In last week's post, I discussed the prevalence of anti-New York Yankee sentiment. Since that blog, the Yankees also managed to win their record 27th World Series. I was amazed by the response by readers - thank you for your passionate comments! In less than one week, that blog generated more comments than any blog I've written over the past five months.
Comments tended to fall into one of four general categories:
1) "The Yankees are great - why be a hater?"
I do not hate the Yankees. In fact, I like the way they play baseball and how their players handle themselves on the field. I commend them for doing the best job of winning within the rules. Yes they spend a lot of money, but that does not violate any MLB rule. Although parents may explain to their children some of the advantages the Yankees have, that does not take away from their success.
2) "Relax - kids don't learn messages from sports, and besides hatred of other sports teams can bring people together"
Kids learn all sorts of powerful messages from sports and parents. I am not advocating protecting our children from pain or losses, nor am I encouraging parents to encourage their children to like any particular team. Rather, I'm suggesting that instead of telling our kids to hate the big, bad Yankees, that we explain to them that there are people in the world who have more than others.
People talk about A-Rod and steroids, yet he has only acknowledged taking steroids while with the Texas Rangers. Should we hate the Rangers? I believe encouraging children to dislike someone who is successful places an inordinate focus on others and less of a focus on what kids can control.
There are many historical examples that demonstrate how hatred can create dangerous spirals of more hatred and violence. Children model their behavior after role models. Parents need to remember that kids learn whatever we do.
3) The Yankees only make the playoffs because they have the highest payroll.
4) There is no relationship between payroll and success.
I'm sure both (3) and (4) cannot be true. Some readers seem to assume the Yankees win because they have the highest payroll. Other readers seem to assume that the relationship between the Yankees' payroll and their success is exaggerated by the media, and this illusory correlation trickles down to perceptions that baseball fans hold about the Yankees. Fortunately, we can test these claims scientifically.
I conducted a correlational analysis to examine the relationship between the payrolls of each of the 30 Major League Baseball teams and their 2009 winning percentages. The correlation between payroll and win % was r = .53, p<.005. Thus, we can be 99.5% confident payroll and success are correlated. This correlation is sizable, particularly given all the other factors that can affect performance (e.g., team chemistry, motivation, chance/luck/random variations in performance).
Aron and Aron (1999) discussed the size of correlation coefficients as follows: "An ongoing controversy about the correlation coefficient is what constitutes a large ‘r'". Traditionally in psychology a large correlation is considered to be .50 or above, a moderate correlation to be about .30, and a small correlation to be about .10 (Cohen, 1988). In fact, in psychology it is rare to obtain correlations that are greater than .40."
Thus, it is safe to say that the Yankees payroll is significantly and meaningfully correlated with performance. That said, there are four additional points to keep in mind:
a) There are many variables that help explain success. For example, I also conducted a correlational analysis to test the relationship between win % and major batting, pitching, and fielding statistics. Below is a summary of those correlations:
Correlations between winning percentage and major offensive categories:
Batting average: r = .46
On-base percentage: r = .48
Slugging percentage: r = .59
Correlations between winning percentage and major defensive categories:
Earned run average: r = -.64
Batting average allowed: r = -.58
Slugging percentage allowed: r = -.56
On-base percentage allowed: r = -.68
Strikeout/walk ratio: r = .71
Runs allowed: r = -.66
Walks allowed: r = -.45
Strikeouts: r = .55
Fielding percentage: r = .36
There were also many correlations with win % that were weak and not significant (e.g., at bats, doubles, triples, stolen bases, double plays). In sum, payroll is a significant predictor of success, but so are numerous other variables.
b) Correlation does not equal causation: The fact that payroll and success are correlated does not mean a higher payroll causes a team to perform better. Clearly, teams base a salary on their view (or a previous team's view) of a player's value. As such, better players should be paid more money. However, players with huge, multi-year contracts may perform more poorly in the later stages of that contract, whereas younger players may perform well long before they sign a long-term multi-million dollar contract. It seems likely that the quality of players, not the payroll, is the driving force behind success.
c) Success in the regular season is different than success in the playoffs. The sample size of games in the playoffs creates more variability in performance, which in turn helps explain why it is more likely to see an upset in the playoffs. Furthermore, teams in the playoffs tend to be good, very good, or excellent, once again creating more variability in performance.
d) Irrational beliefs in sport: The media and fans have portrayed the Yankees as an indomitable force that wins simply because it has the highest payroll. We ought to keep in mind that payroll does not hit home runs, payroll does not throw shutouts, and payroll does not make outstanding plays in the field. Although payroll is correlated with success for the Yankees, it is far from the perfect correlation that seems to get represented in the media.
Sports have a powerful influence on our culture. To the extent that sports lead us to think irrationally, they may hinder our thinking about other issues that require logic and sound decision making. In subsequent posts, we will examine how sports fans, the media, coaches, and players create and maintain irrational beliefs surrounding their favorite (or least favorite) team.
