Damn Yankees! A Brit's baseball question

[Bibliovore]

Having been raised in the UK, I've only ever had a vague awareness of baseball and how it works. I knew it was "America's National Pastime", and that Babe Ruth was a famous player and that a home run was a good thing, but that was about it. Until about five years ago that is. I was working a summer job in Houston one year when my boss invited me out to see an Astros game with his family. He couldn't believe that I'd never seen a game on TV, let alone a live one, so he insisted on introducing me to the game.

I had popcorn. I had a hot-dog and some coke. I listened as he explained what the numbers on the scoreboard meant. I watched as the batter swung, heard the sharp crack of the bat, smiled as the crowd leapt to its feet with an appreciative roar.

I was hooked.

Five years on and I still love the game. I hardly ever get to watch it over here in the UK, and I dream of the day I go to Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium and watch another live game. I'm thrilled by the depth of the game, and the theatre before me. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the 'Stros, but after a careful and considered decision, I think I'm a Red Sox fan. Not sure why, but they just have something that appeals to me.

So here I am, a British Baseball fan, stranded thousands of miles away from a real game, and with one burning question on my mind - Why the hell are those Damn Yankees so dominant? How come they've won the World Series time after time, with an almost monotonous regularity? Is it just that they can out-spend their rivals and buy up all the big talent, or is there another reason?

Please fill me in, guys - what's the deal here?

[Laughing Lagomorph]

The cynics and Yankee haters will tell you that it is money, pure and simple.

Yankee fans and people with better critical thinking skills will point out that other teams spend nearly as much money without the same level of success. Also the Yankees have had long stretches when they weren't that good, including from the mid 1960s to the early 70s, and again from the early 1980s to the mid 90s. During this last period they were near the top of the baseball payroll as they are now, but had almost nothing to show for it in terms of Championships.

I have heard it posited that their success tends to attracts better people at all levels of their organization...the people who have always wanted to work for or play with the Yankees eventually end up there, and they all want to win Championships. Success breeds success. If Pedro Martinez was pitching for the Yankees he would have been pulled earlier in game 7. Nothing personal, Pedro, but we are trying to win a Championship here.

Some advice Bibliovore. Don't torture yourself by being a Red Sox fan. Come over to the Dark Side and be a Yankee fan. And get yourself to another game ASAP. If you liked baseball in Houston you'll love it in Boston, New York, Chicago, or St. Louis.

[wolfman]

It's mostly to do with money. They are simply able to get the best free agents. And if a big free agent signing busts, they can afford to put the huge salary on the bench, and get someone else. And in the last few years it has even corrupted the draft. Each Year there are one or two players in the draft who are considered likely to be very good. It's not an exact science, and they often fail, but they have a decent chance to become a superstar. The draft is designed to give the bad teams a chance to get better by getting one of the good prospects. But lately the good prospects are getting such huge signing bonuses that the poor teams can't afford to draft and pay them. If a poor team has the first pick, they often can't take the best player, instead taking the best player they feel that will accept what they can afford to pay, And leave the best player for a rich team to draft.

There is an additional fact that they do have a huge tradition, and are considered the highest stage in the sport. Given even offers, many players will choose the Yankees over other teams because they can play for the legend. Which ends up being a beneficial circle. The good players go to the Yankees, the Yankees are good, the Yankees get the most attention, the good players want the exposure to get more commerical deals, The good players go to the Yankees.

Or in short,
Is it just that they can out-spend their rivals and buy up all the big talent,

Yes.


There are three or four other teams that can pay alot to their players, due to the large fan revenue they generate as well. Yankees, Mets Braves, and Dodgers are among them. The Yankees you know about, The Braves have good success but never quite went all the eay, but the Mets suck, and the Dodgers are mediocre. So it's not an absolute, figuring out how to write the huge paychecks is an of an art that the Yankees are best at, but the Yankees are still the highest payroll in the league.

[Bibliovore]

I was seriously considering becoming a Yankees fan for awhile, but it just seems too damn easy, you know? Kinda like someone who's just beeing introduced to Basketball becoming a Chicago Bulls fan when Michael Jordan was in his prime - it feels like I'm just jumping on the biggest bandwagon without giving it much thought.

Guess I've just got a thing for underdogs, and I guess you don't get more "underdoggy" than the Red Sox. Except perhaps for the Cubs, but I do have some pride...:D

So you think it's because the best people are drawn to the team at all levels, regardless of how much is spent?

And yes, I'd LOVE to watch another live game, but it looks like I'll have to wait until next season now. Any Boston fans out there wanna buy me a ticket? Uh, for the game, that is - I wouldn't ask anyone to pay for a transatlantic flight...

[wolfman]

ankee fans and people with better critical thinking skills will point out that other teams spend nearly as much money without the same level of success.

Nearly as much?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0721/1583823.html


Thats 50% more. than anybody else. The amount they pay more than the second place teams is basically the entire payroll of 13 teams. And throw in the tax and thats 190 million they are spending for payroll.

[WordMan]

Yankee fan here. A few observations:

1) Yes they spend more money.

2) Yes they can afford to bench expensive flops, and replace them with expensive talent - arguably this provides a minor advantage, but minor advantages mean a lot in baseball.

3) The Yankees teams that have done well may have had role-playing superstars, but the Yankees have always been built around one thing: pitching. The only current team that has a similar approach has been the Braves, and for some reason they can't turn that corner (and, as I think about it, the A's have focused on pitching a ton, too). Other teams, like the Diamondbacks, may have two huge superstars but lack overall pitching depth. (I still can't believe the Yanks traded Branden Clausen for Aaron Boone, even though Booney hit the homer that beat the Sox in Game 7).

4) Yes, they have a cycle of success that attracts most players and feeds on itself.

5) All in all, is having a team like the Yankees in baseball all that bad of a thing? Yankees fans love them, non-Yankees fans love hating them, and every other team is hoping to face them in the World Series 'cuz it makes winning that much bigger of a deal. If baseball was starting out today, I suppose I would want parity, but with the history it has, I enjoy the dynamic of the game - I just wish Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, etc., could play more like Minnesota or Oakland - i.e., small budget teams that work with what they have to maximize their performance....

[Bibliovore]

Hmmm...so it seems that big spending does make a big difference. How, then, are smaller, poorer teams supposed to compete? How do they make the most of what little they've got, as wordman suggests? And how did the Yankees get so rich in the first place?

[meathead]

Another thing concerning the money angle.

I've heard - no cites - that the Yankees spend a lot more money on international scouting than other teams. Does anyone know if this is true?

With no international draft in place, do the Yankees get the best prospects because they are able to throw money at them? If they are a bust so what - they can just sign someone else. Or do their minor league affiliates have to foot the bill on mistakes?

(Heh - I'm sure that was clear as mud)

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by WordMan
5) All in all, is having a team like the Yankees in baseball all that bad of a thing? Yankees fans love them, non-Yankees fans love hating them, and every other team is hoping to face them in the World Series 'cuz it makes winning that much bigger of a deal.
Of course it's a bad thing. There's a reason baseball reached it's popularity peak in the 80s. The top payrolls were fairly similar to each other and different teams were winning each year.

Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, Kansas City, the Mets, Minnesota, Los Angeles, Oakland, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Toronto, Toronto, Atlanta. That was the order of World Series titles each year between Yankees championships during the 80s and early 90s.

And it wouldn't be so bad now if the Yankees weren't outspending every single team by $50 million. But right now, most fans don't have a reason to cheer for their team with continued Yankee payroll dominance. But they are. Anytime you have a team that can just keep increasing its payroll over every other team and poaching top talent until they win a World Series title it's not good for the sport.

[Bibliovore]

I have to agree, Neurotik. If the Yankees win again this year, it'll be "ho-hum, so what's new?" I'd much prefer a tight race beteween several possible contenders rather than an on-going monopoly on the top spot. It's just boring when one team dominates so decisively (except for Yankees fans of course). But then again, I'm just a newbie to the sport (and a Brit to boot), so what the hell do I know, eh?

[kunilou]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
Hmmm...so it seems that big spending does make a big difference. How, then, are smaller, poorer teams supposed to compete?

That's the idea behind the divisional playoff system. The American and National League Central divisions are considered to be composed of "poor" teams, but the playoff system guarantees each of them will have a team make the postseason. A pretty good team in a weak division could make the "wild card" spot in the playoffs, as well.

Once you reach the playoffs and need 3/5 or 4/7 victories to advance, anything can happen.

[Bibliovore]

But even if a "poorer" team makes it all the way to the series, won't they just be blown away by the Yankees (again)? And where did they get all that money in the first place? Is New York significantly richer than other American cities, or do the fans just spend more? Is it all down to advertising or TV rights or merchandising or what?

[Munch]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
Hmmm...so it seems that big spending does make a big difference. How, then, are smaller, poorer teams supposed to compete? How do they make the most of what little they've got, as wordman suggests? And how did the Yankees get so rich in the first place?

Smaller teams compete by making trades and moves in order to excel in a very short-term period of time. It's not uncommon to see a small-market competitor trade off big-time developing talent for 1 or 2 impact players so they can make the final boost at the end of the year. In the long run, it hurts the organization, but it's worth it if they win (see: 2002 Angels, 2001 Diamondbacks*).

*The Diamondbacks won in 2001, right?

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
I'm thrilled by the depth of the game, and the theatre before me.

I agree. I don't give a damn who wins the league championship or the world series, or even the game I'm watching. I even root for the Angles to be down in the second division because then I can drive down to Anaheim during the week and see a game without having to fight a big crowd.

I just like to watch the skill and grace of the players. Sometimes it is amost like ballet.

I used to go to hockey games for the same reason until the NHL ruined their game by all the fighting.

[David Simmons]

That's "Angels," and I reviewed too. Accuracy seems a hopeless quest for me.

[Fatwater Fewl]

Bibliovore: So here I am, a British Baseball fan, stranded thousands of miles away from a real game
Ah, but you're only one click away from the best baseball discussion site on the web. NetShrine (http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/) keeps me sane through winter's baseball void.
But even if a "poorer" team makes it all the way to the series, won't they just be blown away by the Yankees (again)? And where did they get all that money in the first place? Is New York significantly richer than other American cities, or do the fans just spend more? Is it all down to advertising or TV rights or merchandising or what?
No, a poorer team would not necessarily be blown away in the WS because anything can happen in a short series. That's part of what makes the postseason so fascinating. The smaller sample size can magnify a team's or player's performance. A couple of hot pitchers or hot hitters can have a few good games, or a couple of cold players can have a few off games and all of a sudden time's up, the series is over.

It's a wonderful study in contrasts. Teams play a gruelling 162 game regular season schedule which ensures that those teams whose players perform as a group at a consistently higher level than the majority of their opponents will finish the season with better win-loss records. Their reward is entry into a post-season tournament where a brief hiccup (which would probably be statistically irrelevant if it happened over the same number of games in the regular season) in their performance will probably mean the team will find themselves sitting on a dugout bench, heads in their hands, while their opponents hold a celebration on the field.

As for where the Yankees got all the money in the first place: the quick answer is they have a very large and loyal fan base, their own broadcast network, and their principal owner, George Steinbrenner, is a rich man.

Yes, Munch, the D'Backs won in 2001.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
But even if a "poorer" team makes it all the way to the series, won't they just be blown away by the Yankees (again)? And where did they get all that money in the first place? Is New York significantly richer than other American cities, or do the fans just spend more? Is it all down to advertising or TV rights or merchandising or what?
All of the above. New York is by far the most populous city in the country. It's not even close. So they have a much bigger media market and so they get a lot more money from broadcast rights and attendance. Plus, since they've been successful recently, their ticket prices are a lot higher. So it's a double whammy, they get more money per person and they get more people than a lot of other teams. The Mets have the same advantages and they used them wisely in the '80s, but have since fallen prey to stupidity.

If you want more information on how a small market team can compete, pick up a book called Moneyball. It's extremely biased, but it gives you some insight into how Oakland is consistently winning and what their philosophy is.
Originally posted by Munch
In the long run, it hurts the organization, but it's worth it if they win (see: 2002 Angels, 2001 Diamondbacks*).
The Angels didn't do that. The only trades they made were to get Appier and they only gave up Fat Mo for him (who is no longer playing). And to get Kennedy, but that was more of a salary dump move to get an expensive fourth outfielder (Edmonds) off the books.

But they didn't empty their farm. In fact, they have a stronger farm system now than they did 3 years ago.

[cmkeller]

Bibliovore:

Guess I've just got a thing for underdogs, and I guess you don't get more "underdoggy" than the Red Sox.

I hear the Devil Rays are hard-up fopr boosters.

Or, you could become a Royals fan like yours truly.

[NYR407]

Originally posted by David Simmons
I used to go to hockey games for the same reason until the NHL ruined their game by all the fighting.

Not to get off topic but what year did you stop watching NHL hockey, 1928? Fighting seems to be way down over the last 5 years (if not longer). No stats, but I've been and seen plenty of games over the last 30 years and the game today is not as fight oriented.

Anyway, Bibliovore I am glad you chose to root for someone other than the Yankees. One reason they have such a large fan base is because people take the easy way out and root for the perennial winner. I am guessing you can compare them to Manchester United. That is why a lot of people my age also root for the Dallas Cowboys/Oakland Raiders and Boston Celtic/ LA Lakers even though they are not from those areas. They were all strong teams in the 70's and 80's when we were growing up.

Being from Queens, NY it was only natural that I root for the Mets (and hate the Yankees), Jets (American Football) and Rangers (hockey). Its been a long tough road but I've held my ground. To this day I have only witnessed two championships. Mets in 1986 and Rangers in 1994. These teams may be grossly mismanaged but they are my grossly mismanaged teams.

By the way, I had to also watch the Yankees wins 7 or 8? World Series, the Islanders and Devils (hockey) win 4 and 3 Stanley Cups respectfully and the Giants (football) win 2 Super Bowls.

Bottom line on the Yankees:

1. They draft well. Helps also to have more resources nationally and worldwide than anyone.
2. They can afford to sign big $ free agent players (and disregard their salary if they bust). They have signed Baltimores best Pitcher (Mussina), Oakland's best power hitter (Giambi), and Japan's best power hitter (Matsui) in each of the last three years. They also signed Cuba's best refugee pitcher(Contreras) this year and are paying him $8 million a year (for 4 years) to work mostly as a reliever.
3. They can afford to keep their players. If they were a small market team, Jeter, Bernie Wiliams, and Posada (to name a few) would be on different teams by now. The media would then be talking about where Soriano will be playing as a free agent in a few years.
4. Players want to go there to get bigger exposure. There is no bigger stage to play. But with the good exposure comes the bad exposure. Although bad exposure seems more frequent and magnified if you aren't winning (see my Mets).

No matter what team you pick just be sure to stay with them. Wear the logo as proudly when they are in last place as you would when they are in first place. Just realize that first place finishes may be few and far between.

[Xema]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
How, then, are smaller, poorer teams supposed to compete? How do they make the most of what little they've got

A recent book called Moneyball has this as its theme. Very interesting reading, and a good insight into some of the subtler aspects of baseball.


[I may be your US counterpart -- a yank with a fascination for cricket.]

[lieu]

Saw this stat on the news last night regarding the payroll of the 2003 Yankees compared to that of their WS rival Marlins...

Yankees - 164 Million
Marlins - 54 Million

This differs a bit from wolfman's linked figures but the point remains the same.

[JohnBckWLD]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
...I dream of the day I go to...Yankee Stadium and watch another live game...I think I'm a Red Sox fan.Word to the wise, DON'T WEAR A BOSOX JERSEY / CAP. I've seen shit in the Bronx that makes your famed soccer riots look tame by comparison.

Originally posted by NYR407
1. They draft well. Helps also to have more resources nationally and worldwide than anyone.
4. Players want to go there to get bigger exposure. There is no bigger stage to play. But with the good exposure comes the bad exposure. Although bad exposure seems more frequent and magnified if you aren't winning (see my Mets).
1a. They draft well, have a good farm system but scout the old-fashioned way. Part of the A's, Twins and Marlins success can be attributed to modern (PC-based) scouting, which has replaced a notepad, ERA & Batting Average with a laptop, AHW and OBP.
4a. I don't think exposure has much to do with it. It probably has more to do with the mytique, the tradition, the history and success of the best know franchise in the history of the sport.

I concur with George Will, whose passion for the game is almost unrivaled. When comparing Baseball to the other 3 professional team sports, some interesting distinctions arise (paraphrasing):

Baseball, (Unlike Basketball, Football and Hockey Is not played against a clock. Each team gets 27 offensive chances, which leads to unpredictable outcomes. There are no ties. There is no fat lady who takes the form of minutes and seconds. A team can be down 8 runs with one out to go and still come back and win. Such a prospect in unheard of when there are only minutes to go and a huge lead is on the board. Is an individual's sport. One offensive player at a time faces 9 opponents. Has action spread out across of the entire field of play, unlike 10-20 players crowded around a tiny focal point. The defense has control of the ball. Is played in the warm months of spring, summer and fall. Is perfectly symmetrical: 60'6/90/90/90/90 is the perfect distance exciting plays.

Like it or hate it. You can't argue the fact is truly is unique.

[Dogface]

The Yankees buy their status. They spend half again as much as any other team. It is no longer a sport.

[nobrainer]

I will give you that it is now very easy to be a Yankee fan because they are winning, I have been a diehard Yankee fan since the 60's. At the time I found them, they still had Mickey Mantle playing, but they were not a championship team by then. i rooted for them each and every year - first place or last place.

This what makes me slightly angry about Yankee haters. One of thier arguments is that they are always winning. The Yankees were born in 1903. They do not have 100 championships.

As far as the rest of the world suddenly loving the Florida Marlins? Hell, in July the Marlins played the Expos in a three game series that just about 35,000 people attended. Total. Average attendance for that series was around 12,000/per. The Marlins were in a race for the wild card WITH the Expos. S. Floridians didn't care then, but now....... can you say bandwagon?

Success breeds success.... confidence is half the battle. It has nothing to do with money.

[Neurotik]

Right. Money has nothing to do with the Yankees success. :rolleyes:

There's nothing quite so delusional as a Yankee fan discussing his team's finances.

Give me a break.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Neurotik
Of course it's a bad thing. There's a reason baseball reached it's popularity peak in the 80s.
By what objective standard did baseball reach the peak of its popularity in the 1980s? Attendance is quite a bit higher now than it was then.

And it wouldn't be so bad now if the Yankees weren't outspending every single team by $50 million. But right now, most fans don't have a reason to cheer for their team with continued Yankee payroll dominance. But they are.
Well, of course they do. Yankees payroll dominance did not stop Anaheim from beating the hell out of them last year, and so far the Marlins doesn't look very intimidated. While I agree the scope of payroll is becoming a competitive balance issue, you're way, way overstating the case.

The Yankees are NOT invincible - the team, frankly, looks really beatable in 2004 and beyond, due to the age of the pitching staff and lack of obvious candidates to replace them - and most fans have plenty of reason to cheer because almost all teams have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series if they're smartly run. If you don't believe that, please explain how Florida is this close to winning it all. They were one of the teams everyone said had no chance to win in March because of the economics of the sport.

In an eight-team playoff system, there are virtually no teams who cannot win the World Series if they manage themselves reasonably well. Anaheim, Arizona and Florida prove that case. I'll grant Montreal hasn't a chance in hell.

To answer the OP, it's rather easy to explain Yankee success. It's

45% Money. They can spend a lot, and they can outspend their own horrible mistakes. They traded for Raul Mondesi, the baseball equivalent of just piling up $12 million in large bills and setting it on fire. It didn't hurt them because it didn't significantly impact their budget. They're ridiculously rich, thanks to a huge income from cable.

45% Smarts. If you think a stupid organization can win with just money, ask fans of the Dodgers or Orioles how that worked out for them. The disparity in baseball in terms of smart use of money is truly amazing.

My favourite team is the Blue Jays. The Jays this year spent $50 million and went 86-76. Two years ago they spent $80 million, and went 80-82. How does the same team, three years apart, drop its budget by almost 40% and win MORE games? Or how do the A's win a hundred games a year on $50 million while the dodgers win 83 on twice the budget? Brains. The Yankees went through a number of years there were they drafted very intelligently and in some cases let guys play through their growing pains - key players like Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettite, Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera and others. If they didn't have the money they could not have ept them all, but if they hadn't developed them in the first place, there's no way in hell they win all those titles.

10% Managing. Joe Torre IS a terrific manager; he used to not be so great but he learned from experience in other cities. He has done a phenomenally good job and keeping the team's egos in check and he's a very, very, very smart postseason manager who has clearly out-managed his opponents in several big series.

[Jonathan Chance]

Bib, let me introduce you to the most important baseball book in years...

Moneyball (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393057658/qid=1066759623/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-6309714-1888019?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), by Michael Lewis.

It's a year in the life of the Oakland A's and the approach they've developed of overcoming their financial shortcomings.

Basically it boils down to:

1. ALL teams will win at least 40 games. That appears to be the floor.

2. So to make the playoffs you need to produce between 45-55 marginal wins.

3. How does one minimize the $$$/marginal win ratio?

4. Draft kids in college. They may not have as high a ceiling but they'll reach the majors faster and be better when they arrive.

5. Realize that you can't sign big free agents so find out what role players can do and maximize their ability to perform.

6. Realize that On Base Percentage is the ultimate statistic. If you have twice as many people on base as your opponents you will score more runs.

7. Realize that none of the above matters in the post-season. The playoffs are essentially a crap shoot. Getting there is the important thing.

There's one hell of a lot more to it. But it's a great insight into why the A's can make the playoffs repeatedly spending $40 Million dollars and other teams that spend more than $100 Million dollars can't.

A brilliant book. I can't reccommend it enough.

[nobrainer]

If it is all about the money, how do you explain the Royals, Twins, and even the Marlins?

Its about getting the right people to either a) Come together as a team and play well, or b) Expect to always be competative - therefore always play well.

You give the Tigers $100 million. They still would lose 100 games.

[jsc1953]

I would just like to add the quote (author unknown) that "rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for General Motors".

[OxyMoron]

Originally posted by JohnBckWLD
[snip]When comparing Baseball to the other 3 professional team sports, some interesting distinctions arise....
To which I'd add one more, which a friend of mine recently pointed out: it's one of the few sports in which it is the player who scores, rather than the ball/puck. Think about it: in basketball, both varieties of football, and hockey it's the object you care about. Granted, in U.S. football the ball may be accompanied by a player, but with only one exception I can think of it's where the ball is that counts. (The exception is if the ball is thrown to the end zone, where it's the location of the player's feet that matter.)

Is it the player or the ball that scores in cricket?

[Munch]

Originally posted by nobrainer
If it is all about the money, how do you explain the Royals, Twins, and even the Marlins?

Its about getting the right people to either a) Come together as a team and play well, or b) Expect to always be competative - therefore always play well.

You give the Tigers $100 million. They still would lose 100 games.

Right, because those three teams have sustained their excellence over a long period of time. :rolleyes:

You give the Tigers $100 million a year for the next 20 years, and you'll get a couple rings out of it. Move Steinbrenner to Butte, Montana, and he'll lose 120 games.

[BrotherCadfael]

Originally posted by Laughing Lagomorph
Come over to the Dark Side and be a Yankee fan. Yeah. And while you're at it, why not start rooting for Microsoft as well?

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by RickJay
By what objective standard did baseball reach the peak of its popularity in the 1980s? Attendance is quite a bit higher now than it was then.
There are also four more teams (and one of them drew at least 3 million every year except the last 2. And stadiums have higher capacities.

It's quite telling that the Sox-Yanks Game 7 had the highest television ratings for an LCS game in a decade. In 1989, the Oakland-San Fran series had the lowest rating for a World Series with a 16.4. That was higher than the ratings for every single World Series since 1998.

Moreover, there hasn't been a series with an average rating of at least 20 since 1992, whereas the average series rating during the 1980s was 25.2. Indeed, the Red Sox-Yankees Game 7 couldn't even beat the Atlanta-Philadelphia Game 6 in 1993. Game 7 of the 2001 World Series didn't match the average ratings for an entire World Series set during the 1980s. And I think the Yankees' dominance has a lot to do with that, frankly. The 1995 World Series ratings weren't great, but they were right in line with what baseball had been pulling in the early 90s before the strike. But the more dominant the Yankees have been, the lower the ratings have been.

Now, I'll be the first to grant that there are a greater number of entertainment options on the television right now, but that's an extremely steep decline to only attribute it to that. Moreover, it's one thing to go cheer for your own team, especially before they've been eliminated, but an extremely good sign of baseball's popularity would be how many people watch when they don't have a rooting interest.

You are right, however, that baseball's demise has been vastly overstated by the media. And I think it's in better shape than any other sport except football in the US.
Well, of course they do. Yankees payroll dominance did not stop Anaheim from beating the hell out of them last year, and so far the Marlins doesn't look very intimidated. While I agree the scope of payroll is becoming a competitive balance issue, you're way, way overstating the case.
The Yankees have only lost 4 postseason series since 1995 out of 20 series played. To Seattle, Cleveland, Arizona and Anaheim. And Cleveland had the 4th highest payroll when they did it and Arizona had the 8th. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the chances for low payroll teams.

And while anything can happen, the chances of your team winning unless you are in the top 10 in payroll is ridiculously slim. And it's an additional problem if the team is constantly forced to let it's best players go in free agency.
The Yankees are NOT invincible - the team, frankly, looks really beatable in 2004 and beyond, due to the age of the pitching staff and lack of obvious candidates to replace them - and most fans have plenty of reason to cheer because almost all teams have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series if they're smartly run. If you don't believe that, please explain how Florida is this close to winning it all. They were one of the teams everyone said had no chance to win in March because of the economics of the sport.
Well, of course they're not invincible. Anything can happen in a playoff series if you get a bit of luck on your side.

As for the Yankees' pitching staff in 2004, they'll have Mussina, Contreras, and Lieber at least. Possibly Pettitte and Wells. Look for them to pick up a free agent pitcher - Millwood is a strong possibility.

It's a lot easier to be "smarly run" if you have a massive payroll.
In an eight-team playoff system, there are virtually no teams who cannot win the World Series if they manage themselves reasonably well. Anaheim, Arizona and Florida prove that case. I'll grant Montreal hasn't a chance in hell.
Montreal has a better chance than Tampa or Detroit.
45% Money. They can spend a lot, and they can outspend their own horrible mistakes. They traded for Raul Mondesi, the baseball equivalent of just piling up $12 million in large bills and setting it on fire. It didn't hurt them because it didn't significantly impact their budget. They're ridiculously rich, thanks to a huge income from cable.
Increase 45% to around 60% and you'll have a more accurate estimate. Maybe higher than that.
45% Smarts. If you think a stupid organization can win with just money, ask fans of the Dodgers or Orioles how that worked out for them. The disparity in baseball in terms of smart use of money is truly amazing.
Indeed. You still might want to decrease smarts by several percentage points. If they were so smart, how come they couldn't get a competent bullpen together? Remember Mondesi? Or Sterling Hitchcock? Or Drew Henson?
My favourite team is the Blue Jays. The Jays this year spent $50 million and went 86-76. Two years ago they spent $80 million, and went 80-82. How does the same team, three years apart, drop its budget by almost 40% and win MORE games? Or how do the A's win a hundred games a year on $50 million while the dodgers win 83 on twice the budget? Brains.
Brains, or getting lucky and having Delgado have his best season since 2000 and Vernon Wells having what may be a career year and singlehandedly saving my fantasy team.

Can a small market club compete? Certainly. But it's ridiculously difficult and more so to sustain the success. It's telling that only the A's have been able to do so and they have been lucky in that the pitching they rely on so heavily has only had one person go down for any real length of time (Mulder) in the last few seasons.

[litost]

The puzzling thing: If the Yankees' dominance has led to a decline in baseball's popularity, how does one explain the rousing popularity of basketball during the Chicago Bulls era?

My take: The dominance isn't really the factor. It is the perception that money is buying the dominance that puts people off.

[rocking chair]

as a red sox fan you get to learn history. boston won the first world series. until 1918 boston won 6 world series titles. the yankees did not start winning until after "the sale." that is why you will hear things about the curse of the bambino.

the owner of the red sox at that time (who shall remain nameless) not only sold babe ruth to the yankees, he also morgaged fenway to the yankees. yep, fenway was that close to being owned by the yankees.

the team languished under that owner, parts of fenway park caught fire and were never fixed. finally a wonderful owner took over and things started looking up. ted williams arrived, and things looked like they may go boston's way again. unfortunatly, even with williams, boston would lose the world series.

williams is the perfect example of a great player during regular season, bad during post season. boston has had it's share of great players, and chances at the big one.

are they cursed? who knows? all i know is that they tend to lose in the most amazing fashion, that you can feed on for years.

i also know there is nothing better than a sunday afternoon, in early summer, in fenway park, eating fried clams and wondering... will this be the year?

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Originally posted by BrotherCadfael
Yeah. And while you're at it, why not start rooting for Microsoft as well?

Exactly! I mean, who else are you going to root for, Apple? Give me a break-they've been losing market share for years. Glad to see you're coming around, BrotherCadfael! :D

[Hostile Dialect]

Originally posted by litost
The puzzling thing: If the Yankees' dominance has led to a decline in baseball's popularity, how does one explain the rousing popularity of basketball during the Chicago Bulls era?


