The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The Best in the World

Re: The Best in the World

John Thacker — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:05:26 -0000

You’re the Damn Yankees, the Evil Empire! The Yankees are the investment bankers of baseball. Hell, you wear pinstripes, just like the sharks at Goldman Sachs do!

Yes, but Goldman Sachs wins under Presidents of any party. The Yankees only win under Democratic Presidents. (Last Yankee win under a Republican President: 1958.)

In fact, the longer it goes from the time when a Democrat was President, the worse the Yankees do. They made the WS and lost in 1981, the first WS with Reagan, then failed to make the playoffs at all until 1996, with four years of Democratic Presidency erasing 12 years of Republican. They then won the WS every year but one until GWB was elected. They could still make (and lose) the WS in 2001 and 2003, but as the Democratic Presidency mojo went away, the Yankees did worse and worse, until in 2008 they couldn't make the playoffs at all.

But as soon as a Democrat was elected, they win the WS.

They've won the WS over half the time under Carter, Clinton, and Obama. Under Ford they only made the WS in 1976, a month before the election that it was clear Carter would win. However, Ford was still President so they lost.

Re: The Best in the World

Alsadius — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:51:48 -0000

No, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find me a culture that practices large-scale microwave-based cannibalism.

Re: The Best in the World

Epee9 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:30:30 -0000

As sorry as I am to do so, I’m afraid I have to stick up for the Evil Empire. There are two myths/stereotypes that deserve to be cut down to size. For this purpose, I use MLB’s record of team records (2001-9) and Cot’s Baseball Contracts (2000-9) for team salaries. I also did a bit of checking on draft and trading records (the latter only for the Phightins’ and the Empire).

Myth 1: Salary determines wins.

If Major League Baseball were an efficient marketplace, there would be a strong correlation between salary and regular-season wins. Linear fits indeed show that wins and salaries are related, but the strength is questionable – the salary vs. wins graph has an average r-squared of 0.28.

Let’s make a couple comparisons. Given the average standard deviation of number of wins for a team in a season is 11.9, that means that the expected variation in wins due to salary is 11.9*SQRT(0.28) = 6.35 wins. In a 162-game season, the expected random Gaussian error is 6.36 wins. Hmmm. . . those two things together don’t account for the variation in wins! Let’s throw in an extra factor – call it “other” for everything that isn’t in-game luck: injuries, market inefficiencies, manager and front-office decisions, etc. “Other” accounts for, on average 7.84 wins. Not really a big win for salary supremacy. You could argue that the Yankees “bought” 23 wins compared to Cleveland in 2009 (3.6 standard deviations in salary), but the Yankees also won 38 more games than Cleveland.

By the way, I cheated a little bit on the salary comparison. I used the opening-day salaries for the next year as my salary comparison (so 2008 wins would be compared to opening-day salaries for 2009). This largely reflects in-contention teams acquiring high-priced help in the middle of the season, so it isn’t that big of a cheat. If one uses same-season salaries, the r-squared drops to 0.22.

Myth 2: The Yankees buy talent rather than developing it.

The second big argument against the Bronx Bombers is that they’re a bunch of mercenaries, bought or traded for rather than recruited and developed. I haven’t done a full survey of the majors, but let’s just compare the Yankees (2009 salary $207M, $68M higher than the second-richest Mets) to the Phillies (2009 salary $128M, fifth in the majors, still $36M higher than the MLB average). At least locally, the Phillies have the reputation of being a team that develops most of its own players, with a sprinkling of outside talent every now and then.

Of the 40-man roster, the Phillies scouted 15 when they were outside “organized baseball” and kept them in the organization until the present day. Of these 15, 11 were acquired via the draft and four (Ruiz, Bastardo, Naylor, and Escalona) as “amateur” free agents from non-draft countries. On the Yankees, 24 of the 40-man roster were so acquired (14 via the draft and 10 as “amateur” free agents). Note that this accounting regards Matsui (a Japanese professional) as an “amateur” free agent.

Of the starting eight position players on each team, four on each team came up all the way within the organization (Ruiz, Howard, Rollins, Utley, Jeter, Posada, Cano, and Cabreara). Both teams developed most of their own relievers and acquired a majority of their starters from other teams (Hamels, Happ, Chamberlain, and Petitte were drafted by their current team, although Petitte has wandered around the league in the mean time).

Of their acquisitions, neither team is really bottom-feeding. The Yankees acquired seven of their players immediately from the seven teams with 2009 payrolls less than $70M; the Phillies, three. I’m not feeling terribly sorry for those Marlins, A’s, and Rays. By contrast, the Yankees acquired four from the top-ten payroll teams (the Mariners, with payroll $99M, were tenth); the Phillies, thirteen (the Phillies got a lot of players from the Mariners and Dodgers).

What good does it do to compare one rich club to another? They’re both full of mercenaries, acquired only because they can afford them and other teams can’t, right? Well, let’s run another comparison that I happen to know off the top of my head. In the days before free agency became popular (with the corresponding payroll explosion), twelve of the 1980 Phillies’ 25-man roster were developed all the way through the system. In 2009, the Phillies’ number was nine. Yes, it’s a bit of a decline – but that’s arguing that players like Manny Trillo and Shane Victorino (both Rule 5 draftees) weren’t “real” Phillies. Oh, and the Yankees? Twelve of the 26 on their World Series roster (Cabrera was replaced due to injury) were “developed” rather than “bought” – thirteen if you count Petitte

Re: The Best in the World

ArrowSmith — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:22:06 -0000

The Yankees winning titles reminds me of why I don't like MLB anymore. I would much rather follow tennis.

Re: The Best in the World

stuart abrams — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:15:40 -0000

I'm not a Yankee fan. I just think the belly-aching about the Yankees' payroll is BS. The Yankees aren't really a "free agent team", and they actually have a pretty high degree of consistency in their personnel, higher than teams like the Red Sox or the Angels. Interestingly, several of the key players in this year's championship are products of the Yankee farm system - Jeter, Posada, Cano, Rivera, Pettite, Chamberlain, Hughes, Cabrera. Yankee spending not only goes towards free agents, it also goes towards retaining home-grown talent, something that less affluent teams are unable to do.

I once heard Theo Epstein talking about money and winning. You figure that it takes 95 wins to make the play-offs. For the Yankees, they can spend enough that they should be able to have 95 wins every year. For other teams, the best that you can shoot for is being able to do it 3 out of 4 years, because you have to re-build periodically - the Yankees don't have to do that because they can just plug in new free agents while they are developing young talent. For teams just below the Yankees, like the Red Sox, Angels, Dodgers, Phillies, etc., they can try to maintain winning seasons even while they are rebuilding, but it is unlikely that they will be able to win 95 games and make the play-offs during a rebuilding year (like the Red Sox in '06). For the poorer teams, that is probably impossible to do and they will have to go through some pretty bad losing seasons while they are rebuilding, as has often been the case with the Marlins and the Indians. Nevertheless, well-managed teams like the Twins and the A's prove that you can still shoot for the goal of making the playoffs 3 out of 4 years even on a much smaller payroll. Looks like the Rays might also be trying to fit into that model.

The pathetic teams are (1) the ones like the Mets and the Orioles that ought to have plenty of money but consistently spend it foolishly, and (2) the ones like the Royals and the Pirates that immediately trade off talent and don't bother to go through the process of building teams capable of making the playoffs.

Re: The Best in the World

Greg Hlatky — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:11:12 -0000

Oh, go to hell. I don't hate the Yankees, who are at least talented and professional. I hate their fans, as exemplified by this post. The stupid hoo-yeah-fist-bump-eat-their-raw-livers attitude in the body of a Long Island guido loser. Everything people dislike about New York.

Re: The Best in the World

Yancey Ward — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:08:49 -0000

What happened? I thought Obama was odds on favorite win the World Series.

Re: The Best in the World

Nimed — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:04:59 -0000

You think the quote is more humane if you substitute "cooked" by "microwaved"?

Re: The Best in the World

Daniel — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:59:21 -0000

Hey Megan, next time I have the urge to be obnoxious on in the comments, I'm going to remind myself that you're a Yankee fan, and then I'll try to stfu.

GO YANKS!!

Re: The Best in the World

Syphax — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:50:34 -0000

bullman,

In baseball the outcome of the playoffs is mostly determined by luck. The true measure of how "fair" baseball is is how many teams have made it to the playoffs it turns out a lot of baseball teams, both rich and poor, have made it to the playoffs over the last decade.

"the Pirates haven't had a .500 record in almost 20 years."

And they are a tremendous outlier... easily countered by pointing to the A's or Twins.

Baseball would suck without a villain, the Yankees provide that villain. That's my primary argument.

Re: The Best in the World

Alsadius — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:48:15 -0000

But just remember - humans should shun technology and industry and live in harmony with nature.

Re: The Best in the World

Alsadius — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:45:38 -0000

Depends on whether you mean comfort or "comfort", I suppose. But of course, that version is a little too creepy to quote as often as the real line has been quoted.

Re: The Best in the World

Alsadius — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:41:28 -0000

The beauty of sports is that it's the one notable field of human endeavour where irrationality is not just allowed but encouraged. I mean, come on, I'm a Leafs fan - if there's a better definition of self-inflicted misery than that(with the exception of the Cubs), I don't know what it is.

Of course, it doesn't matter. Yeah, the Leafs lose and will keep losing, probably until the year after I die. But I don't really have to care too much. I'll lament it, but I'll keep rooting for the home team, even if the home team is a bunch of money-grubbing fools who make their living by lying to the fans about how much they want to win. Why? Because they're the home team. I don't want or need a better reason.

Similarly, I make it a policy to hate on the Yankees. Not for any good reason - hell, in an objective sense, they're a magnificent team with a historical record anyone but the Canadiens should be jealous of. They've been a first-rank team for the bulk of the last century, in a league that was 16 teams at its smallest, not 6. Yeah, it's not the most inspiring method of winning("spend the most, hire the best, win"), but it's been successful and effective. I don't dislike them for their performance on the field, nor for their attitude. It's just pure tribalism and resentment. They're not my team, and they're better than my team, so to hell with them. I remember being in a room full of 20 people watching the 2001 Series, and 19 were cheering for the Diamondbacks. None of us were from anywhere near Arizona, we were just hoping the Yankees would lose and the funny new team would win.

Re: The Best in the World

bullman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:05:28 -0000

all of this is true and reason that baseball attendance is shrinking, non-playoff TV ratings are low and it is no longer America's pastime. People want a competition, not a fait accompli.

Re: The Best in the World

ArrowSmith — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:03:29 -0000

Yeah I don't see how the Yankees "got killed" consistently, winning the division every year except one! Megan - face it you support the Evil Empire.

Re: The Best in the World

Careless — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:00:59 -0000

Lies, the 2003 playoffs were canceled! No one won!

Anyway, I can understand how someone could be a Yankee fan, I just wouldn't advise advertising that fact the day after they win the World Series.

Re: The Best in the World

bullman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:59:39 -0000

???? "baseball has hardly been dominated by the high payroll teams" ????? Are you kidding? Look at the WS champions since the strike, all high payroll teams except one of the Marlin teams. Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl last year and the Pirates haven't had a .500 record in almost 20 years. Get real.

Re: The Best in the World

Hagios — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:24:38 -0000

Conan and Ghengis had nothing on this Maori war chief. He taunted the preserved head of his enemy:

"You wanted to run away, did you? But my war club overtook you: and after you were cooked, you made food for my mouth. And where is your father? he is cooked:- and where is your brother? He is eaten:- and where is your wife? There she sits, a wife for me - and where are your children? There they are, with loads on their backs, carrying food, as my slaves."

Page 100 of Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization

Re: The Best in the World

TallDave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:09:27 -0000

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and then comfort their women.

Hmmmmm, not as catchy.

Re: The Best in the World

TallDave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:07:05 -0000

Baseball sucks. It's boring and the deck is heavily stacked for a few teams.

http://www.getlisty.com/preview/2009-mlb-team-payrolls/

Re: The Best in the World

bupalos — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:00:32 -0000

>>whatever happens can't be blamed on a teammate.

Sounds like someone who never played baseball. But there is less team play, that's true. Why that makes it a better team sport, I don't know. That seems weird, but to each his own.

>>Complaints about Yankee payrolls are BS, smart spending is more important than gross amounts.

Yankees are consistently off the charts in terms of the inefficiency of their spending/wins. Simply put, they spend pretty dumb, but spend so much more than everyone else it doesn't matter. The kind of mistakes they've made with free agents recently would cripple most teams for years, but here they are with another championship.

The Cleveland Indians, Minnesota Twins, and I think Oakland A's are consistently run far more efficiently in terms of wins/payroll including playoff wins. It's a little skewed, of course, because while NY consistently stacks a probable championship team by buying all the players, the nature of baseball means you're not going to win commensurate with that. You just can't have a 140 win season, which is what their payroll would predict. Boston is I think the only really large payroll team in the last 10 years that has performed at or above it's payroll. Maybe the Angels too. Can't remember.

I admit I kind of admire Yankee fans. I don't really know how you care about a free agent "team" like that, but it is a testament to a special kind of devotion. Oh, and I hope they all die too.

Re: The Best in the World

H. Protagonist — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:51:33 -0000

You could best 80% of the players in the world series? I think you exaggerate a bit.

Baseball players work out a lot. The "guts" you see tend to be on three types of players: pitchers (who have very little responsibility besides throwing well, but many/most of these are in quite good shape as well), catchers (who have very little responsibility besides throwing well and blocking well), and DH/Pinch Hitter types (who have very little responsibility besides hitting well).

The vast majority of position players are quite fit.

Re: The Best in the World

MoReport — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:41:32 -0000

Losers, Weepers

I am a Viking fan myself:

Rape, Loot, and Burn,

in that order. :)

In Japanese Besu-Boro,

the winning team eases up,

so as not to embarrass the

losing team, and fans.

Q: Watch team sport,

or participate in

individual sport ?

Re: The Best in the World

Jorah — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:26:01 -0000

In sports talk convention, the decade always begins on the year ending in 0.

Getting into talk about the Gregorian calendar and the significance of 1 AD is another topic entirely.

Re: The Best in the World

Drew — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:36:18 -0000

Well said - love the IB comparison