2 5 7 6 8 x x 51.9% 1950 1 3 4 2 7 6 5 8 x x 50.5% 1951 2 4 3 1 5 6 8 7 x x 49.0% 1952 1 4 3 2 5 6 8 7 x x 47.9% 1953 2 4 3 1 7 6 8 5 x x 46.2% 1954 1T 4 3 1T 7 6 8 5 x x 47.5% 1955 1 4 2 3 5 6 8 7 x x 46.7% 1956 1 4 2 3 7 5 8 6 x x 47.1% 1957 1 4 2 3 6 8 7 5 x x 46.3% 1958 1 4 3 2 8 7 6 5 x x 46.4% 1959 1 4 3 2 8 7 5 6 x x 46.5% 1960 1 5 3 2 8 7 4 6 x x 46.0% 1961 1 4 3 2 8 7 5 6 9 10 48.3% 1962 1 3 4 2 8 6 5 7 10 9 43.1% 1963 1 5 4 2 8 7 3 6 10 9 43.6% 1964 1 3 4 5 8 7 2 6 9 10 45.0% 1965 1 2 7 4 8 6 3 5 9 10 44.5% 1966 1 3 6 5 7 8 2 4 9 10 44.4% 1967 7 4 1 6 8 3 2 5 9 10 45.5% 1968 7 1 4 5 2 8 3 6 9 10 45.8%
American League East Division
Year BAL DET BOS NYY CLE WAS Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1969 1 2 3 4 5 6 259 108.3% 27.1% 45.3%
1970 2 4 1 3 5 6 260 108.3% 27.1% 44.7%
1971 2 3 4 1 5 6 244 101.5% 25.4% 46.0%
BAL DET BOS NYY CLE MIL Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1972 1 5 2 4 3 6 219 95.4% 23.9% 43.0%
1973 1 5 2 4 3 6 219 91.5% 22.9% 42.0%
1974 2 3 1 4 5 6 215 90.5% 22.6% 43.8%
1975 2 4 1 3 5 6 193 81.6% 20.4% 44.4%
1976 2 4 1 5 3 6 204 85.9% 21.5% 44.3%
BAL DET BOS NYY CLE MIL TOR Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1977 1 3 2 5 4 6 7 193 82.2% 22.1% 46.1%
1978 2 3 1 5 4 6 7 210 88.9% 23.9% 46.7%
1979 2 3 1 6 5 4 7 213 90.7% 24.4% 47.7%
1980 3 2 1 6 4 5 7 199 84.9% 22.8% 49.4%
1981 3 2 1 6 4 5 7 138 89.2% 24.0% 49.0%
1982 2 3 1 6 5 4 7 215 91.0% 24.5% 47.7%
1983 2 5 1 4 6 3 7 222 94.7% 25.5% 48.0%
1984 2 4 1 3 5 6 7 206 87.0% 23.4% 47.1%
1985 3 4 1 2 7 5 6 206 87.6% 23.6% 47.7%
1986 3 5 1 2 6 4 7 200 85.6% 23.0% 47.7%
1987 5 4 1 3 6 2 7 216 91.3% 24.6% 49.3%
1988 6 5 1 3 4 2 7 216 91.7% 24.7% 49.1%
1989 4 6 1 3 5 2 7 211 88.6% 23.8% 49.9%
1990 6 5 1 2 7 4 3 215 90.6% 24.4% 50.0%
1991 6 4 1 2 7 4 5 212 89.0% 24.0% 50.8%
1992 4 6 3 2 7 1 5 219 91.3% 24.6% 51.5%
1993 6 5 3 1 7 4 2 227 95.7% 23.9% 51.3%
BAL DET BOS NYY TOR Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1994 4 5 3 2 1 190 113.6% 20.3% 52.9%
1995 5 4 3 1 2 222 105.5% 18.8% 53.0%
1996 4 5 3 1 2 251 106.0% 18.9% 53.8%
1997 4 5 3 2 1 272 114.4% 20.4% 53.4%
BAL TBD BOS NYY TOR Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1998 4 5 3 2 1 227 96.5% 16.1% 51.4%
1999 4 5 3 1 2 224 95.1% 15.9% 52.2%
