Money Is Buying Wins Again in 2016

If the playoffs started today, the Washington Nationals, Chicago Cubs, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Francisco Giants, and St. Louis Cardinals would be in the playoffs on the National League side. The top-five payrolls in the NL belong to those same five teams. Over in the American League, the Cleveland Indians seem likely to make the playoffs while the New York Yankees likely will not — and the Los Angeles Angels aren’t anywhere near the playoffs, but these are merely exceptions to the rule. Anecdotally it certainly seems like money matters this year after several years of parity. Digging into the numbers of the relationship between money and wins, the numbers indicate that a team’s payroll really is more important now than at any other time in the last decade.

There are 15 teams this season whose opening-day payrolls exceeded $130 million. Among those 15 teams, only the Los Angeles Angels possessed a losing record through Tuesday’s games, and if the playoffs started today, the top half of teams by payroll would claim nine of the 10 available playoff spots. Of that bottom 15, the only teams with a winning record are the Pittsburgh Pirates, Houston Astros, Miami Marlins, and Cleveland Indians. Cleveland would represent the only team among that group to qualify for the playoffs if the season ended today. If this seems unusual, it is. And it isn’t.

Last season at around this time, I looked at the relationship between wins and payroll and found that there was nothing significant. The correlation coefficient between wins and payroll was .17, and that number had been part of a decline that had been occurring over the previous decade. As Brian MacPherson pointed out when he researched the issue the year prior, the relationship between wins and payroll had been declining since the start of this decade. At the end of last season, the correlation coefficient for wins and payroll in 2015 was a very low .22, but in discussing the issue last year, I pointed to two causes for concern (if a lack of parity is concerning).

First, I noted that, while the relationship between payroll and wins was very low, the relationship between a franchise’s financial muscle and wins was a bit higher. Last year, the correlation coefficient at this time between Forbes’ franchise valuations and wins was at .29. Still not a very high number, but a number that could indicate that a team’s finances were still playing a role in wins. This year, the relationship is stronger, as shown by the graph below, with numbers from Forbes.

Screenshot 2016-08-24 at 11.39.54 AM

While the Yankees’ season might be viewed as a disappointment, the team still possesses a winning record. Of the top-12 franchises by value, only the Angels and the rebuilding Philadelphia Phillies have recorded fewer wins than losses. The Angels can’t seem to build a winner around Mike Trout, while the Phillies are running one of the lower payrolls in baseball. Of the teams in the bottom 10 of franchise valuations, the Royals and Blue Jays have winning records, but they are also running fairly healthy payrolls. There’s a strong relationship between franchise value and payroll this season (r = .81), and the only teams that have eschewed both with success this season are the Indians and Marlins.

The second cause for concern I had regarding the very low correlation between wins and payroll was that, over a longer period of time, running a consistently higher payroll seemed to produce a higher correlation with winning than payroll in a single season might not be picking up. When I ran the numbers last year, the correlation coefficient was .36 for wins and payroll between 2013 and 2015. For this season, I added the remainder of the 2015 season and included the 2016 season as well. The strength of the relationship shot even higher.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-members

Screenshot 2016-08-24 at 11.50.59 AM

Talent is going to show a considerably stronger relationship with wins than payroll will. There’s a direct relationship between the players on the field (which can be represented by WAR) and the runs they are scoring and preventing, which is how teams win. However, the relationship between payroll and wins no longer seems as random as it has the past few years when “parity” was the buzzword. This season, the relationship between payroll and wins is stronger than at any time in the last decade. The graph below shows payroll and wins this season.

Screenshot 2016-08-24 at 11.28.44 AM

So is 2016 just a random down (or up, given your perspective) year as the trend toward parity continues? Probably not. Dave Studeman wrote a piece for Hardball Times before the 2012 season called Money and Wins. He found that the relationship between money and wins goes through up and down periods. At the dawn of free agency in the late ’70s, there was a strong relationship between payroll and wins, as teams could finally use their financial might to bring good, expensive players into the fold. In the early- to mid-80s, as a group of good, young players entered the league — and into the late-80s, when MLB teams colluded to keep salaries down — the relationship dissipated. In the late-90s and early-2000s, as payrolls skyrocketed and older players often available in free agency maintained their high level of play during the steroid era, buying good talent was easy and the relationship between wins and payroll was strong.

As steroid testing began, teams began to rely on younger players and the sabermetric revolution allowed teams with lesser resources to obtain talent in a more shrewd, frugal manner. The relationship between payroll and wins declined to the point where, over the last few seasons, there was little relationship at all on the individual season level. The gap between the sabermetrically savvy and the inept has closed, and the opportunities for a small-market team to find an edge are becoming rare.

