Does the Uribe signing give Jeter’s side the “other suiter” they need?

I also have to completely agree with this comment by “an executive from another club”:

“I’m pretty blown away that it even came to this level. This is a Hall of Famer. This is the face of the franchise. It just usually doesn’t come to this.”?

Agreed. I know the team wants to hold the line on salaries and there’s a very big part of me that applauds this attempt.? However, to choose Jeter as that guy to stick it to?strikes me as misguided and disappointing. I would never endorse a blank check policy in a situation like this, but I never would have conducted this as transparently as the Yanks organization has done thus far.? This public spat is embarrassing for all sides.? Don’t tell me “it’s just business” anymore; it’s gotten way too personal to be “just business“.? Someone needs to gain some sense soon and put an end to Al Jeterzeera.

As I said a week and a half ago, the Yanks should come out with a statement like this and begin a press embargo until Jeter signs, somewhere:

“The entire Yankee organization desires to keep Derek Jeter in pinstripes his entire playing career and for the rest of his post-playing life. We have the utmost respect for Derek’s contributions to this organization and we will be forever grateful for his service. He is and has been everything we want our organization to represent. We remain optimistic that a mutually beneficial agreement will be reached as soon as possible. We will have no further comments until that time.”

-

Has Jeter declined?? You betchya, but as Mark noted here, there was very little room to go up after his 2009 season:

The other argument against Jeter receiving that much money is his “declining performance”. Well, that’s true. He did play worse in 2010 than 2009, but I don’t think anyone expected him to repeat his 7.1 fWAR season. Almost anything is a “declining performance” from that. But Jeter recorded only 2.5 fWAR this past season, and it was his lowest ever, including his rookie season. However, if you look a little deeper, there are reasons to believe Jeter will be better next season with the most obvious being his .307 BABiP, which is almost 50 points below his career norm. In other words, he was highly unfortunate in a season that he couldn’t really afford to have one. 2007 was pretty close to an “average” season for Jeter, and he racked up 3.5 fWAR that season. That also included a nasty -17.9 UZR rating that he hasn’t neared in the past three seasons, and you could make the argument that even a -8 rating would leave him with 4.5 fWAR, which sounds more accurate.

And as Larry noted in the comments:

You have to consider marginal as well as absolute value. Jeter’s 2.7 fWAR was still third best in the American League for shortstops, and it’s probably 2.7 more than Nunez could produce. I don’t see any position on the field that the Yankees could afford to upgrade (other than Cliff Lee in place of Javy) where they could add 2.7 wins to the team.

This stupid game of chicken needs to come to an end. Now.

-

As a bonus, a great article about Jeter and Pujols, sent to me by Anna McDonald of the HBT:

The Jeter and Pujols contracts will not just be an exercise of baseball executives pushing on a string. Both the Yankees and Cardinals owners are business artisans. They will create a new threshold for baseball contracts, beyond A-Rod, whether the money ends up being less, the same, or more. They’ll give a pull on the string that tugs at the heart of the modern day value of fans’ devotion to two ballplayers who have their molds of greatness already taking shape. It’s just a matter of where the final bronze statue will land.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Looks like Tulo really wants to be like Jeter

Take a trip in the way-back machine back to the offseason of 2000 when a then-26-years-young Derek Jeter signed a whopping ten year, $189 million contract. And ten years ago, a young kid by the name of Troy Tulowitzki was already a Jeter fan. Tulo would go on to forge quite an early career for himself and now appears, also at the age of 26, to be on the verge of his own ten year contract:

Insider’s Keith Law reports Monday night that the club is nearing a 10-year contract extension with Troy Tulowitzki.

The 26-year-old shortstop is in the middle of a 6-year, $31 million contract he signed prior to the 2008 season, but put up MVP-caliber numbers while continuing his strong defense at a premium position on the field. The new deal would presumably take effect immediately, tearing up the current pact which would have paid him $5.5 million in 2011.

Of course, this would scuttle my dreams of having Tulo join the Yanks after his contract (and option) were completed after 2015, after Jeter himself retired. Oh well.

An early congrats to Tulo if he indeed signs a 10-year deal. He’s got a heckuva role model to follow, on and off the field.

(click “view full post” for a bit more nostalgia)

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Happy Birthday Mo!

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

RIP Leslie Nielsen

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Understanding Jeter

The other argument against Jeter receiving that much money is his “declining performance”. Well, that’s true. He did play worse in 2010 than 2009, but I don’t think anyone expected him to repeat his 7.1 fWAR season. Almost anything is a “declining performance” from that. But Jeter recorded only 2.5 fWAR this past season, and it was his lowest ever, including his rookie season. However, if you look a little deeper, there are reasons to believe Jeter will be better next season with the most obvious being his .307 BABiP, which is almost 50 points below his career norm. In other words, he was highly unfortunate in a season that he couldn’t really afford to have one. 2007 was pretty close to an “average” season for Jeter, and he racked up 3.5 fWAR that season. That also included a nasty -17.9 UZR rating that he hasn’t neared in the past three seasons, and you could make the argument that even a -8 rating would leave him with 4.5 fWAR, which sounds more accurate. At $4.5 million a win, that’s $20.25 million of production, which makes a $23 million asking price less ridiculous. Sure, you can make the argument (which may even be a better one) that he hasn’t done that in 3 of the past 4 seasons and aging may restrict his ability or the degree to which he rebounds, but the same sabermetric principles that scream for Jeter to be tarred and feathered also support a mighty bounce-back.

The number of years also becomes a point of contention because of Jeter’s age. He will be 37 for most of next season, and a six-year contract will make him 42 during that last season, which is ancient in player years. But it’s not unheard of, and if you want to look for exceptions, Hall of Famers who keep themselves in shape are a good place to start. Additionally, Jeter may accept 4 years, which would make him 40 in that last season, and that’s not as much of a stretch (though not one anyone wants to bet on). He’s been extremely durable his entire career with only one season significantly below 150 games played. He may be genetically gifted in this area, and he probably is a better bet than most to last to that age (of course, that still doesn’t make it a good idea, but Jeter can make that argument).

Then there’s the “franchise bonus” for Jeter being Jeter. The argument has been made that it would hurt the Yankee brand by letting Jeter walk, and while it won’t irreparably harm the Yankee brand, it will tarnish it a smidge, though the actual degree is uncertain. It will create some ill will, and the Yankees will sell fewer jerseys as people won’t buy so many Jeter ones and only a big trade would bring someone who would create excitement at that position. I’ll agree that the impact on the Yankee brand won’t be gigantic, but it is non-negligible for the short-term. (My problem here is not that Jeter or anyone else wants to give Jeter more money to Jeter for him being him. Players aren’t equal, and teams value certain players for things like longevity and loyalty. I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is the ambiguity of it. How much does the “franchise bonus” cost? $3 million? $10 million? Intangibles can’t be quantified, but salaries can. And I want to know how much I’m paying for Jeter’s performance and for his “Jeterness”.)

There’s also a somewhat societal issue in these negotiations. When you or I go out for jobs, we’ll get an opening salary, and year-after-year, we expect to receive a pay raise. Call it seniority or inflation, but we get one anyway. Now, this happens in most jobs, and as long as you continue to do your job and there are no recessions that affect your job, you expect to continue to make more money than you did the previous year. Essentially, Jeter is asking for this. All players want this. Sure, a lot of them eventually come to terms with it, and they accept less money. But it’s usually after no one wants them or they have a marked decline in performance that coincides with a younger player outperforming them. It’s easier to accept then. But this isn’t Jeter’s scenario. The most famous baseball organization in the world wants him. He just won a Gold Glove as the best defensive shortstop (let’s leave the actual merits of that for another discussion). And he was the 11^th best shortstop (by FanGraphs measure) in the majors, and we all expect somewhat of a bounce-back (4.5 fWAR would put him 3^rd and 4 would put him 5^th). None of that exactly screams, “You suck and are declining to the point that you need a major pay cut”.

And of course, we have the deadly sin of pride. We love athletes for their competitiveness and for their desire to be the best, but at some arbitrary point, we draw a line where their competitiveness turns into “greed”, “showboating”, or “hot-headedness”. We all have different thresholds for that, but our encouragement of such things is what drives athletes. Jeter likes to compete, likes to win, likes to perform for the fans, and likes to be well-paid for his efforts, and this negotiation is no different. He wants to win and make a lot of money. And he doesn’t want to admit he’s getting older. He’s only 36 for goodness sakes, and he’s got at least 40 more years of life ahead of him. Luckily, this is also about the time when “mid-life crises” hit and people have to come to terms with their age. Everything is no longer in front of you (I am not saying Jeter is having one of these. Personally, I don’t think people really have mind-scaring mid-life crises, but I do think this is about the time when you start thinking about these things, which aren’t the easiest things to grapple with). So, you have a highly-competitive athlete who is reaching middle-age, and there are still plenty of people out there who actually think he should be paid tens of millions. Sounds like a good combination.

