Baseball Parity (Hi Jason)

[tombrady]

This is special for those of you that think baseball is "the most unfair" of all sports.

This year's playoff teams and MLB Payroll Rank:

Red Sox 2
Indians 23
Angels 5
Yankees 1

Dbacks 26
Phils 14
Cubs 8
Rockies 25

Average Rank: 13

30 teams in baseball, meaning the average payroll rank of 13 is only slightly above the median (15.5).

Overall payroll has very little predictive value of who will make the playoffs.

2006 Playoff Teams:
AL:
Yankees
Twins
A's
Tigers

NL:
Mets
Cardinals
Padres
Dodgers

ONLY ONE 2006 PLAYOFF TEAM IS A 2007 PLAYOFF TEAM.

Baseball has parity with no salary cap.

[JasonEvans]

This is special for those of you that think baseball is "the most unfair" of all sports.

This year's playoff teams and MLB Payroll Rank:

Red Sox 2
Indians 23
Angels 5
Yankees 1

Dbacks 26
Phils 14
Cubs 8
Rockies 25

Average Rank: 13

30 teams in baseball, meaning the average payroll rank of 13 is only slightly above the median (15.5).

Overall payroll has very little predictive value of who will make the playoffs.

2006 Playoff Teams:
AL:
Yankees
Twins
A's
Tigers

NL:
Mets
Cardinals
Padres
Dodgers

ONLY ONE 2006 PLAYOFF TEAM IS A 2007 PLAYOFF TEAM.

Baseball has parity with no salary cap.

I havee never ever said that it is impossible to win with a low payroll or that a high payroll guarantees you will make the playoffs. But, if you spend enough money you can pretty much be guaranteed to at least be in the running for a playoff spot. How many teams with top-10 payrolls were out of the playoff running in September? I honestly don't have the time or resources to check the answer right now, but I bet that if you spend among the top 5-10 payrolls in the league, you are assured of at least being in the mix for the playoffs with a couple weeks to go in the season.

--Jason "waaaay busy today or I'd look this up myself" Evans

[TheGodfather]

How many teams with top-10 payrolls were out of the playoff running in September?

Of the top-10 payrolls only the White Sox and Orioles were out of the running by September.

Of the top four payrolls (USA Today has the Angels at 4 (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007)) all would have made it in if the Mets hadn't had a historical collapse. Of the bottom four payrolls, none were even close.

So being ranked 5th or lower didn't offer much predictive value but it sure seems the top spots have to try hard to fail.

[Mal]

This is special for those of you that think baseball is "the most unfair" of all sports.

Overall payroll has very little predictive value of who will make the playoffs. [/B]

Baseball has parity with no salary cap.[/B]


Those are just damned lies, I mean, statistics. :)

Let's take a look at (a) the years since previous playoff appearance, and (b) number of playoff appearances over the last half decade (including this year), of the teams in the playoffs this season. In order of current payroll rank:

The big spenders:

Yankees - 1, 5
Red Sox - 2, 4
Angels - 2, 3
Cubs - 4, 2

In or near the second half of payrolls:

Phillies - 14, 0
Indians - 6, 0
Rockies - 12, 0
D'Backs - 5, 0

Anyone else see a pattern? There's a pretty stable cast of big spenders who are always at or around the playoffs, and then there's a rotating cast of little fish who open the window every once and again, and some of them actually take advantage of it from time to time. The fact that the Marlins won a couple championships doesn't negate the fact that they've actually only made the playoffs twice in their 15 years of existence. Their winning two Series is an almost unbelievable statistical anomaly. The D'Backs may have stood up to the Yankees in '01, but they had a larger payroll then than they do now, if I'm not mistaken. The White Sox had their moment in the sun and now they're back in the cellar and will unload a ton of overly expensive salaries and start over again because they just can't afford to spend $120 million every year on personnel.

Meanwhile, the Yankees have rolled up about 15 consecutive playoff seasons, and the BoSox will be a threat every year for the next five. So will the Cubs, who, despite being 8th in payroll this season, went out and committed close to 1/3 of a billion dollars in long-term contracts to Ramirez, Soriano, Zambrano, Lilly and others last offseason.

Let's see where Cleveland is in two years, after Hafner and Sizemore and Carmona and whoever else get their big paydays. Either they'll be back in the land of mediocrity and depending on young guys to play beyond expectations with the couple stars they could afford to hang onto, or they'll be up in the top 7 in payroll to keep their nucleus together. It's the same cyclical story for most franchises.

Nice reference for historical payroll info.: http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007