Awhile back, I conducted research on MLB opening day payrolls and the team winning that season. I found that salaries and winning in the regular season were loosely correlated, but even a mathematical correlation doesn't necessarily mean there is one (association as causation).
In the prior posts, I used opening day payroll as my X-variable. However, now that the season is over, we have the official ending payrolls of teams. I was able to find values for ending payroll from 2000-now, using three different sources. These values are used for luxury tax purposes and accounts for things like salary dumps and midseason acquisitions, along with the rest of the 40-man roster.
The expected win percent is based purely on payroll figures from 2000-14, adjusted for inflation in salaries. From the 2014 season, the Orioles (+9.8%), Nationals (+8%), Angels (+7.8%), Pirates (+7%), and Royals (+6.4%) were the top performing teams relative to their respective ending payrolls, while the Rangers (-10.2%), D-backs (-9.7%), Red Sox (-9.1%), Phillies (-8.8%) and Rockies (-7.8%) all severely underperformed.
In the prior posts, I used opening day payroll as my X-variable. However, now that the season is over, we have the official ending payrolls of teams. I was able to find values for ending payroll from 2000-now, using three different sources. These values are used for luxury tax purposes and accounts for things like salary dumps and midseason acquisitions, along with the rest of the 40-man roster.
The expected win percent is based purely on payroll figures from 2000-14, adjusted for inflation in salaries. From the 2014 season, the Orioles (+9.8%), Nationals (+8%), Angels (+7.8%), Pirates (+7%), and Royals (+6.4%) were the top performing teams relative to their respective ending payrolls, while the Rangers (-10.2%), D-backs (-9.7%), Red Sox (-9.1%), Phillies (-8.8%) and Rockies (-7.8%) all severely underperformed.
Team | Final 2014 payroll | Win % | Expected | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Orioles | $112,707,105 | 59.3% | 49.5% | 9.8% |
Nationals | $141,803,228 | 59.3% | 51.3% | 8.0% |
Angels | $164,059,717 | 60.5% | 52.7% | 7.8% |
Pirates | $78,379,602 | 54.3% | 47.3% | 7.0% |
Royals | $97,747,983 | 54.9% | 48.5% | 6.4% |
A's | $91,615,851 | 54.3% | 48.2% | 6.2% |
Cardinals | $121,003,590 | 55.6% | 50.0% | 5.6% |
Indians | $83,697,546 | 52.5% | 47.7% | 4.8% |
Mariners | $108,957,206 | 53.7% | 49.2% | 4.5% |
Tigers | $173,291,085 | 55.6% | 53.2% | 2.3% |
Marlins | $52,518,799 | 47.5% | 45.7% | 1.8% |
Giants | $165,138,449 | 54.3% | 52.7% | 1.6% |
Brewers | $110,299,643 | 50.6% | 49.3% | 1.3% |
Mets | $92,856,260 | 48.8% | 48.2% | 0.5% |
Blue Jays | $135,435,701 | 51.2% | 50.9% | 0.3% |
Rays | $77,085,054 | 47.5% | 47.3% | 0.3% |
Padres | $85,467,063 | 47.5% | 47.8% | -0.3% |
Dodgers | $257,283,410 | 58.0% | 58.5% | -0.4% |
Braves | $114,699,457 | 48.8% | 49.6% | -0.8% |
Astros | $54,689,189 | 43.2% | 45.9% | -2.7% |
Reds | $115,358,029 | 46.9% | 49.6% | -2.7% |
White Sox | $92,472,106 | 45.1% | 48.2% | -3.2% |
Cubs | $93,196,617 | 45.1% | 48.3% | -3.2% |
Yankees | $218,457,904 | 51.9% | 56.1% | -4.2% |
Twins | $91,071,286 | 43.2% | 48.1% | -4.9% |
Rockies | $97,975,929 | 40.7% | 48.6% | -7.8% |
Phillies | $183,456,686 | 45.1% | 53.9% | -8.8% |
Red Sox | $168,178,367 | 43.8% | 52.9% | -9.1% |
D-backs | $108,124,871 | 39.5% | 49.2% | -9.7% |
Rangers | $145,707,196 | 41.4% | 51.5% | -10.2% |
To account for the change in salaries over time, I made the CPI variable which tracked movement of average salaries, which more than doubled from the observed time period (2000-14). Basically, all the prior year salaries are converted into 2014 dollars and the multiplier factor depends on the year. Just because a team spent more in 2014, it doesn't mean the team spent more relative to the rest of the league.
