The Divide Between the Best and Worst Is Growing
There’s room for debate over whether the present mix of super teams and tanking teams is good for baseball.
On the one hand, the Astros-Dodgers World Series last fall — as well as many of the matchups that preceded it — made for compelling theatre. The Astros featured one of the best offenses in MLB history. The Indians’ rotation was the definitely the best by some measures. There’s something to be said for appreciating rare performances in real time. And the field of elite clubs likely to participate in this coming October’s postseason — especially in the American League — promises more of the same.
Meanwhile, teams at the other end of the spectrum are operating rationally. Clubs are best positioned to win by acquiring premium long-term, cost-controlled assets. The best way to do that is by loading up on early draft picks and bonus-pool dollars. Even with the addition of the second Wild Card, few clubs seem interested in sustaining mediocrity.
Still, there can be consequences if too many teams are simply not competitive and the best teams are dominant.
Fans might be responding at the gate already. Earlier this year, two million fans were missing. Now, through July 23rd, 2.55 million fans are missing.
While a frigid April had something to do with attendance woes, gate receipts are still down nearly two million fans, or roughly 5%, from last April 15 through July 23 compared to the same period last season.
Of course, it is difficult to isolate how much effect tanking clubs are having on attendance, as the gate is threatened by other factors, as well: an improved at-home TV experience and the rising cost of tickets, for example — the latter of which has been influenced by the secondary market, which clubs like the Blue Jays have tried to better control.
This contributor is not here to opine on whether the growing void between the best and worst teams is ultimately good or bad for the sport. I will note, however, that we have not often seen such a gap between the best and worst teams.
The standings reveal that, as of Tuesday, the Astros possessed a run differential of +188, the best mark in baseball. The Royals, meanwhile, owned a -188 figure, representing the worst. That felt, to this author, like a sizable gap after just 100 games. Turns out, it is pretty sizable.
The 376-run difference would represent the largest since at least 2003. The 331-run canyon between the Red Sox (No. 2) and the Orioles (No. 29) would qualify as the second-largest gap over that same timeframe. The season is not yet finished, so I suppose it’s possible those gaps close, but that seems improbable. More likely, they keep growing. Since 2003, the only other time the best and worst teams in the majors were separated by 300 runs was in 2003, when the Braves and Tigers finished 311 runs apart.
To think about this another way, for the Royals and Astros to play a game with 50-50 odds on an outcome, the Royals need to be spotted about 3.7 runs to begin the game. That’s staggering.

When expanding this out to include the top five and bottom five teams, the projected run differential of 1,980 runs this season would be the greatest mark of the decade. Some teams have been constructed really well. They’ve made shrewd draft picks and trades. Others have not. The competition gap is stretched as wide as its ever been in the 21st century.

Last October, this contributor wondered if the era of the super team had arrived. All eight teams in the division round of the playoffs had run differentials of plus-100 or better. Now, as Jeff Sullivan noted back in February, not all super teams succeed (see: Nationals, Washington). But what might be even more troubling in team-building philosophy is to consider that not all of these tanking models will lead to success stories. What becomes of the tankers that fail? Perhaps a decade or more of terrible baseball. There’s no guarantee that the Marlins or Padres or White Sox become the next Astros or Cubs. Extreme team-building philosophies are logical and rational in a vacuum. Whether they are more healthy or destructive for the sport is another question.
It’s not clear whether the gap between the best and worst will continue to grow. Maybe the last couple of years represent an outlier, though teams are more and more attempting to operate as efficiently and rationally as possible. No one team is valuing moving from, say, 74 to 77 wins. The gap between the best and worst, at least in the short term, is growing.
A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.
More comprehensive revenue sharing. Hard salary cap & floor. Raise the minimum.
Oh, yeah. Pay the minor leaguers too.
Pay the minor leaguers?! COMMIE!
Every one of those ideas is bad for baseball.