Teams are still relying young players, but the cost to obtain those players is different. Caps on amateur talent have ended up helping the financially well off, as large-market teams were the first to expose the problems of the international-cap system by exploiting the supposed penalties. Those same teams used their financial might for Cuban and Asian free agents. The cap system in the draft incentivized losing for the Astros, Cubs, and now Phillies to help those teams rebuild.

Whether the relationship between payroll and wins remains strong might depend very much on the upcoming labor negotiations. The fight might not be between the players’ union and the owners, but among the owners themselves. The small-market teams exploited some advantages on which bigger-market clubs were slower to pick up, as teams embraced analytics, but those advantages don’t exist in the same way, and financial muscle could once again rule the day. It will be up to the owners of small-market teams and big-market teams to come up with a solution that can keep the Oaklands and Tampa Bays of the world competitive with the Rangers and Yankees.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

24 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
wickterrell
10 years ago

Interesting. I do wonder how much the preponderance of overt “tanking” by so many teams entering the 2016 season played a part in this.

JoserMember since 2021
10 years ago
Reply to  wickterrell

And the evidence for “so many” teams “tanking” is what, exactly?

MichaelMember since 2016
10 years ago

But like discussed at length the wins doesn’t always mean a playoff series. It might just be a playoff game: AL East of 2016 or NL Central of 2015

Jackie T.
10 years ago

It would be really cool if we could hover over the plots to see which team they correspond to.

O'KieboomerMember since 2021
10 years ago

Just the way it should be, capitalism at its finest. Maybe the socialists and commies will shut their yaps now?

JUICEMANE
10 years ago
Reply to  O'Kieboomer

Voting for Trump?…..that is a rhetorical question.

George HermanMember since 2021
10 years ago
Reply to  O'Kieboomer

Oh joy. Politics on the baseball site.

Clutch Narrative
10 years ago
Reply to  O'Kieboomer

Here’s a Venn diagram illustrating how much MLB has in common with free market capitalism: 00

DougMember since 2019
10 years ago

I know there’s no way to tease out causality here, but I would suspect that a long-term correlation between wins and payroll might come about if wins result in financial muscle (which seems likely) which might in turn lead to increased payroll.

victorvran
10 years ago
Reply to  Doug

cardinals. They have received balance pick(s) and draw over 40k a game

fjtorres
10 years ago

I wonder what a three year rolling average would look like.
I suspect team valuation would probably show a higher impact since deep pocket teams can buy their way past bad contracts while the smaller market teams would be crippled by a misfire.

amdennis1990
10 years ago

One more reason to dislike Arte Moreno. Dude has been chasing a big LF bat like Ahab chasing the white whale. Spent way too much on Wells then Hamilton.

scotman144Member since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  amdennis1990

I am a RedSox fan and will always have a special place in my heart for Daniel Nava but it is an embarrassment that he was the best they could do for an opening day LF in 2016.

JUICEMANE
10 years ago

“…New York Yankees likely will not — and the Los Angeles Angels aren’t anywhere near the playoffs, but these are merely exceptions to the rule. Anecdotally it certainly seems like money matters this year after several years of parity”
…Isn’t parity the rule then? If it has occurred “several years”

Paul22
10 years ago

It seems to me there is more parity in payroll than there used to be. The ratio of top payroll to median payroll and median to lowest payroll seems to be reduced in recent years. Currently both are about 2 to 1. However, in 2004 it was closer to 3 to 1 for each.

This is probably due to the effects of the LT and revenue sharing

E L
10 years ago

If teams with a lot of resources are trying to do the exact same thing as teams with few resources, then payrolls should correlate more strongly to wins. A growing relationship between money and wins would seem to indicate growing consensus in what the “correct” way to run a baseball team is; moves like LA getting Friedman from Tampa Bay would indicate the same.

Alternatively, it’s possible that low-resource teams are trying to zig, but what they’re trying is different but worse (e.g. the DBacks). It’s also possible that this is an artifact of the temporary talent distribution in the NL starkly splitting the league into an arms race between playoff contenders and a race to the bottom for teams jockeying for the top of the draft.

victorvran
10 years ago

I’d be interested to see this broken down into a percentage based analysis. There is so much money streaming into baseball now that the small market/mid market/big market lines seem to be more blurred than in the past. So how much more money are these big market teams (% wise) spending than low market teams?

How many of the small market teams are there due to poor tv contracts? How have these designations changed for the same reasons?

I’d also be curious to see the franchise expenditure on front office resources vs. team success.

mcescher
10 years ago

>The fight might not be between the players’ union and the owners, but among the owners themselves

–

If this does happen do the players union and the big market teams band together to lower years of control and years to arbitration?

