October 23, 2001

A Rebuttal

To those of you who are tired of reading about this subject, I apologize.  I warn you to hit the "Back" button on your browser right now and don't come back to this page until I tell you it's safe. 

Now that you've had your fair warning, I'd like to offer a rebuttal to Scot Zook's latest "Hot Corner" article.  In case you missed it, Scot came out of his self-imposed retirement from discussing this topic the minute that line drive fell into Shane Spencer's glove for the final out of Game Five of the ALCS. 

Let's take Scot's essay one line at a time:

The Yankees are in the World Series again.  Four straight years in a row and five out of the last six we’ve been blessed enough to be able to witness this incredible feet - err, I mean feat.

Okay, you knew this was coming, right?  The minute Derek Jeter made that ungodly shovel pass to Jorge Posada in Game Three of the Division Series, I had a feeling that the Yanks were on their way to a history-making comeback.  And with it, of course, would come the inevitable "Woe Is Me" chorus from the Chicken Little Choir.

Of course, if Jeter doesn't make that play, or if Terrance Long makes that catch in Game Five of the 2000 ALCS, then we're not talking about this at all, are we?  It is apparently Scot's opinion that Long would have caught that ball if only he were making more money, and Jeter would not have made that play if only he were making less.  It doesn't seem all that logical to me, but what do I know?  Let's continue, and see if the logic starts to magically appear. 

Guess who had the highest payroll this year?  That’s right!  Your New York Yankees!  I hear you.  You’re asking, "Yeah Scot, but what about everyone else?"  What about those testy Oakland A’s who came so close to beating the Yanks and those nasty Seattle Mariners who won 116 regular season games?  Let’s take a good close look at the payrolls for teams to reach the postseason, shall we?

#1 New York Yankees
#5 Cleveland Indians
#6 Atlanta Braves
#8 Arizona Diamondbacks
#9 St. Louis Cardinals
#11 Seattle Mariners
#17 Houston Astros
#29 Oakland A’s

Hmmm that’s very interesting.  What I see is that out of the eight teams to make the playoffs in 2001, five were in the top nine in payroll.  Two were middle of the road teams and the Oakland A’s were the Cinderella story of this year.

Of course, the A's were the Cinderella story of last year, too.  And the year before that.  Cinderella's run of greatness lasted just one night.  Oakland's run is now three years and counting.  I wonder how many years of success they'll have to string together before guys like Zook finally consider them to be something more than a fluke.

Let's not forget that of that group of eight playoff teams, the teams with the most wins were the eleventh- and twenty-ninth-ranked teams in payroll.  If Scot's theory that payroll equates to wins held true, shouldn't the Yankees and Braves have won more games than the Mariners and A's this season? 

As for Seattle, remember that many people (including Scot) bemoaned the fact that they lost three Hall of Fame players over the past three years, supposedly because they were a "small market" ballclub.  I wonder how Scot explains their record-breaking 116 wins this season, especially when they play in the same division as the team that "ruined baseball" by paying $252 million to Alex Rodriguez.

I know, I know.  What about the four teams that finished in the top nine that didn’t make the playoffs?  Let’s take a look and see where they finished in 2001.

#2 Boston Red Sox (82-79, second in the AL East)
#3 Los Angeles Dodgers (86-76, third in the NL West)
#4 New York Mets  (82-80, third in the NL East)
#7 Texas Rangers  (73-89, fourth in the AL West)

A combined record of 323-324 for these four teams.  Hey!  Maybe Mike has a point somewhere out there.

Finally!  Scot admits that I have a point!  Of course, he did say "maybe," didn't he?  You know, if you make it an even ten teams and include the Toronto Blue Jays in that group, the combined won-loss record of those teams becomes 403-406.  I don't know what that means, but I thought I'd throw it in there.

However, he does take the Yankees out of a lot of his arguments with (and I wish I could quote him) takes on how you can’t measure the league with just one team.

I'm sure you're all tired of hearing my explanation of why I don't believe a Yankees/Expos comparison is a fair one, so I'll just refer you to one of our many past debates on this subject.

Well, if he can take the Yankees out his equations, I think I can take the Rangers out of mine.  Without the Rangers in the mix, the combined record is 250-235, a winning percentage of .515 which would have good enough to win the AL East if the Yankees, of course, didn’t play there. 