Team | Avg. Payroll | Avg. Baseball CPI | Win % | Expected | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A's | $60,544,004 | $83,567,393 | 54.5% | 47.7% | 6.9% |
Cardinals | $98,614,830 | $137,731,557 | 56.2% | 51.0% | 5.1% |
Braves | $93,834,408 | $134,321,294 | 55.2% | 50.8% | 4.4% |
Angels | $110,794,460 | $149,960,153 | 54.8% | 51.8% | 3.0% |
Giants | $100,745,839 | $137,427,530 | 53.2% | 51.0% | 2.2% |
Twins | $68,242,531 | $91,232,713 | 50.3% | 48.1% | 2.1% |
Marlins | $45,570,320 | $63,841,758 | 48.2% | 46.4% | 1.8% |
White Sox | $88,480,236 | $120,549,965 | 51.2% | 50.0% | 1.2% |
Indians | $68,402,902 | $98,310,102 | 49.8% | 48.6% | 1.2% |
Phillies | $114,403,870 | $152,476,630 | 52.6% | 51.9% | 0.6% |
Red Sox | $139,499,156 | $192,832,987 | 55.0% | 54.5% | 0.5% |
Reds | $71,297,800 | $96,345,542 | 48.7% | 48.5% | 0.3% |
Rays | $50,316,371 | $70,050,346 | 46.9% | 46.8% | 0.1% |
Blue Jays | $81,281,310 | $111,203,841 | 49.4% | 49.4% | 0.1% |
Padres | $59,493,766 | $84,221,474 | 47.6% | 47.7% | -0.1% |
Dodgers | $129,173,887 | $176,603,329 | 53.4% | 53.4% | -0.1% |
Yankees | $193,117,372 | $266,992,063 | 58.6% | 59.1% | -0.5% |
D-backs | $79,074,909 | $113,736,684 | 49.0% | 49.5% | -0.6% |
Rangers | $93,331,986 | $129,456,919 | 49.9% | 50.5% | -0.6% |
Brewers | $70,293,258 | $94,151,612 | 47.5% | 48.3% | -0.9% |
Nationals | $66,072,385 | $87,443,184 | 46.9% | 47.9% | -1.0% |
Mariners | $91,926,390 | $129,143,148 | 49.3% | 50.5% | -1.2% |
Rockies | $72,909,516 | $101,887,560 | 46.4% | 48.8% | -2.4% |
Astros | $76,821,338 | $110,186,206 | 46.9% | 49.3% | -2.4% |
Tigers | $102,008,140 | $135,648,943 | 48.4% | 50.9% | -2.5% |
Pirates | $50,339,521 | $69,588,533 | 44.1% | 46.8% | -2.6% |
Mets | $111,941,990 | $158,703,919 | 49.3% | 52.3% | -3.0% |
Cubs | $102,876,289 | $142,688,975 | 47.5% | 51.3% | -3.8% |
Orioles | $80,747,533 | $113,373,868 | 45.6% | 49.5% | -3.9% |
Royals | $58,585,331 | $79,056,701 | 43.4% | 47.4% | -3.9% |
Going into this research, I was expecting teams to have vastly different win% expectations using ending payroll instead of beginning. However, most teams were expected to win about the same amount of games. On average the two models differed by 0.16% (about one-fourth of a win per season).
The A's (+6.9%) are still the highest performing team relative to payroll, while the Cardinals (+5.1%), Braves (+4.4%) and Angels (+3%) round out the top four. Although in a slightly different order, the bottom five remained the same from the last model. The Royals (-3.95%), Orioles (-3.93%), Cubs (-3.8%), Mets (-3%) and Pirates (-2.6%) all have not performed relative to how much each club spent on payroll, but as I mentioned earlier, three of them shined last year.
No comments:
Post a Comment