There are some differences between the Yankees' current dominance and the Bulls' dominance in their era. One is that New Yorkers (and other peoples of the East Coast) are generally snobbier than Chicagoans (and other peoples of the Midwest). (I did live on the East Coast for 10 years, btw, so I'm not just being a whiny Californian.) This probably partially accounts for the fact that the Cubs are "loveable losers" but nobody loves (or really cares about) the New York teams that do lose (Mets, Rangers, etc.)

Another is that there are certain social factors that have been present in America in the last decade or so that are more conducive to a surge in basketball's popularity than one in baseball's; for example, our love of instant gratification and our fast-paced lifestyles. While baseball sometimes allows for more significant comebacks, Big Mo' (the venerable Mr. 'Mentum as opposed to the chubby Mr. Vaughn) changes sides and usurps leaders more quickly and more often in basketball. There is more hope for a basketball team down by 20 points with a few minutes left than for a baseball team down by 8 runs in the last inning--you certainly see more 20-point comebacks in basketball than you see 8-run comebacks in baseball, anyway. Basketball is much more fast-paced than baseball in general, as well, and you can enjoy a basketball game without watching very much of it (and you can also get the 'feeling' of a basketball game from watching its highlights, whereas there are so many subtle plays and momentum changes in each baseball game that a highlight reel can never do a game justice)...while as Tom Sullivan of the San Diego Union-Tribune puts it, "the enjoyment you get from a baseball game is directly proportional to the time and effort you put into watching it" (paraphrased).

Lastly--and I'm not really that sure if this is true, as I wasn't a big basketball fan during the Bulls era (I missed out, I know)--but wasn't the NBA more competitive then than major league baseball is now? It's not just that the Yankees dominate, it's also that a lot of other teams in baseball just aren't that great. Believe me, I know...I live in San Diego.

By the way, Bibliovore, I have the same experience as a rugby fan. I've never been to a game, and I've only seen a couple of games on digital cable TV, on Fox Sports World or whatnot. Anyway, I feel your pain.

Although I can't quite wrap my head around cricket. No offense, but that's just an odd sport.

[Hostile Dialect]

One last thing. The Man will never make me cheer for the Yankees, root for Microsoft or buy Starbucks coffee--not without a fight!

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
...

And yes, I'd LOVE to watch another live game, but it looks like I'll have to wait until next season now. Any Boston fans out there wanna buy me a ticket? Uh, for the game, that is - I wouldn't ask anyone to pay for a transatlantic flight...

I'd be happy to buy you a ticket (assuming you'd pay me back) but you know you can buy them yourself here. (http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp?c_id=bos)

Tickets for the 2004 Red Sox season should go on sale some time soon after New Year's, if past experience is any guide. I see they have a way you can be emailed as soon as tickets become available.
Because of their relatively small stadium (http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bos/ticketing/seating_pricing.jsp) and large, fanatical fan base they sell out practically every home game, so buy early. I don't think you can buy bleacher seats (sec. 34 thru 43) online but any of the other sections shouldn't be a problem. I would avoid sections 1 through 7...in my experience those seats are far from the action and overpriced.

If you have any other questions about buying Red Sox tickets feel free to post them in this or another thread. I'll answer as best I can, and I'm sure other people would be happy to help too. And if you need someone to go to the ticket window in person I can probably help you out...it isn't far from where I work.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Originally posted by wolfman
Nearly as much?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0721/1583823.html


Thats 50% more. than anybody else. The amount they pay more than the second place teams is basically the entire payroll of 13 teams. And throw in the tax and thats 190 million they are spending for payroll.

I'll just point out the obvious-the table you linked shows that some teams spent a buttload of money this year for piss-poor results on the field and in the standings, and others spent way less and got in the playoffs. So, like I said, it isn't just the money. There are other factors at work. Also, looking at salary data for only one year just offers a snapshot. You might have something if you looked at salaries over a span of several years.

Look, I admit baseball has a problem. I would like to see more revenue sharing between the haves and the have nots and I would like all teams to have a realistic chance at the World Series every year. But I am not going to apologize if the team I have been following since 1981 gets into another World Series. I remember too many lean years myself (1982 to 1995 or so). And the Red Sox? They had a realistic chance this year. I actually stopped watching Game 7 when they were leading 4-0 or whatever it was because I figured they had the thing won.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Neurotik
There are also four more teams (and one of them drew at least 3 million every year except the last 2. And stadiums have higher capacities.
No, the stadiums don't have higher capacities. Almost all the new stadia are mid-range in terms of seating capacity. And attendance is much higher even if you account for the four new teams; go ahead, add it up on a per-game basis.

I appreciate that TV ratings are down, but then, the options for viewing are up. The one clear-cut measurement of the sport's popularity that cannot be explained away as a matter of opportunity, attendance, is up.

And while anything can happen, the chances of your team winning unless you are in the top 10 in payroll is ridiculously slim.
Sorry, but that's observably false. You're basic your claim here on what basically amounts to a run of luck the Yankees have had in postseason play.

If it's a "ridiculously slim" chance for low-payroll teams - well, please explain the Marlins. Obviously, they have more than a ridiculously slim chance. The A's certainly have a better than ridiculously slim chance, even if they've made some astoundingly dumb baserunning errors. Basing your conclusion on a handful of games and saying nobody has much of a chance is silly.

Montreal has a better chance than Tampa or Detroit.
Explain to me, in logical terms, why Detroit could not win the World Series if they had any brains at all. Detroit has a big market. A new stadium. They have absolutely no excuse whatsoever.

Montreal, while they have a decent team now, will not be permitted to continue winning until they're sold and moved. MLB won't allow it.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by WordMan
Yankee fan here. A few observations:

1) Yes they spend more money.


4) Yes, they have a cycle of success that attracts most players and feeds on itself.

Put these two together you have the whole story. They have ALWAYS been able to outspend their opponents, both i free agents and minor league aquisitions. They can afford to offer other teams anything to pry away their talent.

And free agents want to play there because they ALL want a ring, and in that cycle, being a Yankee is the best way to accomplish that goal.

[Marley23]

Hmmm...so it seems that big spending does make a big difference. How, then, are smaller, poorer teams supposed to compete?
Whether you spend a lot of money or a little, you have to do it intelligently. The last two years, three 'poor' teams have made the playoffs (out of 8 total playoff teams). Oakland and Minnesota made it both years, Anaheim won the Series last year, and the Marlins are in the series this year. So 'poor' teams are not only able to *make* the playoffs, they can win there. Baltimore and Los Angeles, just to pick two examples, used to have huge payrolls and still sucked. Texas has a big payroll (less than last year) and they're awful. Ditto this year's Mets.* Obviously having more money to spend makes it easier to win, but paying players a lot of money doesn't guarantee they'll produce and doesn't guarantee that you'll win. The Yankees also have a very well-run organization. A number of their stars (Soriano, Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Pettite) came out of their farm system.

The Yankees don't just attract players with money, it's that their organization has a history of success like no other dating back to Babe Ruth. They have a mystique, and as others have said, New York is the biggest stage in the country, so players want to see if they can succeed there. The Mets benefit from this as well. It gives New York another leg up.

*The reason the Midwestern Cubs are loveable losers and the Mets aren't isn't just 'East Coast snobbery.' It's that the Cubs have been losers for a long, LONG time. The Mets were a good team just a few years ago (they made the World Series in 2000), and won titles in '69, '73, and '86. The Cubs prior to this year hadn't won a division title in a good while, they haven't been to the World Series in almost 60 years, and prior to this year hadn't won a playoff series since 1908. No other bad team in baseball can even approach that kind of futility- the Tigers were a powerhouse in the 80s, the Red Sox win most of the time, they just don't go all the way, the Devil Rays haven't been around long enough, etc.*

[Bibliovore]

Okay, for the record, Cricket sucks. It's too damn genteel, and regardless of any minor similarities it may share with baseball, it just can't compete in terms of spectacle and drama. Hitting a cricket ball into the crowd will earn you a polite round of applause and some appreciative murmurs from the commentators. Hitting a home run will get the crowd on its feet and roaring, and is a thing of beauty forever (unless you're rooting for the defense).

Anyhoo, I think I'm a Red Sox fan because of the history of the team, and the fact that they seem to have a good shot each year. Pedro Martinez is brilliant, and I hope he stays healthy. Garciaparra seems to be their biggest hitter. It would be nice to see them bring in some Japanese talent, as the Mariners' Ichiro Suzuki and the Yankees' Matsui both seem to be doing well. All in all, they seem to be a team I can be proud of and realy get behind.

So, it looks like I'll have to plan myself a holiday to Boston next year (do they really have fried clams at Fenway?). I'll be taking a week at New York before the end of the year, just to see what the city's really like (and to check out the opposition!) Can you visit Yankee stadium in the off-season, or is it closed? Don't they have a museum or something there, too? I think i'll visit ground zero as well and pay my respects, but I'm really looking forward to seeing the city, having a hot dog from a stand, eating at a deli, checking out some museums, the Empire State, etc. Let's see how realistic all those movies were...

Finally, is there any place a baseball newbie like me can get better acquainted with the sport on-line? Most of the sites out there seem to be for long-term, hard-core fans, and it can be a little intimidating if you don't know your stats. Is there any place where I can take it slow and avoid a flaming?

[Neurotik]

The three best sites for baseball are, IMO, Baseball Primer (www.baseballprimer.com), Baseball Prospectus (www.baseballprospectus.com) and ESPN's baseball (www.espn.com/mlb/index) section. Just read everything. Most of the stats are pretty easy to figure out, but I still don't understand what half the stats are at the Prospectus site. I still usually enjoy the columns, though.

[Jonathan Chance]

Lemme throw www.baseball-reference.com and www.retrosheet.com into the mix.

Baseball Prospectus is the premier baseball study place on Earth, though. You can't go wrong there.

[BobLibDem]

One factor that works against the Yankees is that not every player can play in New York. There have been players that played like Mickey Mantle in other cities, then get traded to the Yankees and play like Mickey Mouse. Don Gullet comes to mind...Jim Spencer. I'm sure others can supply better examples. The Yankees can spend the money and bring in good players, but that is no guarantee those players won't wilt in the spotlight.

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by NYR407


Originally posted by David Simmons
I used to go to hockey games for the same reason until the NHL ruined their game by all the fighting.
Not to get off topic but what year did you stop watching NHL hockey, 1928? Fighting seems to be way down over the last 5 years (if not longer). No stats, but I've been and seen plenty of games over the last 30 years and the game today is not as fight oriented.


Five years? You and I are operating on different time scales. I have't paid any attention to NHL games since the mid 1960's, going on 40 years now.

Hockey has always been a rough game and that's not what I'm talking about. What I mean is those cases where gloves and sticks are thrown down and the whole game stops while two troglodytes dance around on the ice.

I do, now that I think on it, remember that I read that the NHL had become concerned about such action-stopping fights and was going to do something about it. Maybe that accounts for your perception of fewer of them.

The recent incident in the Yankee-Red Sox game is the same sort of thing. The gestured threats to throw at the batter's head by the Red Sox pitcher were totally out of line and ruined the action of the game. He should have been tossed out of the game right then. If baseball allows such incidents without harsh penalties the game will lose much of its attraction for me. If I want to watch tag team I'll go to professional "wriestling," ugh.

[Count Blucher]

Successful Athletes want a reward that they can show off for their hard work. Money's nice, but a brainsurgeon can make money. He wants something to show he's the best in baseball for that year. A World Series Ring does that. And, like them or not, The Yankees get the job done.

Sure, there have been long stretches without and no one can forget that one of the best players to Ever play the game, Don Mattingly, retired without ever having his own WS Ring. While I can't say I listen in conversations between players and their agents, I'd be lying if I told you that I'd never heard of "Pulling a Mattingly" (Paying well, but ending up ringless). Players don't want to 'pull a Mattingly', and if the Yankees are winning, and they have the talent, that will figure into job offers they consider.

[NYR407]

Originally posted by fetus
There are some differences between the Yankees' current dominance and the Bulls' dominance in their era. One is that New Yorkers (and other peoples of the East Coast) are generally snobbier than Chicagoans (and other peoples of the Midwest). (I did live on the East Coast for 10 years, btw, so I'm not just being a whiny Californian.) This probably partially accounts for the fact that the Cubs are "loveable losers" but nobody loves (or really cares about) the New York teams that do lose (Mets, Rangers, etc.)

Snobby? Ok? :rolleyes:

Well I take exception to the fact that no one cares about the Mets and Rangers when they lose. I haven't been spending my money on winners every year but I've been supporting my teams. Sure attendance is down at Shea when they lose but trust me Yankee fans are no different. The Mets were a bigger draw in NY in the 80's than the Yankees. Hell in the 90's Steinbrenner was threatening (although it was an empty threat) to move to Jersey if he didn't get a new ball park because he wasn't drawing enough at the gate at crappy run down Yankee Stadium in the decrepit Bronx (how George was making his pitch).

Oh and the number one reason for Bull popularity is Michael Jordan. People wanted to see him play. Same as Gretzky was to hockey in the 80's.

[NYR407]

Originally posted by quietman1920
Sure, there have been long stretches without and no one can forget that one of the best players to Ever play the game, Don Mattingly, retired without ever having his own WS Ring.

Funny, the Hall of Fame Committee doesn't think he is one of the greatest ever. If they did he'd been in the HOF by now. I'm not saying he was a bad player but "one of the best players to Ever play the game" is a stretch.

Replace Don Mattingly with Ernie Banks and I would agree.

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
So, it looks like I'll have to plan myself a holiday to Boston next year (do they really have fried clams at Fenway?). I'll be taking a week at New York before the end of the year, just to see what the city's really like (and to check out the opposition!) Can you visit Yankee stadium in the off-season, or is it closed? Don't they have a museum or something there, too?
The Yankees do offer tours in the off-season, it looks like.

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nyy/ballpark/nyy_ballpark_stadiumtours.jsp

In true Yankee fan-hating fashion, they also seem to be charging out the ass for it.

As for the Fenway food, I haven't seen fried clams there (although, I'm sure you could find some, somewhere), but the clam chowder is spectacular, especially on a cool night in April or September. Really hits the spot. No day at Fenway would be complete, however, without a Fenway Frank. Mustard only, no ketchup.

Welcome to Red Sox Nation, btw. :)

[lurkernomore]

Meathead

I've heard - no cites - that the Yankees spend a lot more money on international scouting than other teams. Does anyone know if this is true?


Theer are a handful who spend a lot on international. The Yanks spend a lot, may well be the most, but other organizations, notably LA, spend an awful lot too.


NYR407 ,

>1. They draft well. Helps also to have more resources nationally and worldwide than anyone.

They don't. The internationals you don't draft. You buy the Matsuis and Sorianos from Japan, the Contrerases and El Duques from Cuba. They aren't drafted. Look at their lineup from yesterday: Soriano (free agent, Japan) Jeter (their system - but debuted in 1995), Giambi (free agent, Oakland), Williams (their system, debut 1991), Matsui (free agnet, Japan), Posada (drafted 1990, debut 1995) Garcia (traded - a journeyman with his 6th MLB team), Boone (traded for, Cincy system), Mussina (free agent, Baltimore)

9 guys, 2 from trades (Boone, Garcia), 3 drafted, all debuted 1995 or earlier, 4 free agents - in the big slots - leadoff, 3rd and 5th in lineup, starting pitcher. (Cleanup was a draftee)

P.S. Shoot Sather.

Nerotik,


There are also four more teams (and one of them drew at least 3 million every year except the last 2. And stadiums have higher capacities.


False on stadium capacity. Parks are tending to be smaller, "more intimate retro-style". A couple of examples:

>The Jake's greatest appeal might be its complete disassociation from Cleveland Stadium, the Indians' uninviting, impersonal home for six decades. Jacobs Field (capacity 43,863) is everything the Stadium (74,483) was not

http://www.sportingnews.com/baseball/ballparks/jacobs.html

same source, Pittsburgh 3 Rivers first, then new PNC:

>Capacity: 47,972

>move into a 38,000-seat PNC Park in 2001.

Baltimore went from 54,000 to 49,000

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/MemorialStadium.htm

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/al/CamdenYards.htm

(Sorry to change sources, SN didn't have capacity in all articles)

Getting the 25,000 each night will get you 2 million, 37,500 3 million, and even the Cubs came close this year, and they only hold about 39,000.

Rocking Chair
are they cursed? who knows? all i know is that they tend to lose in the most amazing fashion, that you can feed on for years.


I was half expecting this to happen this year, but maybe they are saving it for a WS Game 7. Sox up 4-3, bottom of the 9th, 1 out, bases loaded: Grounder up the middle, looks like an easy DP for Nomar, it hits the bag, goes over his head, 2 runs score. Babe Ruth laughs so hard he falls off his barstool in the Hereafter.

Marley23

No other bad team in baseball can even approach that kind of futility

Try the Phillies. 1 WS win. this is, what, the 99th? They had a stretch of 13 years (1933-1945) where they finished last 9 times, next to last the other 4, with 5 straight 100 loss years. You've got 2 in your history. Heck, the METS never had 5 in a row. Plus the whole 1964 deal, which had RED SOX fans thinking choke....


Question on Cubs fans - are they tremendously loyal, in a city that hasn't had either team win a WS since 1917, or be IN it since 1959 (WS), or just crazy? Something about a day game at Wrigley, though.

[Fatwater Fewl]

Bilbliovore, check your email.

[Fatwater Fewl]

Sorry, that would be Bibliovore.

[ElvisL1ves]

Bibliovore, are you a Manchester United supporter? If so, then you'd be a fine Yankees fan. If not, then you know why not - there are few differences worth discussing between the two teams and their fans. They even have a joint marketing agreement.

Some other thoughts, randomly compiled from a quick skim of the thread:

The Yankees' chronic success isn't only due to money disparities. There seems to be a spirit of confidence bred of success that gets passed down through generations of players, and helps them come through tough spots in games. The Red Sox have a spirit of lack of confidence in big games, bred of chronic lack of success there (and pounded in by a large amount of fairly thoughtless, hopeless commentary among the local sports media). The Yankees' confidence, and their opponents' lack of it, have something to do with Mariano Rivera, too.

Red Sox home tickets are the scarcest and most expensive ones in the game. If you're serious about seeing a game in Fenway, save those pence. But be prepared for a disappointment - it's old, often dirty, with uncomfortable seats and poor sightlines for most of them, despite its small capacity.

Don't be fooled by average attendance figures, as RickJay suggests. There are a few cornerstone franchises, the Red Sox and Yankees among them, that bring up the average, but there are many more that don't. TV ratings are meaningful - fans have an opportunity not to go the games, not just an opportunity to change the channel, RJ. Those numbers are generally down, and worse, surveys of young sports fans' favorite sports rarely have baseball ranked among the top ones.

Montreal was a real playoff contender for much of this season, until realizing that they would not be allowed to get that extra player or so that might put them over the top. The franchise is hopeless long-term, but not at the moment.

Don't take Moneyball too seriously. There are many who know Beane who think he's an egotist and won't deal with him anymore. Oakland hasn't actually won a single playoff series during Beane's tenure, or he might have some credibility about how to do it.

The best sites to read, as a casual fan: espn.com, sportsillustrated.com, and the hometown newspapers of the teams you're interested in (for the Red Sox, that would be boston.com and bostonherald.com). Each team has its own constantly-updated site via mlb.com, too.

[NYR407]

lurkernomore, pardon me. I meant they scout well. I know you don't draft international players.

My answer on the Cubs fan question:

The only other team in Chicago to root for is the White Sox. Not really much of a difference as far as longevity in losing goes.

[wakimika]

Why do so many boo-hoo-hoo about how much the Yankees spend?

Are they breaking the rules? Operating at a financial loss? No and no.

If it's such a problem then baseball should fix it. It's not the Yankees fault that baseball has no real, independent commissioner. Should Steinbrenner voluntarily spend less? The more they win, the more money they make, the more they spend. A little thing called capitalism.

If Tampa Bay can't support a competetive team then bye-bye Tampa Bay. Fold. Who cares? The sport doesn't need 29 teams; I think 20 would be plenty.

Are dynasties boring? Think about the Lakers, the Celtics, the Bulls, the 49'ers, the Cowboys, the Islanders etc.

Parity. Now that's boring.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
And yes, I'd LOVE to watch another live game, but it looks like I'll have to wait until next season now. Any Boston fans out there wanna buy me a ticket? Uh, for the game, that is - I wouldn't ask anyone to pay for a transatlantic flight...

I won't get you a ticket to Fenway Park for a Red Sox game but if you make your way to Chicago I'll pop for the Cubs tickets and beer (or soda but in Wirgley only kids are allowed soda ;) ) and food.

Yes, the Cubs are even more stinky than the Red Sox but you will not find a better major league park in the US to watch a baseball game than Wrigley Field. A recent poll of professional baseball players listed Wrigley Field as the number one place they liked to play in. Other stadiums are more modern but there's no replacing the classic feel of the 'Friendly Confines' in Chicago. However, I did see an interview with one outfielder several years ago who said the park he liked playing in the least was Wrigley Field. His issue was that running back to catch a fly ball and running into the brick wall was a painful prospect (most fields have padding back there but Wrigley just has ivy covering a brick wall...the ivy fools the player into forgetting that a brick wall is there and the ivy provides zero cushion).

[amarone]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Bibliovore, are you a Manchester United supporter? If so, then you'd be a fine Yankees fan. If not, then you know why not - there are few differences worth discussing between the two teams and their fans. They even have a joint marketing agreement.
Bummer. I was going to post a short summary but ElvisL1ves partially beat me to it: The Yankees are the baseball equivalent of Manchester United: rich, arrogant, successful, loved by some, hated by many.

And this Brit also thinks that baseball is a wonderful game.

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by NYR407
lurkernomore, pardon me. I meant they scout well. I know you don't draft international players.



I'm sure you do. For the others, the baseball draft only includes the US, Canada, and, I believe, Puerto Rico.

My point is, the Yankees aren't really digging for their foreign imports. The days where they got a Riviera from Panama is gone. The buy the high-profile ones everyone's heard of. Irabu, from Japan. El Duque, then return to Cuba for Contreras, national team players who had already faced major leaguers in a Camden Yards exhibition. Matsui, the MVP in Japan. They don't get unknowns any more. The biggest unknown is some of their ages (El Duque, and that 3B from Cuba - Morales, was it?)

Heck, they're paying an average of $4M or so to a guy who almost no one feels is gonna make the majors for more than a cup of coffee (Henson) and they signed a free agent they knew would miss the year (Leiber). Talk about stockpiling...

Is it illegal? No, but if the money didn't give them a big advantage, why spend so much? As such, any championships they win, it can be questioned if it was just because of the money. When your payroll is 50% higher than the next guy, that is a valid question.

Of course, payroll can be badly misspent, (Mets, Dodgers, etc) but if you look at payroll/wins, the Yankees are right there with the Mets.

[rocking chair]

you buy the fried clams across the street from the park.

bibliovore, i have quite a few red sox books. i could send some across the pond to you if you are interested.

lurkernomore, i'm considering the "tripping over my own feet" move by the first baseman, this year's how we lost story.

[Flymaster]

rocking chair, just out of curiosity, where does one get these fried clams? Nothing will make be abandon the traditional Beer Works (a must visit, pregame) and Sausage Guy, but clams could be added in to my normal pregame ritual.

[IUHomer]

wakimika,

The argument that "if the current no salary cap system is a problem then baseball should fix it" is not as simple as that. The players union won't let them fix it because they make more money that way. I don't blame them, I'd feel the same way. However, the Yankees winning another World Series, or even being in it again, does absolutely NOTHING for the average baseball fan OR for MLB in its fight to keep up with the NFL, NBA or even the NCAA and NHL in national popularity and TV ratings. Parity is a necessity to keep fans interested in every single city that has a team. Otherwise, the ratings go in the toilet just like they have been doing for MLB for the past 10 years. There is no interest in this series and there has been very little interest in the World Series recently, at least compared to the big events like the SuperBowl, NCAA FInal Four, COllege football "championship", etc. The Yankees deep pockets do indeed have a significant impact on the decline in popularity nationwide of the supposed "national pastime." You can claim "Who cares" about all the other teams all you want, but the decline popularity of the game will continue.

[Bibliovore]

Wow. Thanks for all the advice and the huge outpouring of welcome, guys. I'm a little overwhelmed (sniff!). It's really nice to belong to a group of like-minded guys who understand the important things in life.

To answer some of your questions, I'm not a Manchester United fan. I'm not even a football (soccer) fan, but even if I was, I wouldn't be a Manchester United fan, for exactly the same reasons that most of you aren't Yankee fans. They're just too big, too arrogant, too rich, and too dominant.

To be honest, I'm regarded as somewhat of an oddity amongst my friends and colleagues for not liking football. There's something vaguely sacriligious or unpatriotic about my indifference to the "beautiful game" that unnerves them. I frankly couldn'y give a toss about it, and I know practically nothing about the intricaies of who's been traded, who's in trouble, etc, and nor do I want to. And yet, even despite my willful ignorance, you cannot live in England and not know something about football. Sheer cultural pressure forces it through the skin like some strange and horrible form of osmosis. So the one most important fact that I've learned is that Manchester United are to be reviled.

Many, Many thanks to those of you who've offered to buy me tickets, or to help me buy tickets. I'm so desperate to watch a live game, (any game), that I'd gladly watch the Phillies against the Expos, or the Brewers against the Royals. Anything as long as it's for real. Watching the Cubbies in Wrigley Field would be great, even if I know what the outcome is going to be, but I don't think I'll be heading to Chicago just yet. boston and New york are top of my list, and then I check out the other cities, holiday permitting.

Thank you, rocking chair, for your offer of books, I really, really appreciate the kind thought. However, I wouldn't dream of asking you to shell out on Trans-Atlantic shipping just to loan a complete stranger your prized Sox books. Perhaps I could just buy them myself from Amazon if you tell me the titles?

I didn't realise Fenway Park would be so expensive or so decrepit, but nevertheless, I think the sheer thrill of being there would more tham make up for the hole in my wallet and the uncomfortable seat. Fried clams sound great, but who is this "Sausage Guy", of which you speak?

Damn. I'm really hungry now.

[Bibliovore]

Hmmm....

And just taking a look at events in the World Series at the moment, it looks like Rodriguez has hit the 13th walkoff homer in Series history.

So what's a "walkoff homer"?

[Bibliovore]

Er, sorry, that was Gonzalez, not Rodriguez

[amarone]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
Hmmm....

And just taking a look at events in the World Series at the moment, it looks like Rodriguez has hit the 13th walkoff homer in Series history.

So what's a "walkoff homer"? A home run that ends the game, so they "walk off" the field. It occurs when the home team hits the go-ahead run with a homer in the 9th inning or later.

[Bibliovore]

Got it. Isn't that the same thing Boone did to the Sox in the 11th inning of Game 7?

I'm still hurting from that one. Even across the Atlantic, I can feel your pain, guys...

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Don't take Moneyball too seriously. There are many who know Beane who think he's an egotist and won't deal with him anymore. Oakland hasn't actually won a single playoff series during Beane's tenure, or he might have some credibility about how to do it.

Oh, this is crap. The numbers are clear that Beane has invented a new way to look at a season. Maximize the return and minimize the risk.

The post-season is a crapshoot and it always has been. Get used to it.

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
I didn't realise Fenway Park would be so expensive or so decrepit, but nevertheless, I think the sheer thrill of being there would more tham make up for the hole in my wallet and the uncomfortable seat. Fried clams sound great, but who is this "Sausage Guy", of which you speak?

Damn. I'm really hungry now.

You have to realize Fenway is the smallest big league park, and the second oldest (I think it was built in 1914 or so?), next to Wrigley (Chicago). The seats make you long for that luxurious airline seat (see Pit rant on economy class seats).

And you are learning the terms well, Grasshopper - Aaron Boone's HR was indeed a walkoff.

[Bibliovore]

Ok, but what about the sausages man?

Do you know how hard it is to find a halfway-decent beef frank in this country? Everything over here is pork, and if it isn't pork, its lips and assholes. I'd kill for a proper ballpark dog, and I'd maim for a real pretzel.

Anyone got any ballpark food favorites, or anything unusual like the clams?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
The post-season is a crapshoot and it always has been. Get used to it. How many times do you have to shoot snake-eyes before you think it might not be random?

wakimika, the franchises compete on the field, but in business they're partners. The business success of each depends upon the business success of the others, and business success is generally a result of competitive success. The Yankees need the Devil Rays. Most sports owners seem to grasp that they're in a partnership, but Steinbrenner has never seemed to. To the credit of the others, including Selig (who, as commissioner, is a tool of the owners), they have made the first steps toward some financial equalization, like the other NA pro leagues have. The "luxury tax" is hardly sufficient, but it's a start - only the Yankees pay it, and naturally they were the only franchise to vote against it.

bibliovore, a "proper ballpark dog" is lips and assholes. The Chicago-style dog will be so laden with vegetable matter that you won't taste it, though. For a real pretzel, the big, soft ones with mustard, you have to go to Philadelphia. That's the place for the true cheesesteak, too.