Well, first of all, there is a valid reason to exclude the Yankees from this discussion, and there is no valid reason whatsoever to exclude the Rangers.  Secondly, I'm not sure what a .515 winning percentage proves one way or the other.  But aside from all that, I wish we could all avoid the trap of basing our entire argument on the relatively small sample size of just one season.  Here are the number of wins for the non-playoff top-ten teams over the past five years:

2000: 448-524 (.461)
1999: 155-169 (.478)
1998: 250-236 (.514)
1997: 382-428 (.472)
1996: 336-312 (.519)

Combined, these teams played .485 baseball, which gives us at least some evidence that being a top-10 payroll team does not guarantee success.

Truly not overly impressive numbers but lets take a look at the bottom of the rung if you will, the four lowest payrolls of the year not to make the playoffs.

#30 Minnesota Twins (85-77, second in the AL Central)
#28 Montreal Expos (68-94, fifth in the NL East)
#27 Florida Marlins (76-86, fourth in the NL East)
#26 Kansas City Royals (65-97, fifth in the AL Central)

For arguments sake, I’m taking the team with the worst winning percentage out of the equation (so yes, the Twins are still included).  Combined, the Twins, Expos and Marlins posted a record of 229-257.  A meager winning percentage of .471, which at best, would have placed this collage of teams third in the AL West.

Wait a minute, what happened to team #29 and their 102 wins??  What kind of Bud Selig illogical math experiment is this??

Let's make this a little more simple to follow.  Let's take the win total of the top ten teams (458) and compare it to the win total of the bottom ten teams (421).  That gives us a difference of 37 wins, or about 1.8 wins per team.  Is there a difference?  Sure there is.  And the difference is almost TWO whole wins!   W-O-W.  Phone Bob Costas and tell him we've found conclusive proof that baseball's entire economic structure needs to be replaced immediately! 

Again, we shouldn't be using the stats for only one season, since it skews the study.  That's why I'll refer you to a past debate where I compared the win totals for the top- versus bottom-third teams based on payroll going all the way back to 1992.  As you can see, there is virtually no difference.

But let's say for argument's sake that this wins difference was HUGE - let's say 20 wins per team.  Would this be a call for great economic changes?  Not in my mind.  Because we're comparing apples to oranges.  If a group of teams is losing that many games, chances are it's because they've made bone-headed decisions, not because they can't afford to make the right ones.  And that has nothing to do with baseball economics at all.  In sports where there is a salary cap, even in our own BDBL, you'll find a set of teams that suffers because of poor decisions.  Salary and economics just give some owners an easy excuse for failure.

For the A’s; it’s been a good run (two years - remember the good old days, Yanks?) but now the end is near.  Nothing short of a miracle will keep free agent Jason Giambi in town.  I see that you’re trying to do the right thing and waive the no-trade clause that ended your previous attempts to sign him.  Too late, Giambi just might be the MVP of the league again and is out the door.  Wait a second - what is this?  Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen are free agents as well?  Jermaine Dye the year after?  Ouch.  Unless the Yankees just enjoy playing you in the fall and are willing to give you a loan to pay these guys, we’ll see you later.

It's interesting that Scot believes the A's CAN'T sign Giambi because they can't afford him.  Yet if they had only agreed to his no-trade clause last spring, they WOULD have signed him to six years and $90 million.  Are we supposed to feel sorry for Oakland now because they made a bad decision six months ago?

Remember that it wasn't that long ago that the Oakland A's employed two of the game's top-paid players, Jose Canseco (baseball's first $6m player) and Rickey Henderson (baseball's first $4m player), baseball's top-paid reliever (Eckersley) and one of baseball's top-paid starting pitchers (Dave Stewart.)  If Oakland really can't support a huge payroll, how did they do it only a decade ago?  Was there a mass exodus of wealthy citizens moving out of the Bay Area ten years ago that caused a seismic shift that resulted in the 1989 earthquake?  How is it that Oakland has become a small market, but San Francisco - just a stone's throw across the bay - is considered a large market?

For the sake of argument, let's say Oakland really is a "small market," and their payroll will never again break the top fifteen...does anyone really believe that the Oakland A's are simply going to fade away after this year?  Even if Giambi leaves, we already know they have at least $90 million to spend on some free agent out there.  I'm sure they could find an adequate replacement (or two) with that kind of cash.  Then there's the fact that Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada will all return not only next year, but every year after that for the next four years.  Call me crazy (Marazita does on a weekly basis), but that sure looks like a dynasty to me.  I'd trade the entire Yankees roster for Oakland's entire roster in a heartbeat.  And I'm sure Brian Cashman would, too.

Congratulations Yankees for your purchase of another trip to the series.  We all knew you had the money - err I mean the heart to do it!  Mike Mussina (Mike’s candidate for AL Cy Young), our thanks to you for helping make this happen again this year.  I can’t wait to see what complete stud player the Yankees acquire during the off-season so we can see them again in 2002.  Will it be Jason Giambi?  Maybe Barry Bonds?  What about Johnny Damon?  Someone else?

Out of the whole piece, I love this paragraph the most.  The Yankees purchased exactly ONE significant free agent the entire year and Zook is claiming they've "purchased another trip to the Series."  Classic.  I wonder if he consulted Tim Zigmund on that line.  No less than TWENTY-TWO players in the game of baseball make more money than Mike Mussina.  The Yankees won three world championships before Mussina ever donned a pinstriped uniform.  Are we really supposed to believe they couldn't have won without him?  Even if that's true, are we really supposed to hammer the Yankees for realizing which player would help them the most, then digging deep into their pockets to go out and get him?

Of course, I can hear Zook's reply from Kansas City all the way up here: "But Mike, you capitalist pig, my Kansas City Royals couldn't AFFORD to pick up a player like Mussina!"  Oh really?  For the same amount K.C. paid for Roberto Hernandez, Rey Sanchez and Greg Zaun, they could have been had Mussina instead.  Managing a ballclub is all about making choices, my friends.  Sometimes you make the right choices.  Other times, you end up like the Kansas City Royals.  Imagine if the Royals ownership actually had the guts and/or the intelligence to make a smart decision every once in a while and sign the right player at the right time.  Imagine where that franchise would be.  You don't have to imagine.  Just look across the river to St. Louis.    

I have to throw this quote up there for you all to read and yes he’s telling you the truth when he says it.

"Okay, so let's get this straight...baseball's attendance is at an all-time high, national network television revenue is at an all-time high, global demand for baseball is at an all-time high, sales of merchandise and memorabilia is at an all-time high...and yet the game is having financial problems???” – Mike Glander, Commissioner BDBL

The game itself is not having financial problems, Mike.  The teams are.  The World Series really used to be a truly awe-inspiring event for everyone.  It now has become nothing more than a vacation spot the Yankees go to every year after a grueling 162-game season.

So let me get this straight...baseball revenue has increased FORTY PERCENT over the past three years...but some teams still can't figure out how to make money in this business??  And we're actually supposed to feel sorry for these teams??

I'm sorry, Scot, but I don't feel sorry for the Royals.  Not when the Twins and A's can figure out how to spend less money more wisely and build a winning franchise without relying on some form of baseball welfare.  Not when the Phillies can fight for the division title in the final week of the season with a payroll of only $6 million more than Kansas City's.  Not when the Cardinals can build a six year dynasty in a nearly identical market.

You know, if baseball were merely concerned with featuring the two best teams in each league in the World Series each year, the Yankees would have appeared in the Series only twice over the past six years.  But the playoff system was never meant to reward the best team in each league.  It was created as a tournament to generate revenue.  And the Yankees have figured out how to win those short series tournaments better than any team I've ever seen or read about in my life.

We all stand in awe of the Celtics, who won eight straight championships, and eleven in thirteen years.  We can't say enough great things about Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls, who won five championships in six years.  The Montreal Canadiens won four straight titles in the 70's and they are hailed as the best team in hockey history.

But the Yankees win three straight and all I hear from sea to shining sea is endless whining about how the Yankees' success is ruining the game.

It's a real shame that some people can't simply appreciate the Yankees for what they are instead of constantly focusing on their payroll.  To paraphrase Barry Bonds from this past spring training, these people are going to look back at all of this some day and realize they missed the show.  I'm sure that you haven't watched any of the Yankees playoff games this year, Scot.  And you, my friend, have missed the show.