[轉錄][supergary翻譯] How can general managers incre …

看板BaseballSYS作者dufflin (一名之立旬月踟躕)時間16年前 (2008/05/24 10:30)推噓0(0推 0噓 0→)

留言0則, 0人參與討論串1/1

※ [本文轉錄自 MLB 看板] 作者: supergary (supergary) 看板: MLB 標題: [翻譯] How can general managers increase the value of their fra 時間: Thu May 22 21:01:30 2008 How can general managers increase the value of their franchise? Phew. It has been long time coming, but you can now heave a big sigh of relief as I publish the final of my four-part series on valuing baseball clubs. If you are coming to this series fresh (where have you been?) I urge you to read part 1, part 2 and part 3 first. 哇!又過了好長一段時間，但是當我現在發表這篇如何評估棒球隊的價值四大系列的最後一部分時，你應該開始有些印象了，如果你對這個系列感到陌生的話(你跑哪裡去了?)，我強烈建議你先看看第一部分，第二部分與第三部分。 Last time we looked at how to use a technique called DCF to justify the price paid for a baseball franchise; specifically we looked at the Milwaukee Brewers. The beauty of using the Brewers as a case study was that they were sold in 2004/5 so we were able to compare our model to the actual sale price. And, guess what? To the surprise of no one we managed to arrive at a valuation very close to the purchase price by using a few informed (some would say wild) assumptions. 上次我們著眼於如何利用叫做DCF的方法來斷定棒球隊經營權的價值，我們特別注意到釀酒人隊，利用釀酒人隊作為研究的優點是他們在2004年5月被出售，所以我們可以比較我們的模型和實際的價格。你知道嗎?我們利用精明(有人稱作瘋狂)假設下所獲得的價格如預期地非常接近購得價格。 Today I want to spend some time thinking about the levers that baseball executives and owners can pull to maximize the value of their franchises and try to bridge the difference in value between two teams in similar markets, one of which is well run and the other of which is badly run. 今天我想要花時間探討的是球隊管理階層或老闆將球隊價值提升至最高，或是縮短兩支處於相似市場，經營妥善與經營不佳的球隊差距時所使用的方法手段。 Last time we said that every $1 increase in profit results in an increase in valuation of $14. That gives a lot of scope for executives to boost the worth of poorly run franchises. Simply put, there are two things an executive can do: boost revenue or cut cost. 上次我們曾討論過當球隊收入增加一美金時，球隊的價值就會提高十四美金。這給了球隊經營者很大的機會提高經營權的價值。簡單的分類，經營者有兩個選擇，增加收入或是減少支出。 Let's start with the revenue side of the equation. 我們先從這個公式中的收益部分開始。 Revenue We know from part 2 that there is a reasonable degree of certainty around MLB revenue numbers, more so than for cost numbers. So how does a typical major league club's revenue split across its constituent components? 我們從第二部分得知，大聯盟的收益數字和支出數字相比更有個合理程度的確定性，一支典型大聯盟球隊的收益是如何分布的呢? Tickets 39.0% Concessions 16.4% TV 16.1% Post season 1.3% Other local 7.0% National 20.3% The first thing to notice is that local revenue accounts for close to 80 percent of all revenue. That is important for a couple of reasons. First, it places a limit on a franchise's revenue potential. By virtue of operating in New York, which is a large market, the Yankees have a much higher revenue-generating opportunity than, say, the Brewers do. Short of relocating, the Brewers are constrained in earning power by the number of people who can attend games, buy hot dogs, park at the ballpark or watch the team on FSN. 首先要提到的是，本地的收益幾乎佔了整體收益的八成，這點對於兩個推論而言很重要，第一點，球隊的可能收入是有限度的。在紐約經營球隊，由於紐約是個大市場，所以洋基隊製造收入的機會要比釀酒人來的大。如果沒有遷移主場，釀酒人隊從球迷購票進場，購買熱狗，停車與從FSN頻道觀看比賽所獲得的收益將被抑制。 Second, it means that individual teams actually have a lot of influence on the amount of revenue they make. If they can attract more people to the park, make their team more exciting or move to a new stadium with better facilities, then the franchise will trouser most of the extra revenue itself. This is doubly important when you consider that the national TV deal doesn't discriminate among different franchises; the Yankees get just the same as the Brewers. 