This Post Will Not Win Me Any Friends Among My FJayM Colleagues and Our Loyal Readers

This is poised to be my least popular post in the history of this site (the "I hate the NBA Playoffs" post notwithstanding). Why?

a.) It is an attempt of sorts to dispute the idea that baseball is an exceptionally "unfair" sport in terms of parity, salary, what have you...particularly in the context of this most recent Yankees championship--something I know most of you (especially Larry and Jack) have strong feelings about.

b.) It is a rip of an article by Joe Posnanski, a guy who is my favorite sportswriter living today not named Bill James--and I'm sure a favorite of a number of yours since the readers of this site generally seem like non-idiots.

c.) It's not a particularly new article. Baseball's over right? It's basketball (bleh) and football (Fire Lovie Smith!) season.

Nevertheless. Here goes.

Here’s the thing about the New York Yankees huge payroll: It has been talked about so much that, in reality, it is hardly talked about at all. I know this makes little sense, but what I mean is this:

A. Everyone knows the Yankees spend much more money than any other team to win games.
B. Because everyone knows it, people have been complaining about it for many years.
C. Because people have complained about it for many years, everybody is sick of hearing about it.
D. Because everyone is sick of hearing about it, nobody really listens.
E. Because nobody really listens, people don’t talk about the Yankees spending much more money than any other team to win games.

Yes, this is a weird circle. But in this bizarre world of spin where Alex Rodriguez tries to project himself as an underdog* and Yankees types try to recast George Steinbrenner as sympathetic figure, I think this Yankees money fatigue is very real. As soon as you start talking about it, people turn off. What we’re talking about this again? Or, as indignant Yankees fans, they get angry: “Oh man, you’re not going to talk about the Yankees MONEY thing again, are you?”

Joe begins with--in typically Posnanskian fashion--a very interesting and intellectually fascinating point. The Yankees success is so talked-about it is no longer talked about. Sadly, the article loses steam from here on:

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.

"Only one team"? This is not intellectually honest. Do the Yankees spend preponderately more than the competition? Absolutely. They spent more than 50mm more than the Mets, the 2nd highest payroll in MLB in 2009. However, the Mets spent 150mm in 2009. The Cubs spent 134mm. The Red Sox spent 120mm. The Tigers spent 110mm. Yes, that is proportionately smaller than the Yankees' payroll #'s, but it is likewise proportionately larger than the middle of the pack teams like the Cardinals and Rockies who spend in the 70mm's. Look at it this way--The Yankees spend ~33% more than the Mets. The Mets spend 100% more than the Cardinals and 500% more than the Marlins (the lowest payroll in MLB).

Clearly we have a lot of teams exploiting a salary differential. And "playing the game on cheat mode"? I can understand the general sentiment behind this statement insofar as the Yankees bought up the perceived top 3 free agents this past winter. But the Yankees have been doing this for the past 8 years. The 2008 Yankees had a payroll that was even more disparate in re: the competition than the 2009 Yankees. Whereas the 2009 Yankees ranged from 50-80mm above the rest of the top 5 in payroll, the 2008 Yankees were 70mm beyond the 2nd highest payroll in MLB--the Tigers @ 139mm. They were ~80mm above the 5th place team (White Sox @ 120mm) making their "advantage above the competitive field" EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME IN 2009 AS IT WAS IN 2008. What does that mean? It means "cheat mode" is a really impotent way to cheat, being that the 2008 Yankees missed the postseason. Or in 2007 when they enjoyed a similar payroll advantage and....made the playoffs as a Wild Card team.

What kind of cheat mode is this? A used Game Genie?

Perhaps I'm putting too fine a point on this, let's continue with Posnanski's article:

his 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.

Is it just me or does this seem to be counterproductive to the argument that there is a clear and easily defined correlation between payroll and success--postseason or otherwise?

By Joe's own numbers, shouldn't the years when the Yankees had their biggest advantage be 2005, 2006, and 2008, when their payroll advantage was at its most disparate? (85mm,74mm, and 72mm respectively) What were the results in those years? ALDS loss. ALDS loss. Missed playoffs.

Likewise, the years when the Yankees have had the most overall success (2003 with their WS berth and 2009, with their 27th WS title) have been years with a lesser (at least from "THE FREE SPENDING YANKEES standpoint") payroll advantage: 35mm and 52mm respectively.

I can appreciate the concept that the Yankees seem to be a monolithic team in their spending. Hell I see it every year when free agents on the open market are priced out of my favorite team's range of affordability by a Yankees team that drives prices on open-commodities through the roof. But why cite these numbers in this way, given the Yankees lack of success (at least by their own standards) throughout the 00's. And especially given that this year's payroll advantage comes at a reduction from their payroll advantage average from 2004-2008?

Is this a compelling argument in terms of "The Yankees bought themselves a World Series in 2009" rather than "The Yankees smartened up and did a better job assembling a team in 2009 than they have in years past...when they attempted to BUY a World Series team by equating dollar value of total salary with quality of team."

In other words doesn't this argument make the same mistake the Yankees of the 00's made?

Posnanski tries to blur this distinction, arguing that success and unfair dominance in baseball is harder to recognize.

Baseball happens to be a sport where dominance can be obscured. It doesn’t look like dominance. What I mean is this: Baseball, for many reasons, is built in such a way that the best teams win less often than in other sports. A 13-win NFL team wins 81% of the time. A national championship contending football team might lose once or twice — or not at all. A 60-win NBA team wins 75% of the time, and a big time college basketball team will win closer to 90%.

A 100-win baseball team wins 62% of the time … and there was only one 100-win baseball team this year. The New York Yankees. Every baseball team that won even 56% of the time this year made the playoffs. It is a sport of small triumphs, good months, one-run victories. I believe it was Whitey Herzog who said that the key to baseball is not getting swept … the idea being that if you can play well most of the time and steal at least one in a three-game series when you’re not playing well, then you will be in good shape at the end of the year.

An admirable effort but here are two important points

1.) Even if we assume that 55% success rate is dominance, the Yankees have not been the most dominant team in baseball year in and year out. They have had years, like this year, where they have won the most games--by Joe's definition "being the most dominant"--but they have had years where they have not even been the most "dominant" team in their division, much less their league

2.) 55% is not dominant. It may be "best," but it's not dominant. Plain and simple. There are teams who have won a historic amount of games, who have dominated rs/ra measurements, who have owned the postseason. You could argue that the 1975 Reds (Joe's book on them was fucking exceptional) or the 1939 Yankees or the 1908 Cubs were "dominant" despite only winning 70% or so of their games, because in addition to that their runs scored so vastly eclipsed their runs allowed, their batting and pitching statistics were oppressive, etc. etc. but you can't say that a team that won 103 games and had a fairly pedestrian RS/RA for a championship team was "dominant" just because "they play more games in baseball." It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

This Yankees team was "dominant enough" just like the teams before them between 2001 and 2008 were "not dominant enough" but this is not a historically dominant team by any fucking measure.

Baseball happens to be a sport where dominance can be obscured. It doesn’t look like dominance. What I mean is this: Baseball, for many reasons, is built in such a way that the best teams win less often than in other sports. A 13-win NFL team wins 81% of the time. A national championship contending football team might lose once or twice — or not at all. A 60-win NBA team wins 75% of the time, and a big time college basketball team will win closer to 90%.

A 100-win baseball team wins 62% of the time … and there was only one 100-win baseball team this year. The New York Yankees. Every baseball team that won even 56% of the time this year made the playoffs. It is a sport of small triumphs, good months, one-run victories. I believe it was Whitey Herzog who said that the key to baseball is not getting swept … the idea being that if you can play well most of the time and steal at least one in a three-game series when you’re not playing well, then you will be in good shape at the end of the year.

So, dominant baseball teams don’t LOOK dominant in the same way they do in football or basketball. It’s like the billionaire CEO who doesn’t wear ties and rides coach on planes. He’s still a billionaire but he doesn’t LOOK like a billionaire. No team goes winless or undefeated in baseball. Few ever go winless or undefeated even over 16-game stretches. No team in baseball loses fewer than 40 games, and no team wins more than 120, and it’s only the rarest of teams that get anywhere close to either of those numbers.

Right, but some teams do win 70% of their games. Some teams have a RS/RA margin greater than 200. Some teams have an acceptable 4th starter.

This is not a compelling argument.

I think of it this way, using a mockabet: I would bet if the Indianapolis Colts played the Cleveland Browns 100 times, and the Colts were motivated, they would probably 95 of them — maybe even more than that. But if the New York Yankees played the Kansas City Royals 100 times, and the Yankees were motivated, I suspect the Royals would still win 25 or 30 times. That’s baseball.

I love Joe, except for this article, but man I hate his neologisms. "Mockabet" is his coined term for a bet that you couldn't possibly ever resolve because it's completely hypothetical and immune to reality's trappings. Here he's saying something completely uncheckable and something I disagree with completely.

There is a kernel of truth to this because the Cleveland Browns will start the same roster against the Colts every week but that some days the Yankees will start Chien Ming Wang against Zach Greinke. However, the generalized point Posnanski's making seems completely illogical. The talent divide between the best teams in football and the worst seem to pretty much any rational fan to be about the same as in baseball. Does anyone really think the Raiders are any more equipped to beat the Colts week in and week out than the Pirates are to beat the Yankees? If so, I apologize I guess.

So you have this sport that tends to equalize teams.

So...the Yankees's spending is unfair because....the sport they play in tends to...equalize teams?

Also, isn't this the exact opposite of the argument for why the NFL is a paragon of parity? I'm confused now*

*I anticipate the commenters who use this moment to point out that "heh heh you are confused". Nevertheless.**

**And yes, I stole this device from Posnanski.

If the New England Patriots were allowed to spend $50 million more on players than any other team, they would go 15-1 or 16-0 every single year.

I don't believe this for a fucking second.

The Patriots' dominance is BECAUSE they have quote/unquote outsmarted a capped system and have found a way to produce effective and dominant players and keep them at a cost that allows their roster to be more well-rounded and schemable than other teams. If you take away the nature of their advantage (i.e. that other teams can't acquire as much talent as they do because these other teams are forced to allocate money to that talent in a way the Patriots have avoided up till now through smart use of draft picks on accruing affordable talent in the late first round and late rounds of the draft), they're not going to become more dominant. It will most likely allow other teams to catch up to them.

Or something like that.

But in baseball, a great and dominant team might only win 95 out of 160, and it doesn’t seem so bad.

So now a 95 win team is dominant?

The second thing is that ,at the end of the year, the best teams are thrown together in a succession of short series that are fun to watch but are not designed to pick the best teams. Quite the opposite: A short series in baseball is designed to shelter weaknesses and expose strengths. Yuni Betancourt can out-hit A-Rod in a five-game series. Livan Hernandez can out-pitch Tim Lincecum in a one-game match-up. Baseball doesn’t hide this — they slam it down your throat. October baseball! Anything’s possible! And so on.

I don't agree with this, but I suspect I'm alone. Let's move on.

So, you create a system where the best team doesn’t always win. In fact, you create a system where the best team often doesn’t win. For years the Yankees didn’t win. They lost to Florida. They lost Anaheim. They blew a 3-0 series lead against Boston. They lost to Anaheim again and Detroit and Cleveland — and how could you say that baseball is unfair? Look, the Yankees can’t win the World Series! See? Sure they spend $50 million more than any other team and $100 million more than most. But they haven’t won the World Series! Doesn’t that make you feel better?

You'll be hard-pressed to explain to me how the 2003 Marlins were inherently a worse team than the 2003 Yankees. I guess there's an argument to be made for the concept that the 2003 Yankees lineup was overpowering enough to overcome the fact that the Marlins's frontline pitching was better than the Yankees' but I don't really buy that.

All this is mighty subjective. The Angels teams that beat the Yankees were better in some ways than the Yankees and worse in some ways against the Yankees. The Tigers team that beat the Yankees were bette in some ways and worse in others.

And the major way these teams were better is pitching. So let's not get on the pity party of "the Yankees lost to a worse team." They lost to teams that did some things better than they did and did some things worse than they did, and they did it in close serieses and they did it because they weren't by any means an unbeatable team.

And this has been the Wizard of Oz slight of hand game that Baseball has been playing for a long time … ignore the man behind the curtain who makes more money off of baseball than anyone else and can buy just about any player he wants. Ignore the absurdity of it all. Just remember: The Yankees haven’t won in a while! Just remember: Anything is possible.

Ah, yes, but not only hadn't the Yankees not won in a while, they hadn't come close to winning in a while. The closest they got was Dave Roberts stealing second. And then their payroll advantage decreased...and...they won it all.

This is not exactly helping the case.

There’s something else that people say: They talk about how money doesn’t guarantee wins. And they point out that other teams (the Mets, the Cubs, the Astros, etc.) spend a lot of money and don’t win. I think this actually makes for an interesting argument if you want to talk about the inequities of baseball … big markets, small markets, all that.

But the Yankees are a whole different argument. They are their own argument. The Yankees are not a big market team. They DWARF big market teams. They are quantitatively different from every other team in baseball and every other team in American sports. They don’t just spend more money than every other team. They spend A LOT more money than every other team. The Boston Red Sox spend $50 million more than the Kansas City Royals? Who cares? The Yankees spend $80 million more than the Boston Red Sox.

The Yankees have a pat hand.