Agree. I have given this more thought than is warranted. I think MLBPA and MLB need to negotiate the % of baseball revenues spent on player salaries. Once that is decided (renegotiated on a regular cadence), that number is then split equally over all teams. Teams can defer, trade salary allocations, etc. but the money is spent. If a team wants to defer their spending (e.g. rebuilding), fine either they trade their allocation or defer it but there is a tax on unspent salary, etc.
Lots of details to be hashed out and want to keep incentives for revenue teams control the most, but it does require transfers from big market teams to small for them to spend their allocation. Obviously big markets will dislike this but the alternative is a painfully skewed competitive landscape.
But I think this aligns incentives pretty well and brings in some sense of balance of inputs into the system.
Hard salary caps harm players. The good players will get paid but the mid and low tier players will be sacrificed to make that work. I will never support hard salary caps.
I’m not for or against a salary cap, hard or soft, but to outright say a system is bad for players makes no sense. Every system benefits some players and hurts others. The question is which people do you prefer to benefit.
In fact, the way baseball works, which is essentially a collective of individual performances, a hard cap is generally good for mid-lower tier players. Because paying $40mil to a 5-6WAR star and replacement level guy the minimum doesn’t provide more benefit than splitting that cost to give $20mil apiece to two 2-3WAR players. This isn’t like basketball where a superstar essentially raise the playing level of role players around him. Or in football where the QB is integral to ensuring that every other part of the offense (linemen, backs, receivers, etc.) work collectively. In baseball, Mike Trout doesn’t make Justin Upton hit better just because they’re next to each other in the lineup. In basketball, a 3 point shooter benefits greatly if he plays next to LeBron as opposed Zach Lavine.
That said, there are certainly issues with hard caps. Most notably that it will provide a clear upper limit to team spending the way current system does not. But on the flip side, it’s not like the current system is giving players tons of money either, because teams are skating around the uncapped system by reducing the impact of FAs to their teams through more utilization of younger, cost-controlled players.
Waaaaaay too short of a term to name this a permanent trend. At this point it is just as easily explained by the handful of teams who happen to occupy the extremes. The worst team (BAL) tried to be competitive this year. They failed. Miserably. But they were not tanking, or refusing to even try to field a decent roster. They’re just poorly run, made bad decisions, and had some unexpectedly poor showings by players they thought would be better.
I agree Royals & Orioles both put off rebuilds and fell apart anyway. Also, the White Sox and Padres tried to compete in ’15 and ’16 but failed miserably. It will have to be readdressed in 10 years to see whether these super teams can retain their power while so many teams are focusing on hoarding young talent.
In a smarter league, making a couple of stupid decisions can cripple you for the better part of a decade. Especially if you can’t or won’t just spend your way out of it
This is such a methodological hot mess it’s almost a test of the reading audience. Anyone who sees a trend in that “A Growing Divide?” graph should be sent a free copy of How to Lie with Statistics. We can start with “this author.”
I don’t really think the first graph is all that informative, since it is sensitive to outliers. The second one is much more informative (since it includes Top 5 and Bottom 5 teams) but it only goes back to 2010.
If that graph holds back another 7 years (and I think it will) I don’t really think you can blame teams for not trying to move the needle between 74 and 79 wins. I’m not even sure how you would fix this if you wanted to. Would increasing parity in resources help? I’m in favor of that simply because I’d like to see small-market teams spend more, but I’m not sure that would actually change the underlying dynamics of where you are on the win curve.
Never mind. Comment deleted.
Looking back before 2003 I can find some bigger gaps. The 1927 Red Sox were 4.1 runs worse than the Yankees. Maybe others, that’s the first one I checked.
Look at the St Louis browns, Philly athletics of the 50’s/KC Athletics of the 60’s. ML teams that were effectively farms for the Yankees, Cardinals, and Dodgers.
Look at the origin of the Draft.
Or for a real deep cut, look to the Cleveland Spiders.
There has always been imbalances. Sometimes small, most often big, occasionally enormous. It’s built-in to the business of the game.
All teams can’t play in NYC, LA, and ChiTown.
Even Philly has a bigger history of failure than success.
I’m not sure how revelatory this is. The Royals and Orioles are extreme outliers, which is what a lot of this research stands on. Also, I’m not convinced this illuminates a growing lack of parity in baseball. The AL is extreme but the NL is so close (11 of 15 teams have playoff odds of over 10%) that it balances the competitiveness of the sport.
What about a gini coefficient?
“the NL is so close (11 of 15 teams have playoff odds of over 10%) that it balances the competitiveness of the sport“
True, but that and baseball’s radio success and rising profits don’t fit the false narrative of “baseball is dying and broken, so we must make drastic changes to it right now!” that permeates this website and the Internet these days, so no one will mention it.
“that permeates this website”
You mistaking Fangraphs for ESPN?
Problems with this article:
1. Small sample sizes
2. Overgeneralizing
3. Confusing correlation with causation.
I’d bet that attendance was down because of the ridiculously high cost and relative inconvenience of attending games in person these days, but I can’t prove that.
Sorry but the point you made was more poorly produced than anything in the article you’re criticizing.
Was there always a tendency to trade so many players? I wonder if there is already a study on the tendency to trade players… It now seems like all teams want to trade everyone. This probably contributes greatly to the gap
I think part of that is the change in compensation for losing free agents. Instead of getting a lot of times 1st round picks, teams are getting far lower picks.
I wonder why there are so many more deadline trades in MLB than other sports. Later trade deadline?
Yes.
If anything it was far worse in the pre-FA era.
Look up the transaction histories of “Trader” Lane, Bill Veech, Charlie Finley.
The “Golden Age” of the 50’s Dodgers and Yankees was built on the persistent losing of a dozen other teams who were lucky to even sniff contention for generations and might get one winning season per decade. If that.
Without a draft, the best players went to the teams with the best scouts and the deepest pockets. And when attendance faltered because of losing, the books were most typically balanced by trading or outright selling players. It got so bad that the League offices had to cap the amount of money moved in “trades”.
Boston selling Babe Ruth to the Yankees was far from atypical. Connie Mack did it for decades.
“Some teams have been constructed really well. They’ve made shrewd draft picks and trades. Others have not. The competition gap is stretched as wide as its ever been in the 21st century.”
In other words, some teams have embraced and understand analytics, and others have not and/or do not. This is an argument for better management that needs to be made more often. Some teams are run by fools, some by dinosaurs, and some teams are micromanaged by owners who have far less knowledge of baseball than your basic late night baseball radio show caller.
Bill James mentioned in an early Abstract that he had obtained personal knowledge that a certain team known for its team management disasters was run by people who simply weren’t very smart. That sure seems to be true of a number of baseball clubs *cough* Mets *cough* Orioles *cough* these days.
I’m not sure what the fix is, or if there even is one, but terrible team management in baseball is a very real issue.
Travis “Super Team” Sawchick strikes again and still is incapable of defining a “Super Team”. How do “Super Teams” differ from dynasties of the last 120+ years that also didn’t ruin the game. Thus narrative is as the as the collusion narrative that you posted all last off season.
I for one am much happier watching a league with 5 or 6 really good teams than baseball of the 50’s and 60’s where most of the league just played out the string until the Yankees faced the Cardinals or Dodgers in the world series
Bob Costas was happy.
I have to agree at least in as far as the story here seems to have been pre-decided before examining the data, and in fact the data doesn’t appear to support the story very strongly (or possibly at all), so we’re left with a bunch of nebulous question-begging and vague, half-defined terms.
What’s a “Super Team” & how do “Super Teams” differ from dynasties of the last 120+ years that also didn’t ruin the game. This narrative is as tired as the collusion narrative that you pushed all last off season.
Weren’t the Nationals a Super Team at the beginning of the year? I guess the Phillies and Braves didn’t get the memo or are they somehow superer.