A further note of caution if you're still considering joining Red Sox Nation: It's become quite trendy, in recent years, among the self-proclaimed intelligectual community. Too many trees have given their lives to produce self-indulgent, nostalgic books and articles about the magic of Fenway, the spiritual significance of baseball, the mythical comparisons to Sisyphus, and even worse rot than that. You can co-exist with those people, but they come with the package.

[Jonathan Chance]

From ElvisL1ves
How many times do you have to shoot snake-eyes before you think it might not be random?
I'd settle for more than once. But you better show me the dice, first. The numbers bear me out in showing that regardless of team record there's only a slight trend in that controlling who wins the World Series.

Here's the WS numbers since 1903. I put this together this morning from numbers available at www.baseball-reference.com because I figured that assertion would be challenged.
Quote used to offset the data. I put this together myself, dammit.
WS won by teams that were 10 or more games better than their opponents in the regular season: 13

WS won by teams that were 6-10 games better than their opponents in the regular season: 16

WS won by teams that were 1-5 games better than their opponents in the regular season: 19

WS teams with the same record: 4

WS won by teams that were 1-5 games worse then their opponents in the regular season: 24

WS won by teams that were 6-10 games worse then their opponents in the regular season: 18

WS win by teams that were 10+ games worse than their opponents in the regular season: 4

Percentage of WS winning teams who were better than their opponents: 48.98%

Percentage of WS winning teams who were worse than their opponents: 46.94%

There appears to be a trend towards very good teams beating very bad teams (13-4) but if we remove those outliers the smart money is on the team that is WORSE in the regular season! (35-42)

If that doesn't support my hypothesis that the playoffs are, in reality, about small sample sizes and therefore essentially random I'll eat my hat.

Hell, I should write this up and see if BP will publish it.

[Munch]

Originally posted by wakimika
Parity. Now that's boring.

Right. Because the NFL is currently sooooo boring right now, what with the constantly changing dominant teams, the ebb and flow of free agents v. developing talent and the massively high ratings/attendance. If only they could live up to the standards set by the Detroit Tigers, the NFL could really take off.

[Bibliovore]

I have to agree with Munch. Continued, predictable dominance by any one team is boring. If a whole bunch of teams are in with a real chance and fighting for that ring, it makes for a much more interesting post-season.

If the Yankees win again this year, it'll barely rate a raised eyebrow.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
Oh, this is crap. The numbers are clear that Beane has invented a new way to look at a season. Maximize the return and minimize the risk.

The post-season is a crapshoot and it always has been. Get used to it.
Uh-huh. A few things - first off, Beane didn't invent anything. All his ideas come from other people, all he did was implement it.

Second, it's interesting that Oakland has scored fewer runs every season Beane has been in charge, even though their payroll has increased. And his offense is anchored by two guys that Beane doesn't like. Mr. Swings-at-everything Tejada who Beane trashed in the book, and Chavez who never went to college and so would never be drafted by Beane according to the book.

And, of course, Beane was the one who decided to draft Ariel Prieto instead of Helton. And who signed a crappy and unreliable Magnante (who he also trashed in the book) and lost a compensatory pick because of it. And, of course, there's not much delving into why Beane forced the team to go with Zito instead of Sheets. It's because Beane couldn't get an affordable agreement with Sheets, so they went with their backup Zito, instead.

And of course, Jeremy Giambi (the OBP machine) who has pretty much sucked and will be lucky
And the post-season is a crapshoot, but it's not THAT much of a crapshoot. And a lot of the time you make your own luck. Oakland has lost two postseason series because of fundamental mistakes on the basepaths and assorted other little defensive mistakes that have cost them. Part of that may be because Beane doesn't pay much attention to defense and plugs guys in where he needs them based on their offense.

Look, Beane is a very good GM. And OBP is a very important stat. But the fact remains that a huge part of their success comes from guys that Beane didn't draft and didn't want and a superb pitching staff that has been extremely lucky injury-wise.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
There appears to be a trend towards very good teams beating very bad teams (13-4) but if we remove those outliers the smart money is on the team that is WORSE in the regular season! (35-42)

If that doesn't support my hypothesis that the playoffs are, in reality, about small sample sizes and therefore essentially random I'll eat my hat.
Superficial analysis. It ignores the fact that different teams in the World Series have played different schedules - especially during eras of the unbalanced schedule. Thus one team might seem to be better than another team if you just look at their record, but in reality be better.

Plus it ignores various factors that occur during the regular season. For instance, last season the Angels didn't have the best record, but they did have the best run differential. So were the Angels really not as good as the Yankees or Oakland? The argument could be made either way. Similarly, it ignores trades during the season. A team could be get significantly better due to a trade or a key player coming off an injury, meaning the team might be better during the playoffs than they were at the start of the season. An example might be the Marlins getting Beckett back for the stretch run, bringing up Willis and Cabrera mid-season or changing the manager. The Marlins had the best record in baseball since the end of May, it's just their crappy start brought their record down. That's 4 months and 2/3 of the season being the best team in the majors. Were they really worse than the Cubs or Giants when the playoffs started?

You're going to have to go a bit more in depth in your analysis than that.

[RickJay]

I would have to agree Beane is much overrated. Oakland's success has largely been due to its strong pitching staff. Beane didn't invent Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, and Mark Mulder. He wasn't even the guy who scouted them.

Having said that, it is simply not true that Beane has ignored defense. The A's are a pitching and defense team; their defense is quite good. Ellis, Tejada and Chavez are all very strong defensive players. The YANKEES, by comparison, are a poor defensive team, one of the worst defensive teams to ever win a pennant; their infield blows it right out the ass and Bernie Williams isn't very good in centre anymore. But they can rip the ball and they can pitch.

The A's failure in the postseason isn't that dramatic a data point; they're 8-12. Shit happens. Granted, they seem to have some weird problem with baserunning; I have never seen a major league team lose a game because TWO players forgot to touch home plate, but the A's managed to pull that off.

Remember, though, that this sort of thing is hardly unprecedented. The Royals and Phillies both lost the LCS three years in a row, in the same years (1976-1978.) The Houston Astros as a franchise have had a run of post-season incompetence unmatched by any other team - I think they're up to six straight postseason losses now. And the Yankees are hardly the first team to roll up a bunch of playoff wins. Sometimes you don't get the breaks and sometimes you do.

Or look at it another way; since their current run of playoff appearances began, the Yankees are

1995: 2-3
1996: 11-4
1997: 2-3
1998: 11-2
1999: 11-1
2000: 11-5
2001: 10-7
2002: 1-3
2003: 9-6, so far

Overall that's a record of 68-34 - a fantastic record, but hardly supernatural, and in the last 3 years they're a good but unspectacular 20-16.

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
There appears to be a trend towards very good teams beating very bad teams (13-4) but if we remove those outliers the smart money is on the team that is WORSE in the regular season! (35-42)

If that doesn't support my hypothesis that the playoffs are, in reality, about small sample sizes and therefore essentially random I'll eat my hat.

Hell, I should write this up and see if BP will publish it.

Trouble is, the teams are coming out of different samples. They didn't play the same teams during the regular season. If, say, the NL had been improving, getting better performance out of their players for a few years due to good drafts, but it happening leaguewide, their champ may be better than the AL champ, but have a worse record due to tougher, more even competition. Also, if a couple of teams are really bad, Detroit-Tiger bad, it inflates the record of everyone else around them.

Of course, the AL may then reverse the trend, get better drafts, and be dominant for a few..

[Jonathan Chance]

Well, I was going to do it by OPS and ERA (league and park normalized) but that's a chore. I figured that (certainly prior to the unbalanced schedule a few years ago) the pluses and minuses should balance themselves out.

I stand by my (admittedly first order) analysis. The playoffs are essentially random and the data supports it.

[Stover9]

Bibliovore, you REALLY should read "Moneyball" by Lewis (as previously mentioned). It is a great read, will answer many questions you may have not yet even thought to ask.

The Yanks are successful based on a combination of money and tradition. Simply put, they play in the largest market, giving them television revenue that is more than many other team's COMBINED payroll. But you say, the METS are in New York, and although they did play the Yanks in the World Series just three years ago, they aren't a powerhouse of a franchise because they lack a successful tradition and dedicated following (I believe they were an expantion team in the 1960's).

I love your original post, and agree that you definitely need to see more live games in different cities/venue's. It's one of the best things about baseball, the different parks, summer, outdoors (mostly) and the game can be as "deep" as you want it to be. I've followed the Cubs since I've been 4 years old (thanks to my mother mostly) and although I'm 26 now, played alot, and have coached at the high school level and follow the game closely, still learn things ALL THE TIME. Others I know are more casual fans, but point is, the depth is there if the interest is there too!

[Casey1505]

Originally posted by JohnBckWLD
Word to the wise, DON'T WEAR A BOSOX JERSEY / CAP. I've seen shit in the Bronx that makes your famed soccer riots look tame by comparison.
Ha! Or any OTHER team, for that matter. One year I went to opening day at Yankee Stadium, and knowing better than to wear my Sox cap, I wore a St. Louis Cardinals cap, who aren't even in the AL and didn't play the Yankees in interleague. To make matters worse, I sat (stood) in the not so family-friendly right field bleachers.

I miss that cap...:(

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
Ok, but what about the sausages man?

Do you know how hard it is to find a halfway-decent beef frank in this country? Everything over here is pork, and if it isn't pork, its lips and assholes. I'd kill for a proper ballpark dog, and I'd maim for a real pretzel.

Anyone got any ballpark food favorites, or anything unusual like the clams? Ah, the sausage guy. The Sausage guy (there are actually 4 or 5 of them, with names like Sausage King and Joe's Italian Sausage) has a cart in front of the stadium (NOT in the stadium. The sausages served inside Fenway are ok...but they can't touch a pre-game one) with a simple griddle on it. He serves one thing: sweet italian sausages. You can get them with, or without, roasted peppers and onions. You're a fool to get it without, though.

You walk up to the cart. A man standing in front says "Yeah?" You say "One." He says "Five bucks", and you hand over your money. He repeats your order, for some reason, to the guy behind the grill, and takes a sausage that was just taken off of the grill from a little stand, wraps the sausage, bun, and peppers in wax paper, and hands it to you, and you walk off with what is simultaneously the sketchiest street food and most delicious pre-game meal in the history of the world. It's a must have, if you ever make it to Fenway.

As for the condition of the park: Yes, it's dirty. Yes, it's kind of cramped. And yes, the bathrooms suck. But I assure you, having the love of the game that you seem to have, there is no place, with the possible exception of Wrigley (And I've been to both. They are both palaces to everything that is good in the world.) that you would rather be on a thursday evening in July at 7pm. Everything is so lush and green and peaceful. Your knees will hit the seat in front of you, but you won't mind.

Fenway Park is a bit run down. But it's the greatest run-down place on earth.

Fenway Franks: it's your standard lips and assholes dog. You can buy them in grocery stores, and they're mediocre. But again, the atmosphere makes it a must get.

Try your best to get to Boston, it's worth it.

And finally, if you're just looking for live baseball, MLB.com has the MLB.tv package, for only $50 a year. Very decent coverage of every game, if you have a broadband net connection.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Casey1505
Ha! Or any OTHER team, for that matter. One year I went to opening day at Yankee Stadium, and knowing better than to wear my Sox cap, I wore a St. Louis Cardinals cap, who aren't even in the AL and didn't play the Yankees in interleague. To make matters worse, I sat (stood) in the not so family-friendly right field bleachers.

I miss that cap...:(
Eh, I dunno. I wore my Angels cap to Yankee Stadium RF bleachers earlier this year - which was especially risky given the bitterness that some Yank fans feel towards the Halos but nothing happened to me apart from a bit of verbal abuse. The guy talking on his cellphone got it much worse than I did.

That said, it's a lot safer to wear a BoSox cap into the Yankee bleachers than to wear a Yankee cap into the Fenway bleachers.

Jim Caple had an entertaining article about it a while back. (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/caple/031014.html)

[Count Blucher]

Originally posted by NYR407
I'm not saying he was a bad player but

So you're saying Mattingly will never make the Hall of Fame? Did you ever even see him play? He was Amazing. He was proof to me, however, that one man can't carry a team. And that a lesser team that works well together will always beat a team of outstanding players who don't work well together.

I'm not going to dis Ernie Banks. But you're wrong to dis Don Mattingly. The words 'Bad Player' and 'Don Mattingly' don't belong in the same sentance, and if you can strip away your Yankee hatred for 2 seconds, you'd agree.

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by lurkernomore
You have to realize Fenway is the smallest big league park, and the second oldest (I think it was built in 1914 or so?), next to Wrigley (Chicago). The seats make you long for that luxurious airline seat (see Pit rant on economy class seats).

Ack... Just saw this, and had to correct it. Fenway Park was constructed in 1911-12, and opened on April 20, 1912, the same day as Tiger Stadium. The two would have recieved more coverage in the news, but the Titanic sank the same day.

Weeghman Park opened on the north side of Chicago on April 23, 1914, as the home of the Chi-Feds, later Whales, of the Federal League. It did not host a Cubs game until 1916. In 1920, it was renamed Cubs Park, and then Wrigley Field in 1926.

[Flymaster]

I'm sorry. Same WEEK that the Titanic sank. That tragedy, of course, occured on April 15th.

(I say of course in order to cover up for my woeful ignorance of the actual date, and to make myself look smarter, not because it's obvious.)

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by Flymaster
Ack... Just saw this, and had to correct it. Fenway Park was constructed in 1911-12, and opened on April 20, 1912, the same day as Tiger Stadium. The two would have recieved more coverage in the news, but the Titanic sank the same day.

Weeghman Park opened on the north side of Chicago on April 23, 1914, as the home of the Chi-Feds, later Whales, of the Federal League. It did not host a Cubs game until 1916. In 1920, it was renamed Cubs Park, and then Wrigley Field in 1926.

I stand corrected. Knew they were 1 and 2, and I got them backwards. Fenway 1912, Wrigley 1914. Gotcha.

[NYR407]

Originally posted by quietman1920
So you're saying Mattingly will never make the Hall of Fame? Did you ever even see him play? He was Amazing. He was proof to me, however, that one man can't carry a team. And that a lesser team that works well together will always beat a team of outstanding players who don't work well together.

I'm not going to dis Ernie Banks. But you're wrong to dis Don Mattingly. The words 'Bad Player' and 'Don Mattingly' don't belong in the same sentance, and if you can strip away your Yankee hatred for 2 seconds, you'd agree.

I never said he will never make it to the HOF and I never called him a bad ball player. However, if he was "one of the greatest to ever play the game" he would have been a shoe in on the first ballot.

