Yankees Buy Themselves Another Championship...

...But did they really?

As a Yankee fan I've heard, pretty much all my life, that the Yankees buy their way to the Championship.  A few facts, before looking into any research, is that the Yankees have topped the payroll charts in the past few years - yes, they've spent a lot of money.  The Yankees during this decade won in the year 2000, and now, 2009.  In ten years of topping the payroll list the Yankees have won 2 World Series.  This is, arguably, not a very nice statistic seeing as I'm sure the Yankee organization would have liked to have the highest salaries for 10 years while winning the World Series each of those years.

So I began to think about the impact of money on the game of baseball.  The Yankees have not won every championship this decade, but they were among the teams with the most playoff appearances and highest winning percentages.  Is this a given for all teams of the highest payrolls?  I wanted to find out, so I did some research.  I have compiled information and am going to go over my findings with you.  I hope you enjoy.


There are thirty (30) Major League Baseball franchises, and each year their payrolls are tallied prior to the beginning of play.  All of the following numbers are numbers that represent the beginning of the year payroll for each team, and do not accurately following any payroll changes that would occur during the season of play, such as trades, releases, or any other acquisitions.  From the year 2000 through 2009 I tracked the Top 10 Baseball Teams with the Highest Payroll.  This represents the highest one-third of the league, and what I will be referring to as the "Upper 3rd".  (The Middle, or Mid, 3rd refers to franchises with a payroll rank of 11-20 for a particular year, and the Lower 3rd refers to franchises with a payroll rank of 21-30 for a particular year)  Along with tracking the Upper 3rd teams I have also taken note of the teams that have reached the playoffs from the Mid and Lower 3rd's and tracked their progress accordingly.

Let's take a look at the data and see what information there is.

Some of the interesting things to note are as follows:

• In the year 2000, 8 out of the 10 teams had payroll increases of $15M or more
• The two teams that did not have the increase of $15M or more were the Indians and Rangers - the Indians increased payroll by $5M and came in 2nd in the AL Central, while the Rangers decreased payroll by $19.5M and came in last place in the AL West
• The biggest "successful spender" (franchise who spent a lot of money and made the playoffs) was the White Sox who increased payroll by $34M, and was still in the Lower 3rd - they lost in the ALDS
• From 2000 through 2009, the payrolls to round out the Upper 3rd change in the following way:  $14M, $3M, $2M, $1M, $5M, $4M, $5M, $7M, & -$4M
• The only year with a net decrease was 2009
• Throughout the entire decade, when two teams met in the World Series, the team who increased their payroll by the higher number won in each year except for 2003, 2006, 2008, and 2009
• In the year's that the team with the higher increase in payroll lost, the higher overall payroll won in each year except for 2003
• 2003 was the only year for the Lower 3rd to win the World Series
• A team who has decreased payroll has only made it to the World Series 4 times in the past decade (NYY - 2001, 2009* & STL - 2004, 2006*); the Yankees and Cardinals each won the World Series in their 2nd attempt while decreasing payroll
• The World Series did not feature a team from the Upper 3rd in the following years: 2005, 2006, & 2008
• The World Series winner was not from the Upper 3rd, but it's opponent was: 2002, & 2003
• The World Series featured ONLY teams from the Upper 3rd in the following years: 2000, 2001, & 2009

Looking at the data in this format can be a little difficult on the eyes, and making connections in this manner isn't the easiest of tasks either.  I wanted to see exactly how money affected a teams success - I am determining that success is winning.  That is the only real quantifiable thing about baseball that is an even playing field.  Gross and Net Payments and Profits are all determined somewhat by region and market, so to me, success is measured in wins.  Most specifically, playoff wins.

Below is a diagram that shows the results for each payroll tier - my attempt was to find out whether paying more meant that you were rewarded more.  Please see the key below to understand what is being referenced.

Every year, 8 teams are awarded a playoff berth - over a ten year span that adds up to 80 teams.  The total number of  Upper 3rd teams to enter to the field of 80 over the past 10 years has been 46, while the Mid 3rd has had 21 representative, and the Lower 3rd has had 13.  The Upper 3rd has represented 57.5% of all playoff participants in the past decade, while the Middle 3rd has produced just over 26% of the participants, and the Lower 3rd has produced just over 16%.  Apparently, if you are not among the franchises with the highest payrolls, there is a only 42.5% chance you will make the playoffs.  The odds certainly seem in favor of the high priced talent.

You can see in Figure 1 the exact amount of teams from each tier and the levels they were able to achieve.  The first percentage is the percentage of probability for the group within the field once the playoffs were made, and the second percentage is the probability for the entire field.  For example, there is a 50% chance that if a team makes the playoffs from the Upper 3rd they will lose in the Divisional Series, while there is a 28.75% probability of a team from the Upper 3rd both making the playoffs and losing in the Divisional Series.  Figure 2 breaks down the probability of each occurrence.  From the Upper 3rd, a team is equally as likely to win a World Series as it is likely to lose it.  Both of those occurrences are a higher likelihood than a team with a payroll in the Middle 3rd to reach and lose their Championship Series.  Again, the odds certainly seem to favor the higher priced talent.

