December 22, 2010

2010 baseball salaries & wins correlation [Charts]

The Yankees led the majors in luxury tax for the eighth year in a row (every year in its existence), but they’ll pay more than $7 million less than they did last year.

The Yankees and Red Sox were the only two teams hit with the competitive balance tax this year, and thus will have to send the commissioner’s office checks for $18 million and $1.49 million, respectively.

For a full breakdown of luxury taxes paid by teams in its history (not including this year), check out this reader-friendly table from this article. The Yankees have paid approximately 92 percent of all the luxury taxes in baseball history (including this year) — just three other teams have paid.

Luxury tax is based on team payrolls, which include team salaries and prorated shares of signing bonuses. After analyzing data for team salaries, which I would expect to be very similar to team payrolls, I reached this conclusion: High team salaries do not necessarily translate to wins, and low team salaries do not necessarily translate to losses.

The correlation between team salaries and wins for all of baseball in 2010 was just .368 (0 meaning no correlation, 1 meaning absolute correlation).

(Click the graphs to enlarge)
2010 mlb salaries graph
To best show the correlation, I kept the order of the teams from above in the graph below.
2010 mlb wins graph
If those two charts meant nothing to you, here are some facts:
  • The fifth-lowest payroll team In the majors, the Rangers, reached the World Series.
  • The Rays beat out the Yankees in the AL East for a division title despite spending $134 million less on their players.
  • The Cincinnati Reds beat out the Chicago Cubs in the NL Central even though they spent $78 million more than the Reds did on players.
  • Of the highest eight team salaries, just two of those teams reached the playoffs.
2010 wasn’t an anomaly either, I analyzed the same statistics from 2009 for one of my courses at Quinnipiac. The correlation between team salaries and wins was actually higher in 2009 at .508. Still, the statistics do not show baseball needs a salary cap.

The NBA has a salary cap, but since it is a “soft cap” the majority of teams exceed it and are forced to pay a luxury tax — just like baseball teams do. The NFL is in its first year without a cap.



So then why does baseball need a salary cap? I have no idea. You tell me.

Comments (5)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
2011 Mets: At least we're not the Cubs!
Can't just base that on wins, Lenny. Oakland and Florida each won 80 games, which boosts the correlation, but both were largely irrelevant. Playoff appearances and World Series matter. Since 2001, when there have been 9 different champs and therefore, (according to "baseball guy") parity.....
45 of 80 playoff appearances (58 percent) went to teams in the top one-third (33 percent) of payroll or the top ten in payroll. 58 of 80 spots (73 percent) went to teams in the top one-half or top 15. So, you've got one-third the teams getting well over one-half the playoff spots and one-half getting damn near three-quarters.
Since 2001, teams in the bottom one-third of payroll have accounted for only 12 playoff spots or 15 percent.
Of the 20 World Series teams in those ten years, 16 have been teams in the top half of payroll. 5 of the champions have been in the top ten of payroll and only Florida 2003 won a title with a payroll in baseball's bottom half.
Since 2004, 8 teams have been in the top 15 in payroll every year (Both NY's, both LA's, Philly, Boston, the Cubs and Cards). 12 teams have never been in the top 15 and four teams slipped in once.
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Thanks for the comment. You have a lot of good information about playoffs and payrolls above, but what about the fact that there have been 20 different World Series winners in the past 29 World Series?

Also in the past 30 years...

14 different Super Bowl winners
13 different Stanley Cup winners
9 different NBA Champions
Chief Fireballs's avatar

Chief Fireballs · 748 weeks ago

The difference is the Reds have a group of young players they will not be able to keep together when salary arbitration hits. That's why they only make the playoffs every 15-20 years. All the small market teams just become the developmental grounds for the big market teams, grooming tomorrows big market stars.
1 reply · active 747 weeks ago
High & Tight's avatar

High & Tight · 747 weeks ago

That;s the way I feel also. Why bother having so many teams in both leagues that are have practically no chance of staying competitive. With a salary cap in place instead of the luxury tax, teams might have a better chance in bidding for star players without busting the bank. This in turn would help keep ticket prices at an affordable level for the fans. Could you please correlate the average ticket prices for the past 10 years. It's gotten so high that I seldom go to games anymore!

Post a new comment

Comments by

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP