So I recently finished up my first statistics class in college (of course I got an easy A) and learned quite a few things I could use for this here little blog of mine. Some people are always insisting the more you spend the more you are GUARANTEED to win. So my assignment for today is to determine A) is there a correlation and B) how strong it truly is. Like the other 3 parts of this series I will only be talking about the National League and the past 4 years (2004-2007). After inputting the win and payroll totals for all 16 teams into my wonderful TI calculator I got my answer. But first what does all this mean? Well basically correlation coefficients are measured on a scale from -1 to +1 and range from having an upward/positive trend to no trend to a downward/negative trend. In this case there is in fact a trend and it is upward (the more money you spend does in fact get you more wins) which I’m sure we all figured out without the handy help of Mr. TI calculator but what I really wanted to determine was exactly how strong that trend is? It turned out the correlation coefficient comes out to +.71. Which is fairly strong but by no means is overwhelming. Which basically means yes spending money helps to a point but it is no guarantee.
While I was at it I thought I’d figure out the expected win totals for each team based on their payroll. In other wards based on the averages I could determine how many wins a team should be getting based on their exact payroll. Then I subtracted the expected wins from the actual wins to see how each team is performing. Or who is doing the most with their money. Below is the rankings from best to worst.
1. San Diego Padres————-346 – 312.286 = +33.714
2. St. Louis Cardinals————366 – 333.852 = +32.148
3. Florida Marlins—————-315 – 292.560 = +22.440
4. Atlanta Braves—————-349 – 333.766 = +15.234
5. Philadelphia Phillies———-348 – 336.238 = +11.762
6. Houston Astros—————336 – 329.446 = +06.554
7. Milwaukee Brewers———-306 – 302.152 = +03.848
8. Colorado Rockies————-301 – 304.800 = -03.800
9. Los Angeles Dodgers———334 – 339.518 = -05.518
10. New York Mets————–339 – 345.806 = -06.806
11. Washington Nationals——-292 – 301.002 = -09.002
12. Cincinnati Reds————–301 – 310.614 = -09.614
13. Arizona Diamondbacks——294 – 311.722 = -17.722
14. Chicago Cubs—————-319 – 337.286 = -18.286
15. Pittsburgh Pirates———–274 – 294.272 = -20.272
16. San Francisco Giants——–313 – 333.448 = -20.448
So the Padres are the cream of the crop. Kudos to you KT, Sandy, DePo & Co. Based on their payroll of 246.68 million over the last 4 years they should have only won 312 games (avg 78 wins per season) but instead are almost 34 games over. The Cardinals are the only team that come close and over half of the NL is performing WORSE than they should be. Besides the Padres, not 1 team in the West is even in the positive, although the Rockies & Dodgers are on the verge. Also if you notice the teams toward the top are considered to have some of the best GM’s in the game. KT for San Diego, Jocketty in St. Louis, Beinfest in Florida, Schuerholz for Atlanta & Gillick for Philly (I know Jocketty & Schuerholz are gone now but this is from 04-07). I’ve always liked KT and thought he has done great with what he has been given (or not given in many cases). The pitching is strong year in and year out, the bench is normally solid and he has recently put together a great young team. I’m sure it hasn’t hurt having plenty of great baseball minds surrounding him too (former GM’s Sandy Alderson, Paul DePodesta, Ed Wade, Randy Smith & Ted Simmons).
So what have we learned today kids? That yes spending more money does in fact lead to more wins but there is no guarantee. So as long as you spend average type money, a smart front office is the key over the big bucks in the long run. Oh and we learned that Padres have a kick ass front office.
Only 24 more days till pitchers and catchers report!!!!!!!
Filed under: Stats, The Last 4 Years ('04-'07) Series
.
Good breakdown, interesting stuff. You’ve got a good knack for numbers. I can’t balance a checkbook, which is why, I guess, I became a writer. Anyway, keep up the good work!
Corey
Great stuff!
My take is that money is actually more important, overall.
An r of .71 means the r2 is like .5041. I believe that implies that over the last 4 years, payroll explains about 50% of winning. The other half is other factors like talent evaluation and luck.
At the same time, as long as you’re spending enough, if your front office is good enough, you can easily overcome a lower payroll. Anyway, correct me if I’m wrong and keep up the great work.
Hey thanks Corey I always enjoy reading your posts and reading your stuff on the Pads site.
And yes MB you are correct….I sometimes have problems putting math and numbers into words (which you do rather well) but that is what I was trying to put across. First and foremost money is important. There is a decent trend with teams who spend more, win more. But the correlation is .71 meaning it is not strictly tied to money. Meaning if you spend middle of the pack money (like the Padres) and have a great front office (like the Padres) you should be competitive year in and year out (like the Padres). Even the Marlins have the lowest payroll yet come in at number 9 in winning percentage 1 spot ahead of the #7 ranked team in payroll, the Giants. I figured it out for the AL as well and the correlation is quite lower than the NL….so money is even less of a factor in the AL opposed to the NL…..which suprised me.
Right. I think we’re on the same page.
I wonder if the Yanks have anything to do with it in the AL because their payroll is so high. If you take them out, does it go up? (or down?)
If you take out the Yankees totals the correlation goes down even more. The AL has big spending teams like the Orioles (#7) & the Mariners (#4) towards the bottom in overall record. Plus it also has low spending teams like the Twins (#11) and Indians (#13) towards the top in overall record. I think I may do an AL version of this series (although not as in depth) soon. I gathered all the info the same time I did the NL’s so all I have to do is put together some posts. Needless to say there are 4 teams that put the Pirates & Giants 20 games under statistic to shame.
Ahh … interesting. I’ve seen similar studies where the correlation is similar to your’s here (IIRC), and it’s always good to see this stuff again. Awesome job on the series.
[...] continues his reflection on the Petco Park era by examining the relationship between a team’s payroll and its on-field success. This line of inquiry fascinates me, and [...]