Playoff Baseball

[Mal]

The only problem with that line of reasoning, Oly, is that capitalist bastion MLB seems to be losing ground on all fronts to the centrally-planned, pure commie NFL.

[Duvall]

Originally Posted by Olympic Fan

Jason, I have not and will not defend baseball's salary structure. My only objection was reading criticism of the Yankee's profligate spending coming from an admitted Red Sox fan -- a fan of baseball's second most profligate spending team. Yeah, we've "bought" two World titles in this decade ... just as they have "bought" two World titles this decade.

Well, maybe.

Now, let’s think about this for a moment: You have a sport where the New York Yankees — in large part because they are located in America’s largest city and they have baseball’s richest television contract — can viably spend tens of millions of dollars more than any other team to acquire baseball players. You have one team (and only one team) playing the video game on cheat-mode.

This is much starker than people think, by the way. I quickly went back and looked at the numbers before writing my column for SI.com, and I’m going to reprint them here because even as someone who has also grown sick of hearing about the Yankees payroll, I found them to be stunning:

In 2002, the Yankees spent $17 million more in payroll than any other team.

In 2003, the Yankees spent $35 million more in payroll than any other team.

In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it’s ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: “OK, let’s spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we’re spending exactly as much. And now … let’s add the Oakland A’s. No, I mean let’s add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let’s play some ball!”

In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five.

In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team.

In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team — cutbacks, you know.

In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team.

In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team.

Then again, maybe I should try and defend baseball. The only trouble is that you are a moderator and my defense of baseball would belong on the defunct public policy board. Would you ban me if I suggested that those who argue for salary restrictions and balanced spending are a bunch of Socialist "levelers" and that the big spenders -- the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers -- are the staunch defenders of American capitalist values?

Wealthy businessmen engaging in mutually beneficial dealings to depress the cost of labor *is* an American capitalist value.

[JasonEvans]

Originally Posted by Olympic Fan

Then again, maybe I should try and defend baseball. The only trouble is that you are a moderator and my defense of baseball would belong on the defunct public policy board. Would you ban me if I suggested that those who argue for salary restrictions and balanced spending are a bunch of Socialist "levelers" and that the big spenders -- the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers -- are the staunch defenders of American capitalist values?

My status as a mod should not color your arguments at all. If a mod is involved in a conversation on the board, he will almost never take mod action on that conversation.

I can imagine what your capitalist arguments would be in sports, but I would reply that the core of sports is being smarter, working harder, and performing better than your opponent. It should have nothing to do with economics. I know that is not an absolute reality, but it is what we strive for in most cases.

Can I infer from your comments that you think the NFL and NBA should abolish their salary caps too? Can you imagine what the bidding for LeBron would be then?!?! Wow!!

--Jason "I bet the Knicks would offer him 5% of the team to play for them" Evans

[allenmurray]

Originally Posted by JasonEvans

I can imagine what your capitalist arguments would be in sports, but I would reply that the core of sports is being smarter, working harder, and performing better than your opponent. It should have nothing to do with economics. I know that is not an absolute reality, but it is what we strive for in most cases.

That seems a little simplistic. Is the core being smarter, working harder, and performing better? Sure. But if we believe that some players are in fact more skilled than others, and allow some teams (in theory) sign all of the best players to one team, doesn't it stand to reason they will have an advantge? I'm not sure what the answer is, but sying that succes has nothhing to do with economics is just a bit silly IMHO.

[JasonEvans]

Originally Posted by allenmurray

That seems a little simplistic. Is the core being smarter, working harder, and performing better? Sure. But if we believe that some players are in fact more skilled than others, and allow some teams (in theory) sign all of the best players to one team, doesn't it stand to reason they will have an advantge? I'm not sure what the answer is, but sying that succes has nothhing to do with economics is just a bit silly IMHO.

I am aware that economics has something to do with it, what I am saying is that economics should not be as dominant a factor as the others that are more traditionally associated with sports. In baseball, economics all but trumps some of the other factors.

For example, the Red Sox and especially the Yankees don't have to be as smart as other teams. If they make a mistake on a player, they can afford to turn elsewhere. Similarly, they do not have to work as hard at developing their young players because they can afford high priced-vets if the youth does not pan out. What's more, if their young players do turn out great, they can keep them for as long as they want compared to teams who have to let free agents-to-be go because they know they will not be able to re-sign them.

For many of the other teams in baseball, none of these things are true. They have to be smarter than the big money teams. They have to do a better job developing their players. They have to get big seasons from unexpected places or they will have no chance against the money clubs. In some ways, economics trumps all other aspects of sports in baseball -- certainly moreso than in other leagues (especially the most popular league in the U.S., the NFL).

--Jason "I am not saying the YankSoxMets and the such are not smart or skilled or good at developing players, I am merely saying they can afford to not be as good at those aspects and still be very successful" Evans

[77devil]

Originally Posted by Olympic Fan

Then again, maybe I should try and defend baseball. The only trouble is that you are a moderator and my defense of baseball would belong on the defunct public policy board. Would you ban me if I suggested that those who argue for salary restrictions and balanced spending are a bunch of Socialist "levelers" and that the big spenders -- the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers -- are the staunch defenders of American capitalist values?

So I guess you would argue that the baseball should not have the anti-trust exemption which is anti competitive and an anathema to American capitalist values; unless, of course, you're the beneficiary like baseball and health care companies for which the anti trust exemption is a sacred American capitalist value. I suppose you might argue as well that the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc are too big to fail to be subject to competition on a level playing field, a core tenant of American capitalist values, like Citigroup et al., and we all know how that's worked out. But there I go drifting into the PPB.

[allenmurray]

Originally Posted by JasonEvans

I am aware that economics has something to do with it, what I am saying is that economics should not be as dominant a factor as the others that are more traditionally associated with sports. In baseball, economics all but trumps some of the other factors.

For example, the Red Sox and especially the Yankees don't have to be as smart as other teams. If they make a mistake on a player, they can afford to turn elsewhere. Similarly, they do not have to work as hard at developing their young players because they can afford high priced-vets if the youth does not pan out. What's more, if their young players do turn out great, they can keep them for as long as they want compared to teams who have to let free agents-to-be go because they know they will not be able to re-sign them.

For many of the other teams in baseball, none of these things are true. They have to be smarter than the big money teams. They have to do a better job developing their players. They have to get big seasons from unexpected places or they will have no chance against the money clubs. In some ways, economics trumps all other aspects of sports in baseball -- certainly moreso than in other leagues (especially the most popular league in the U.S., the NFL).

--Jason "I am not saying the YankSoxMets and the such are not smart or skilled or good at developing players, I am merely saying they can afford to not be as good at those aspects and still be very successful" Evans

I misunderstood your previous post. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

[Olympic Fan]

Originally Posted by 77devil

So I guess you would argue that the baseball should not have the anti-trust exemption which is anti competitive and an anathema to American capitalist values; unless, of course, you're the beneficiary like baseball and health care companies for which the anti trust exemption is a sacred American capitalist value. I suppose you might argue as well that the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc are too big to fail to be subject to competition on a level playing field, a core tenant of American capitalist values, like Citigroup et al., and we all know how that's worked out. But there I go drifting into the PPB.

I was just being a smart aleck.

Actually, what we have in baseball is a cartel, when a number of businesses unite to exert a monopolistic control over an industry. The anti-trust exemption -- one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made -- is prime evidence of how the government favors big business over the public interest.

Of course, there I go spouting "Commie" rhetoric. The idea that businesses can band together and dominate a market and squeeze every last cent of profit from the public is the heart and soul of American capitalism. Andrew Carnagie did it. John Rockafeller did it. George Steinbrenner is right up there with them.

God bless, the New York Yankees -- the perfect symbol of the American economic system!

PS And horray for Derek Jeter, the 2009 AL Gold Glove shortstop!

[dbb03]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...day/index.html

Yankees will inquire about Blue Jays ace Halladay

[TampaDuke]

While it is true that the Yankees, acting out of their own capitalistic self interest, may oppose a true salary cap, the enactment of a true cap was not killed by the owners. To the contrary, the unions and players had something to say about it. Don't we remember 1994? I don't think we can blame the absence of a cap on the owners, given that they've actually attempted to impose one and suffered mightily for the effort.

Imposition of a salary cap in baseball presents some very interesting labor dynamics with the union and the Yankees reaching the same conclusion, albeit for different reasons.

[InSpades]

Originally Posted by dbb03

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...day/index.html

Yankees will inquire about Blue Jays ace Halladay

This smells of "driving up the price" more than anything if you ask me. I can't see the Yankees seriously trying to get Halladay. I can't imagine the Yankees doing much this offseason except possibly replacing an outfielder. Maybe signing that young Cuban fireballer. As thin as the Yankees rotation was in the postseason this year... they will get Wang back (hopefully) and will certainly look to move Joba or Hughes into the rotation (possibly both). Assuming they resign Andy Pettitte and you have 5 or 6 starters there. Plus possibly Ian Kennedy who was hurt last year. Plus if they get Halladay it really wouldn't be fair next year at all .

