Can Money buy you a championship?

[Erect as a Bull]

It sure didn't help the Mutts.
And Boston has a high payroll as well.
I like how people seem to make it sound like the Yankees are the only team that has money.

We dont buy championships.
We havn't won a World Series since 2000 and that was with mainly Farm system players.
So i dont know why people make it sound like all we do is buy Championships since we havn't won in a while.

But our farm is back at it.
Our team looks bright.

Melky, Cano, Joba, Hughes, Kennedy, Wang, and we might even have Horne playing next year.
Then when we have players like Jeter, Posada, and Mo.
Hoping Posada and Mo both stay.
maybe even S ey will end up starting next year?

Who knows but pretty soon the majority of our team will go back to being farm products. Then we will go back to the glory days.


And as for the bunts I would have loved to see us move some runners over and maybe get a base hit here and there.
Them solo Hr's sucked last night.
But in the end another year without a ring.

Time to root for the Rockies :

[K-State Spur]

It sure didn't help the Mutts.
And Boston has a high payroll as well.
I like how people seem to make it sound like the Yankees are the only team that has money.

As hypocritical as the Sox and Mets are, the Yanks still spend the most, by a decent margin.

And it's also because they put up the biggest stink when the topic of revenue sharing comes up.

[ducks]

Yeah -- Joe was going to last a long, long time telling a guy being paid $25 million per season to hit behind the runner.



And I'm sure Joe could have just asked those guys to lay down sacrifice bunts, except that few of them would even recognize the signal. Here are the sacrifice bunt totals for a representative Yankee lineup:

Damon -- 3 sacrifice bunts in the last 4 years
Jeter -- 17 sacrifice bunts in last 3 years
Abreu -- 6 since 1996
Rodriguez -- no sacs since 1999
Posada -- 1 since 1997
Giambi -- no sacs since 1996
Matsui -- no sacs in MLB career
Cano -- 9 sacs in career, but 2 in last 2 years
Cabrera -- 10 sacs in 2007

if laying a sac moves the runner over or scores a run
why not do it
so what if that guy makes 25 million
he still only gets a hit one out of 3 times up there
33% chance of getting a hit
a sac fly bringing in the run close to over 90% getting the job done

thanks by providing the stats saying torre does not do it

if you get paid 25 million a season you ing better know the signals

[ducks]

the owner wants to win I am sure he could care less if the guy is making 25 million season if he gets up there and sac flys a guy into home and scores the winning run instead of not getting a hit



I thought winning rings is what matters to players
so why would asking a game that gets a hit one out of 3 or 4 times at the plate be so upset at playing small ball

[Erect as a Bull]

Its hard to tell your players to go out and get a Sac Fly.
A player cant just say: I'm going to go and hit the ball to the Left Fielder.

Now Sac Bunts are different. I dont care if A-rod lays down a sac bunt to tie the game.

I just want to win no matter how much they make.
Oh well.

[DarkReign]

What are you talking about? The Yankees have tried to buy the elite pitchers on the market. Clemens and Mussina were both viewed as the top free agent pitchers in their class. Pet e came [back] via free agency. Pavano and Jarrett Wright were both signed coming off stellar years. And they traded for Randy Johnson 2 years ago.

Mussina was a stud. Clemens was good his first year. Johnson was old when they traded for him.

Pavano, he was coming off a very good year. No one could forsee that debacle.

So maybe there is some hard luck there. But Sabathia is going to win the Cy Young this year and Santana hs already won it twice.

Pe e is still good. Why cant I find anything on Jarrett Wright?

[K-State Spur]

if laying a sac moves the runner over or scores a run
why not do it
so what if that guy makes 25 million
he still only gets a hit one out of 3 times up there
33% chance of getting a hit
a sac fly bringing in the run close to over 90% getting the job done

thanks by providing the stats saying torre does not do it

if you get paid 25 million a season you ing better know the signals

actually if you're going to use that argument. bill james has statistically proven that the sacrifice actually leads to less runs over the course of a game. (that does not mean that there are not situations where it is called for)

and good players don't get on base 30-33% of the time, good players get on base closer to 40% of the time.