Ah, let's just dismiss a reasonable objection out of hand. Why? Because IT'S JUST DIFFERENT. Never mind that the Cubs had a 100% payroll advantage over the team that beat them handily in the Central last year. IT'S JUST DIFFERENT. Never mind that another team that spends heavily, but smartly, has been consistently a better team in the latter half of this decade than the Yankees. BECAUSE IT'S JUST DIFFERENT. The Yankees spend the most. AND IT'S JUST DIFFERENT. They're the most successful too because of it. Never mind that they haven't really been all that successful. That's just because success isn't easy to see in baseball. Just trust me when I say they've been successful in relation to their expectations.

Sigh. I love you Joe, but this was awful.

Look--I don't know if this is the beginning of the end of any semblance of competitive balance. I hate the Yankees, and sadly it seems as if they're primed to win a lot of games next year too. But then again, it looked like the Phillies were primed until their stud pitcher decided he wasn't any good at pitching and their closer decided to shit himself and then not shit himself and then shit himself again. And it looked, in 2001 that the Yankees were going to keep on winning championships until the commissioner disbanded the MLB. It's easy to sit at what seems like the precipice and abandon all logic and point to one aspect of a team's success (payroll) and ignore the fact that it had only a little to do with their moderate success in the past. It's easy to do that. But it doesn't make you right.

Apologies to my fellow writers on this blog for this 5000 word essay devoid of humor burying your always-hilarious posts. But it had to be done. May the Lord forgive me!

:)

I Love Joe Posnanski. I mean Love, Love, Love, Love, Love Joe Posnanski...but...

...dude: No.

The thing that struck me about Tony Gonzalez is that every time I saw him catch a pass — every single time, no matter if it was during practice, on the sideline during a game, or just goofing around afterward — he always tucked the ball away.

Always.

Do not do this. Please Joe, for Pete's sake! This somehow simultaneously makes me dislike Tony Gonzalez and Joe Pos--two things I didn't think were possible.

Welcome to the national stage Joe Posnanski! Now you should be fired

Know who Joe Posnanski is? Neither did I until reading his wikipedia page which includes these entries:

"Thanks to his wit, observational humor and interest in both the human and analytical side of the game, many consider him one of the finest baseball writers working in the mainstream media. In 2003 and 2005, Posnanski was named the best sports columnist in America by the Associated Press Sports Editors...On August 19, 2008, he announced that he was joining the staff of Sports Illustrated.He currently writes a weekly online column for Sports Illustrated, and his blog is reprinted on www.si.com."

A fellow blogger, eh? Maybe we should cut him some slack? No, never, not after this article:

Favre is a throwback to what great quarterbacks used to be

So, before the article even begins, we're to assume that there's something inherently wrong with the way every QB except Favre plays the game. This should be informative.

Still, here goes: Bob Griese wore glasses in Miami; Steve Grogan ran around like mad in New England; Richard Todd was getting booed in New York; Joe Ferguson was more Buffalo than the wings; Bert Jones had this amazing arm in Baltimore; Pittsburgh's Terry Bradshaw used to hold his index finger on the point of the ball when he threw; Dan Pastorini loved to throw deep in Houston; Brian Sipe was my hero in Cleveland even though his passes wobbled in the wind (even when the wind was behind him); Kenny Anderson never seemed to miss a pass in Cincinnati; Dan Fouts piloted Air Coryell in San Diego -- I loved the way he shuffled back into the pocket; Craig Morton was ancient in Denver; Jim Zorn used to duck under and spin away from defenders like Shaggy and Scooby Doo running from ghosts; Kenny Stabler was the Snake in Oakland; Steve Fuller was boring in Kansas City.

That would be a list of every starting quarterback in the AFC in 1979. I was 12 then and didn't have to look up any of them. Twenty-nine years later and their names all come back as easily as the number nine multiplication table.

I can name the entire starting lineup of the 1993 Baltimore Orioles. Lotta characters on that team. They didn't win shit, but man did I enjoy watching them play. This has nothing to do with modern day football, but neither does anything you just said.

Now, as I mentioned, there is nothing that sounds more grumpy-old-man than rambling on and on about how quarterbacks used to be better. But that's not what I'm saying -- I doubt very seriously that quarterbacks used to be better. I just think they used to be more famous, more easily remembered, more beloved, more representative of their cities...The only two things I knew about Tampa was that DisneyWorld was there and that Doug Williams was the quarterback, and only one of those two things turned out to be correct.

I can't tell you anything about Minnesota except that they have lakes and Tavaris Jackson is their quarterback. I have proved absolutely nothing about the quarterback position.

That has changed, I think. There are only a handful of quarterbacks these days who pierce the imagination--

I don't know what you're trying to say, but you're probably hitting too close to home for Peter King's liking.

with Tom Brady going down in New England and Peyton Manning looking just a wee ancient in Indianapolis, it's more like a carpool.

We hold these conclusions to be self evident after WEEK 1 OF THE REGULAR SEASON.

You have Eli Manning in New York, of course, though you get the sense that some Giants fans are waiting impatiently for the statute of limitations on the Super Bowl miracle to end so they can start booing again.

New York fans would prefer to boo Eli Manning, than for him to be successful and win them another Super Bowl.

You have Donovan McNabb in Philadelphia, though he has not started every game in a season since 2003.

And therefore, no one associates the current Eagles team with McNabb despite the fact that he threw for about 1,200 yards on Sunday.

You have Tony Romo in Dallas, though he might want to win a playoff game at some point.

Or he could just keep on being a celebrity, which was your original desire for NFL quarterbacks at the beginning of the article.

You have Drew, Matt, Carson, Jay, Rivers, Roethlisberger -- good quarterbacks all, but they're probably not sweeping the nation.

They should be out stumping! November 7th is less than 2 months away!

Finally, there's Brett Favre.

Ah yes, because when you think of Green Bay, New Jersey, New York, you immediately think "Brett Favre."

He is the last quarterback standing, the one guy out there who inspires some of the feelings of those old-time quarterbacks. This is in part because he IS an old-time quarterback; the guy was flinging passes in the NFL before the Soviet Union collapsed.

In Soviet NFL, pass flings Brett Favre.

But there's something else here too, something about the way Favre still plays the game, something in the way he flings footballs into double coverage, the way he seems indestructible, the way he throws TERRIBLE interceptions but then comes back and throws absurd touchdown passes.

It's called being inconsistent; most people aren't lauded for it.

That's the way it used to be. It's stunning to go back 30 and 40 years and look at the statistics of the quarterback heroes. In 1979, Terry Bradshaw threw 25 interceptions, and he didn't even lead the NFL in that category (that would be my hero Brian Sipe with 26).

Terry Bradshaw is also the only quarterback ever to receive more undeserved praise than Brett Favre. Take away that defense and his receivers and you've got Joey Harrington 1979.

The only guy to throw 25 or more interceptions in the last seven years ... yeah, that would be Brett Favre in 2005 when he threw 29 of them.

And it was a truly dreadful year that most Packers fans would like to forget. That's not to say that it was Favre's fault, but seriously, that's absurdly bad.

In 1979 Grogan led the NFL in touchdown passes, but he completed only 48.7 percent of his passes. You know how unthinkable it would be now to have an every week starting quarterback who completed fewer than half his passes? And he wasn't the only one. Williams completed 41.8 percent of his passes that year (a quarterback should be able to hit that many passes at night with the lights out) and took Tampa Bay to the NFC Championship Game.

You're complaining that NFL quarterbacks are now held to a higher standard in completion percentage?

In 1979 quarterbacks threw deep. The yards per completion numbers were significantly higher then (12.7 yards) than now (11.3).

Here's a funny fact, Brett Favre has averaged 12.7 or more yards per completion all of 1 times in his career.

That meant quarterbacks dropped back deeper, got sacked more, and they turned the ball over like crazy. That's probably why America loves Favre so much, he's the last of the throw-hicans, he's up at the top of nearly every quarterback category, good and bad, most touchdowns, most interceptions, third most fumbles, seventh-most sacked, he's been thrilling fans and driving them crazy for 17 years now.

I can't believe this needs explaining. The object of football is to score more points than your opponent. By throwing interceptions, fumbling, and taking sacks that lead to punts, not only are you surrendering an opportunity to score, but you are allowing your opponent the chance to gain points. Therefore, turnovers/sacks= bad = something you don't want your qb doing.

That's what it used to mean to be a quarterback. That changed. Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays. Everyone started demanding more prudent football. Defenses got more sophisticated and specialized. Sackers got bigger and stronger and faster and more dangerous. Quarterbacks were told to "manage" the game rather than "win" the game.

What a crying fucking shame that NFL quarterbacks have been forced to accept that pro football is a team game, and every team is much better off if their quarterback doesn't throw interceptions in attempt to play the game like it used to be played.

Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

You know who's probably also a bit peeved? Jacksonville fans because their team now has a statistically worse chance of winning.

Peep this # of interceptions to % chance of victory chart (this is for playoff games in the Superbowl era):

0 = .790
1 = .567
2 = .318
3 = .161
4 = .037
5 = .000
6 = .000

So let me close by asking, if you were at Lambeau Field on January 20th, 2008, which of the following were you more likely to hear a Packers' fan say after Favre threw that second interception:

A. Man, I just love watching Favre play the game like it used to be played.

B. We are totally fucking boned right now.