The Payroll Fallacy

[Maxbialystock]

Simply stated, there ain't much correlation between spending big for players and winning lots of games.  

Oh, it's definitely true that this year the top 5 payrolls--Mets, $318M; Yankees $309M; Astros $255M; Phillies $247M; and Dodgers $241M--all have winning records.  And in fact the Yankees have the most wins, 94, in the AL and the Dodgers the most in the NL (and MLB), 98.  

Meanwhile, however, the Diamondbacks spent $173M for 89 wins, the Padres $172M for 93 wins, the Mariners $148M for 85 wins, the Royals $123M for 86 wins, the Brewers $115M for 93 wins, the Orioles $110 M for 91 wins, the Guardians $107M for 92 wins, and the Tigers $99M for 86 wins.  

It gets better because to me there just ain't that much difference between the most wins--98 by the Dodgers--and the somewhat sparser wins, 85 by the Mariners.  When you do the math--or just look at the end of season standings--you see that the Dodgers winning percentage is 60% and the Mariners 52%.  That's nothing!!  It means that in an 11 game series, the Dodgers would theoretically win 6 games and the Mariners 5.  

Heck, the no good, lowdown, rotten, stinking Boston Red Sox had a non-winning percentage of exactly 50%, which means they were just 10% worse than the mighty LA Dodgers, who, I hasten to add, could be about to lose their NLDS series against the 93 win Padres.  Oh, and the 94 win Yankees are 1-1 against the 86 wins Royals.  

Does anyone on talksox doubt that John Henry, who ensured that the Sox had one of the top 5 payrolls in MLB from 2003 through 2021, is aware that the correlation between shelling out massive dollars for a top five payroll and having a dominant won-loss record is tenuous at best?  

Does anyone else remember that just 3 seasons ago, the Rays had 100 regular season wins with the 26th largest payroll of $71M?  The Sox spent $187M that season and won 92 games.  The Yankees spent $206M and won 92 games.  The Mets spent $201M and won 77 games.  

 

 

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

15 hours ago, Maxbialystock said:

Does anyone on talksox doubt that John Henry, who ensured that the Sox had one of the top 5 payrolls in MLB from 2003 through 2021, is aware that the correlation between shelling out massive dollars for a top five payroll and having a dominant won-loss record is tenuous at best?  

What's almost never stated in all these yearly payroll rankings is how much dead money is being paid to players who aren't even on the roster anymore -- and in cases like Sale's, getting paid by Boston to perform for other clubs.

And does anyone doubt an owner like Henry is also aware of the actual big spending his front office talked him into in the past half decade or so that has monumentally flopped? If he is, doesn't there come a point of accountability for all those Assistant Vice Presidents running all the departments that scout, acquire and develop such players?

[Hugh2]

10% is everything in baseball. 

It's the difference between a .300 hitter leading off and a guy who can't stay in the majors. 

[Bellhorn04]

18 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

10% is everything in baseball. 

It's the difference between a .300 hitter leading off and a guy who can't stay in the majors. 

Exactly.

Max's comments are driven by confirmation bias, cherry-picking and just plain poor logic.

[Bellhorn04]

2 wealthiest teams per Forbes/playoff appearances over last 20 years 2005-2024:

NY Yankees 15/20

LA Dodgers 15/20

2 poorest teams per Forbes/playoff appearances over last 20 years 2005-2024:

Miami 2/20

Oakland 7/20

[Old Red]

13 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Exactly.

Max's comments are driven by confirmation bias, cherry-picking and just plain poor logic.

And horse hockey.

[Bellhorn04]

19 minutes ago, Old Red said:

And horse hockey.

😀

[Bellhorn04]

Max, we are calling you out hard, man.  All in good fun though.

[Hugh2]

55 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Exactly.

Max's comments are driven by confirmation bias, cherry-picking and just plain poor logic.

I do often say "there's more than one way to skin a cat" teams without the budget of the Dodgers can certainly have good seasons, but there's a correlation between spending and wins.

[Bellhorn04]

The only team that has been able to beat the payroll-winning correlation over an extended period is the Rays.

Somebody graphed it, and the Rays showed up on the graph like a distant little star LOL

[dgalehouse]

In baseball, as in many things, to get the top quality you have to pay more .The correlation between spending and winning is so obvious that it is not even debatable.  Finding a few examples where that is not the case does not change that. That is part of the reason for the ever expanding playoffs. It gives hope to some of the lower payroll teams.  