第二點，每支球隊的收入確實會受到許多因素所影響。如果球隊能吸引更多的球迷進場，讓比賽更刺激，或是遷移至設施較完善的新球場，那麼球隊本身將能獲得最多的額外收入。當你考慮到全國性的電視轉撥權利金不因不同球隊而有所不同時，這點更是重要。洋基隊獲得的權利金和釀酒人是一樣的。 There are three factors that general managers and owners should consider when thinking about boosting franchise valuation. 當球隊經理或是老闆思考提高球隊價值時，有三個因素需要考慮。 1. How close is the team to its revenue ceiling? 2. Is the team maximizing money from its park? 3. What is the most cost-effective way to build success, and with that an attractive product for fans to consume? 1. 球隊有多接近收入的最高限度? 2. 球隊是否已經從球場壓榨出最多的收入了? 3. 如何以最具成本效益的方法創造出最能吸引球迷消費的產品? Where is the revenue ceiling? How can we identify franchises that are falling short of their revenue potential? The first thing to do is to size each local market. There are a number of ways to do this, but the most intuitive is to either look at metropolitan population or size of TV market. After tinkering with each I discovered that we get the best representation by combining the two factors in to a composite ranking. Here are the adjusted revenue and TV data: 我們要如何判定球隊是否未達本身的營收潛力?首先要做的就是估算出地區市場的大小。有很多方法可以辦到，但是最直觀的方法就是觀察都市的人口或電視市場規模。在我初步的檢視之後得到了結合兩種因素的混合排名。以下是調整過的收入與電視資料: Team TV Population Yankees 4,323,401 12,441,446 Mets 3,043,549 8,758,419 Dodgers 2,978,932 8,692,750 Phillies 2,941,450 6,188,463 Red Sox 2,372,030 5,819,100 Angels 2,632,178 7,680,895 Nationals (Expos)2,272,120 7,608,070 Astros 1,982,120 4,669,571 Braves 2,205,510 4,112,198 Cubs 1,840,621 4,878,570 Tigers 1,938,320 5,456,428 Diamondbacks 1,725,000 3,251,876 Rangers 2,378,660 5,221,801 Devil Rays 1,755,750 2,395,997 White Sox 1,614,399 4,278,970 Marlins 1,538,620 3,876,380 Twins 1,678,430 2,968,806 Mariners 1,724,450 3,554,760 Rockies 1,431,910 2,581,506 Athletics 1,047,208 3,092,703 Giants 1,336,362 3,946,659 Indians 1,537,500 2,945,831 Orioles 1,097,290 7,608,070 Pirates 1,163,150 2,358,695 Cardinals 1,228,980 2,603,607 Padres 1,030,020 2,813,833 Royals 913,280 1,776,062 Reds 886,910 1,979,202 Brewers 882,990 1,689,572 We can use simple regression to work out the relationship between size of population and revenue. Running a multivariate regression with both TV market and population as variables will suffer from extreme correlinearity so won't work. What will work, however, is to build two separate models and add the results together. Here is actual revenue vs predicted revenue for population, TV market and a composite: 我們可以使用簡單的迴歸分析找出人口大小與收入間的關聯。使用多變量迴歸分析，以電視市場與人口作為變數將會得到一個無用的極端交互線性結果。比較有用的方法是建立兩個分別的模組，然後將結果兜在一起。以下是實際的收益與根據人口，電視市場所估計的收益與比較。 Predictions Team Rev TV Pop Composite Diff Yankees 277 238 236 237 40 Mets 195 197 199 198 -3 Dodgers 189 195 199 197 -8 Phillies 176 194 174 184 -8 Red Sox 206 175 170 173 33 Angels 167 184 189 186 -19 Nationals 145 172 188 180 -35 Astros 173 163 159 161 12 Braves 172 170 153 162 10 Cubs 179 158 161 160 19 Tigers 146 162 166 164 -18 Diamondbacks 145 155 144 150 -5 Rangers 153 176 164 170 -17 Rays 116 156 136 146 -30 White Sox 157 151 155 153 4 Marlins 119 149 151 150 -31 Twins 114 153 142 147 -33 Mariners 179 155 147 151 28 Rockies 145 145 138 142 3 Athletics 134 133 143 138 -4 Giants 171 142 151 147 24 Indians 150 149 141 145 5 Orioles 156 134 188 161 -5 Pirates 125 137 136 136 -11 Cardinals 165 139 138 138 27 Padres 158 132 140 136 22 Royals 117 129 130 129 -12 Reds 137 128 132 130 7 Brewers 131 128 129 128 3 A negative number implies that a team under performs its median revenue potential, while a positive number indicates it over performs. This list makes intuitive sense. The Nationals only recently moved to the capital, so we'd expect that they would have some way to go to build and exploit a fan base—the team needs to become established and start winning. The Red Sox and Yankees are marketing behemoths, so it is no surprise to see that they outperform their revenue target. The Angels are interesting—looking at this it is obvious why they want to tap in to the LA market more! 負數代表了球隊未達到獲利潛能，反之正數代表球隊超出獲利潛能。這個列表符合直覺的判斷。國民隊最近才遷移到首都，我們可以預期他們會用一些方法來開拓球迷群—球隊必須被認同與多贏幾場球。紅襪隊與洋基隊都是市場巨獸，所以她們超出了獲利潛能目標一點也不令人感到驚訝。天使隊則令人感到有趣-瞧瞧這就是為何他們明顯的想要多開發一些洛杉磯市場! The correlation between market size and revenue is reasonably strong with an R of 0.78. This won't surprise anyone: the larger the market, the greater the revenue opportunity. 市場大小與收入之間存在一個R=0.78的關聯性。不使人感到訝異的是: 市場越大，收益的機會也越大。 A lot of franchises are within $10 to 15 million of their potential, which indicates there isn't a whole lot more they can do to generate vast quantities of new revenue. However, because fixed costs are low, if an owner can find just $5 million of revenue enhancement, that can translate to an increase in value of around $70 million. That doesn't sound like much, but it is actually a heck of a lot. That equates to boosting attendance by 2,000 per game (or about 5 percent for most teams) for every game, or it equates to selling an extra 350,000 baseball caps in your own stadium. With some canny marketing, clever owners will eke out new opportunities here. Let's call it $1-2 million worth. 很多球隊與獲利潛能只差了1千萬到1千5百萬，這代表他們將無法獲得大量的額外收益。然而由於固定成本低，如果球隊老闆能將收益提高5百萬，那麼就可以使球隊的價值增加大約7千萬。這個數字看似不多，但是事實上這可不是一個小數字。這等同於每場比賽多 2000名觀眾進場(對大部分球隊而言大約是5%)，或是球場額外多賣出35萬頂球帽。聰明的老闆將從一些聰明的市場尋找新機會。我們稱為1,2百萬的財富。 Valuation swing = $30m New stadia Stadiums affect both the revenue and cost lines. 球場同時影響了收益與支出線。 One surefire way to boost revenue in the short term is to knock up a new, publicly financed stadium. Think about it. There is a good excuse to increase ticket prices, fans flock to the ballpark for the novelty factor, more expensive concessions can be served and advertising space can be better displayed meaning higher rates. 藉由興建政府出資的球場是一種不會失敗的短期提高收益方法。想想看，這是一個提高票價的好理由，球迷也會為了體驗新球場而進場，還可以提高球場商店的租金，廣告曝光率也跟著提升，也代表了可收取較高的費率。 What's more is that new stadiums often come with a heavy dose of public subsidy so the franchise doesn't even have to stump up the cash. The Mariners are an example of a team that has won from an attractive stadium deal. The Mariners received $372 million in public money for Safeco and despite having to stump up for cost overruns, they get to keep all money generated by the stadium including when it is used for non-baseball events. Another plus for teams is that under the collective bargaining agreement they can deduct any building costs from any revenue sharing obligations. Nice. 新球場往往還可以獲得政府的援助，如此球隊甚至可以不用付出現金。水手隊就是從吸引人的球場合約而獲利的例子之一。由於Safeco Field，儘管水手隊需要支付溢出的支出，但是他們仍從公帑獲得了3.72億，並且可以保留所有球場的收入，算不是棒球賽事也一樣。另一個好處是根據集體勞資協議，他們還可以將任何的建築成本從任何的收益分享義務中扣除。真是太棒了。 Baseball Prospectus, in its book Baseball Between the Numbers, has done some great analysis on how new stadiums generate extra revenue. There are a couple of factors to consider. First, fans flock to a new ballpark because of the novelty factor. They want to see the shiny new scoreboard, the 80-foot Jumbotron and the sexy city skyscape design. BBTN reckons produces a revenue bump of $17 million spread out over the first three years of the stadium. Second, is the impact of stadium quality, which allows the franchise to increase the price of anything and everything that moves. ESPN produces stadium ranking each season. A stadium is ranked out of 100. Again BBTN estimates that a new stadium that scores 85 on the ESPN will generate $19 million in additional revenue than a decrepit stadium that scores 60. 由Baseball Prospectus網站所出版的Baseball Between the Numbers這本書中有許多關於新球場如何創造額外收益的分析。有兩個因素需要被考慮。第一點為球迷因為想體驗新球場而進場看球。球迷想要看看閃亮的新記分版，80呎寬的大螢幕與球場的新穎設計。 BBTN(Baseball Between the Numbers)估計新球場在前三年大約能多創造1700萬美金的收益。第二點是球場品質的影響力，這點可以讓經營者提高球場所有銷售商品的價格。 ESPN每個球季都會列出球場的排名，最高為100分，BBTN也估計評價85分的新球場能比60 分的老舊球場多獲得1900萬美金的收益。 Wait a minute … if $1 of additional money a club earns equals $14 of value, doesn't that mean that new stadiums massively increase a club's value? Not quite. Don't forget that revenue does not equal profit. There are additional costs to be accounted for. From our analysis of when the Brewers moved to Miller Park not only did they have to pay off loans covering construction they also added a chunk of overhead to maintain and manage the new stadium. In all, it probably contributes a maximum of about $5 million in profit to a team. That equates to $70 million in value and is the reason why the Twins are only valued at $180 million in the latest Forbes standing. That was before the new stadium deal. Now that it is secure, look for their value to increase commensurately when Forbes releases its latest valuations in April. 等等...假如球隊所獲得額外的1元收入相當於14元的球隊價值，這不就代表了新球場能大幅的提升球隊的價值嘛?其實不盡然。別忘了收入不等同於利潤。還需要計算額外的支出。在我們的分析中，當釀酒人對遷移至Millar Park時，不只需要支付建造球場的貸款，還多出了維護與管理新球場的大筆費用。大體而言，新球場大概能提供球隊五百萬的利潤。等同於七千萬的價值，這也是雙城隊在最新的富比士排名中只值1.8億美金。當富比士於四月公布最新的估價時，我們再來看看雙城隊的價值增加了多少。 Valuation swing = $70 million Building success and payroll Improving marketing and building new parks are all well and good, but they feel a bit superficial. There is, of course, one other very important way to get the fans through the turnstiles and that is by winning. 加強行銷與興建新球場都很不錯，但是它們都讓人感覺有點只在做表面功夫。當然另外一點讓球迷進場看球的重要因素就是贏球。 It makes sense, right? Success on the field is usually rewarded by an influx of fans spending money at the ballpark and more interest from local media and sponsors. Who wouldn't want to be associated with a winner? 有道理，對吧?在球場上的成功通常都能讓球迷願意在球場消費，也更能吸引地方媒體與贊助商。畢竟誰不想要和贏家合作呢? How do we define by success? A trip to the postseason every year? Or perhaps every five years? Or perhaps finishing above .500? OK, perhaps not the last one. The point is that it is subjective, but what fans crave is contention. That is why the wild card is good for the game—it created more excitement and meant that more teams were contending. Sure, every so often a postseason berth is a nice fillip to the fans but as long as the team is contending they'll be happy. 我們如何定義成功呢?是每年都能打進季後賽嘛?還是每五年呢?或是勝率過半呢?也許不會是最後一項。這個想法是很主觀的，但是球迷所真正渴望的是競爭。這就是外卡制度對比賽是有利的原因—它創造了更多的刺激因素，也代表了更多的球隊能參與競爭。偶而打進季後賽對球迷是一種刺激，但是只要球隊保有競爭力，球迷就會感到開心。 Nate Silver, of Baseball Prospectus, has done a lot of work on how the value of a win varies depending on the talent level of the team. Nate found the following: 棒球年鑑網站的作家Nate Silver有好幾篇文章在探討勝利的價值如何因球隊的實力水平而有所不同。Nate發現了以下幾點: * Below 80 wins, marginal value of an extra win is $0.7 million * At 86 wins, marginal value of an extra win climbs to $2.5 million * Marginal value of an extra win peaks at $4.5 million at 90 wins * After 97 wins marginal value of an extra win drops to $0.7 million again * 80勝以下，多贏得一場比賽的價值是70萬美金。 * 達到86勝時，多贏一場的價值則攀升至250萬美金。 * 達到90勝時，多贏一場的價值為最多的450萬美金。 * 超過97勝後，多一場勝利的價值則滑落到70萬美金。 The sweet spot is around 85 wins. It is at this point that teams have a reasonable chance of making the postseason, and this will create excitement among the fans. It is also the point where spending that extra $1 million can add real value to the ball club. Getting to the playoffs is very lucrative; no wonder owners are willing to spend like Elton John to get there. 蜜點大約是在85勝左右，球隊有機會晉級季後賽，也會讓球迷感到興奮刺激。這個時候球隊花費的額外100萬元也能實際轉換成球隊的真實價格。打進季後賽對球隊是非常有利的; 難怪球隊老闆願意為此花大把銀子。 The general manager's job is to work out how to best deploy resources to maximize revenue yet contain cost. Should a team invest in player scouting and development at the expense of payroll in order to build a winning team? 總經理的工作就是去計算出如何分配現有的資源而使收益達到最大。為了建立一之能贏球的隊伍，球隊是否應該要犧牲部分的球員薪資而投資在球員的尋找與養成上呢? Based on Nate's work I have estimated the cost and value of maintaining a 90-win team if you are a 75-win team. 根據Nate的文章，我估計了一支75勝的球隊要進步到90勝時的花費與球隊價值的變化。 * 75 wins = $35 million * 90 wins = $65 million * 15 wins = $30 million = $2 million/win You need to acquire talent either through trade or through free-agents that is worth less than $2 million a win. Our own Dave Studeman shows that free agents cost $4.5 million a marginal win. Adding a free agent would destroy value for this team. 你必須藉由交易或者自由球員市場獲得好球員，這使得一場勝利的價值不到兩百萬美金。 Dave Studman指出球隊需花費450萬美金在自由球員身上以換得一勝。簽下自由球員將破壞球隊的價值。 What about moving an 85-win team to a 92-win team 一支球隊從85勝進步到92勝又是什麼情形呢 * 85 wins = $45 million * 92 wins = $75 million * 7 wins = $30 million = $4.5 million/win In this case adding a free agent does make sense, but it doesn't add any value to the team (because cost = value). However, trading prospects for cheaper pre-arbitration or arbitration-eligible wins would be a good strategy. For the 75-win team the best option is to invest in scouting, statistics and player development to try to add 10 wins to get into the 85-win sweet spot. 在這個例子中，簽下自由球員是有道理的，但是並沒有使球隊的價值有所增加。(因為支出=價值)。然而交易新秀以換取較便宜的擁有薪資仲裁或提前仲裁資格的球員是個不錯的策略。對於一支嘗試多贏得10場比賽以達到85勝甜蜜點的75勝的球隊而言，最好的選擇是投資在球探，統計數據與球員養成上。 Remember here we are talking about talent, not luck. Luck can mean that a team that adds a free agent flukes a playoff spot, which fills the coffers. 記住我們在這裡討論的是潛力，而不是好運氣。好運意味一支球隊因為簽下自由球員而僥倖進入季後賽，但是代價是花費大筆的金錢。 Adding free agents rarely makes financial sense even if it allows a team a run at the playoffs. Wheeling and dealing other talent makes more sense. Also, once a team has added a free agent that is it; it is impossible to extract the team from the contract. If the player is shipped on, the selling team normally has to pick up some portion of the contract. 簽下自由球員很少能創造經濟效益，就算是球隊因此打進季後賽。與潛力新秀簽約能獲得較多的效益。一旦簽下了自由球員，球隊就很難從這份合約中脫身。如果這名球員被交易出去，原本的球隊通常仍需要負擔部分的合約。 Valuation swing = $0 million (it is difficult to add wins at little cost) Final words Smart management both on and off the field can have a dramatic impact on value. The difference between a club run well and one run poorly on and off the field can be as much as $70 million. 聰明的管理不論在球場內外都對球隊價值有很大的影響力。經營妥善與經營不善的球隊差距會達到七千萬。 FACTOR SWING Better management $30 million Stadia $70 million On-field performance $0 million TOTAL $100 million (max) That is why the demand for baseball clubs will continue to rise. Not only is more money flooding in to the game, thereby increasing revenues, but heady valuations can be justified through good management. How many owners and general managers think that they are bad managers? It isn't a hard guess. Zero! 這就是球隊的花費持續上升的原因。不只是會有更多的資金湧入球場，球隊收入也會因此增加，但是球隊價值的提升需要依靠良好的管理。有多少老闆與總經理會認為自己是是差勁的管理者呢?這不難猜，沒有人! http://dwz.tw/5d45 -- Gary says... http://www.gary711.net http://gary711.idv.st -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.171.160.140 ※ 編輯: supergary 來自: 118.171.160.140 (05/22 21:02)