Money doesn’t make the team. Baseball, like America, is built not just on capitalism and greed. It is built on logic, intellect, and good management. American society falls into multiple different economic categories (lower class, middle class, upper class, etc). Baseball is no different. We have small-payroll clubs, mid-payroll clubs, and large-payroll clubs. Across baseball, the thought process seems to be those with the most money are the only ones who can compete. The rest are simply door mats to be stepped on and stepped over on the juggernauts’ trips to the postseason. This is the biggest fallacy in baseball, and once teams start truly believing money isn’t as important as most would have us think, competitive balance will spread across the league.
Let me first start by addressing those who will disagree with my thinking. They will point to wins of these lower-payroll teams, lack of play-off success, and the continued success of those teams with higher payrolls. Below are the average wins from the 1998 season (when baseball expanded to 30 teams) through the 2010 season broken down by small-payroll teams, mid-payroll teams, and large-payroll teams.
*I classified small-payroll teams as those with payrolls under $62 million, mid-payroll teams as those with payrolls between $62 and $100 million, and high-payroll teams as those with payrolls over $100 million. You can classify them how you want, but the results will be similar.
It’s clear; teams with a higher payroll have averaged more wins over the past 13 years. However, this does not end the argument. The data is skewed by small-payroll teams who mismanage their ball clubs. Teams like the Tampa Bay Rays, the Oakland A’s, and even the San Diego Padres to some extent have shown that a properly run team, one with carefully calculated payroll moves, can succeed in this league dominated by high payrolls.
Between 2008-2011, the Tampa Bay Rays have averaged 92 wins, won an American League pennant, and made the postseason three times. They did so with an average payroll of just $55,247,318. From 1999 through 2006, the Oakland Athletics averaged 93.875 wins. They went to the postseason six times during this span with an average payroll of $44,729,438. Finally, the San Diego Padres, while not overly successful, had four straight winning seasons from 2004-2007. They averaged 86.5 wins during this time and won back-to-back division titles. They’re average payroll was $61,383,600.
All of these teams found periods of sustained success possible on less than optimal payrolls.
There’s no big secret to winning on a budget. Teams who do it do so by using their brains. They acquire players who will fit in with the team, can produce in the home ball park, and whose benefits far outweighs their cost. Much like our society has its share of entrepreneurs who walk outside the lines of conventional thought, every so often baseball finds similar minds within their ranks. As these free-thinkers prove success can be had by those with less, those with more adapt and integrate these new ideas. Once this happens, it is up to the innovators to find new ways to win, something Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s have yet to do. The Padres have found success sporadically with a 90-win season in 2010 after two losing seasons before that. They followed that up with a losing season in 2011. The Rays have taken every punch thrown at them and continued to succeed, but as things change, they too will have to adapt.
Some of the greatest success stories this country has ever seen do not come from money. They come from ingenuity. They come from fearlessness. They come from a willingness to fail as long as the ultimate goal is change. Baseball is like America, but sometimes we forget that. Credit these teams who win on a low payroll for giving us the occasional reminder.
Team salaries courtesy of Steve the Ump