Graph of the Day: Offense and the Economy

by Dan Turkenkopf on May 25, 2009 3:00 PM EDT Comment 11 comments

This weekend, I was discussing with a reader some of the possible reasons for the offensive explosion in the mid-1990s. You're all familiar with the list of possibilities: livelier ball, smaller ballparks, bigger players (both from exercise and from steroids). For some reason, I started wondering whether there was a connection to the economy.

I decided to plot the annual growth rate of America's GDP against the average runs scored in a major league game for each season. Although there's no real relationship before 1993, after that time there's a strange pattern.

Granted it's not an exact pattern, but the offensive levels and the growth rate of the economy appear to move pretty closely over the past 15 years.

Why did this start in 1993? And what might be the reason for it?

Well, Occam's razor suggests coincidence, but that's unfulfilling. So I'll take a stab at some explanations, and welcome any other suggestions.

The early nineties seem to be when baseball as big business really took off. Yes, it's always been a business, but between 1990 and 1992, the average team payroll almost doubled (from $17 million to $32 million). TV and other revenue also grew substantially around this time (although much slower than payroll). Also, the ownership mix has changed in the past few decades. Where in the past many owners were individuals, or small groups, the nineties saw many more corporate owners, who may be more sensitive to economic fluctuations.

The connection between offensive levels and the economy is a little bit harder to explain, especially considering many people have found that the salary rate of free agents is essentially linear compared to their overall value.

Despite those findings, it's always seemed to me that offensive value brought in more money than did defensive value. It's possible that when the economy is growing, owners are more willing to dole out the big bucks to sluggers. When the economy isn't going so hot, perhaps owners and GMs shift their focus to cheaper, more defensive-minded position players - leaving one-dimensional hitters without jobs.

I'm not that satisfied with my explanation, but it's all I've got at the moment. What do you think? Is there anything to this, or is it just a meaningless coincidence?

2 recs | Comment 11 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Correlation?

What’s the R value on those data?

http://statspeak.net

by pizzacutter on May 25, 2009 4:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

r = .47

by Dan Turkenkopf on May 25, 2009 4:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

Odd. Seems to make sense.

WBULTV - BDale TV Prod

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on May 25, 2009 6:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think...

that the correlation between offense and the economey might be slight, but it shows. Players that are payed $20M will probably have more inscentive to hit than someone earning $1M. That also clashed though with players on their contract year and play better for more cash. With any explanation though, offense and economey have a slight correlation.

by JackofAllTrades on May 25, 2009 7:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Is there a connection between GDP growth rate and payroll (or payroll growth rate)?

How about a connectionbetwee payroll growth rate and league scoring (growth rate)?

One thing I worry about in the hypothesized connection based on the graph is that even if owners want to spend less money, they’re still likely to sign the same players, as a group. In order for offense to go down, we’d need to have some big boppers go unsigned and some pitchers and defensive studs not only take some of their money, but their rosters spots and playing time. Do we think owners’ and GMs’ perception of the MLB-quality pool changes?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on May 25, 2009 8:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good question

Although anectdotally that seems to have somewhat this off-season. A fair amount of the FAs who couldn’t find work were power hitters while good defensive players got reasonable contracts. At most we’re talking a difference of 4 or 5 part time players though, so it’s probably not that meaningful.

I didn’t say I necessarily liked my idea, just that it’s what I could come up with :-)

by Dan Turkenkopf on May 25, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I like it, so we're not letting it go ; )

I wonder if the fact that sluggers get paid less means their managers feel less impotus to play them regularly…?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on May 25, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now there's an interesting study...

How big a factor does money really play in playing time decisions?

by Dan Turkenkopf on May 25, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would think a lot

Guys with big contracts, especially long terms ones, are generally given more wiggle room as managers want to try and get something out of them. For example, even after Adam Eaton’s terrible season in 07, he was given 19 starts the next year (and predictably, he pitched terribly). I would suspect that the reason behind that decision, was the fact that Eaton was owed 8 million that year, and the Phillies wanted to give him a chance to turn it around before eating the money.

St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008

by vivaelpujols on May 26, 2009 2:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That seems about right to me

But I’m wondering if big money makes managers/GMs more “loyal” than they would be with a starter making closer to the minimum.

I think it does, but how much?

by Dan Turkenkopf on May 26, 2009 7:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What if we took the Oliver Stone conspiracy perspective...

When the economy is down, MLB needs a boost in revenue. They know that increasing offense means more tickets sold, so they bump up offense (the ball?). When the economy gets better, they bring offense down a bit so as not to have it at 6 RPG eventually.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on May 26, 2009 3:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs