Glorious Article by Joe Posnanski on the Yankees advantage

[STL FANATIC]

I never talk about this, and it's for all the reasons Posnaski lays out. But he's right it lingers below the surface, it occasionally bubbles over, but we just ignore it because we're tired of it. But something had to be said, and he says it just right.

I'll give you his intro here, click the link for the rest if you're so instructed.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/11/05/yankees.payroll/index.html

The following is a screed about the Yankees' payroll. If you are a Yankees fan uninterested in a screed about the payroll, don't read it. You won't enjoy it. Go out, buy a championship T-shirt, reminisce about this great team, enjoy the victory. I'm telling you: Don't read it.

As for the rest of you: The following is, I think, something that is always bubbling below the surface of baseball (when you are not a Yankees fan). I rarely write about it because ... it's like writing about the heat in Phoenix. We all know it's there, and we don't really want to talk about it anymore. But with the Yankees winning the World Series and then talking about how it showed the team's character, well, yeah, I thought maybe this once ...

[JQK]

If the Yankees could just buy championships, we'd have pennants for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008....

...and i said "WE". Deal with it.

[Gothamite]

Interesting article, but he tends to disprove his own point when he lists how much the Yankees spent during all those years they didn't win the World Series.

And frankly, so long as there is a single owner lining his own pockets rather than putting money back into the team, this is just sour grapes.

Pohlad used to pocket the money the Yankees sent the Twins. Dividends. Money that could have been used to keep players like Johan Santana, if Pohlad was actually interested in winning championships.

The Yankees, on the other hand, put every penny back into the team. Investors don't get anything until they sell their shares.

Until that changes, this is far from "glorious" - it's just more whinging. And that is from a Brewers fan.

[STL FANATIC]

He told you not to read it JQK... Although, I'm guessing you didn't or you'd have seen your point discussed.

[Gothamite]

"Discussed," yes. He recognizes that his argument has this big gaping hole, and talks around the hole without actually addressing it.

The trouble is that, inevitably, that one team will make good choices. They will put together a team of All-Stars. They will sign a dominant left-handed starter and a slugging switch-hitting Gold Glove first baseman and a right-handed starter who throws curveballs that bend like wiffle balls. That team will be a remarkable collection of stars, and they will play often beautiful baseball, and they will win more games than any other team during the season. That team will roll through the playoffs without facing an elimination game or anything resembling real drama -- though there will be constant efforts to make it SEEM like there's drama.

Change the specific Yankee references, and he could be talking about the Phillies.

Look, there is an argument to be made there. But this yahoo doesn't even come close to it.

[JQK]

No, i took the man's advice and did not read the article, but the implication in what you posted was there, so i simply stated my point. I will now leave this thread, and all of you fans of smaller, lesser teams can drink deep from your cup of Haterade.

(John Quincy King as "The Obnoxious Yankees Fan")

[STL FANATIC]

Interesting article, but he tends to disprove his own point when he lists how much the Yankees spent during all those years they didn't win the World Series.

And frankly, so long as there is a single owner lining his own pockets rather than putting money back into the team, this is just sour grapes. Pohlad used to pocket the money the Yankees sent the Twins. The Yankees, on the other hand, put every penny back into the team. Investors don't get anything until they sell their shares.

Until that day, this is just more whinging. And this is from a Brewers fan.

I disagree. As he says, baseball is a random game with an especially random format. It's design covers up the blatantly unfair advantages that high payroll provides. And the Yankees don't just have a higher payroll, they have an absurdly higher payroll.

No, the Yankees won't win a World Series every year they spend that much money. Yes, they do increase their chances (and advantages) a multitude of times over by spending that much. And it's really quite ridiculous.

I don't know if I hate the Yankees anymore like I used to. I'm not upset they won the World Series. But as Posnaski states, I really finally get pushed enough to say something about it when you hear the Yankees talk about how much it took to win, how they had to overcome odds, etc. etc. etc. In baseball there is no such thing as a guarantee--far from it. But the Yankees, spending as much as they do, will always be the odds on favorite to win. There's no overcoming the odds for the Yankees, there's only living up to them.