[Olympic Fan]

Originally Posted by InSpades

This smells of "driving up the price" more than anything if you ask me. I can't see the Yankees seriously trying to get Halladay. I can't imagine the Yankees doing much this offseason except possibly replacing an outfielder. Maybe signing that young Cuban fireballer. As thin as the Yankees rotation was in the postseason this year... they will get Wang back (hopefully) and will certainly look to move Joba or Hughes into the rotation (possibly both). Assuming they resign Andy Pettitte and you have 5 or 6 starters there. Plus possibly Ian Kennedy who was hurt last year. Plus if they get Halladay it really wouldn't be fair next year at all .

Agree that adding Halladay is overkill for the Yankees.

You are right about most of the rest -- resign Pettite (interesting that MLB Network listed free agents last night and did not include Pettite in the Yankee list). Kennedy is back and should be in the rotation. I think one of Chamberlain and Hughes gets a shot in the rotation (which one?) while the other becomes Mariano's setup man. And I am hoping the Yankees sign Chapman (the Cuban lefty).

The only quibble is Wang. He's a lo-o-o-n-n-g way away from returning. The best case scenario is that he's back by the middle of the 2010 season. It's more likely that he'll miss the entire year. From what I've read, the Yankees want to release him, then sign him to a minor league deal and try to rehabilitate him for 2011.

[InSpades]

Originally Posted by Olympic Fan

The only quibble is Wang. He's a lo-o-o-n-n-g way away from returning. The best case scenario is that he's back by the middle of the 2010 season. It's more likely that he'll miss the entire year. From what I've read, the Yankees want to release him, then sign him to a minor league deal and try to rehabilitate him for 2011.

I haven't been following Wang that closely, the last I heard he was going to start throwing soon. Obviously there's no guarantee there, he hasn't pitched effectively in a very long time. He sure would make a good 4th-5th starter if he could regain some of his form though. I can't imagine any team being that willing to give him a big deal this year after last season. Hopefully he'll get another chance with the Yankees.

I'm not as sold as you seem to be on Kennedy in the rotation. I'd certainly rather see him in there than Gaudin (or Mitre). If I had to guess I would say that Joba is back in the rotation next year to start the season. If it doesn't work out again next year then they'll probably just give up on it and make him a full-time reliever. He's always looked better coming out of the 'pen. Kennedy could certainly fill that last spot (if not him then Hughes?).

[Olympic Fan]

Originally Posted by InSpades

I haven't been following Wang that closely, the last I heard he was going to start throwing soon. Obviously there's no guarantee there, he hasn't pitched effectively in a very long time. He sure would make a good 4th-5th starter if he could regain some of his form though. I can't imagine any team being that willing to give him a big deal this year after last season. Hopefully he'll get another chance with the Yankees.

It hasn't been THAT long for Wang.

His breakout year was 2006, when as a 25-year-old, he went 19-6 with a 3.63 ERA and finished second in the Cy Young vote. A year later, he's 19-7.

He starts 2008 with a 8-2 record when he ruptures his Achilles running the bases.

Between the start of 2006 and June of 2008, Wang won more games than any other pitcher in baseball over that span. He missed the rest of the 2008 season after surgery. He tried to come back last year and was horrible -- 1-6 with a 9.64 ERA. He was shut down with a shoulder injury that required surgery.

He faces a long road back, but he's just 29 years old and he WAS a pretty effective pitcher (maybe the best ground ball pitcher in the game). I'm not so sure that everybody else in baseball will step aside and let the Yankees sign him to a minor league deal. It's not like he's that overpaid -- he was making "only" $5 million a year, cheap for a frontline pitcher.

As for Kennedy, I'm basing my optimism on his potential. This is a guy the Yankees were so reluctant to trade that they balked at putting him in a package for Santana. He's pretty strictly a starter -- 43 of 46 minor league appearances as a starter (with a 19-6 record and a 1.95). He pitched at that level with the Yankees late in 2007, when he was 1-0 with a 1.89 ERA in 19 innings of work.

He hurt his arm last year and struggled last year and missed most of this year. It appears that he's recovered -- he did end up pitching 22 innings in Triple A late with a 1.59 ERA. He came up at the very end and pitched one scoreless inning for the Yankees.

Kennedy will be 25 years old next season. I think if he's healthy, he's a good option for a fourth or fifth option.

[Mal]

Maybe it's the Yankee envy/hate in me, but I think you're falling for Wang's smoke and mirrors job. I'd be willing to put money on him having the highest winning percentage of all time for a pitcher with a career 107 ERA+. His WHIP's close to 1.35, which is decent but not Cy Young consideration worthy, although admittedly WHIP may be a somewhat misleading stat for a guy who gives up very few homers. Regardless, Wang's a .500, 4.00 ERA, middle of the rotation starter if he's on any team that isn't the world leader in run production. I mean, seriously, who wins 19 games with a 3.70 ERA? And, as an aside, who finishes second in Cy Young voting with a 3.63 ERA? How he got more votes than Halladay is beyond me. You could argue Mussina was the best Yankees pitcher that year, too.

[InSpades]

A 4.00 ERA would have put him ahead of Burnett and Pettitte this year (only behind Sabathia on the Yanks). There were 17 AL starting pitchers who had a sub-4.00 ERA this year. Wang also generally gave the Yankees a lot of innings which helped him to get more wins. It also doesn't hurt to have Mariano Rivera closing out your games. If you want to look at ridiculous win totals... check out Tim Wakefield. He had a year with 17 wins and an ERA closer to 5 than to 4.

Wang is definitely a different type of pitcher... not anything like your prototypical front line starter. However the Yankees don't need him to be that anymore... if he could give them 200 innings of 4.5 ERA then he'd probably win 16 games and the Yankees would be thrilled.

As for Kennedy... he always looks great in AAA and then it doesn't translate into the majors. Hopefully it's just a mental block that he can get past this year.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by InSpades

A 4.00 ERA would have put him ahead of Burnett and Pettitte this year (only behind Sabathia on the Yanks). There were 17 AL starting pitchers who had a sub-4.00 ERA this year. Wang also generally gave the Yankees a lot of innings which helped him to get more wins. It also doesn't hurt to have Mariano Rivera closing out your games.

God, I hate run inflation. I'd add some non-Cy Young qualified guys, at least a couple of them, to your 17. Cliff Lee, Eric Bedard, Brad Bergeson and Dallas Braden were all starters with sub-4's, who were short of the 170 inning cutoff for various reasons. Regardless, you're right that a 4.00 isn't as mediocre as it used to be. My basic contention is that Wang as ace was a good sign that those pre-Sabathia Yankees teams lacked the pitching of a real World Series contender, but his win percentage was so high it obscured his somewhat less stellar peripherals.

Originally Posted by InSpades

If you want to look at ridiculous win totals... check out Tim Wakefield. He had a year with 17 wins and an ERA closer to 5 than to 4.

Good point, although he took 12 losses that year, too. Which makes sense, as pitching more innings should also lead you to rack up a few more losses to go with your increased win total. Wang, on the other hand, was going 19-6 and 19-7. Granted, he was doing so with a better ERA, but not at all the sort of ERA you'd expect from a guy leading the league in victories and winning percentage.

Originally Posted by InSpades

Wang is definitely a different type of pitcher... not anything like your prototypical front line starter. However the Yankees don't need him to be that anymore... if he could give them 200 innings of 4.5 ERA then he'd probably win 16 games and the Yankees would be thrilled.

Fair enough. I'm not saying he can't be a 3rd or 4th guy for the Yankees and help. If he won 16 games that way and lost 12 or 13, that would make sense and be good value. I have a feeling, however, that based on past results, a lot of people would anticipate he goes 16-6 that way. Even with that offense behind him, I've got to think that his W% was testing the boundaries of statistical anomaly in the past.

[Olympic Fan]

Originally Posted by InSpades

As for Kennedy... he always looks great in AAA and then it doesn't translate into the majors. Hopefully it's just a mental block that he can get past this year.

I think that's a little bit unfair to Kennedy to say "it doesn't translate into the majors."

It DID translate into the majors in 2007, when he gave the Yankees three very effective starts during the stretch drive in September (an average of 6.1 innings with a 1.89 ERA).

He was hurt in 2008 and struggled. He was hurt in spring and tried to pitch through it, but was shut down after nine starts in April and May (he came back and tried one start in August, but was so bad he was shut down) -- but I'd hate to write him off based on 10 injured 2008 starts.

As for Wang, I don't believe he's an ace -- in fact one of the Yankees postseason problems in 2006 and 2007 was that their most effective pitcher WASN'T an ace. But if he could regain form, he would be a solid middle of the rotation starter. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening in 2010.