[DarkReign]

...and there goes my theory on Sabathia. lol...

I still think the Tribe take the series.

[Reggie Miller]

actually if you're going to use that argument. bill james has statistically proven that the sacrifice actually leads to less runs over the course of a game. (that does not mean that there are not situations where it is called for)

and good players don't get on base 30-33% of the time, good players get on base closer to 40% of the time.

Especially in the playoffs, and most particularly in a NL park. Otherwise, you don't trade outs for bases with that lineup.

The Yankees' problems are starting pitching and relief pitching. Their disdain for small ball may cost them the occasional game, but I doubt it. However, it could easily come back to bite them eventually, since as FWD points out, execution would be a major concern with this strategy.

Basically, the Yankees overspent on free agent pitching, and they have done so for over a decade now. As others pointed out, true elite pitchers don't become free agents very often. Also, the Yankees seem to overvalue past success, as opposed to recognized indicators of future performance, such as K ratio, WHIP, etc. I also think that management panders to the ignorant fanbase far too often. The organization and fans behave as if the world will end if overrated free agent X signs with another team. It becomes all about egotism and "face," rather than putting together the best possible team.

In contrast, the Red Sox have many of the same organizational problems (media hype and pressure, an overbearing fanbase, etc.), but they make all of their personnel decisions for valid baseball reasons. I can't stand either team, by the way. However, assuming they win, the Red Sox would tend to prove that you can buy a championship in baseball if you spend the money wisely.

[FromWayDowntown]

Especially in the playoffs, and most particularly in a NL park. Otherwise, you don't trade outs for bases with that lineup.

The Yankees' problems are starting pitching and relief pitching. Their disdain for small ball may cost them the occasional game, but I doubt it. However, it could easily come back to bite them eventually, since as FWD points out, execution would be a major concern with this strategy.

Basically, the Yankees overspent on free agent pitching, and they have done so for over a decade now. As others pointed out, true elite pitchers don't become free agents very often. Also, the Yankees seem to overvalue past success, as opposed to recognized indicators of future performance, such as K ratio, WHIP, etc. I also think that management panders to the ignorant fanbase far too often. The organization and fans behave as if the world will end if overrated free agent X signs with another team. It becomes all about egotism and "face," rather than putting together the best possible team.

In contrast, the Red Sox have many of the same organizational problems (media hype and pressure, an overbearing fanbase, etc.), but they make all of their personnel decisions for valid baseball reasons. I can't stand either team, by the way. However, assuming they win, the Red Sox would tend to prove that you can buy a championship in baseball if you spend the money wisely.

I don't think that a team can go into the playoffs thinking that it can bludgeon its way to a le. I think a major failing in the Yankees' team building strategy is that they seem to believe that if they fill a lineup with 9 guys who hit 20 home runs a year, they're going to hit enough 3-run homers over time to win playoff games and win playoff series. I don't think the playoffs work that way.

And this isn't my cry for the Yankees to use more sacrifice bunts -- that was simply an effort to respond to other suggestions. The issue, to me, is situational hitting, which, IMO, requires that there be role players in the lineup to execute in those situations. It might be sacrifice bunts -- and James can offer up all the statistical proof that he wants on that issue; if I'm a manager and I've got my leadoff man on with a 1 run lead in the top of the 8th of a playoff game, I'm going to bunt him over and try to add to my lead and I'm going to ask the guy hitting behind the bunter to try to hit the ball to the right side to advance the runner. I'm not sure that the Yankees would be capable of doing those things on a consistent basis.

I don't disagree that the Yankees have some major structural problems in their pitching staff -- particularly in middle relief and the back-half of their rotation -- and I would agree that all of the small ball in the world won't win games if the pitching staff is routinely getting lit up by opposing lineups.

I just think that along with addressing those major pitching concerns, the Yankees will continue to struggle in the post-season as long as they try to trot 9 offensive All-Stars out every night.

[K-State Spur]

I don't think that a team can go into the playoffs thinking that it can bludgeon its way to a le.

While I personally would agree with your statement...

Of the last 11 World Series Champions, 9 of them played little to no small ball.

[Reggie Miller]

I don't think that a team can go into the playoffs thinking that it can bludgeon its way to a le. I think a major failing in the Yankees' team building strategy is that they seem to believe that if they fill a lineup with 9 guys who hit 20 home runs a year, they're going to hit enough 3-run homers over time to win playoff games and win playoff series. I don't think the playoffs work that way.

And this isn't my cry for the Yankees to use more sacrifice bunts -- that was simply an effort to respond to other suggestions. The issue, to me, is situational hitting, which, IMO, requires that there be role players in the lineup to execute in those situations. It might be sacrifice bunts -- and James can offer up all the statistical proof that he wants on that issue; if I'm a manager and I've got my leadoff man on with a 1 run lead in the top of the 8th of a playoff game, I'm going to bunt him over and try to add to my lead and I'm going to ask the guy hitting behind the bunter to try to hit the ball to the right side to advance the runner. I'm not sure that the Yankees would be capable of doing those things on a consistent basis.

I don't disagree that the Yankees have some major structural problems in their pitching staff -- particularly in middle relief and the back-half of their rotation -- and I would agree that all of the small ball in the world won't win games if the pitching staff is routinely getting lit up by opposing lineups.

I just think that along with addressing those major pitching concerns, the Yankees will continue to struggle in the post-season as long as they try to trot 9 offensive All-Stars out every night.

I think we disagree only in terms of degrees.

As I mentioned, your first post made it clear that executing a small ball strategy is a major concern for this team. We can debate the value of small ball all day, but the bottom line is that the Yankees cannot be relied upon to execute that strategy when needed, since they don't bother to do so even in meaningless games. That was a great point. I knew that the Yankees rarely sacrificed, but I had no idea that it averaged out to less than 20 times per season during the Torre regime. Certainly, being unable to even consider small ball an option at a necessary, critical moment does not help the Yankees.

Generally, small ball has been proven to hurt teams like the Yankees, or even the 2006 Tigers or 2005 White Sox, that have power up and down the order. However, every hitter can't go to the plate looking to pull the ball in every situation, which happens pretty often with the current Yankees' "All-Star" approach. When your pitching is fairly mediocre, this puts a lot of pressure on the "All Stars" to carry the team through offense. I rarely watch the Yankees, but I have seen at least two games this season where they needed base runners to bring the tying run to the plate, but the last three hitters made screaming outs to the warning track trying to hit home runs. (Obviously, other teams make these types of mistakes as well.)

However, if the pitching is good enough, you can live and die by the three-run homer. It worked well enough for Earl Weaver's world series squads with Baltimore. (They also had Jim Palmer, Steve Stone, etc.) I think your point is valid, but the primary problem is still the suspect pitching.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the offensive mentality is a pervasive problem, a product of who these players are. I wouldn't disagree, particularly since power hitting stats determine a position player's salary more than any other factor. My understanding is that you believe this offensive mentality would be a major problem even with better pitching. I wouldn't go quite that far, becuase I tend to think that the bad pitching aggravates the problem and creates the need to "press."

Like K-State Spur, I tend to agree with your conclusions, but all of the statistical studies performed to date indicate that stocking a lineup with power hitters and turning them loose actually scores more runs. These studies do not really account for the unique situation and unrealistic expectations that Steinbrenner has created in New York, however.

We'll never know, but it's fun to debate.

[FromWayDowntown]

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the offensive mentality is a pervasive problem, a product of who these players are. I wouldn't disagree, particularly since power hitting stats determine a position player's salary more than any other factor. My understanding is that you believe this offensive mentality would be a major problem even with better pitching. I wouldn't go quite that far, becuase I tend to think that the bad pitching aggravates the problem and creates the need to "press."

Like K-State Spur, I tend to agree with your conclusions, but all of the statistical studies performed to date indicate that stocking a lineup with power hitters and turning them loose actually scores more runs. These studies do not really account for the unique situation and unrealistic expectations that Steinbrenner has created in New York, however.

We'll never know, but it's fun to debate.

I do enjoy this debate -- I so rarely get to talk about the nuances of baseball, so this is great!

I think my point is as nuanced as you note -- and more nuanced than K-State Spur has acknowledged, though I'll readily admit that I might not be communicating my point as clearly as I should be. I don't disagree that part of the Yankees' problem is a fairly mediocre pitching staff (to be generous) and that solving the pitching problems would go a long way to remedying the Yankees playoff issues. But I also don't think the sole issue for the Yankees is limiting the runs scored by their opponents.

Since the 2004 playoffs, the Yankees' staff has allowed more runs per game in the playoffs than it did in the regular season:

2004: 4.99 r/g (RS); 5.3 r/g (PS)
2005: 4.87 r/g (RS); 5.0 r/g (PS)
2006: 4.73 r/g (RS); 5.5 r/g (PS)
2007: 4.80 r/g (RS); 6.0 r/g (PS)

I'll admit that the numbers are affected substantially by the relatively small number of games played in the postseason; big offensive games have a much greater effect on those numbers than would be true in the regular season. I'll also admit that the increase number of runs allowed is pretty solid evidence that the issue with the Yankees is a lack of quality pitching.

But it's also interesting to me that in the last 4 years, the Yankees' offensive output per game has increased at playoff time only once (in 2004, when they were able to put up 10 and 19 runs in Games 1 and 2 of the ALCS). In the subsequent years, the Yankees' offensive production has slipped substantially come October:

2004: 5.54 r/g (RS); 6.0 r/g (PS)
2005: 5.47 r/g (RS); 4.0 r/g (PS)
2006: 5.74 r/g (RS); 3.5 r/g (PS)
2007: 5.98 r/g (RS); 4.0 r/g (PS)

Again, the numbers are certainly skewed to some extent in a given year, but the consistency of the decline is hard to ignore. I think the numbers would generally show that the decrease in run production has been greater than the increase in runs allowed -- though the combination is certainly fatal to any chance to win at playoff time:

2004: +.46 scored per game; +.31 allowed per game
2005: -1.47 scored per game; +.13 allowed per game
2006: -2.24 scored per game; +.77 allowed per game
2007: -1.98 scored per game; +1.2 allowed per game

Again, that doesn't discount the major flaws in the Yankees' pitching staff, but I do think it points out a glaring problem with depending upon 9 bashers who don't hit behind runners and fail to do little things like that. Specifically, if the Yankees stay close to their regular season run production numbers, the pitching would seem to be good enough to keep them in games -- it becomes a big problem that that Yankees can't score consistently and I think the best way to alleviate that problem is to have guys who do the little things in a lineup, guys who discourage a manager from just sitting back and waiting for the long ball. I also don't think the dip in run production is just a matter of hitters pressing -- I think it's a matter of facing better pitching at playoff time and having to make the most of as many opportunities as possible.

I understand the James-ian approach to the game, but I also think that those numbers don't really account for the specific issues of playoff baseball and that they, in any event, while I'm sympathetic to those who take the moneyball-stats heavy approach to making baseball decisions, I still think that observational proof of the value of small ball raises some questions about a purely-statistical view of the game.

[Reggie Miller]

I do enjoy this debate -- I so rarely get to talk about the nuances of baseball, so this is great!

I think my point is as nuanced as you note -- and more nuanced than K-State Spur has acknowledged, though I'll readily admit that I might not be communicating my point as clearly as I should be. I don't disagree that part of the Yankees' problem is a fairly mediocre pitching staff (to be generous) and that solving the pitching problems would go a long way to remedying the Yankees playoff issues. But I also don't think the sole issue for the Yankees is limiting the runs scored by their opponents.

Since the 2004 playoffs, the Yankees' staff has allowed more runs per game in the playoffs than it did in the regular season:

2004: 4.99 r/g (RS); 5.3 r/g (PS)
2005: 4.87 r/g (RS); 5.0 r/g (PS)
2006: 4.73 r/g (RS); 5.5 r/g (PS)
2007: 4.80 r/g (RS); 6.0 r/g (PS)

I'll admit that the numbers are affected substantially by the relatively small number of games played in the postseason; big offensive games have a much greater effect on those numbers than would be true in the regular season. I'll also admit that the increase number of runs allowed is pretty solid evidence that the issue with the Yankees is a lack of quality pitching.

But it's also interesting to me that in the last 4 years, the Yankees' offensive output per game has increased at playoff time only once (in 2004, when they were able to put up 10 and 19 runs in Games 1 and 2 of the ALCS). In the subsequent years, the Yankees' offensive production has slipped substantially come October:

2004: 5.54 r/g (RS); 6.0 r/g (PS)
2005: 5.47 r/g (RS); 4.0 r/g (PS)
2006: 5.74 r/g (RS); 3.5 r/g (PS)
2007: 5.98 r/g (RS); 4.0 r/g (PS)

Again, the numbers are certainly skewed to some extent in a given year, but the consistency of the decline is hard to ignore. I think the numbers would generally show that the decrease in run production has been greater than the increase in runs allowed -- though the combination is certainly fatal to any chance to win at playoff time:

2004: +.46 scored per game; +.31 allowed per game
2005: -1.47 scored per game; +.13 allowed per game
2006: -2.24 scored per game; +.77 allowed per game
2007: -1.98 scored per game; +1.2 allowed per game

Again, that doesn't discount the major flaws in the Yankees' pitching staff, but I do think it points out a glaring problem with depending upon 9 bashers who don't hit behind runners and fail to do little things like that. Specifically, if the Yankees stay close to their regular season run production numbers, the pitching would seem to be good enough to keep them in games -- it becomes a big problem that that Yankees can't score consistently and I think the best way to alleviate that problem is to have guys who do the little things in a lineup, guys who discourage a manager from just sitting back and waiting for the long ball. I also don't think the dip in run production is just a matter of hitters pressing -- I think it's a matter of facing better pitching at playoff time and having to make the most of as many opportunities as possible.

I understand the James-ian approach to the game, but I also think that those numbers don't really account for the specific issues of playoff baseball and that they, in any event, while I'm sympathetic to those who take the moneyball-stats heavy approach to making baseball decisions, I still think that observational proof of the value of small ball raises some questions about a purely-statistical view of the game.

Like most statistical approaches, the conclusions formed by Bill James and the SABR Gang work only with a large sample size. In a short series, your sample size is limited to three to five games by definition. I mention this purely becuase most SABRmetricians would say that we don't have enough information to perform a sophisticated analysis of the Yankees' recent payoff exits, period. For our purposes, that's neither here nor there.

I tend to think that the key may be the short series. Every other AL team in the playoffs had better 1-3 starters overall. The fact that the Yankees may have better 4-5 starters never comes into play in the short series. (I'm not saying they do, necessarily.) Obviously, this does come into play in the regular season, and it would be reflected in regular season statistics.

Speaking of the regular season, I would be curious to see the Yankees' splits against AL East opponents, since MLB no longer has a balanced schedule. The AL East has two really good teams (Boston and NY), an above average team (Toronto), and two really awful teams (Baltimore and Tampa). Since the Yankees can't seem to beat the Devil Rays in Tampa for love or money, this may not be as important as I think. However, it did occur to me that the Yankees may be the Phoenix Suns of baseball. That is, their impressive stats could come from blow-outs of inferior teams. In that case, their playoff slumps would just reflect their "normal" performance against the elite teams.

The age of the Yankees, both position players and starting pitching, may be a factor. Regardless of what anyone says, there is no way that this does not affect their collective performance after 6 1/2 months and 162 games. I don't think it was a significant factor this year, but the Yankees looked pretty tired against the Tigers last year.

Having given this some thought, I believe you are on to something. The problem is that we can't really prove or disprove your thesis. Also, it is likely that we are overlooking some other factor, such as the above suggestions.