[notin]

6 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The only team that has been able to beat the payroll-winning correlation over an extended period is the Rays.

Somebody graphed it, and the Rays showed up on the graph like a distant little star LOL

Tampa is the ONLY one?

 

The Brewers have made the postseason 6 times in the last 7 years with a bottom third payroll.  And the Guardians have gone 6 times in the past 9 with an even lower one.

And a few years back, the A’s got famous for stuff like this.  There was even a book and a movie about it.  Starring Brad Pitt, no less.

And Pitt probably got paid more for pretending to run the A’s than the the real Billy Beane spent assrmbling them…

 

[notin]

19 minutes ago, dgalehouse said:

In baseball, as in many things, to get the top quality you have to pay more .The correlation between spending and winning is so obvious that it is not even debatable.  Finding a few examples where that is not the case does not change that. That is part of the reason for the ever expanding playoffs. It gives hope to some of the lower payroll teams.  

MLB did not add two spots to the playoffs to help the Pirates; they did it to make more television revenue.  And that was 100% of the logic, just like it is in every sport.

You don’t enhance your revenue steams by trying to tap deeper into the dry wells…

 

[moonslav59]

44 minutes ago, notin said:

Tampa is the ONLY one?

 

The Brewers have made the postseason 6 times in the last 7 years with a bottom third payroll.  And the Guardians have gone 6 times in the past 9 with an even lower one.

And a few years back, the A’s got famous for stuff like this.  There was even a book and a movie about it.  Starring Brad Pitt, no less.

And Pitt probably got paid more for pretending to run the A’s than the the real Billy Beane spent assrmbling them…

 

The Orioles are 23rd and were 27th, last year. Minnesota is another team that seems to make the playoffs, often, while being in the middle or lower third of the team budget rankings.

While spending on more FAs does help some teams, some don't seem to be able to sustain winning for very long.

GO TIGERS!

[dgalehouse]

A lot of teams make the playoffs these days.  That doesn't mean that payroll is not a major factor in winning. As for  Oakland, I will make a shocking disclosure.  Hollywood movies are not real life.  " Money Ball" Billy Beane, the Flim Flam Man , got wealthy while helping to put the Oakland franchise where it is today. An embarrassment to MLB. 

[Bellhorn04]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Tampa is the ONLY one?

 

The Brewers have made the postseason 6 times in the last 7 years with a bottom third payroll.  And the Guardians have gone 6 times in the past 9 with an even lower one.

And a few years back, the A’s got famous for stuff like this.  There was even a book and a movie about it.  Starring Brad Pitt, no less.

And Pitt probably got paid more for pretending to run the A’s than the the real Billy Beane spent assrmbling them…

 

Yeah, good point.  The graph I saw was probably a few years old.  

The Rays have the longest stretch of it going, from 2008 to now. 

[notin]

1 hour ago, dgalehouse said:

A lot of teams make the playoffs these days.  That doesn't mean that payroll is not a major factor in winning. As for  Oakland, I will make a shocking disclosure.  Hollywood movies are not real life.  " Money Ball" Billy Beane, the Flim Flam Man , got wealthy while helping to put the Oakland franchise where it is today. An embarrassment to MLB. 

Billy Beane’s ethics are irrelevant here.  And sure the film absolutely Hollywooded stuff up.  I didn’t read the book c but I had my doubts Beane drove to Scott Hatteburg’s house and handed him a contract; Hatteburg did have an agent.  (The whole Art Howe story was very likely pure fiction in an attempt to create a movie villain.)

 

Let’s break down spending/winning.  It absolutely can help, but the mere act of spending doesn’t help.  And I don’t just mean “spend on good players.  Duh!”  If you do spend on good players, teams like the ones Bellhorn highlighted often have a steady stream of minimum wage talent in play to keep the team good and within even the craziest budget.  The Dodgers do this.  The Astros do this.  The Angels? Not so much.

Also, spending on extending your younger stars is much, much better than free agency.  Free agency is often for players over 30 on the downside of their careers.

