The World Series winning team has the biggest payroll only in those instances where it is the Yankees

An interesting visualization looking back to 1995, which is all the time period that matters for many Tribe fans (and beat writers), that comes to us courtesy of Nate Silver's fine FiveThirtyEight blog.

11 months ago MTF 8 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don’t get the title. Is that supposed to be surprising? The Yankees always have the highest payroll, but don’t always win the world series.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jul 6, 2011 3:59 PM EDT reply actions

This graph was a pretty good way to determine the haves and the have-nots:

Since 1995, there have been 128 playoff spots. A team from the top ten in payroll has earned a spot 77 times (60%).

If you break it out by the number of top ten payrolls (total 160 teams), they would have made the playoffs 48 percent of the time.

The World Series winner has come from this top ten 11 times (69%).

The World Series runner-up has come from this top ten 10 times (62%)

by Toxicadam on Jul 6, 2011 4:46 PM EDT reply actions

I’m not sure how relevant that really is.

A better test would be the percentage of playoff berths given to Top 10 teams.

A variation would be the percentage of top-three records in each league, since the fourth seed is often a fluke winner of a bad division.

by Jay on Jul 6, 2011 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions

From 1998 through 2010 (13 seasons), there were 39 teams (obviously) that finished with either the 1st , 2nd or 3rd best record in the American League. Of those 39, 59% (23 teams) were in the top half of the AL in payroll.

by tflannery on Jul 6, 2011 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions

This isn’t a reply to you, more of a general rant, but your numbers inspired me.

I always have a hard time explaining to people why this is such a big problem, because 59% doesn’t seem all that high. The issue is that the teams that are in that top ten don’t change all that much. The Yankees and Red Sox have both made the playoffs almost every year for about a decade. Every year there may be two other small market teams that make it as well, which seems to say that small market teams have just as good of a shot. The thing is those small market teams are different every season, while the Yankees and Red Sox obviously are not. A small market team can’t hope to have the decade-long run that those two infuriating franchises have enjoyed.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the money doesn’t prevent teams from being successful, but it prevents them from being consistently successful.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jul 7, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions

This kinda goes back to something somebody once observed in these parts – that though there is always a small-market success story, who that story is is always changing.

"(We) did not generally despise those trades. We despised being in the position where we had to make them" -Jay

by stuart dean on Jul 7, 2011 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Also, top 10 isn’t necessarily a relevant cutoff point.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2011 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the money doesn’t prevent teams from being successful, but it prevents them from being consistently successful.

Agree completely. 59% doesn’t seem that high, but the argument is not ‘only big money teams make the playoffs’, it’s that those teams have a definitive and “unfair” advantage. If the advantage that comes with a big payroll is negligible, the number should be 49% – 51%.

The other factor to consider is that major league payroll rankings do not incorporate a team’s ability to pay draft picks, etc. Total organizational spend numbers (non-administrative) would be more relevant figures for this purpose.

by tflannery on Jul 8, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions