Cap Efficiency

by abender20 on Jun 5, 2009 9:00 AM PDT in Seahawks News & Rumors

Any NFL GM could probably spend the entirety of their salary cap before the bathroom mirror steams up; how they spend it is another story all together. This isn't baseball, where the Yankee pay more to fill in 1st and 3rd on their lineup card than three teams pay to employ their entire organization. In fact, in 2009 the Yankees will pay for A-Rod only slightly less than the Marlins will pay for the Marlins. J.I. Halsell at Football Outsiders takes a look at how efficiently teams spent and handled their cap space in 2008.

As we all know, the team that spends the most money on players isn't always the team with the most wins; to that point, the Seahawks had the fifth highest 2008 Team Salary with $122 million but could only muster four wins. Conversely, the Giants had the fourth lowest Team Salary at a little under $105 million, yet had 12 wins.

Well that was rude. Barely sets foot in the house and already he's insulting the upholstery. I'll let Halsell continue, but only because he brought pastry. Who can say no to rugelach?

Keep in mind that "Team Salary" is not cash paid, but instead represents contract amounts accounted for. For example, if a player signs a contract with a $1 million signing bonus, the full $1 million isn't counted in 2008 Team Salary, but instead the prorated amount counts; that would be $200,000 on a five-year contract.

It is important to note that the Efficiency Rating is based solely on wins, which as we know is an outcome subject to all sorts of other factors. A bit of NFL accounting information that I had not previously heard about:

The cap space rolled over component is important in my opinion because the NFL practices a "use it or lose it" philosophy towards unused cap space. Therefore, teams are wise to roll over their unused cap space into the next capped year; interestingly, not all teams rollover their unused cap space.

On to the results. You will want to click through to see the tables. As is no surprise in a metric that revolves around wins, most of the teams that scored well in Efficiency Rating made the playoffs (or didn't despite 11 wins). More interesting are the teams that scored higher or lower than expected. Tampa Bay finished a narrow second despite winning only 9 games. How? They had the second lowest payroll in the NFL and rolled over more than $25 million.

Atlanta rated on the low side for an 11 win team, as they rolled over only $1.2 million. Pittsburgh, despite 12 wins, managed to cost themselves cap space in 2009 by running a deficit. Likewise, Baltimore carried over a red number. Unsurprisingly given their 4 wins, the Seattle Seahawks finished near the bottom of cap efficiency after a high payroll and low rollover.

Looking at the 2009 Adjusted Cap numbers, Tampa is excellent cap position headed into 2009. Third on the list? San Francisco. Having cap space and spending cap space wisely are still two entirely separate entities, but take a look at how teams have positioned themselves for the upcoming season from an accounting.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't know about this 'Efficiency rating'

Is it less efficient to spend more money on coaches and front office people?

I also wish he looked at more than one year, and used pythag/projected wins instead of actual wins (maybe adjusted for strength of schedule as well).

by LantermanC on Jun 5, 2009 9:43 AM PDT reply actions

Probably so, and I wouldn't put any stock in the rating as a prediction tool. It's only relevant from an outcomes perspective.

It is interesting, however, to see how clever various teams were in the management of their caps.

by abender20 on Jun 5, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions

As far as our team is concerned

It adds to the idea that we’re near the end of a window, pushing back mightily in all directions to keep it open for one more year. Although Ruskell is definitely building for post-Hasselbeck, as well.

It also compliments the idea that we greatly underperformed last year, as opposed to having much less talent than we presumed. And that the same talent on hand this year does indeed provide some hope that the team can rebound into contention again, as opposed to the bitter concession that we weren’t that good in the first place and can’t justify greater aspirations than your average 4-12 team can muster. This is not an appeal to authority, either, but simply validation by volume. The Brian Russell issue might perplex, but Holmgren and Ruskell are too good to fill a roster as though it has talent in the first or second tier of the league, when in fact the talent could only support 4 wins. They can’t be that wrong about that many players. It’s an encouraging sign.

by jacobstevens on Jun 5, 2009 10:38 AM PDT reply actions

I found interesting this reply from the article's author in the comments.

This would seem to underscore the points debated here regarding the resources invested in our LB corps:

This would seem to underscore the point occasionally agree with you both that talent evaluation is critical. However, if you look at both PIT and IND and how they manage their roster and cap; you’ll notice for every Peyton Manning or Dallas Clark with a huge cap number, there is an Ed Johnson (undrafted rookie free agent contract) or Freddy Keiaho (rookie contract). Similarly, in PIT for every Roethlisberger & Polamalu there are draft picks and younger players whose cheap contracts off-set these big contracts. Another part of both clubs’ cap philosophy is, short of their cornerstone players, they’ll let you walk once your rookie/club-friendly contract is over (ie, Cato June, Marcus Washington, any LB in PIT) and then replace you with a young player, who as you’ve said, has been developed in their program. So, you’re absolutely right, there’s a certain efficiency in both of these clubs’ roster/cap management strategies.
J.I. Halsell
UNDER THE CAP

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jun 5, 2009 11:05 AM PDT reply actions

This makes me wonder, and reflect: how do we find our salary cap relief?

It seems like we just cut guys we have signed to play in a window of prime years. Wistrom, Fisher, JP, and next year probably Kerney would be examples of this. High priced FAs simply cut following the production expected from said years.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Jun 5, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions

That's the only way to manage a cap properly, and to some extents it's expected from the moment teams sign players.

Alexander’s contract is a perfect example of that. Alexander was signed through his age 36 season. No one in their right mind would employ a 36 year old running back at top end money. Those years are effectively treated as team option years: If the player in question manages to keep performing at levels deserving of the contract they signed, the team can continue paying them for their services.

It would be lunacy to keep most players on their current deals as they reach the end of their contract.

by abender20 on Jun 5, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Our 2005 had key contributions from cheap players, too

Tatupu, Hill, Hannam, Jurevicius. Rocky, I dunno what he cost then, didn’t he get a short extension after that?

But yeah, the point is taken. Pats, too. The good teams have great talent at key positions, first, that’s what puts them up there, but they keep it going by finding cheaper guys to contribute in the way he describes.

by jacobstevens on Jun 5, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions