I came across an interesting discussion today about how many expected wins a team is spending to get: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/competing_on_payroll/
The assumption is "that each extra $2M spent adds 1 expected win to your team."
Initial estimation had the Giants spending to win 87 games. But that was with a linear function. With a non-linear function, the Giants were spending to win 85 games. Then in the final tweak (as of 9/13@3:56 PM), the formula had the Giants spending to win an expected 83 games, or approximately the .500 record that we had seen multiple times this season.
I have seen many people talk about how the Giants should be spending their money more productively to get a better team. But this study suggests that the Giants are about where they should be, around .500 - so perhaps they could be more productive, but compared to other teams in the league, they are about as effective in spending their money as other teams have been. After all, no GM is perfect, each has their Edgardo Alfonzo and A.J. Pierzynski on their resume.
I was wondering what other people thought about this study, does it hold water (well respected analyst who has his own published book) or is there some flaw someone sees that hasn't been caught yet.