And lastly, don’t go too many years.  You wind up with heavily paid non-contributing broken down players that detract from the team.  It’s one thing if they won early in those contracts. But if they didn’t, they just prolong the bad streaks.

And players getting worse over time is inevitable.  The Verlander Exceptions do not disprove this.  As much as we all miss Mookie, he’s not been anywhere near the player he was in Boston (42.4 bWAR in 6 years) since going to LA (27.5 bWAR in years)…

Although to be fair to Mookie, it’s really more like 4.4 years.  2020, etc.  So he’s down from being a 7 win player to a 6 win player, but he still has 7 years to go…

[mvp 78]

10 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

2 wealthiest teams per Forbes/playoff appearances over last 20 years 2005-2024:

NY Yankees 15/20

LA Dodgers 15/20

2 poorest teams per Forbes/playoff appearances over last 20 years 2005-2024:

Miami 2/20

Oakland 7/20

Year in and year out, Yankees are in playoff contention because of their payroll. Sox end up at .500 or last damn place.

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

The Orioles are 23rd and were 27th, last year. Minnesota is another team that seems to make the playoffs, often, while being in the middle or lower third of the team budget rankings.

While spending on more FAs does help some teams, some don't seem to be able to sustain winning for very long.

GO TIGERS!

Orioles have a low payroll because they stunk for years and years and got high draft picks out of it and are reaping the rewards of a stocked system.

[moonslav59]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Orioles have a low payroll because they stunk for years and years and got high draft picks out of it and are reaping the rewards of a stocked system.

Yup, and they also made deadline trades, when they had a shot at the playoffs.

Lots of low spending teams suck for long periods and never get like the O's are now.

The Astros did it, too, and stayed a top team for 7-8 years. They may extend that, if they decide to spend more, now.

[notin]

9 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Year in and year out, Yankees are in playoff contention because of their payroll. Sox end up at .500 or last damn place.

The Sox had a high payroll most of those years, too…

[mvp 78]

20 minutes ago, notin said:

The Sox had a high payroll most of those years, too…

No.

[notin]

14 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

No.

They were a top 4 payroll team in 2014, 2015 and 2020 and 6th in 2022.  2023 was the first time they dropped out of the top 10…

[moonslav59]

3 hours ago, notin said:

They were a top 4 payroll team in 2014, 2015 and 2020 and 6th in 2022.  2023 was the first time they dropped out of the top 10…

2012, too.

[Bellhorn04]

14 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Yup, and they also made deadline trades, when they had a shot at the playoffs.

Lots of low spending teams suck for long periods and never get like the O's are now.

The Astros did it, too, and stayed a top team for 7-8 years. They may extend that, if they decide to spend more, now.

The Os are good now but they're not going to stay that way without spending.  Some of that spending will be *involuntary* i.e. arb raises - it's either that or lock 'em up contracts for their young stars. 

[moonslav59]

28 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The Os are good now but they're not going to stay that way without spending.  Some of that spending will be *involuntary* i.e. arb raises - it's either that or lock 'em up contracts for their young stars. 

Yes, it is possible to be good for a long window, without spending.

Mostly, you have to suck for a long stretch, like BAL and HOU did, or be masters of ML scouting, like the Rays are.

[Nick]

53 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Yes, it is possible to be good for a long window, without spending.

Mostly, you have to suck for a long stretch, like BAL and HOU did, or be masters of ML scouting, like the Rays are.

 

[Nick]

Just now, Nick said:

For me it's the allocation of money that matters the most. Look at current Sox team and assume everyone under contract comes healthy. JH says to add $75M and get us the title.

Do you gamble and split the money between 2 players? Say Burnes and Sato? Or do you acquire 5 solid major leaguer at average cost of $15M apiece? What would you do? (yeah I get it that there's some consequences downstream for 2 large contracts)

 

[Bellhorn04]

"Consequences downstream" - delicately put, Nick.

Like Price and Sale and smoke coming out of Henry's ears and we're gonna blow this up and go in a whole new direction type consequences...

[notin]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The Os are good now but they're not going to stay that way without spending.  Some of that spending will be *involuntary* i.e. arb raises - it's either that or lock 'em up contracts for their young stars. 

But they have put together a competitive pitching staff without much spent on the rotation, which, outside of one year of Corbin Burnes, isn’t made of starters that appear immediately capable of breaking the bank…