2000 4 5 3 2 1 221 93.7% 15.6% 50.9%
2001 4 5 3 2 1 221 94.3% 15.7% 51.3%
2002 4 5 3 2 1 239 102.8% 17.1% 50.9%
2003 4 5 3 2 1 240 103.2% 17.2% 49.5%
2004 4 5 3 2 1 253 107.4% 17.9% 49.5%
2005 4 5 3 2 1 239 100.8% 16.8% 48.3%
2006 4 5 3 2 1 248 106.4% 17.7% 49.4%
2007 5 4 2 3 1 223 98.1% 16.3% 48.2%
American League Central Division
Year KCR MIN CHW MIL CLE Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALC WSP AL WSP
1994 1 2 3 4 5 163 97.5% 17.4% 52.9%
1995 1 2 5 4 3 210 99.6% 17.8% 53.0%
1996 2 1 5 3 4 241 101.5% 18.1% 53.8%
1997 4 2T 5 2T 1 231 97.3% 17.4% 53.4%
KCR MIN CHW DET CLE Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALC WSP AL WSP
1998 3 2 5 4 1 243 103.4% 17.2% 51.4%
1999 4 2T 2T 5 1 269 114.0% 19.0% 52.2%
2000 4 2 3 5 1 249 105.6% 17.6% 50.9%
2001 3 2 4 5 1 269 114.9% 19.1% 51.3%
2002 4 2 3 5 1 253 108.7% 18.1% 50.9%
2003 3 1 4 5 2 226 97.0% 16.2% 49.5%
2004 3 2 4T 4T 1 230 97.7% 16.3% 49.5%
2005 3 2 4 5 1 229 96.6% 16.1% 48.3%
2006 5 2T 2T 4 1 230 98.6% 16.4% 49.4%
2007 5 3 2 4 1 222 97.6% 16.3% 48.2%
American League West Division
Year OAK MIN CHW CAL KCR MIL Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1969 1 2 3 4 5T 5T 175 73.0% 18.2% 45.3%
1970 1 2 3 4 5 6 169 70.4% 17.6% 44.7%
1971 1 3 4 2 6 5 198 82.3% 20.6% 46.0%
OAK MIN CHW CAL KCR TEX Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1972 1 2 3 4 6 5 177 76.8% 19.2% 43.0%
1973 1 2 3 4 6 5 183 76.5% 19.1% 42.0%
1974 1 2 5 4 6 3 201 84.7% 21.2% 43.8%
1975 1 2 5 3 6 4 228 96.2% 24.0% 44.4%
1976 1 4 5 2 6 3 217 91.5% 22.9% 44.3%
OAK MIN CHW CAL KCR TEX SEA Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1977 1 2 6 4 5 3 7 209 88.9% 23.9% 46.1%
1978 1 3 6 4 5 2 7 200 84.5% 22.7% 46.7%
1979 1 4T 6 2 4T 3 7 203 86.5% 23.3% 47.7%
1980 1 4 6 5 3 2 7 231 98.7% 26.6% 49.4%
1981 1 5 6 3 4 2 7 143 92.6% 24.9% 49.0%
1982 1 5 6 4 3 2 7 204 86.2% 23.2% 47.7%
1983 2 5 6 1 4 3 7 196 83.5% 22.5% 48.0%
1984 3 4 6 1 2 5 7 207 87.8% 23.6% 47.1%
1985 3 5 7 2 1 4 6 210 89.6% 24.1% 47.7%
1986 2 5 7 1 4 3 6 213 91.4% 24.6% 47.7%
1987 2 6 7 4 1 3 5 217 91.9% 24.7% 49.3%
1988 2 4 7 3 1 6 5 214 90.8% 24.5% 49.1%
1989 4 5 7 3 2 5 1 230 96.7% 26.0% 49.9%
1990 3 6 7 4 2 5 1 226 95.2% 25.6% 50.0%
1991 1 7 6 5 3 4 2 237 99.5% 26.8% 50.8%
1992 1 6 5 2 4 3 7 239 100.0% 26.9% 51.5%