First ballot HOF inductees are usually the cream of the cream of the crop. A few lower level HOFers sneak in every now and them.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by quietman1920
So you're saying Mattingly will never make the Hall of Fame? Did you ever even see him play? He was Amazing.
Mattingly was very good. But not Hall of Fame good. He's a 1B that only hit more than 30 HR 3 times in his career and never more than 35. He didn't reach 250 HR or even 2500 hits, even though he hit for a pretty decent average. Moreover, his power really dropped off his last 6 seasons. And he doesn't even crack the top 100 in career RBI.
I'm not going to dis Ernie Banks. But you're wrong to dis Don Mattingly. The words 'Bad Player' and 'Don Mattingly' don't belong in the same sentance, and if you can strip away your Yankee hatred for 2 seconds, you'd agree.
Yeah, that's why he said that he wasn't saying Mattingly was a bad player. He wasn't, he was a very good player. Just not Hall of Fame good except to deluded Yankee fans.

[JohnBckWLD]

Originally posted by Neurotik
Mattingly was very good. But not Hall of Fame good. He's a 1B that only hit more than 30 HR 3 times in his career and never more than 35. He didn't reach 250 HR or even 2500 hits, even though he hit for a pretty decent average. Moreover, his power really dropped off his last 6 seasons. And he doesn't even crack the top 100 in career RBI...Not Hall of Fame good except to deluded Yankee fans.

Fine, just that I want Mr. October to have his jersey yanked out of Cooperstown.

Mattingly (7,003 AB): Reggie Jackson (9,864 AB):

B/A: .307 - - - - - - - - vs - - - - - - - - .262
OBP: .358 - - - - - - - -vs- - - - - - - - - .356
SL%: .471- - - - - - - -vs- - - - - - - - - .490

[Neurotik]

Reggie Jackson also hit almost 350 more HR in his career, averaging one home run every 17.5 ABs, while Mattingly averaged only one home run every 31.5 ABs.

Plus, Jackson was a 14-time All-Star compared to Mattingly's 6 meaning that for 2/3 of his career he was considered one of the best at his position while the same could only be said of 40% of Mattingly's career.

Plus, Jackson was top 10 in the league in OPS 10 times compared to Mattingly's 4 and led the league twice compared to Mattingly's once. Jackson also led the league in runs twice, which Mattingly never did. While both earned the RBI title once in their careers, Mattingly finished in the top 10 only 5 times (or 1/3 of his seasons) while Jackson did it 10 times (or 1/2 of his seasons). And Jackson finished top 10 in OBP 5 times compared to Mattingly's twice.

The only thing Mattingly ever did better than Jackson was batt for average. So you keep on believing there's some sort of equivalancy between the two careers. I might listen to an argument that Jackson doesn't belong in the HOF, but he's definitely more worthy than Mattingly. Jackson was better for longer.

[Jonathan Chance]

That's just plain stupid, John.

Reggie had almost 3000 more AB than Mattingly and he had them for a reason.

Hits: RJ: 2584 DM: 2153

HR: RJ: 563 DM: 222

RBI: RJ: 1702 DM: 1099

SB: RJ: 228 DM: 14

Total Bases: RJ: 4834 DM: 3301

All Star Selections: RJ: 14 DM: 6

Top 10 in MVP voting: RJ: 7 DM: 4

Black Ink: RJ: 34 DM: 23

Grey Ink: RJ: 175 DM: 111

In all ways RJ outperformed DM. The only way to make the comparison is to pick and choose your targets very carefully.

[Jonathan Chance]

DAMN YOU NEUROTIK!!!

[cmkeller]

Casey1505:

Ha! Or any OTHER team, for that matter. One year I went to opening day at Yankee Stadium, and knowing better than to wear my Sox cap, I wore a St. Louis Cardinals cap, who aren't even in the AL and didn't play the Yankees in interleague. To make matters worse, I sat (stood) in the not so family-friendly right field bleachers.

I miss that cap...

Wow, I'm surprised. I've worn my Royals cap and jersey to Royals-Yankees games at Yankee Stadium, even in the bleachers, and only got friendly comments (lots of Yankee fans reminiscing about George Brett's great moments, so many of which came against the Yanks).

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Marley23]

I would have to agree Beane is much overrated. Oakland's success has largely been due to its strong pitching staff. Beane didn't invent Barry Zito, Tim Hudson, and Mark Mulder. He wasn't even the guy who scouted them.
I think this sums up the Billy Beane thing entirely. They're a good team, but without 3 aces (potentially more) who don't have anything to do with him, they don't amount to anything. If they lose those guys to free agency, they won't go anywhere with the team they have.

Something about Billy Beane annoys me- I think it's the way SaberMetrics have made baseball even MORE of an exercise in arithmetic. :p It was already the most statistical game by far, the last thing the sport needed was more numbers.

[rocking chair]

i haven't been to fenway since the strike. the clams and other yummy treats were next to the huge sporting good store. i can't remember the name.

red sox books are:

the great rivalry, ed linn
the curse of the bambino, dan shaughnessy
at fenway, dan shaughnessy
the red sox reader, don riley

amazon has a wonderful new search engine. one of the test phrases is "curse of the bambino," there are red sox reading lists available on the page as well as books that have the phrase in them.

going to fenway is fun, there is a very old time baseball feel to it. people hang out on the street and watch the big screen, some hang out at the green monster hoping for a ball to go over. some people can maintain a small country on what they charge you to park on their driveway.

[Neurotik]

And of course, the best book about the Red Sox - Yankees rivalry is Summer of '49 by David Halberstam.

[ElvisL1ves]

This Beane/Moneyball stuff is highly reminiscent of the discussions surrounding George Will's Men at Work a decade ago. Will gave Tony LaRussa a tongue bath for pretty much the same reasons Beane is getting one now - his obsession with stats, running every move through a computer, and so forth. The more credulous, or similarly stat-happy, happily joined Will in proclaiming LaRussa a prophet of the new era. Remember that? Well, how good a manager has he been without Mark McGwire in his lineup? How good a GM will Beane seem to be without Miguel Tejada next year, and with the Big 3 starters gone later? I think we all know.

But notice who the Final Four managers were this year. Torre, Little, McKeon, and Baker are all "people persons". They've been successful by treating their people as people, working with each of them to help them maximize their own performance. That's how sports coaches have always been successful, and always will be. Cold egotists like LaRussa and Beane, and many others, can't sustain success and can't provably even create it.

Isn't there a story going around about how Beane threw a nutty when he couldn't get Jeremy Bonderman in the draft?

[RickJay]

Of course, Elvis, at least Tony LaRussa won a World Series, which is more than you can say for Beane.

And to be fair, while the Final Four managers are all people persons, you have to compare Beane to the GENERAL managers. The Red Sox are an absurd team to claim as a contrast to Beane, because they're probably the most sabermetric-obsessed team in major league baseball; they hired Bill James, for God's sake, and the GM is a 29-year-old gearhead. The Yankees are certainly bears for high-OBP baseball. The Marlins and Cubs have been pretty smartly run but I'm not as familiar with their GM's particular peccadilloes.

[Jonathan Chance]

Well, the Cubs appear to be run from the Manager's office at this point. I can't imagine a sane GM wanting to pick up Womack, Glanville AND Goodwin is one spree. That's just plain wrong.

The Sabrmetric guys are beginning to make an impact. Boston, Oakland, and Toronto are all run that way. There'll be more.

And Jimmy Breslin was always a fool. There's one helluva lot more to what happens in the game than the eye can see.

[Neurotik]

You obviously don't understand, Jonathan. Those guys are PROVEN VETERANS!

Seriously, when does Baker stop getting a pass on his lousy management? He abuses his pitchers, gets outmanaged in every big game and has an affinity for light-hitting old men. He's a good guy and people play hard for him but he's also been blessed with the best player in baseball (Bonds) for a chunk of career and a team with one of the best rotations in baseball (Cubs) after that.

[ElvisL1ves]

The "sabermetric-obsessed" Sox front office provided one of the scariest bullpens we've seen in a while. Of the big run-producers this year, Ramirez and Nixon were already here and Ortiz was signed only at the behest of Pedro Martinez. They signed Millar and Mueller as backups, not starters. The starting pitchers were inherited, too. Sabermetrics didn't contribute a damn thing. The team won despite it. 'Nuf sed?

[Bibliovore]

Okay, I'll bite. What are Sabermetrics and how do they work?

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by Bibliovore
Okay, I'll bite. What are Sabermetrics and how do they work?

the reduction of the game to statistics and probabilities. There is an organization called SABR - Society for American Baseball Research - and the more exotic stats are called sabremetrics.

[Bibliovore]

I thought that managers and coaches already did this all the time. How is this any different from "playing the odds"?

[Neurotik]

The question is what odds are you using. SABRmetrics provided a deeper analysis (supposedly) as to what was going on in the game and the relative value of various stats. Go to some of those sites we've recommended and you'll get a grasp of what's going on. And read some of the books recommended.

Anyway, back on topic, twenty years ago the manager might look at batting average to determine which player to put in the lineup, where SABRmetrics said, no, you look at on-base percentage to get a better feel.

For example, say you've got two guys and you're trying to decide who to put in the leadoff slot. One guy has a batting average of .300 but an on-base percentage of .320. The other guy has a batting average of .280 but an on-base percentage of .340. Who do you use?

Well, 20 years ago the manager most likely would have just compared the two batting averages and went with player A. Nowadays, the manager would probably look at on-base percentages and go with player B. That's impact of SABRmetrics.

[ElvisL1ves]

The difference is in obsessiveness, to the point of discounting the importance of anything that can't be readily quantified on a spreadsheet. The SABR geeks have lost perspective on the full game while claiming superior depth of understanding - unfortunately for them, that claim is not typically borne out by results.

The problem is peculiar to baseball because of the sheer mass of numbers available that can superficially seem meaningful as well. The disease simply isn't possible in a more flowing sport like soccer or rugby or basketball - the saner mass of available numbers allows one to appreciate the actual game, the players' athleticism, the drama, the full spectrum of the sports entertainment experience.

Did anyone mention the Fenway men's rooms? Troughs.. Old, soldered sheet metal things that drain into a pipe at the end. "Squeeze together, boys, there are more behind you wanting to get rid of their overpriced beer! And remember to look straight ahead at all times - no peeking."

[cmkeller]

Bibliovore:

I thought that managers and coaches already did this all the time. How is this any different from "playing the odds"?

It's not, but you have to know just what odds to play. When deciding whether to pinch-hit for a certain batter, do you look at:

His batting average in general?
His batting average against that type of pitcher (righty/lefty)?
His batting average against this particular pitcher?
His batting average in this ballpark?
His batting average on humid Tuesdays?

Sabermetrics is all about isolating significant factors in baseball statistics to provide more meaningful comparisons...and thus, smarter ways to "play the odds."

Chaim Mattis Keller

[lurkernomore]

it depends on how intricate the stats get. You say "I'll walk Bibliovore and pitch to Jonathan Chance, since Bib is hitting .325 against lefties, and Jon hits .225", that's playing odds. if you say Jon is a better player overall, because he has a higher Runs Created, where runs created is:

{(hits + walks + hit by pitch - caught stealing - grounded into double plays) * [(total bases + .26(walks - intentional walks + hit by pitch) + .52 (sacrifcies + sacrifice flies + stolen bases)]} / (at bats + walks + hit by pitch + sacrifice flies +sacrifices)


you are a sabrmetrician. (Runs Created, technical version, 1988 Bill James abstract). It is NOT the most intricate stat there, either. It is one used more often than some more arcane ones.

[Bibliovore]

Ooog, statistics. While they're fine in moderation, I refuse to get bogged down in the morass of numbers that some fans seem to love wallowing in. Yes, I want to know how well garciaparra did last season versus this season, but I don't care what his batting average is when hitting against lefty pitchers on humid Tuesdays in Yankee Stadium while wearing boxers and breathing through his left nostril. I just want to enjoy the game, breathe some fresh air, and cheer for my team for a while. The food's important too, though.

[Stover9]

Heard this on the radio yesterday: Pedro Martinez opponents batting average through his first 100 pitches of the game is something like .224 -- but AFTER 100 pitches his ERA is over SIX and opponents hit some .370 against him.

Now, this is important to consider when you look back and see that in Game 7 vs. the Yanks, Pedro threw 100 pitches to end the 7th inning. The Boston bullpen had been almost unhittable all post-season. At this point, it seems obvious to go to the bullpen. Furthermore, to begin the 8th, AFTER the Yanks began to rally, Boston's manager Grady Little (Baltimore's future manager) STILL left Pedro in the game, and the decision quite possibly lost them a chance at the world series.

I think there is a fine-line as to what is important and what isn't when getting into stats. I think what Beane is trying to do is just figure out which stats are more important than others from a draft/general manager sense, but there might be a need for "in the dugout" analysis (in my opinion).

[Neurotik]

You don't need those stats to see Pedro was gassed by the 7th inning and shouldn't have been used in the 8th, Stover. It's just one more log on the bonfire of evidence against Grady's move.

[Stover9]

That's true Neuro

[Jonathan Chance]

Yep. And all that was known a long time ago about Pedro. Little ignored it and look where it got him.

SABRmetrics (I admit, I'm a member of SABR) is advancing the game just as much now as in the past when Thorn and Palmer published The Hidden Game of Baseball or later when Bill James began using real numbers to produce results about won-loss records through the research done by the Baseball Prospectus and Retrosheet. Each generation discovers new intricacies in the game.

I firmly believe that, as the new era continues old guys like Baker and (God help us) Baylor will eventually fall by the wayside. Scouts and those believing them have been believing the (now demonstrably) false assumptions for decades. It's time we showed them the door.

Examples:

1. When faced with a first round draft choice. Should one take a high school pitcher with talent 10 (numbers made up) or a college pitcher with a talent of 7? Most scout-oriented people would draft the high school player because he has the highest potential. Well enough. But a historical check of things would show that of those pitchers more of the college pitchers (with less talent) will make it and contribute to the major league team because they're A) farther along in their development when they're drafted and B) they're less prone to injury (the bugaboo of young pitchers). Therefore the smart way to bet is on the college pitcher and he should be your draft choice.

2. Man on first, no outs. What does one do...bunt or swing away? Conventional wisdom (scouts again) would say that in a close game one should bunt the runner over to place him in scoring position. However, by looking at run production over the last X number of years (anywhere from 1 to 100 years depending on how far down you want to go) one can determine that the odds of scoring with a man on first and no outs are significantly higher than the odds of scoring with a man on second and 1 out. So swinging away and not bunting is the smart way to bet.

What SABRmetrics is about is the challenging of the revealed wisdom of the institutional memory of baseball. To take so belief 'in such-and-such a situation one should do X' and determine if that is actually a wise move. Frequently the answer is 'yes, that's the right thing to do'. But because it also sometimes answers 'no, that's foolish and here's why' it threatens a great many people.

Nonetheless, an organization that arms itself with this data, prepares itself to use it and consistently implements it will eventually begin improving their fortunes. After that it's only a matter of time before the others do. No industry is as fiercely imitative of success as major league baseball.

