Correlation between wins and payroll in 2023

[D-train]

[gil]

I think the underlying question is fascinating, and one of the most important in sports (i.e., can you buy your way to success?)

I concur with what various people said regarding needing multiple year data and recognizing that other variables are associated with "success".

My two cents:

1. Both payroll and "success" are autocorrelated: a big spending team in year 1 is more likely to be a big spending team in year 2, and a successful team in year 1 is more likely to be a successful team in year 2. A statistical analysis has to account for this.

2. Other variables that might be related to "success" include (off the top of my head) player talent that is not reflected in payroll, superior player development within a system, superior ability to make good decisions in trades and signing FAs, and superior in-game tactical decisions.

3. When you omit variables in a statistical analysis, your findings are suspect. In the simple linear regression discussed here, the R2 between payroll and success may understate or overstate the strength of the "causality" -- compared to an analysis with more variables.

[Captain 97]

I had some time to kill so I compiled 10 years worth of data. I am not a whiz with the Graphs but in general here are some thoughts. 9 of the top 10 teams in spending finished in the top 16 in total wins. 7 of the bottom 10 teams in spending finished in the bottom 16 in wins. 7 of the middle 10 teams in payroll finished between 8 and 22 in total wins. The correlation is loose but its definitely there.

[Captain 97]

Looking at World Series winners. Kansas City is the only team that has been in the bottom half of spending over the last decade to win a world series in that time span.

[D-train]

Hey there is us! Almost middle of the pack in terms of Payroll and almost mediocre!