Figure 3 shows data from ONLY the Top 8 Teams in terms of Payroll.  Eight teams make the playoffs, and I'm sure the owners and general managers believe that by being in the top echelon of salaried teams they should have a good shot at the title, I wanted to look at the results of this group.

From the Top 8 team in terms of payroll, 51.25% will miss the playoffs.  That doesn't really look like a sure thing to me.  Looking at the data in this format only made me think more about the breakdown for each team - who was the most successful in terms of expectations and results, and also, who was the least successful.  This also is starting to touch upon the "Team of the Decade" argument, and I think I've found the answer.

Below is a diagram that breaks down each team that has either made an appearance in the Upper 3rd, or has made a playoff appearance during this time period.  All teams make the following list even if they only made the above lists once.  I wanted to track their Average Payroll Rank, the number of times they were in the Top 10 in payroll, and how many times they were in the bottom 10.  For each team, the results of each of their seasons are tracked.  Let's take a look.

It becomes apparent in Figure 4 who the big winners and losers are.  Making the playoffs is obviously not guaranteed, but with an average payroll rank in the Upper 3rd, the majority of seasons should result in playoff appearances and possibly championships.  Before I begin breaking down the best of the best, it is clear that the worst of the "best" include the Seattle Mariners (DMP = 8), Chicago Cubs (DMP = 7), and New York Mets (DMP = 8).  The farthest any of these teams was able to get was the Mets in 2000 with an NL Pennant, but the majority of these playoff seasons end in the Championship Series.

Sticking with the analysis of teams and how they did or did not make the playoffs, the best of the best include the following: New York Yankees (DMP = 1), St. Louis Cardinals (DMP = 3), Boston Red Sox (DMP = 4), Atlanta Braves (DMP = 4), Los Angeles Angels (DMP = 5), and the Minnesota Twins & Oakland Athletics (DMP = 5).  It's very impressive that two teams (Twins & A's) made the playoffs for half of the decade from the Lower 3rd tier, very impressive.  Unfortunately, even with 5 playoff appearances each, neither team managed to get beyond the Championship Series, which the Angels, who also had 5 playoff appearances, managed to win a World Series - the difference: their payroll.

(As I'm writing this, I am noticing I fucked something up in my graphic - there are only 19 Championship Series Losses, and over a 10 year span, that is impossible.  Too late to change it.  It will take all sorts of work to figure out where I went wrong.  Oh well, now I'll know for sure if this is my image or not, HA!)

My rankings for "Team of the Decade" are as follows:

1. New York Yankees
2. Boston Red Sox
3. St. Louis Cardinals
4. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

The Yankees managed to miss the playoffs only one time in this ten year period of time, while the Red Sox missed 4 post seasons.  The Yankees are 2 for 4 in this decades World Series, while the Red Sox are 2 for 2.  Two World Series plus two AL Pennants is greater than just two World Series... Sorry Red Sox Nation, but you know it's true.

I'm a big fan of what the Cardinals have done over the past few years, and I just don't think the Phillies can really be considered as they've only made the playoffs 3 times during this decade.

And now to the inevitable retaliation that "The Yankees bought their success", the average payroll rank for the Top 4 Teams of the Decade according to BuDaMan are as follows:

1. NYY (AVG - 1; Top 10 - 10)
2. BOS (AVG - 3; Top 10 - 10)
3. STL (AVG - 10.6; Top 10 - 4)
4. LAA (AVG - 8.8; Top 10 - 5)

There is a lot of opposition from the New England side of New York State, but the truth of the matter is that the Boston Red Sox are the 2nd highest ranked team as far as average payroll goes for this current decade.  When the team won in 2004, they spent $28M the previous off-season, and when they won in 2007, they spent $23M the previous off-season.  I'm merely emphasizing that to make a baseball omelet, you've got to break a few multi-millions...

Although there have been a few blunders along the way, the most successful teams have spent a lot of money.  Again, success has been based on winning, not financially a success.  The most impressive feats along the way have been the Lower 3rd making it's way to the World Series.  In this decade they were 1-1 in the World Series, and with lower payrolls and high talent, it's really a testament to the management and coaching of those teams that they were able to be that successful.

Some people argue for a Salary Cap for Major League Baseball.  I am not against a salary cap, but if there is a cap to a maximum, there needs to be a cap for the minimum as well.  Clubs like Florida and Pittsburgh scrape along with highly talented cheap talent while they're young, while their club isn't able to make profits as high as someone like the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees.  At the end of the day Baseball is a business, and winning is not necessarily a byproduct of fiscal success.  Certain teams have a commitment to success the way I've been describing it here, a commitment to winning.  Those teams, for the most part, seem to be topping the payroll list year after year, and are successful to varying degrees.  Teams like the 2003 Florida Marlins are the rare example where the management deals with advanced scouting, and cultivating young talent, have a miracle year, and then selling off their best players for more young talent.  The Marlins are great at that, and they'll continue to be one of the most interesting franchises for years to come.

Interestingly enough, the Tampa Bay Rays in the early 2000s were in the Middle 3rd for payroll, and they did not begin to see success until 2008 when they had already dropped their payroll considerably.  Conversely, the New York Mets have spent so much money over the past decade and have been nominated for "Worst Collapse" on three different occasions.  It's not ALL about money, it's what you do with it.

So do all these high priced teams deserve this success?  I don't know, but they sure as hell paid for it.