From Ruth deciding that home runs were a worthy goal to Gossage and Quisenberry and Fingers defining the 'closers' role we keep moving forward. And those who can't see and adapt end up losing in the long run.

[Jonathan Chance]

Oh, and never get me started on the 'proven veteran' thing. That may be the single most damaging belief in all of baseball.

[The_Raven]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
A further note of caution if you're still considering joining Red Sox Nation: It's become quite trendy, in recent years, among the self-proclaimed intelligectual community.

Intelligectual? I'll assume your application is still on file, no?

:)

-Rav

[Stover9]

I believe there is a fine-line in using stats because no matter how large the sampe, or no matter how far you go back, it's almost impossible to duplicate a certain situation.

ie the runner on first nobody out in a close game situation. Yes, numbers may tell you, with great accuracy, what works on average. But that's just it - on average. Unless you can duplicate the exact same situation (what average do the following three batters have, how many home runs to they have, how wild is the pitcher, how fast is the runner, is the wind blowing in or out, etc). Of course you could assume all else equal, but when it's game 7 of a championship series, what if there's a guy on first w/ nobody out and an american league pitcher with 10 career at bats is up? What if the count runs 2-0 and someone who can steal is on? Or a poor catcher is throwing. Or David Wells is on the mound. I just think it's all situational, and that's what's great about baseball 'cause you can second guess alot, and success sometimes appears to be caused by intangibles rather than stats....?

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
1. When faced with a first round draft choice. Should one take a high school pitcher with talent 10 (numbers made up) or a college pitcher with a talent of 7? Most scout-oriented people would draft the high school player because he has the highest potential. Well enough. But a historical check of things would show that of those pitchers more of the college pitchers (with less talent) will make it and contribute to the major league team because they're A) farther along in their development when they're drafted and B) they're less prone to injury (the bugaboo of young pitchers). Therefore the smart way to bet is on the college pitcher and he should be your draft choice.
Sort of. It depends on your situation. Suppose I'm the Yankees of a few years back or the Braves of the mid-90s. In that situation, I take the high ceiling player because I've got no pressing needs and can afford the time to develop him properly. And the rewards will be greater by the time he does come up.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
I firmly believe that, as the new era continues old guys like Baker and (God help us) Baylor will eventually fall by the wayside. Why? They're proven successes at what they do (well, Baker is). So why should they be gotten rid of - lack of fidelity to a quasi-religion that you happen to favor?

Should one take a high school pitcher with talent 10 (numbers made up) or a college pitcher with a talent of 7?A team that only drafts college 7's, Beane's approach, will eventually get its lunch eaten by those who've drafted some HS 10's. A successful business takes a range of risks with a range of rewards. Excess caution will kill you as surely as excess risktaking. The best approach in drafting as in any business is to take a mix, some low-risk-low-payoff, some high-risk-high-payoff, some in between. But having the money to buy free agents when you need them is now a far more important factor in winning than anything you do in the draft, anyway.

Man on first, no outs. What does one do...bunt or swing away?Depends on the runner, the batter, the pitcher, the catcher, the score, the inning, the positioning and quickness of the infielders ... One's odds of success vary greatly depending on the factors at hand. Reducing it to a single number is self-delusory.

Nonetheless, an organization that arms itself with this data, prepares itself to use it and consistently implements it will eventually begin improving their fortunes.Cite? If that's true, it should be testable vs. the only number that matters, wins. Got any analysis that shows a correlation between reliance on stats vs. coaching and winning percentage? If you're serious about what you say about examining numbers objectively, there ought to be one, right? If not, you've simply stated an article of faith.

[quote]From Ruth deciding that home runs were a worthy goal to Gossage and Quisenberry and Fingers defining the 'closers' role we keep moving forward.[QUOTE] What the hell? It wasn't Ruth's decision to have homers considered significant; it was a marketing move by the owners to try to reinvigorate public interest after the Black Sox scandal, and supported by the writers. How did you think the dead-ball era was ended, anyway? The closer's role also wasn't decided upon to be newly-important by any players, but as a result of Chicago writer Jerome Holtzman's lobbying on behalf of a recently-developed statistic he called "Saves".

Raven, I originally typed "intelligentsia" and didn't backspace enough when I changed it to "intellectuals". Happy?

[Jonathan Chance]

But you can't count on him ever coming up is the issue.

Sure the situation you define is one of luxury but it's still more likely for the college pitcher to contribute than the high school pitcher.

Actually, I have a bet on with a political reporter pal of mine. The A's drafted all college pitchers in round 1-10 and his team (the Mets but I might be misremembering) drafted all high school pitchers. I've bet that in 4 years the college pitchers will be demonstratbly better in the majors that the high school guys.

[NYR407]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
But you can't count on him ever coming up is the issue.

Sure the situation you define is one of luxury but it's still more likely for the college pitcher to contribute than the high school pitcher.

Actually, I have a bet on with a political reporter pal of mine. The A's drafted all college pitchers in round 1-10 and his team (the Mets but I might be misremembering) drafted all high school pitchers. I've bet that in 4 years the college pitchers will be demonstratbly better in the majors that the high school guys.

No offense JC, but if was the Mets I really hope you lose the bet.

Could it have been when they drafted Scott Kasmir (10th overall I believe) out of HS last year? Supposably it was a no brainer for them to take him (based on all the scouting reports). The only reason he didn't go higher in draft was because teams were afraid that they wouldn't be able to sign him. The Mest did and at a considerably lower amount than anticipated.

On the other side of things, Aaron Heilman 18th overall in 2001 (completed 4 years at Notre Dame), was a bit of a disappointment (2-7 6.75 era) when called up during the past year. Granted he still needs some ML experience, but at 26 years old he isn't a spring chicken anymore. I know Warren Spahn didn't get his first win until he was 25 yo but that is an extreme exception.

Actually I hope they both develop into great pitchers so I hope both of you are right.

[Marley23]

Challenging accepted dogma is necessary and great. I happen to agree that (in general) sacrifice bunting is overrated, and can score one run in an inning for at larger rally. Replacing is with stuff of your own just because it reflects your views? Not so great. The BoSox bullpen this year was entirely a SABRmetrics affair (both in terms of the players they got and when they should use them), and it flat-out SUCKED.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
But you can't count on him ever coming up is the issue.

Very true, but there are certain teams that can take that risk confidently. And if it's just one pitcher in the draft and we're talking about a team not reliant on it's farm system to produce top-notch talent regularly, then the high risk-high reward may be a worthwhile strategy.

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
2. Man on first, no outs. What does one do...bunt or swing away? Conventional wisdom (scouts again) would say that in a close game one should bunt the runner over to place him in scoring position. However, by looking at run production over the last X number of years (anywhere from 1 to 100 years depending on how far down you want to go) one can determine that the odds of scoring with a man on first and no outs are significantly higher than the odds of scoring with a man on second and 1 out. So swinging away and not bunting is the smart way to bet.


Jonathan,

I'm not a member, but I've read some of their stuff. But didn't they claim the bunt hurt the TOTAL number of runs, but helped the FREQUENCY? That is, you are very slightly more likely to score, but you'll score 1 or 2, not a big inning? That would make the bunt at times a good play. For instance, bottom of the 9th, tie game. Leadoff guy gets on, say I have a 40% chance of scoring him. Maybe, had it been the third, I have a 10% chance of getting 3+. If I bunt, the odds of scoring HIM go to 42%, but 3+ drops to 3%. The overall runs scored is hurt by the bunt, but this situation it helps. (IIRC, the bunt is OK with 1st and second, no out)


I believe there is a fine-line in using stats because no matter how large the sample, or no matter how far you go back, it's almost impossible to duplicate a certain situation.


Stover, I believe the idea is a large enough sample makes the variables here even out. I think it fits under the monkeys-typewriters-Shakespeare paradigm.


Sort of. It depends on your situation. Suppose I'm the Yankees of a few years back or the Braves of the mid-90s. In that situation, I take the high ceiling player because I've got no pressing needs and can afford the time to develop him properly. And the rewards will be greater by the time he does come up.


Neurotic,

I believe the point here is that some of those HS players do not develop - they tell you a lot of guys throwing 95 at 18 throw 88 at 22. They may have an intrinsic flaw that ends up hurting their arms later. Throwing overhand is not excatly a natural motion. Most men, throwing with their "off hand", "throw like a girl" (hey, I didn't invent the phrase). It doesn't come naturally. And injury can build up in time - that's why some guys who have surgery throw harder afterwards - long term damage they took for granted was repaired. The college guy has either burned out or been polished after a couple years. College weeds out a lot.

Elvis


From Ruth deciding that home runs were a worthy goal to Gossage and Quisenberry and Fingers defining the 'closers' role we keep moving forward. What the hell? It wasn't Ruth's decision to have homers considered significant; it was a marketing move by the owners to try to reinvigorate public interest after the Black Sox scandal, and supported by the writers. How did you think the dead-ball era was ended, anyway?


Much is due to Ruth. Holding the bat low adds leverage. Ask any engineer (length of lever arm). Swinging hard, and not being afraid to strike out helps - many old-timers were ashamed to strike out - Ruth had the career record when he retired. Ruth decided to do those things. And his RBI totals seemed to show he was right. And the dead ball era died due to that, and the banning of the spitball for esthetics, and even because Carl Mays killed Ray Chapman - previously, balls were used over and over. They frequently were dirty, and thus harder to see. After the tragedy, they threw balls out of play more. A side effect of using new balls? They are harder, and bounce more. You hit them further. IIRC golf pros change their balls after every par 4 or 5.

Weird co-incidence - Mays was a teammate of Ruth when he hit Chapman. The replacement, Joe Sewell, later made the Hall of Fame, but what was he most noted for? Rarely striking out. His record in a year (500+ AB) is 3. He did that as a teammate of a man who felt no shame in striking out - Babe Ruth.


I know Warren Spahn didn't get his first win until he was 25 yo but that is an extreme exception.


NYR407,

Remember why Spahn was so late - he enlisted in the Army in 1942 at 21 after a brief callup, fought in the Battle of the Bulge and was wounded (and got a battlefield commission). I think it safe to say he'd have been up earlier than 1946 otherwise.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by lurkernomore
I believe the point here is that some of those HS players do not develop - they tell you a lot of guys throwing 95 at 18 throw 88 at 22. They may have an intrinsic flaw that ends up hurting their arms later. Throwing overhand is not excatly a natural motion. Most men, throwing with their "off hand", "throw like a girl" (hey, I didn't invent the phrase). It doesn't come naturally. And injury can build up in time - that's why some guys who have surgery throw harder afterwards - long term damage they took for granted was repaired. The college guy has either burned out or been polished after a couple years. College weeds out a lot.

I'm aware of what the point is. But my point is that some teams can afford to take a higher risk if it offers a higher ceiling than others. For instance, Yankees vs. Oakland. If the Yankees are less efficient in developing pitching than Oakland, it doesn't hurt them so much because of their budget and ability to sign FAs. Oakland can't risk not having a chunk of players not pan out, so they have to go the safe route. The Yankees can afford to be riskier for a higher ceiling.

[lurkernomore]

Neurotik,

If you mean that some teams can afford to try for the riskier picks because they have the money to cover up their mistakes, that's true. But you said "no pressing needs" and "can afford the time to develop him properly". That implies that these HS 10s often fail due to them being rushed (Bonderman?, David Clyde, Van Poppel) rather than taking HS pitchers just being intrinsically risky.

[Neurotik]

Ah, I see. When I said no pressing needs, I was referring to the fact that it often takes them longer to reach the majors. So if I need pitching help soon I might still go after the college guy just because the ETA is faster.

And for developing him properly, I meant that he wouldn't be rushed to log major innings or pitch counts before his arm developed properly. You can afford to stick him in the pen or limit his starts.

That's all.

[rocking chair]

one interesting fact on the red sox is: due to the interesting build of fenway park, the team trad. has trouble on the road. esp. the longer the player is with the bosox. the green monster really creates havoc for the outfielder. sometimes you forget other parks don't have "your back." not to mention the interesting hills and dales on the field.

my thought should i ever be lucky enough to win the powerball and own the sox is to have a "home team" and an "away team."

the math part of baseball makes mathletes drool. i had a math teacher use baseball to teach us percentages. no matter, i still can't get anything other than 50%. on the other hand i know i guy who can make stats sing and dance the salsa, he is rainman.

[ElvisL1ves]

Jonathan "I've bet that in 4 years the college pitchers will be demonstratbly better in the majors that the high school guys." And he took the bet? In four years, the HS'ers will be about 22, and few players break in that young anyway. The collegians will be 26, and that's an up-or-out age for a minor leaguer.

I'm still curious what evidence exists for a stat-obsessed approach to GM'ing and managing being superior to, or even nearly as successful as, human leadership and baseball instinct and experience. The prima facie results would seem to be the opposite.

Fearless prediction: That Alabama catcher in Moneyball is going to be in the Show in a year or two at most, no matter how ready he is. Beane could never admit such a failure so publicly, could he?

lurkernomore, Ruth didn't make anyone care about homers. They were something a curiosity during the dead-ball era - which ended rather sharply at the start of the 1921 season, right after the Black Sox bannings, not over an extended period as you suggest. Chapman's death helped eliminate the spitball, but the dead ball was already gone.

rocking chair, I have to disagree about the Wall's effect on fielding. LF's are not put out there by any team for their defense, but as a place to stash a big hitter. If Ramirez has trouble on the road with some balls, it's because he isn't that good defensively (although he made a real effort this year and it did pay off). More commonly, you'll see ricochets off it misplayed by visiting players - that makes the difference between a Red Sox double and a visitors' single or even out, and those do add up.

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
lurkernomore, Ruth didn't make anyone care about homers. They were something a curiosity during the dead-ball era - which ended rather sharply at the start of the 1921 season, right after the Black Sox bannings, not over an extended period as you suggest. Chapman's death helped eliminate the spitball, but the dead ball was already gone.
[/B]

Check the dates: Ruth set the HR record in 1919, set it again in 1920. At the start of the 1921 season, when you end the dead-ball era, the single season HR record was already 54. This is essentially where it stayed until 1998 (rose about 11% to 60(1927), then in a longer season go to 61). 1920 was the highest slugging percentage year until Bonds, and Ruth's best year in HR/At Bat. And the spitball was ALREADY illegal before Chapman's death, though a certain amount of pitchers were grandfathered in. Mays wasn't a spitballer, anway.

it wasn't a prolonged space of time - these events happened all around the same time. Ruth was SOLELY a pitcher until 1918. In 1918 he split time, but still had 20 decisions - and tied for the HR title, though he played in only 95 games (they shortened the season for WWI). 1919, he set the HR record (and went 9-5 with 133 IP) in the last year he pitched to a large extent.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Fearless prediction: That Alabama catcher in Moneyball is going to be in the Show in a year or two at most, no matter how ready he is. Beane could never admit such a failure so publicly, could he?
Him not being in the majors after a year or two in the minors would be a failure? Or you mean from a year or two after this season?

At the end of 2003 he ended up in AA Midland (Texas League). He hit .275/.388/.391, not great but not bad. He went out with a damaged thumb in July (caught a fastball with the wrong part of the glove) and it had to be put in a cast.

Fun fact, Brown was selected by the Sox the year before in 18th round, but didn't go.

Anyway, if Brown isn't good enough to make Oakland's team he won't be there. Beane's not afraid to ditch his mistakes and try again.

[Fish]

Wow, this has drifted so far away from the original question. I guess that's baseball for you. To try to introduce to my take on the Yankee success of the past 100 years:

1. Prior to 1958 there were no West Coast teams. Travel was less strenuous for the New York clubs (and for all clubs generally). The teams farthest west were probably the St. Louis Browns and Cardinals. Since baseball began in New York City, it might be argued that the New York teams benefited by less travel and more rest -- even the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers were able to muster up many competetive teams, though the Bums only once took the Series from the Yanks.

2. After 1958 coast-to-coast travel came into play during the baseball season when the Giants and Dodgers moved to California. Arguably, the Yankees have a distinct benefit here as well (over someone like the Texas Rangers), because they are in a division with Boston, Baltimore, Toronto, and Tampa Bay -- everything in the same time zone, less jet lag. This does not adequately explain why Boston, Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto are less able to field competetive teams, however; they have the same benefit. :)

3. The Yankees didn't begin to win consistently for the first few decades of the club's existence. (Prior to Yankee Stadium they shared the Polo Grounds with the Giants.) Approximately at the time of Ruth and Yankee Stadium did they begin to enjoy the dynasty we now think of. Perhaps the Yankees with their larger metropolitan area are more consistently able to fill stands than other clubs, though I don't have attendance figures from the last 100 years. It seems reasonable that 10,000,000 people can more easily fill a 60,000 seat stadium more regularly than 2,000,000 people can fill a 45,000 seat stadium. This adds to their ability to generate revenue and compete for desired players.

4. Bigger radio and television market, more money to compete for desired players. Money isn't everything, though. See final point.

5. Prior to the organized high school drafts and the farm system introduced by Branch Rickey (of the... um... I forget which team, the Cardinals at the time?) the Yankees were one of few teams that enjoyed a big metropolitan area in which baseball talent developed. More area, more talent to draw from, stiffer competition?

6. Greater fan base, more pressure to produce a quality product? This is hard to quantify and it's in contradiction with (3). I would have to see statistics on the number of trades that get made, per year per team, or something. It seems, unscientifically, that the Yankees are always moving someone around.

7. Three hours ahead in time zones. In the television era this means that when West Coast games are done, the New Yorkers are in bed. Given the US population distribution, it means most of the marketing opportunities (i.e., revenue-generating opportunities) are asleep at game time, whereas the Yankee fan can still follow his team easily from the West Coast. Perhaps this hurts west coast teams by hurting hat sales, t-shirt sales, etc. Possible lost revenue? Hard to quantify.

8. New York City arguably has more wealthy independent owners who can bid over the team. I believe (again, unscientifically) that perhaps the Yanks have had a longer history with individual owners as opposed to conglomerates and boards and corporate bottom lines and (ahem) newspaper companies running teams. Who knows if this has had a net postive effect or not? Maybe it has.

9. It has only been recently that free agency has been a factor in player selection, so the sample size is small (and there's only been one major NYY owner since that time), but I venture to say that sheer money hasn't been the only factor. The Yankees' record from 1901-2002 has been 8895 wins, 6840 losses, for a winning percentage of 0.5647 and a post-season record of 38-26. (Only the Dodgers come close over a similar stretch of time, with a superior postseason percentage of 22-6 and an overall winning percentage of 0.524.) Prior to 1975, the Yanks had a winning percentage of .5658 (6245-4792) and after they won at a .5587 clip (2459-1942), or slightly worse than their prior efforts. Result: not a significant difference.

Oh, I guess I'll throw one more out there. Does anybody have tryout figures for the Yanks? Fame is sort of self-fulfilling if all the best players want to try out for the winning team; maybe the Yanks get more looks during open tryouts than other teams do. In short, who knows?

FISH

[lurkernomore]

fish

While the NYC area has more population, also recall most of the last century it had 3 teams. Teams like Detroit had more fans per player. NYC many years ago did not have triple Detroit's population. I have heard (no cite) the Yankees had more farm teams than most as well. The first part of the Yankee history they were the third team in town - their first 15 years they outdrew the Giants once.

Also, I believe the Yawkey and Wrigley families held their teams far longer than the Yankee people. Didn't help them. Or the O'Malleys in Brooklyn.

Also, you still got players from out of town in the early days - Ruth was from Baltimore, DiMaggio from SF, Berra from StL, Mantle from Oklahoma...

..and sometimes the tryouts end up on other teams. Berra lived across the street from Joe Garagiola. they tried out for the Cards. The Cards signed Joe, Rickey supposedly telling Yogi he'd never be a major leaguer. Rizzuto was recommended by someone who saw him try out for his favorite team, the Dodgers, who rejected him.

[lurkernomore]

Oh, and you cite the Yankees winning percentage prior to 1975? Look short term.

90 win years - 1965-1975 - 1

90 win years - 1976-1986 - 7

[Fish]

All good points, lurkernomore. In the early part of Yankee history when they had more in-town competition, they didn't win any World Series either; mostly it was John McGraw's Giants. After the Yanks stopped sharing the Polo Grounds, they had some success. Cause and effect? Probably not, but interesting all the same. They were also part of the then-new American League. Another difference -- who knows?

Your short-term analysis of a decade at a time can be misleading depending on which decades you pick, too; pick from 1950-1960 and you'll find something like 9 Yankee WS titles. Part of the problem of analyzing one tiny effect like this over a season is that the nature of the Yankees dynasty is streaky. What causes the streak -- a rule change, a single player, a new stadium, a war, a strike, an equipment upgrade, a steroid?

I was trying to look long-term because the dominance of the Yanks is not a short-term thing. Why have they single-handedly won more than 25 World Series in the past 100 years, and played in (and lost) a dozen more? That doesn't really stand up to one-decade-at-a-time scrutiny. Short term ten year streaks may have smaller, more human causes; long 100-year streaks might have more lasting causes like geography, temperature, choice of ballpark, population, or whatever.

But like I said -- and at least we're back on topic! -- who knows? Boston could be said to have many of the same benefits as the Yanks, and ... well ... look at 'em. ;)

FISH

P.S. Thank you for returning to the OP and not arguing about Don Mattingly's OBP. :)

[lurkernomore]

Well, recall WHY the Yanks left the Polo Grounds - once they got Ruth, they started to outdraw the Giants immediately. So their landlords kicked them out. The first year with Ruth, they were the first team to draw a million. They did that until 1930, except 1929 (start of the Depression) and 1925, when Ruth missed a third of the year with either gastroenteritis or gonorrhea, depending on your source. After that, with Ruth on the wane, they didn;t draw a million again until after WWII.

Still, in the 20s, 30s, etc, they were a high profile winner, and that DID draw fans and tryouts more than a bad team. Just in the free agent years they had a resurgence as soon as those FAs became available. back then winning fed on itself more than today.

Oh, and as for DM, James rated him 12th best 1B of all time in his historical abstracts. Everyone ahead of him who is eligible is in the HOF.

[ElvisL1ves]

fish, some replies: The transcontinental travel argument is common but it doesn't hold up. Teams today travel exclusively by chartered airplane, with large seats and FA service and all the trimmings, including porter and valet service (remember Clemens whining about carrying his own bags). The longest trip is 6 hours, and most are much less.

Until the late Fifties, travel was on commercial trains, with all the noise and vibration and dirt, interruptions from frequent stops, distractions from other passengers. The longest ride was a day and a half. A team could leave Boston on Sunday evening after a day game, ride all night and all the next day and all the following night, trying to sleep in Pullman berths, and arrive in St. Louis on Tuesday morning for a Tuesday night game. How could anyone claim a six-hour charter flight is more fatiguing?

The Yankees' income is derived mostly from TV rights, local as well as national. I recall they just signed a deal for local rights worth $200M, more than covering their entire payroll cost, while the Expos by comparison get nothing.

Steinbrenner isn't a New Yorker; he's a Clevelander who lives in Tampa and simply visits NYC a lot.

The Yankees' sudden vault to the top in the Twenties was due to more than Ruth. Virtually the entire Red Sox team that dominated the late Teens was sold down the river, not just him (although somehow Tris Speaker and Smokey Joe Wood wound up in Cleveland). The great 1921 Yankees essentially were the great 1918 Red Sox.

The Red Sox' chronic failure to make full use of their revenue base has some other factors we haven't gone into. Tom Yawkey has a reputation as a well-loved, deeply-involved owner, but that reputation was built by reporters who became his drinking buddies. His choices for managers and coaches were also made primarily on that basis, not on their baseball skill. An ugly part of that was bigotry - he cut the team off from a large part of the talent pool by simply refusing to hire black players. There was even a staged tryout for Jackie Robinson that ended when the Sox GM saw it and hollered "Get them n****rs off the field!" Even after he became the last owner to integrate the team (the immortal Pumpsie Green, 1962), he kept the team's atmosphere hostile to nonwhites for the rest of his life. The effects are still there - about the only US black Red Sox player to become a major star and still stay here has been Jim Rice.

Neurotik, I meant a year or two from now. Brown isn't just an ordinary mistake who can be quietly released if he doesn't work out; Beane has hung his entire reputation (and that of his pet theories) on him with the book. If there were ever a golden boy in an organization, it's Brown, right? You have more faith in Beane's objectivity and humility than I think is warranted.

lurkernomore, you brought up spitballs, not I. Anyway, the only change traceable to Chapman's death is the batting helmet rule. The enintroduction of the rabbit ball is better measured by league total HR's anyway, not by a single (and certainly atypical) player, and even then you have to allow a period for other players to adjust to the new reality or be replaced by those who could. Even looking only at Ruth, you have to consider the Yankee Stadium RF porch (farcically close and low even today).

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
lurkernomore, you brought up spitballs, not I. Anyway, the only change traceable to Chapman's death is the batting helmet rule. The enintroduction of the rabbit ball is better measured by league total HR's anyway, not by a single (and certainly atypical) player, and even then you have to allow a period for other players to adjust to the new reality or be replaced by those who could. Even looking only at Ruth, you have to consider the Yankee Stadium RF porch (farcically close and low even today). [/B]

I did bring it in first, but you said:


Chapman's death helped eliminate the spitball, but the dead ball was already gone.


When, except for a certain amount of grandfathered players, the spitball was already illegal. Chapman's death had ZERO effect on the spitball.


Even looking only at Ruth, you have to consider the Yankee Stadium RF porch (farcically close and low even today).


I am, going to look up his home/away split. IIRC it isn't very disparate. For one-sided HR totals, try Ott.

[Cardinal]

One might point out that Tony La Russa went to the playoffs three straight years after Mc Gwire retired, and won at least two rounds in those playoffs.

I have to go and recommend seeing a game at Busch Stadium. There was a Sports Illustrated article a few years ago about the fans being so great. They were getting comments from other players like, "The fans applaud when the pitcher gets down a bunt. They applaud us when we make a good play. It's impossible to hate them."

When the Cardinals get a new stadium, the experience should get even better.

[lurkernomore]

Originally posted by lurkernomore
I am, going to look up his home/away split. IIRC it isn't very disparate. For one-sided HR totals, try Ott. [/B]

OK. Got a message board posting claiming 332 home/321 away during his Yankee years:

http://insiders2.ezboard.com/fbaseballfrm5.showMessage?topicID=132.topic

admittedly not a great source.

but careerwise he hit more on the road then at home, from a good source:

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/sf/downloads/bonds_HRs.pdf

347-367 home/away

(see top 10 breakdown)

[RickJay]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
[ LF's are not put out there by any team for their defense, but as a place to stash a big hitter. If Ramirez has trouble on the road with some balls, it's because he isn't that good defensively (although he made a real effort this year and it did pay off).
Boy, he must have made the effort when I wasn't watching. I saw him play a few times this year in person and I haven't seen a left fielder that bad since Kevin Reimer (nobody has ever been as bad as Reimer.) In one memorable game, the BoSox lost a game to the Jays in which they led 6-0, and Ramirez's defense probably cost them six runs; he botched at least four catchable fly balls, all in innings in which Toronto scored a pile of runs, most of them with two men out. I've never seen an outfielder play a worse game. (Except, of course, Reimer.) He couldn't get to anything, seemd to have trouble running after a fly in a straight line, and frankly he didn't appear to even be trying very hard, or else he was remarkably tentative for a guy with about a thousand games under his belt. After blowing two or three catchable flies he let the batter/runner advance to second on what should have been a clean single just for variety. Then he couldn't go back on a catchable fly ball and let it tip off his glove for a triple, and the floodgates were open. I saw him later in the season and he was just as terrible, although they didn't hit as many flies to left so he didn't have the opportunity to blow the game.

I made a point of watching him on TV whenever I could. I think he's absolutely brutal. He doesn't often drop the ball when he gets to it, and he does have a really good arm. But he just doesn't get to the ball. It's not that he's too slow, he just seems unwilling to commit to going in the right direction right away. I almost wonder if his DHing a lot hurts his defense.

If LF is the place to stash a slugger, Ramirez is living proof. He has the arm, but holy crap, other than his arm, he sucks.

[ElvisL1ves]

Yeah, Rick, you missed it. He had a lot of trouble on plastic fields like yours, but so do a lot of guys. But, if you followed the Sox all year, you'd have seen him run down and catch a lot of balls that we'd become used to seeing him let drop. He even got reasonably skilled at playing caroms off the Wall without pulling up and letting Damon do it - well, he got as good as Rice and Greenwell were anyway, but that was still a major improvement and it's good enough. There won't be any Gold Gloves coming his way, granted, but he did make the kind of effort he's paid to and he did save a few hits. Since you ask, he didn't DH once this year that I recall - that was Ortiz's full-time job after some early-season rotating.

It may be time for a John Henry / Larry Lucchino pitting. They apparently had decided to let Grady Little go long before the playoffs, for the crime of not worshipping stats as much as they do, no matter how well he held the team together and got more out of them than anyone really thought they could. The Bill James influence, for example, got them as excited as anyone could be about a couple of relievers who became available midseason, and had the kind of numbers James loves. But, next year, without the baseball minds having any control, we're going to see more Bruce Chens and Rudy Seanezes here, and will be lucky to make the playoffs at all. We might as well have kept Dan Duquette as GM.