[STL FANATIC]

No, i took the man's advice and did not read the article, but the implication in what you posted was there, so i simply stated my point. I will now leave this thread, and all of you fans of smaller, lesser teams can drink deep from your cup of Haterade.

lol.

yep.

[STL FANATIC]

"Discussed," yes. He recognizes that his argument has this big gaping hole, and talks around the hole without actually addressing it.

The trouble is that, inevitably, that one team will make good choices. They will put together a team of All-Stars. They will sign a dominant left-handed starter and a slugging switch-hitting Gold Glove first baseman and a right-handed starter who throws curveballs that bend like wiffle balls. That team will be a remarkable collection of stars, and they will play often beautiful baseball, and they will win more games than any other team during the season. That team will roll through the playoffs without facing an elimination game or anything resembling real drama -- though there will be constant efforts to make it SEEM like there's drama.

Change the specific Yankee references, and he could be talking about the Phillies.

Look, there is an argument to be made there. But this yahoo doesn't even come close to it.

He actually directly addresses it.

And no, he couldn't be talking about the Phillies because the Yankees rolled through the Phillies.

And finally, disagree if you want, but don't start with the name calling (unless over several of his pieces you feel that way). One article doesn't make his career, and Joe Posnaski has written a number of great articles. He's easily one of the best baseball/sports writers out there.

[njmeadowlanders]

But yes, while anything can happen in October, how about getting there?

Will the Jays or Orioles ever even have a chance to try their luck in the playoffs if they can't get there? That randomness goes away over the course of 162 games.

How the Rays made the playoffs last year may be the most impressive baseball feat in the last decade.

Of course, it's also how you spend the money as well. I'm a Met fan and well, we all know how many times they've made the playoffs in the last 20 years...(that'd be 3 for those of you keeping score at home).

[Gothamite]

Interesting article, but he tends to disprove his own point when he lists how much the Yankees spent during all those years they didn't win the World Series.

And frankly, so long as there is a single owner lining his own pockets rather than putting money back into the team, this is just sour grapes. Pohlad used to pocket the money the Yankees sent the Twins. The Yankees, on the other hand, put every penny back into the team. Investors don't get anything until they sell their shares.

Until that day, this is just more whinging. And this is from a Brewers fan.

I disagree. As he says, baseball is a random game with an especially random format. It's design covers up the blatantly unfair advantages that high payroll provides. And the Yankees don't just have a higher payroll, they have an absurdly higher payroll.

No, the Yankees won't win a World Series every year they spend that much money. Yes, they do increase their chances (and advantages) a multitude of times over by spending that much. And it's really quite ridiculous.

I don't know if I hate the Yankees anymore like I used to. I'm not upset they won the World Series. But as Posnaski states, I really finally get pushed enough to say something about it when you hear the Yankees talk about how much it took to win, how they had to overcome odds, etc. etc. etc. In baseball there is no such thing as a guarantee--far from it. But the Yankees, spending as much as they do, will always be the odds on favorite to win. There's no overcoming the odds for the Yankees, there's only living up to them.

Now I'm wondering if you read the article.

His one interesting point is how the entire season, and specifically the playoff format, is stacked against the Yankees. So yes, they did in fact have an awful lot to overcome to actually win the Series. If they didn't, the outfield wall would list a whole lot more than 26 years.

[Epiphanic]

What was really striking for me was how often the Yankees had the best record in the American League. The team has been so good for so long that it's not really surprising, but when it's listed out like that it's stark. His argument that baseball's randomness -- both the nature of the game itself and the playoff system -- abstracts the Yankees' advantage is a legit one, but it gives me two thoughts.

1. Although not his intention, it strikes me as an indirect criticism of the playoff system. Imagine if every team had the exact same resources (say $100M payroll). In this world where success on the diamond is a direct result of good personel moves, would we as fans be satisfied with such a "random" way of determining a champion? Or would we prefer a system that rewards the truly great teams?

2. Since baseball is so random, how much does the Yankees' monetary advantage really matter? Quick edit: Njmeadowlanders did bring up a point that you have to be in it to win it. If the Yankees are able to spend their way into October, that brings us back to what I found so striking about the article. So then the question becomes if we care about the regular season champion as much as we care about the World Series champion.

[STL FANATIC]

Interesting article, but he tends to disprove his own point when he lists how much the Yankees spent during all those years they didn't win the World Series.

And frankly, so long as there is a single owner lining his own pockets rather than putting money back into the team, this is just sour grapes. Pohlad used to pocket the money the Yankees sent the Twins. The Yankees, on the other hand, put every penny back into the team. Investors don't get anything until they sell their shares.

Until that day, this is just more whinging. And this is from a Brewers fan.

I disagree. As he says, baseball is a random game with an especially random format. It's design covers up the blatantly unfair advantages that high payroll provides. And the Yankees don't just have a higher payroll, they have an absurdly higher payroll.

No, the Yankees won't win a World Series every year they spend that much money. Yes, they do increase their chances (and advantages) a multitude of times over by spending that much. And it's really quite ridiculous.

I don't know if I hate the Yankees anymore like I used to. I'm not upset they won the World Series. But as Posnaski states, I really finally get pushed enough to say something about it when you hear the Yankees talk about how much it took to win, how they had to overcome odds, etc. etc. etc. In baseball there is no such thing as a guarantee--far from it. But the Yankees, spending as much as they do, will always be the odds on favorite to win. There's no overcoming the odds for the Yankees, there's only living up to them.

Now I'm wondering if you read the article.

His one interesting point is how the entire season, and specifically the playoff format, is stacked against the Yankees. So yes, they did in fact have an awful lot to overcome to actually win the Series. If they didn't, the outfield wall would list a whole lot more than 26 years.

Was there a team with better odds to win the World Series?

So yes, they had to overcome odds, but every other team would have had to overcome even greater odds.

Additionally, he didn't say the regular season was stacked against the Yankees. It's absolutely not. It's stacked FOR the Yankees and other great teams. It removes some of the randomness of baseball by allowing the results to to become proper over the course of 162 games. It's stacked against the Yankees as you compare them to the New England Patriots (or whoever) in that the dominant team in the NFL (and NBA) will appear much more dominant over their league than the dominant team in the MLB. But the MLB regular season is still very much set up to make the dominant team of the league the winner of the league (in the regular season).

It then switches to short series in the playoffs. What that does is make a dominant team have odds of winning the playoffs lower than their odds were to win the regular season. It does NOT however make their odds lower or close to lower than the non-dominant teams. They are still very much favored.

[Gothamite]

And no, he couldn't be talking about the Phillies because the Yankees rolled through the Phillies.

And finally, disagree if you want, but don't start with the name calling (unless over several of his pieces you feel that way). One article doesn't make his career, and Joe Posnaski has written a number of great articles. He's easily one of the best baseball/sports writers out there.

Wait, I can't call him a yahoo unless I dislike two of his columns? Fine, then. He's a yahoo. I've read his stuff before, and what I've read srikes me as remarkably superficial analysis, repeating the conventional wisdom found in the work of endless other writers and commentators slightly dressed up with a little thin style. Sort of an online version of Around the Horn.

And "the Yankees rolled through the Phillies"? You must have been watching a different Series than I - the Phils were in every game except the last one, and possibly Game Three. They flat-out steamrolled the Yankees in Game One and stymied the Yankees in Game Five. That's two games they dominated as opposed to the Yankees' two. The other two games were toss-ups that the Yanks were fortunate to win (or fortunate to have given to them, if you find Manuel's sentimentality towards Lidge as baffling as I).

Sure seemed pretty competitive to me.

[Saintsfan]

If the Yankees could just buy championships, we'd have pennants for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008....

...and i said "WE". Deal with it.

JQK obviously didn't read the article.

And in that way the expanded playoffs have been genius for baseball -- not only because they are milking television for every dime, but because the short series have been baseball's one defense against the ludicrous unfairness of the New York Yankees. Hey, if the game is rigged, rig the game. The Yankees spend a lot more money than any other team. As a direct result, they had the best record in the American League in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2009. They made the playoffs every single year but one this decade (and going back to 1995). They are the best team with the best players every year -- that sort of big money virtually guarantees it.

[STL FANATIC]

And no, he couldn't be talking about the Phillies because the Yankees rolled through the Phillies.

And finally, disagree if you want, but don't start with the name calling (unless over several of his pieces you feel that way). One article doesn't make his career, and Joe Posnaski has written a number of great articles. He's easily one of the best baseball/sports writers out there.

Wait, I can't call him a yahoo unless I dislike two of his columns? Fine, then. He's a yahoo. I've read his stuff before, and what I've read srikes me as remarkably superficial analysis, repeating the conventional wisdom found in the work of endless other writers and commentators slightly dressed up with a little thin style. Sort of an online version of Around the Horn.

And "the Yankees rolled through the Phillies"? You must have been watching a different Series than I - the Phils were in every game except the last one, and possibly Game Three. They flat-out steamrolled the Yankees in Game One and stymied the Yankees in Game Five. That's two games they dominated as opposed to the Yankees' two. The other two games were toss-ups that the Yanks were fortunate to win (or fortunate to have given to them, if you find Manuel's sentimentality towards Lidge as baffling as I).

Sure seemed pretty competitive to me.

The Phillies victory in game one bought some time. But it became apparently quickly after that that the Yankees would win the series. They won in 6 games with a couple of large wins, and one of their losses was after they were already up 3-1. They didn't sweep. They didn't outright dominate. But they did roll.

Also, call him what you want. My apologies for trying to stymie your expression. I just disagree.

[Gothamite]

Yes, but the very next paragraph says:

So, you create a system in which the best team doesn't always win. In fact, you create a system in which the best team often doesn't win.

And again, he refuses to acknowledge that other owners have the ability to compete financially with the Yankees, or at least more so than they do now, but choose not to.

[IceCap]

The article struck me as hitting on a point of discussion that has a good deal of validity to it, but this particular author just didn't drive the argument home.

The real issue, I think, is a salary cap. How is it that MLB is the one major professional league in North America that does not have some kind of salary cap?

Yes, there's something to be said about building dynasties and actually seeing the same players on the same team for most of their careers, but when one team (in this case the NY Yankees) spends an entire team's difference from the #2 payroll something's not right.

[Gothamite]

So complain to the other owners. How much is Tom Hicks worth, anyway?

And the Mariners are owned by a staggeringly powerful and wealthy company. No reason they can't compete on the Yankees' terms.

That's where his argument really falls flat to me - it has these huge holes that he doesn't address. As I said, superficial analysis.

[STL FANATIC]

The article struck me as hitting on a point of discussion that has a good deal of validity to it, but this particular author just didn't drive the argument home.

The real issue, I think, is a salary cap. How is it that MLB is the one major professional league in North America that does not have some kind of salary cap?

Yes, there's something to be said about building dynasties and actually seeing the same players on the same team for most of their careers, but when one team (in this case the NY Yankees) spends an entire team's difference from the #2 payroll something's not right.

Problem is, the current system doesn't really make dynasties any more likely. Small and mid-market teams either don't win in the first place or loss their good players to big market teams shelling out tons of money or both.

Only a handful of teams are in any position to sustain a dynasty under this system, and only one makes moves wise enough on any kind of consistent occasion to ever do so.

The only real valid argument I can see from a non-players perspective is that it's just using your resources to try to win and how is that bad? But I personally don't find that all that valid.