This report looks to explore how team financial situations correlate with success as defined by a.) winning percentage, and b.) power ranking. As this season has progressed through the trading deadline, it appeared to me that there was a "buyer's market" present. Many teams were either substantially out of contention or simply in need of reducing salary, and more often both.
The following numbers will show the financial rankings of all PEBA teams in regards to overall payroll. These payroll numbers include both player and staff payroll. The variance in staff payroll is obviously much smaller than that of player payroll and is likely negligible (i.e the driving force behind the disparity is the player salaries).
- Rank Team Payroll
1 New Jersey Hitmen $150,280,440
2 Palm Springs Codgers $123,289,800
3 New Orleans Trendsetters $111,127,112
4 Crystal Lake Sandgnats $110,097,900
5 Bakersfield Bears $108,378,100
6 Aurora Borealis $103,632,050
7 Reno Tenpinners $103,312,700
8 West Virginia Coal Sox $102,307,374
9 San Antonio Calzones of La $98,985,300
10 Arlington Bureaucrats $93,154,600
11 Duluth Warriors $88,450,792
12 Kalamazoo Badgers $88,033,959
13 Charleston Statesmen $76,633,354
14 Fargo Dinosaurs $71,435,100
15 Gloucester Fishermen $69,872,702
16 Connecticut Nutmeggers $64,535,900
17 Canton Longshoremen $64,311,608
18 Florida Featherheads $62,013,800
19 Omaha Cyclones $61,405,447
20 Yuma Bulldozers $57,840,038
21 Kentucky Thoroughbreds $40,248,600
22 Manchester Maulers $40,224,500
23 London Underground $37,777,870
24 Tempe Knights $27,359,200
The following chart shows how payroll relates to winning percentage in PEBA for the recently completed 2008 season. Teams are ranked by there winning percentage and payroll’s are listed to the right.
- Rank Team PCT Payroll
1 Crystal Lake 0.728 $110,097,900
2 Aurora 0.691 $103,632,050
3 Bakersfield 0.617 $108,378,100
4 New Jersey 0.599 $150,280,440
5 New Orleans 0.593 $111,127,112
6 Arlington 0.580 $93,154,600
7 Palm Springs 0.574 $123,289,800
8 Kalamazoo 0.568 $88,033,959
9 Gloucester 0.562 $69,872,702
10 West Virginia 0.556 $102,307,374
11 Charleston 0.537 $76,633,354
12 Florida 0.494 $62,013,800
13 San Antonio 0.494 $98,985,300
14 Reno 0.475 $103,312,700
15 Manchester 0.444 $40,224,500
16 Canton 0.444 $64,311,608
17 Tempe 0.401 $27,359,200
18 Kentucky 0.401 $40,248,600
19 Fargo 0.395 $71,435,100
20 Duluth 0.395 $88,450,792
21 London 0.383 $37,777,870
22 Omaha 0.377 $61,405,447
23 Connecticut 0.358 $64,535,900
24 Yuma 0.333 $57,840,038
The next chart shows the relationship between payroll and power rankings. I did this to consider some of the peripheral stats, the Pythagorean records, and the team winning percentages together. This may be a better indicator as to how well team’s performed, and at least gives us another chart to look at, which can be fun.
- Rank Team Points Payroll
1st Crystal Lake 139 $110,097,900
2nd Aurora 128 $103,632,050
3rd Arlington 108 $93,154,600
4th Kalamazoo 108 $88,033,959
5th Bakersfield 108 $108,378,100
6th New Jersey 108 $150,280,440
7th Gloucester 107 $69,872,702
8th New Orleans 105 $111,127,112
9th Palm Springs 102 $123,289,800
10th Charleston 101 $76,633,354
11th West Virginia 97 $102,307,374
12th Florida 93 $62,013,800
13th Manchester 84 $40,224,500
14th San Antonio 83 $98,985,300
15th Reno 80 $103,312,700
16th Canton 79 $64,311,608
17th London 72 $37,777,870
18th Tempe 71 $27,359,200
19th Fargo 71 $71,435,100
20th Omaha 67 $61,405,447
21st Kentucky 66 $40,248,600
22nd Duluth 63 $88,450,792
23rd Yuma 63 $57,840,038
24th Connecticut 54 $64,535,900
There’s enough variance in the bottom halves of these two charts to indicate that payroll difficulties can be overcome and inversely that high payroll advantages may still result in a poor product on the field. What I think is going on here is a result of the multi-year contracts that were assumed into the league following the initial league draft prior to the 2007 season. There are some bad contracts (i.e. below replacement level performances being rewarded with multi-million dollar salaries and 4-year contracts) floating around that are just going to have to be worked through. Additionally there is room for growth in market size through capital proliferation (CP) during the off-season. Finally, these “losing” teams will have a chance to stock up their farm systems through receiving early round draft choices.
I am concerned that the talent gap between the “good teams” and the “bad teams” at the ML level is extreme enough that it’s created a buyers market in regards to trades and that the talent level returned to the selling team in regards to prospects is not enough to really improve that team’s minor league system. Financial stress has contributed to this buyers market as many of teams have had to work through the before mentioned “bad contracts” to meet owner budget lines. It may take a few more seasons to close the talent gaps between the top performing teams and the bottom performing teams and for these teams to build their farm systems and field contending teams.
