New Stadium Does Not Guarantee Success
Posted by Jeff Lubbers on Friday, February 12, 2010 at 5:31 am
Move over Seattle, the Minnesota Twins are the new darlings of the 2009-2010 Hot Stove Season. In addition to what appears to be an increasing likelihood of signing Joe Mauer to a long term deal, the Twins have made what have been largely regarded as shrewd offseason moves with the acquisitions of Jim Thome, Orlando Hudson, and J.J. Hardy. These moves, coupled with the Twins’ placement in what should again be a relatively weak A.L. Central, have the team already looking forward to the 2010 postseason.
In short it is a good time to be a Twins’ fan. And of course everyone in the organization is looking forward to the team’s move to Target Field for the 2010 season. While playing outdoor baseball in Minnesota in April and September/October may be a concern for some others feel that the issue is overblown. By and large the early reviews have the Twins playing in a beautiful stadium that will be enjoyed for years by players and fans alike.
Target Field will be the 19th new ballpark since Oriole Park at Camden Yards ushered in the Stadium Era in 1992. The ramifications of so many new ballparks are many, including aiding the explosion of power numbers with a number of smaller parks, the issue of whether public funds (which were used in almost all of the new stadiums and often in eye-popping amounts) for private venues are a good use of taxpayers’ money, and an increase in players’ salaries, among many others.
Teams that have opened new stadiums have seen their team payrolls skyrocket. According to the USA Today Salaries Database, since 1991, the year before Camden Yards opened, the average team payroll has increased by 7.49% a year. However, for each of the 18 previous teams that have opened new stadiums they have seen their payroll jump by a whopping 15.3% from their last season in their old stadium to their first season in their new stadium. The table below shows how each team’s payroll fared as they moved to their new digs:
| Team | Year | Payroll | % Change | Winning % | % Change |
| Baltimore Orioles | 1991 | $14,627,334 | .414 | ||
| Baltimore Orioles | 1992 | $20,997,667 | 43.6% | .549 | 32.8% |
| Cleveland Indians | 1993 | $15,717,667 | .469 | ||
| Cleveland Indians | 1994 | $28,490,167 | 81.3% | .584 | 24.5% |
| Texas Rangers | 1993 | $35,641,959 | .531 | ||
| Texas Rangers | 1994 | $32,423,097 | -9.0% | .456 | -14.1% |
| Colorado Rockies | 1994 | $22,979,000 | .453 | ||
| Colorado Rockies | 1995 | $31,146,135 | 35.5% | .535 | 18.0% |
| Atlanta Braves | 1995 | $45,199,000 | .625 | ||
| Atlanta Braves | 1996 | $47,930,000 | 6.0% | .593 | -5.2% |
| Seattle Mariners | 1998 | $52,032,291 | .472 | ||
| Seattle Mariners | 1999 | $44,371,336 | -14.7% | .488 | 3.3% |
| Detroit Tigers | 1999 | $34,959,666 | .429 | ||
| Detroit Tigers | 2000 | $61,740,167 | 76.6% | .488 | 13.8% |
| Houston Astros | 1999 | $55,289,000 | .599 | ||
| Houston Astros | 2000 | $52,081,667 | -5.8% | .444 | -25.8% |
| San Francisco Giants | 1999 | $46,059,557 | .531 | ||
| San Francisco Giants | 2000 | $53,541,000 | 16.2% | .599 | 12.8% |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 2000 | $35,782,833 | .451 | ||
| Milwaukee Brewers | 2001 | $45,099,333 | 26.0% | .420 | -6.8% |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 2000 | $26,561,667 | .426 | ||
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 2001 | $57,760,833 | 117.5% | .383 | -10.1% |
| Cincinnati Reds | 2002 | $45,050,390 | .481 | ||
| Cincinnati Reds | 2003 | $59,355,667 | 31.8% | .426 | -11.5% |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 2003 | $70,780,000 | .531 | ||
| Philadelphia Phillies | 2004 | $93,219,167 | 31.7% | .531 | 0.0% |
| San Diego Padres | 2003 | $45,210,000 | .395 | ||
| San Diego Padres | 2004 | $55,384,833 | 22.5% | .537 | 35.9% |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 2005 | $92,106,833 | .617 | ||
| St. Louis Cardinals | 2006 | $88,891,371 | -3.5% | .516 | -16.5% |
| Washington Nationals | 2007 | $37,347,500 | .451 | ||
| Washington Nationals | 2008 | $54,961,000 | 47.2% | .366 | -18.7% |
| New York Mets | 2008 | $137,793,376 | .549 | ||
| New York Mets | 2009 | $149,373,987 | 8.4% | .432 | -21.3% |
| New York Yankees | 2008 | $209,081,577 | .549 | ||
| New York Yankees | 2009 | $201,449,189 | -3.7% | .636 | 15.7% |
| Minnesota Twins | 2009 | $65,299,266 | .534 | ||
| Minnesota Twins | 2010 | $93,991,667 | 42.7% | - | - |
There are a few items to point out among these numbers. First, the Twins’ 2010 payroll figure of roughly $93 million is an estimate from Cot’s Baseball Contracts and is a figure that will likely change a bit before the actual start of the 2010 season. Even if that figure stays put the Twins would have the fifth largest percentage increase as they enter a new stadium going back to 1992. Furthermore those four teams ahead of them did not find a corresponding increase in team winning percentage, as two of the teams (2008 Nationals and 2001 Pirates) won fewer games the next year and a third (2000 Tigers) still finished below .500.
While these teams’ salaries have skyrocketed as they move to their new homes, their winning percentages have remained virtually the same. Excluding the 2009 Twins of all the teams in the above table their collective record in the last season of their old homes was 1,421-1,430 for a winning percentage of .498. Their collective record in the first season of their new homes was 1,394-1,405 for a winning percentage of….498.
Overall it is not surprising that team payrolls have jumped so much as teams have access to new revenue streams, as they can build on the excitement and novelty of a new place to call home. But it is rather surprising that they have not been able to translate this financial success (gift) into at least some success between the lines.
The Twins still have a number of reasons to be optimistic for 2010 both on the field and on the bottom line. But if history is any guide the fact that they will have a new address for 2010 is not in and of itself a guarantee of any success on the field.
I have half-heartedly researched payroll effect on attendance and when doing so found the new park to be a variable that stopped me from pursuing it any further. It’s interesting that the extra money didn’t translate into wins in what you found. I think there was a chapter in BP’s ‘between the #s” that also talked about the new ballpark effect. Can’t remember if that was on performance or on revenue (I have to believe revenue is boosted)
@David Wade – I’d have to check but I think the effect was on performance and it was very slight. I know this has been looked at generally before – I was most interested in seeing what other teams specifically had such a large percentage increase in payroll. There are obviously many factors in play here.