Salary Lost by Team and Year to Time on DL
Since I have already looked at the salary lost to the DL for individual player totals and teams totals from 2002 to 2009, I will now look at the individual teams by year (injury information from Josh Hermsmeyer at RotoBlog.com) . Looking over the lists the only points I noticed was that the Mets and Dodgers did not do a good job of keeping their high priced players off the DL while the Chicago White Sox did an amazing job. Here is the top 20 teams and bottom 10 by total salary lost (link to a spreadsheet with all the teams and years for reference).
| Rank | Team | Year | Salary Lost | Total Salary | Percent of Salary | Total Days | Trips |
| 1 | NYM | 2009 | $54,962,101 | $149,373,987 | 36.8% | 1212 | 15 |
| 2 | LAD | 2008 | $54,187,351 | $118,588,536 | 45.7% | 1229 | 15 |
| 3 | ATL | 2008 | $42,020,997 | $102,365,683 | 41.0% | 1383 | 17 |
| 4 | LAD | 2005 | $34,642,178 | $83,039,000 | 41.7% | 1315 | 15 |
| 5 | NYM | 2003 | $31,106,582 | $116,876,429 | 26.6% | 823 | 13 |
| 6 | NYY | 2006 | $30,146,569 | $194,663,079 | 15.5% | 904 | 12 |
| 7 | NYY | 2008 | $30,023,543 | $207,896,789 | 14.4% | 1201 | 15 |
| 8 | STL | 2008 | $29,089,973 | $99,624,449 | 29.2% | 1431 | 18 |
| 9 | DET | 2009 | $28,369,717 | $115,085,145 | 24.7% | 832 | 9 |
| 10 | SFG | 2005 | $28,003,711 | $90,199,500 | 31.0% | 450 | 8 |
| Rank | Team | Year | Salary Lost | Total Salary | Percent of Salary | Total Days | Trips |
| 11 | NYM | 2008 | $27,458,235 | $137,793,376 | 19.9% | 1429 | 14 |
| 12 | TEX | 2002 | $27,378,780 | $105,526,122 | 25.9% | 1282 | 14 |
| 13 | ARI | 2002 | $27,114,166 | $102,819,999 | 26.4% | 1148 | 17 |
| 14 | LAA | 2009 | $26,958,806 | $113,709,000 | 23.7% | 756 | 11 |
| 15 | CHC | 2006 | $26,468,356 | $94,424,499 | 28.0% | 919 | 11 |
| 16 | TEX | 2004 | $26,038,966 | $55,050,417 | 47.3% | 1496 | 18 |
| 17 | NYM | 2004 | $25,330,376 | $96,660,970 | 26.2% | 1052 | 15 |
| 18 | OAK | 2007 | $25,001,583 | $79,366,940 | 31.5% | 1111 | 14 |
| 19 | ATL | 2006 | $24,891,291 | $90,156,876 | 27.6% | 1286 | 14 |
| 20 | SEA | 2009 | $24,353,463 | $98,904,166 | 24.6% | 1030 | 14 |
| 231 | PIT | 2007 | $1,724,722 | $38,537,833 | 4.5% | 381 | 7 |
| 232 | STL | 2004 | $1,454,389 | $83,228,333 | 1.7% | 397 | 5 |
| 233 | CHA | 2005 | $1,418,144 | $75,178,000 | 1.9% | 215 | 6 |
| 234 | TB | 2005 | $1,385,350 | $29,679,067 | 4.7% | 511 | 10 |
| 235 | CHW | 2002 | $1,235,731 | $57,052,833 | 2.2% | 175 | 5 |
| 236 | MON | 2002 | $1,187,417 | $38,670,500 | 3.1% | 375 | 7 |
| 237 | CHW | 2009 | $1,070,222 | $96,068,500 | 1.1% | 284 | 6 |
| 238 | TB | 2004 | $904,778 | $29,556,667 | 3.1% | 252 | 4 |
| 239 | CHW | 2003 | $778,056 | $51,010,000 | 1.5% | 118 | 4 |
| 240 | FLO | 2006 | $533,817 | $14,998,500 | 3.6% | 189 | 5 |
Besides total amount lost, here are the leaders and laggards in Percent of Salary lost.
| Rank | Team | Year | Percent of Salary | Salary Lost | Total Salary | Total Days | Trips |
| 1 | CLE | 2003 | 48.4% | $23,498,650 | $48,584,834 | 1317 | 14 |
| 2 | TEX | 2004 | 47.3% | $26,038,966 | $55,050,417 | 1496 | 18 |
| 3 | TB | 2003 | 46.0% | $9,024,444 | $19,630,000 | 599 | 10 |
| 4 | LAD | 2008 | 45.7% | $54,187,351 | $118,588,536 | 1229 | 15 |
| 5 | LAD | 2005 | 41.7% | $34,642,178 | $83,039,000 | 1315 | 15 |
| 6 | ATL | 2008 | 41.0% | $42,020,997 | $102,365,683 | 1383 | 17 |
| 7 | NYM | 2009 | 36.8% | $54,962,101 | $149,373,987 | 1212 | 15 |
| 8 | WAS | 2008 | 36.8% | $20,213,772 | $54,961,000 | 1259 | 16 |
| 9 | SD | 2009 | 35.3% | $15,289,962 | $43,333,700 | 798 | 10 |
| 10 | DET | 2002 | 34.5% | $18,980,375 | $55,048,000 | 1275 | 12 |
| 231 | MON | 2002 | 3.1% | $1,187,417 | $38,670,500 | 375 | 7 |
| 232 | TB | 2004 | 3.1% | $904,778 | $29,556,667 | 252 | 4 |
| 233 | TOR | 2006 | 2.6% | $1,829,939 | $71,365,000 | 339 | 6 |
| 234 | SEA | 2006 | 2.4% | $2,106,361 | $87,959,833 | 278 | 5 |
| 235 | SF | 2007 | 2.2% | $2,000,156 | $90,219,056 | 318 | 6 |
| 236 | CHW | 2002 | 2.2% | $1,235,731 | $57,052,833 | 175 | 5 |
| 237 | CHW | 2005 | 1.9% | $1,418,144 | $75,178,000 | 215 | 6 |
| 238 | STL | 2004 | 1.7% | $1,454,389 | $83,228,333 | 397 | 5 |
| 239 | CHW | 2003 | 1.5% | $778,056 | $51,010,000 | 118 | 4 |
| 240 | CHW | 2009 | 1.1% | $1,070,222 | $96,068,500 | 284 | 6 |
10 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow, White Sox
4 of the bottom 5 spots on this list. Rather incredible. They are certainly doing something right over there.
+2-4 wins a year by my estimate
I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs. I want production.
Doign something right
or lucky? Perhaps both.
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
i think the days per season measure
is off by a factor of ten
I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs. I want production.
nope, just bad math
ignore
I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs. I want production.
any chance you could adjust the dollars in terms of 2010 dollars
or something like that? it would be easier to calculate wins lost.
I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs. I want production.
I have no desire to do that. I provided the spreadsheet so people can do it on their own
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
by Jeff Zimmerman on Mar 1, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
actually...
is that so hard? take the median salary from each season and compare?
I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs. I want production.

by 

