It’s just lazy to lump a handful of teams together without noting how each one is competitive due to different strategies and dynamics, especially when those differences aren’t static.
What I think (ok, hope) this means is that it will create a buyers market. A lack of teams going for it will drive the cost of talent down far enough that teams like Oakland and Milwaukee can sign some affordable veterans and then make reasonable gambles at the deadline if they play a few games over their head. Of course, you also have the Twins, Mets, and Jays; but the underachievers will generally balance out the overachievers. That’s not a problem, just a fact of life.
So I’m optimistic that this will work itself out.
Neither of those data sets look at all statistically significant, pretty misleading title Travis.
gotta think how much more HR’s have been hit/given up as well. Teams probably won more games with a per game run diff of less than 1 back 10+ yrs ago. not saying the divide isn’t growing, but the large gap is definitely influenced by the long ball
I’m not very concerned with the differences between the best and worst. I’m perfectly fine with a small handful of teams being horrible as they rebuild (as I’m sure Astros fans are now, for example).
A better study would be to compare the, say, top 10 teams with the next 10-15 teams. Because what’s bad is when the majority of playoff spots are determined before the season starts.
Researchers who study inequality often use (all of the possible) ratios between the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentiles to describe growing inequality. It sounds like you think the 90:50 and 50:10 are more informative than the 90:10.
I don’t know if they would be more informative, but it would at least be interesting (as much as you can do it, since we’re dealing with an n=30).
I don’t know how comparable it is to studying inequality in general, because (at least we hope) the worst teams are doing it intentionally and are gearing up for the future. Not exactly analogous to the poorest 10% of Americans, say (i.e. they are not poor because they are investing for 3 years from now).
But yeah, I think the 50th percentile (or even the 20th or 30th) should be the focus here. Having a few really bad teams is fine. Having 15 is not.
I think ideally you’d have at least half the teams with a realistic shot of making the playoffs.
Assuming we get past the double hurdles of establishing that the disparity is real, and that something ought to be done about it (neither of which has been accomplished), then the solution seems pretty clear:
Expand the playoffs, and increase the variance of each round. 16 team playoff field, with a three round series to advance basically keeps everyone in contention until late summer.
The 2015 Padres are a decent example of a tanker who failed. They were terrible, then they thought they were going to be good so they pushed their chips into the center… and they were still terrible, so they had to reset and try again.
These things go in spurts. In 2002, 5 different teams won 90+ games and didn’t win their divisions. What this boils down to is the Orioles and Royals are historically bad. Next.
Are Fangraphs writers contractually obligated to refer to themselves as “this contributor” as many times as possible in every article?
This commenter has been wondering the same thing.
I think Cistulli inserts that in editing.
I don’t care how bad the tanking teams are. who cares if they win 70 or 50 games?
I’d rather see them tanking for a good farm.
What I’d like to see is having at least two serious competitors in every division so that you have like 12-15 real competitors for divisions and WCs in MLB, no more divisions like this years AL central.
I don’t care what with the other 15 teams happens, let them tank so that they can attack again. the stuck in between teams (75 wins) are almost worse than the tankers.
I calculated a Gini Coefficient using WAR in place of income for each season since 1998. Gini Coefficients are generally used as a measure of income inequality for countries, but it can be applied here as a measure of WAR inequality in MLB.
For context, a Gini of 0 is perfect WAR equality, meaning every team has the same WAR. And a Gini of 1 is perfect WAR inequality, meaning 1 team has all the WAR in MLB. The higher the Gini, the more inequality.
2018 is the highest in the last 21 seasons, but it doesn’t seem like it trends in any particular direction from year to year.
Year WAR Gini
2018 0.220
2017 0.189
2016 0.181
2015 0.159
2014 0.130
2013 0.175
2012 0.173
2011 0.191
2010 0.170
2009 0.152
2008 0.164
2007 0.145
2006 0.123
2005 0.148
2004 0.184
2003 0.212
2002 0.216
2001 0.204
2000 0.163
1999 0.202
1998 0.214