1993 4 6 7 3 2 1 5 260 109.7% 27.4% 51.3%
OAK TEX SEA LAA Avg. WSP % ML Avg. ALW WSP AL WSP
1994 1 2 4 3 178 106.1% 15.2% 52.9%
1995 2 1 4 3 241 114.3% 16.3% 53.0%
1996 2 1 4 3 278 117.4% 16.8% 53.8%
1997 3 2 4 1 260 109.3% 15.6% 53.4%
1998 1 2 4 3 319 135.6% 18.1% 51.4%
1999 2 1 3 4 306 129.9% 17.3% 52.2%
2000 1 2 4 3 313 132.6% 17.7% 50.9%
2001 1 2 3 4 289 123.6% 16.5% 51.3%
2002 1 4 2 3 274 117.7% 15.7% 50.9%
2003 3 2 1 4 281 120.8% 16.1% 49.5%
2004 3 1 2 4 271 115.0% 15.3% 49.5%
2005 1 3 2 4 274 115.5% 15.4% 48.3%
2006 1 3 2 4 267 114.2% 15.2% 49.4%
2007 2 3 1 4 266 116.6% 15.5% 48.2%
National League
Year STL LAD CHC CIN PHI PIT ATL SFG HOU NYM NL WSP 1946 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x x 43.5% 1947 1 2 4 3 7 6 8 5 x x 44.7% 1948 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 5 x x 44.4% 1949 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 6 x x 48.1% 1950 1 2 5 6 4 7 8 3 x x 49.5% 1951 1 2 5 4 6 7 8 3 x x 51.0% 1952 1 2 5 4 6 8 7 3 x x 52.1% 1953 2 1 7 4 5 8 3 6 x x 53.8% 1954 2 1 7 5 6 8 3 4 x x 52.5% 1955 3 1 6 5 7 8 2 4 x x 53.3% 1956 2 1 8 4 6 7 3 5 x x 52.9% 1957 2 1 7 5 4 8 3 6 x x 53.7% 1958 4 1 8 6 7 5 2 3 x x 53.6% 1959 3 1 7 5 8 6 2 4 x x 53.5% 1960 3 1 8 6 7 5 4 2 x x 54.0% 1961 2 1 7 5 8 6 3 4 x x 51.7% 1962 4 1 7 5 8 6 2 3 9 10 56.9% 1963 5 1 7 4 8 6 3 2 9 10 56.4% 1964 6 3 7 4 8 5 2 1 9 10 55.0% 1965 6 2 8 3 7 5 4 1 9 10 55.5% 1966 6 4 7 2 8 5 3 1 9 10 55.6% 1967 5 3 6 2 7 8 4 1 9 10 54.5% 1968 5 4 6 2 8 7 3 1 9 10 54.2%
National League East Division
Year PIT STL CHC NYM PHI MON FLA Avg. WSP % ML Avg. NLE WSP NL WSP
1969 1 2 3 4 5 6 x 218 91.1% 22.8% 54.7%
1970 1 2 4 5 3 6 x 221 91.9% 23.0% 55.3%
1971 1 3 5 2 4 6 x 230 95.7% 23.9% 54.0%
1972 1 2 4 3 5 6 x 244 106.1% 26.5% 57.0%
1973 1 3 5 2 4 6 x 239 99.7% 24.9% 58.0%
1974 1 4 5 3 2 6 x 249 104.9% 26.2% 56.2%
1975 1 2 5 3 4 6 x 247 104.2% 26.1% 55.6%
1976 1 2 5 3 4 6 x 254 106.8% 26.7% 55.7%
1977 1 2 5 4 3 6 x 290 123.4% 28.5% 53.9%
1978 1 3 5 4 2 6 x 285 120.7% 27.9% 53.3%
1979 1 3 6 4 2 5 x 289 123.5% 28.5% 52.3%
1980 1 2 6 4 3 5 x 280 119.7% 27.6% 50.6%
1981 1 2 6 3 4 5 x 185 119.5% 27.6% 51.0%
1982 1 3 6 5 2 4 x 289 122.3% 28.2% 52.3%
1983 3 1 6 5 2 4 x 272 115.8% 26.7% 52.0%
1984 2 3 6 4 1 5 x 280 118.5% 27.4% 52.9%