Several of the larger market teams have the best organizational talent (Yanks, Sox, Cubs, LAD) making such a move somewhat irrational. How else would the large market teams seek to shift power in their direction? Simply to maintain the status quo?

fjtorres
10 years ago
Reply to  mcescher

The union would like to lower years of control, yes.
But their primary goal is to have as many high paying jobs as possible. They push top FAs to go for ever larger pay to raise the bar from top to bottom. That’s how you get mid 8 figure contracts for league average inning eaters. A rising tide and all that…
Traditionally the union has pushed for more revenue sharing to get the low revenue teams to spend more and why they resent when teams pocket the revenue share instead of spending it. (Remember the griping about the Marlins a couple years back?) That’s why rebuilding teams these days sprinkle in a few over-paid veterans like Markakis. They could get the same production from AAAA minor league veterans at a lower cost. And they might find a youngish guy who could hold the job for a couple of years. But they need to maintain an unofficial minimum payroll and they can’t spend money they don’t have so an official payroll floor needs even more sharing.
It would be counterproductive for the union to help the big market teams siphon away all the best talent earlier because there are less jobs in that camp and more in the mid/small market camps. There’s what, 9-10 high revenue teams total? That’s a third of all roster spots/jobs. Drive the price of top talent too high and the other two thirds will go actively cyclical and timing their spending to the development of their young players. This would decimate the pay for non-star veterans. There’s plenty of second and third tier roster filler making good money on the also-rans. Tilt the field too much to the big bucks guys and those jobs go away. And again, there are more of those guys in the union than there are megastars with 9-figure deals.

chuck e
10 years ago

Interesting that the relationship is between franchise valuation and wins. Does it not make more sense to compare revenue or attendance and wins. Toronto has a low valuation, but very high revenue these days. Philly seems the opposite.

fjtorres
10 years ago
Reply to  chuck e

The problem with Toronto as an example is that their TV deal isn’t market value because their parent company, Rogers, is self-dealing. Atlanta had the same issue under Turner. Because of revenue sharing it makes more sense for Rogers to license the TV rights at the low end and book their profits on the cable side instead of the Blue Jays side.
Cleveland had a similar issue when the Dolans launched STO off their TV rights and kept virtually all revenues on the STO side. That is where a lot of his reputation as a cheapskate and bad owner comes from.

chuck e
10 years ago
Reply to  fjtorres

I sort of agree, but the fact of the matter is that regardless of the TV deal, which in each individual case is both different and constant, swings in attendance have the biggest impact on revenue year to year, and those revenue swings impact the payroll which impacts the teams competitive situation vis a vis player signings. The biggest change in the situation in Cleveland was that the park went from 100% full before the Dolans to 40% full in the next decade and that really hamstrings management. Who’s fault that change belongs to is another matter.

fjtorres
10 years ago
Reply to  chuck e

The Cleveland attendance situation isn’t a chicken-and-egg deal. Yes, ndance went down and has stayed down but not without reason. There is a clear causality chain on how Dolan lost the fans Jacobs nurtured. When Cleveland went into rebuild post-Jacobs Dolan talked of reloading and being competitive… until selling out the season ticket packages. Then they took the team into teardown.
Fans were not amused.
No surprise: the following year season ticket sales tanked.
The year after that, when asked about team payroll Dolan said the payroll would depend solely on previous year attendance and not on the upcoming cable deal. The year after that, the deal for STO went into effect: cable companies paid more and passed on the cost to subscribers and free TV broadcast games went almost totally away. Asked about whether any of the added cable money would go to payroll, Shapiro diplomatically said no. He was not happy either.
As a result, franchise value declined but Dolan fortunes bloomed. Eventually they sold STO to Fox for a nice payout but the team is now stuck with a so-so long term TV contract.
So not only do they have the lowest payroll of any team in contention, they will continue to have one of the lowest payrolls for the forseeable future and well past the expiration of their stadium lease.
Cleveland fans have long memories and many simply will not return as long as the Dolans own the team.
Fox, however, is quite happy with their numbers.

MrBungle
10 years ago

We can also interpret parity as “diffrent names every year”. I know it isn’t sabr and not really relevant to the point the article makes but since the end of the Yankees dynasty there always seems to be a diffrent group of teams fighting for a playoff spot. Sure the Giants and Red Sox won a lot, and the Cards are always there, but look 5 years back. Orioles, Blue Jays, Indians, KC, Mariners, Astros, Mets, Marlins, Nats, Cubs and Pirates were not even close to sniffin the post season. I still play mlb the show 2010 and you look at the ratings then and the standings now, it’s mindblowing how 6 years change everything.