1985 4 2 6 3 1 5 x 276 117.7% 27.2% 52.3%
1986 4 3 6 2 1 5 x 280 120.0% 27.7% 52.3%
1987 5 2 6 3 1 4 x 272 115.2% 26.6% 50.7%
1988 2 5 4 1 3 6 x 281 119.1% 27.5% 50.9%
1989 2 6 4 1 3 5 x 272 114.0% 26.3% 50.1%
1990 2 6 4 1 5 3 x 282 119.0% 27.5% 50.0%
1991 1 6 5 2 4 3 x 271 113.7% 26.2% 49.2%
1992 2 3 4 5 6 1 x 273 114.0% 26.3% 48.5%
1993 2 3 5 4 6 1 7 236 99.6% 24.9% 48.7%
WAS ATL FLA NYM PHI Avg. WSP % ML Avg. NLE WSP NL WSP
1994 1 2 5 3 4 149 89.2% 15.9% 47.1%
1995 1 2 5 3 4 184 87.6% 15.7% 47.0%
1996 1 2 5 3 4 200 84.3% 15.0% 46.2%
1997 1 2 5 3 4 215 90.4% 16.2% 46.6%
1998 1 2 5 3 4 233 99.2% 16.5% 48.6%
1999 1 2 5 3 4 228 96.6% 16.1% 47.8%
2000 1 3 5 2 4 257 108.9% 18.1% 49.1%
2001 1 2 5 3 4 237 101.4% 16.9% 48.7%
2002 1 2 5 3 4 261 112.2% 18.7% 49.1%
2003 1 2 4 3 5 257 110.4% 18.4% 50.5%
2004 1 2 4 5 3 244 103.9% 17.3% 50.5%
2005 1 2 5 4 3 267 112.5% 18.8% 51.7%
2006 2 1 3 5 4 264 113.1% 18.9% 50.6%
2007 1 2 4 5 3 254 111.4% 18.6% 51.8%
National League Central Division
Year STL PIT CHC CIN HOU MIL Avg. WSP % ML Avg. NLC WSP NL WSP 1994 1 2 3 4 5 x 175 104.7% 18.7% 47.1% 1995 2 1 3 4 5 x 223 106.0% 18.9% 47.0% 1996 2 1 3T 3T 5 x 243 102.4% 18.3% 46.2% 1997 2 1 4 5 3 x 238 100.2% 17.9% 46.6% 1998 6 1 4 5 3 2 230 97.7% 19.5% 48.6% 1999 4 6 5 3 1 2 221 93.8% 18.8% 47.8% 2000 4 2T 6 5 1 2T 221 93.6% 18.7% 49.1% 2001 2 3 4 6 1 5 234 99.9% 20.0% 48.7% 2002 2 4 5 3 1 6 208 89.2% 17.8% 49.1% 2003 4 2 3 5 1 6 222 95.5% 19.1% 50.5% 2004 3 2 5 4 1 6 234 99.3% 19.9% 50.5% 2005 3 2 4 6 1 5 237 99.9% 20.0% 51.7% 2006 3 2 4 6 1 5 208 89.1% 17.8% 50.6% 2007 3 2 5 6 1 4 204 89.5% 17.9% 51.8%
National League West Division
Year SFG CIN ATL LAD HOU SDP COL Avg. WSP % ML Avg. NLW WSP NL WSP
1969 1 2 3 4 5 6 x 306 127.7% 31.9% 54.7%
1970 1 2 3 4 5 6 x 311 129.4% 32.3% 55.3%
1971 1 2 3 4 5 6 x 289 120.4% 30.1% 54.0%
1972 2 1 4 5 3 6 x 280 121.7% 30.4% 57.0%
1973 1 2 5 3 4 6 x 317 132.2% 33.1% 58.0%
1974 2 1 5 3 4 6 x 285 120.0% 30.0% 56.2%
1975 1 2 5 4 3 6 x 279 118.0% 29.5% 55.6%
1976 1 3 5 2 4 6 x 275 115.9% 29.0% 55.7%
1977 1 3 5 2 4 6 x 259 110.3% 25.5% 53.9%
1978 1 3 4 2 5 6 x 261 110.3% 25.5% 53.3%
1979 1 3 5 2 4 6 x 242 103.1% 23.8% 52.3%
1980 4 1 5 2 3 6 x 233 99.5% 23.0% 50.6%
1981 4 2 3 1 5 6 x 157 101.6% 23.5% 51.0%
1982 5 2 3 1 4 6 x 247 104.4% 24.1% 52.3%
1983 5 2 3 1 4 6 x 258 109.7% 25.3% 52.0%
1984 4 2 3 1 5 6 x 262 110.9% 25.6% 52.9%
1985 5 2 3 1 4 6 x 256 108.9% 25.1% 52.3%
1986 3 2 4 1 6 5 x 249 106.9% 24.7% 52.3%
1987 3 2 4 1 6 5 x 247 104.4% 24.1% 50.7%
1988 3T 2 3T 1 6 5 x 238 101.2% 23.4% 50.9%
1989 3 1 5 2 6 4 x 246 103.2% 23.8% 50.1%
1990 3 1 4 2 6 5 x 232 97.6% 22.5% 50.0%
1991 4 1 3 5 6 2 x 237 99.6% 23.0% 49.2%
1992 5 3 4 1 6 2 x 231 96.2% 22.2% 48.5%
1993 5 4 3 1 6 2 7 225 95.0% 23.8% 48.7%
SFG SDP COL LAD ARI Avg. WSP % ML Avg. NLW WSP NL WSP
1994 3 2 4 1 x 147 87.7% 12.5% 47.1%
1995 3 2 4 1 x 184 87.2% 12.5% 47.0%
1996 3 2 4 1 x 213 90.0% 12.9% 46.2%
1997 3 2 4 1 x 209 87.7% 12.5% 46.6%
1998 3 2 4 1 5 177 75.1% 12.5% 48.6%
1999 2 3 4 1 5 184 77.9% 13.0% 47.8%
2000 2 3 4 1 5 173 73.4% 12.2% 49.1%
2001 2 3 4 1 5 166 70.8% 11.8% 48.7%
2002 3 2 4 1 5 175 75.0% 12.5% 49.1%
2003 2 3 5 1 4 182 78.1% 13.0% 50.5%
2004 4 3 2 1 5 188 79.8% 13.3% 50.5%
2005 3 5 1 4 2 184 77.7% 13.0% 51.7%
2006 4 5 1 2 3 195 83.6% 13.9% 50.6%
2007 4 5 1 3 2 210 92.2% 15.4% 51.8%
References & Resources
Methodology
First, we identify every player in the major leagues each season with at least five career Win Shares. Then we identify which major league organization was responsible for originally signing and developing that player (or perhaps not originally signing him, but clearly being the organization most responsible for developing him). Finally, we credit every season’s production of major league Win Shares by that player to that organization, regardless of whether he actually played that season for that organization.
Sometimes it’s impossible to assign a player to one organization. Lots of players were signed by one team, but then acquired by another organization while still young minor leaguers. For such players, we assign half-credit to each of the two organizations (and in a few cases, we assign one-third-credit to each of three organizations).
In this era, a non-insignificant number of players aren’t the products of any major league team’s farm system, having been purchased or signed as free agents from independent teams, either in the Mexican League, the Northern League, or the Japanese Leagues. The Win Shares of such players aren’t counted in this analysis.