I realize that the immediate reaction to Jeter’s demand is nothing short of incredulity. Some people could be willing to argue for 4/80, but 6/150 or 6/125 seems entirely ridiculous. And as an ending point, I’d agree. But that’s not what this is. It’s an opening salvo, and we still have 2 ? months left to work it out. They’ll come down in asking price, and when it’s all done, we’ll marvel at Close and Jeter for asking for the world and getting the Yankees to offer 4/68 when they really didn’t have to. Or we’ll marvel at how humble Jeter became when he accepted the 3/48 deal—“He finally came to his senses, and not many athletes do that, right?” In a way, Jeter can’t lose. Whichever way this ends, it can be spun to make Jeter look like a Warren Buffett or a St. Paul, but before that rigmarole, Jeter has business to attend to. And he’s going to get his, and I have no problem with that. It is the American Way, after all.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Money To Burn? (More On the Yankees’ Budget)

Sure, the Yankees are one of the most valuable franchises in sports – Forbes values the team at $1.6 billion, just behind Manchester United and the Dallas Cowboys, and well ahead of any other baseball team.? According to Forbes, the Yankees brand is the most valuable in sports.? The Yankees play in the third most expensive stadium in the world, and by some measures they have the most expensive player payroll of any sports team.? Yes, by most measures, the team is very, very rich.

But first and foremost, the Yankees are a business, a successful business.? They are governed by the same rules that apply to all businesses, and they have achieved success by doing the things that successful businesses do.? Successful businesses spend within their means. Joe Posnanski noted for Sports Illustrated that in 2009, the Yankees’ spent ?94.4% of their revenues on their baseball operations.? This is a high percentage for a baseball team, but not an unusually high percentage: in 2009, the Kansas City Royals spent 94.3% of their revenues on their baseball operations.

Posnanski concludes from this that the Yankees’ 2009 spending was “almost exactly in line with their revenue”, and this is a key point: even for the Yankees, the amount of cash flowing out is limited by the amount of cash flowing in.? In other words, if we’re going to understand the Yankees’ budget, we have to do more than we did in Part 1 of this series, where we looked at the Yankees’ historic spending.? Here in our Part 2, we’ll take a close look at the Yankees’ revenues.? Do the Yankees make enough money to justify an increase in their budget, and if so, how high might this budget legitimately go?

More precisely, we’re going to take two looks at Yankees revenues.? The first look, a simple look, suggests that the Yankees are already spending close to their limit on player payroll.? The second look, a more complex (and confusing) look, suggests that the Yankees might be able to spend a heck of a lot more.

First Look (The Simplified Look)

To get a simple picture of the Yankees’ finances, let’s put together a simple income statement for the Yankees for 2009.? Of course, the Yankees do not publish their financial statements — baseball teams are privately owned businesses and are not required to publish their financial results.? So we’re doing what everyone (even Forbes) does when they write about the business of baseball — we’re making an educated guess.

Please keep in mind, this is only a guess … but also note that my guess ($26 million in profits) is not far off from Forbes’ guess ($25 million in operating income).? So maybe my guess is pretty good.

Let’s quickly walk through these numbers.? The $600 million revenue figure was widely reported earlier this year — this is what caused Craig Calcaterra to comment on the Yanks’ ability to print money. I think the figure may be high — it is based on a statement by CNBC reporter Darren Rovell that the Yankees’ business “now approaches $600 million in annual revenues”. But let’s go with the $600 million figure for the moment. Roughly 2/3 of these revenues — $397 million — come from ticket sales and Stadium luxury suite revenue. (This revenue has increased dramatically in recent years — the Yankees were “only” earning $157 million in ticket sales in 2005, and $52 million in 1997.) Other amounts come from local TV payments (around $65 million – more on that later), MLB TV and licensing (estimated at $30 million in 2007), concessions, sponsorship and advertising (estimated at $30 million in 2007), local radio and “other”.

Next, let’s look at the expense side of our financial statements. The $213 in payroll is from Cot’s Baseball Contracts. The $140 million in revenue sharing is the number mentioned by MLB Executive Vice President Rob Manfred in a speech he made in March at the Harvard Law School. $57 million in Stadium rent is taken from the prospectus issued for the bonds used to finance stadium construction (I’ve seen this number reported as high as $64 million, but I think the $57 million number is correct), and I found the $35 million cost for Stadium maintenance here.

I only have two more numbers to explain.

The Yankees’ $600 million in 2009 revenues includes approximately $72 million in post-season revenues.? Apparently, the Yankees can make a lot of extra money when they play in the World Series!? But there are extra expenses associated with making the post-season.? Using the financial statements for the Rays and Angels disclosed by deadspin.com, we can guess that post-season expenses run anywhere from 22% to 33% of post-season revenues. The $20 million of post-season expenses estimated above about splits the difference between these two percentages.

Finally, there are all of the other expenses that go into running a major-league baseball team: minor league operations, scouting, sales, advertising, travel, general and administrative, and so on. How much do the Yankees spend on these miscellaneous expenses? I haven’t a clue. But from deadspin.com, we? learn that the total expenses in 2009 for the Angels were around $229 million. If we deduct from this figure expenses that we’ve already estimated for the Yankees (payroll, stadium operations, revenue sharing and the like), we’re left with around $72 million of expenses that would fall under the miscellaneous category. Of course, it should be more expensive than this to run the Yankees — the Yankees’ revenues are more than twice that of the Angels, plus the cost of living is higher in New York. But again, let’s be conservative and assume that it only costs 15% more to run the Yankees. The Angels’ miscellaneous expenses plus 15% equal the $83 million of miscellaneous expenses we’ve shown for the Yankees.

Yes I know, I’ve made a bunch of wild guesses here … but my bottom line estimate is close to that of Forbes, so I don’t think I’m too far off.? What can we conclude from this?? We can conclude that with a $213 million budget for player payroll, the Yankees are already operating at the edge of profitability. The only reason the Yankees made a profit in 2009 is because they made it to the World Series and earned $72 million in extra revenue.? What if we cut that post-season revenue figure in half?? Then we’d be discussing a season like 2010, where the Yankees played 9 post-season games, 4 at home (compared to 15 in 2009, 8 at home).? Let’s try putting together a 2010 income statement for the Yankees, where we’ll assume that all costs and revenues are identical to 2009, except that we’ll cut in half both post-season revenues and post-season expenses:

This is my guess and I’m sticking with it until Randy Levine tells me I’m wrong.? By my estimate, the Yankees broke even this year.? The 2010 Yankees … with roughly $600 million in revenues and a post-season run falling two wins short of the post-season … may not have turned a profit.

Is this possible?? Of course it is possible. According to Forbes, the Yankees consistently lost money prior to 2009: $4 million of losses in 2008, $47 million lost in 2007, $25 million of losses in 2006, $50 million of losses in 2005, $37 million of losses in 2004, and $26 million lost in 2003.?? Excluding 2009, Forbes last showed the Yankees turning a profit in 2002.? Between 2003 and 2008, the Forbes numbers show the Yankees losing a total of about $200 million.? We need to keep in mind that the Forbes numbers are only estimates. Still, Forbes is not the only publication that thinks the team loses money – see here, for example.? The Yankees themselves claimed for years that they’ve been losing money.? Brian Cashman said so here in 2005; Randy Levine said so here in 2008. According to one report in 2007, the Yankees at that time had not distributed profits to its ownership in 10 years.

So … this is our simplified view of the Yankees’ revenues, and the Yankees finances.? By this simplified view, the Yankees have a real need for a payroll budget in the range of $213 million.? If the team enforces this budget, it can about break even, assuming that it makes a decent run through the post-season.? By this simplified view, there is no money to burn, no ability to spend whatever it takes to make the playoffs.? By this simplified view, there is no extra money at all.

But that’s our simplified view.

Second Look (More Sophisticated, More Confusing)

Let’s forget everything I wrote above, and start over.

We’re primarily interested in a baseball team called the New York Yankees.? That team is probably breaking even financially, just like I said above.? But there’s more to the picture.? The team is owned and operated by the New York Yankees Partnership.? The partnership is 99% owned by YGE Holdings, LLC, which in turn is owned by Yankee Global Enterprises LLC, which in turn is owned by the Steinbrenner family.

This is more than a simple chain of command, since many of these companies own interests in businesses other than the Yankees.? For example, YGE Holdings, LLC owns Yankee Stadium LLC, the company that leases the new Yankee Stadium from the New York State industrial development agency that issued the bonds to finance the stadium’s construction.? Yankee Global Enterprises owns a stake in the Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, more commonly known as the YES Network.? Yankee Global Enterprises also owns a piece of Legends Hospitality Management, the company that manages concessions, suite catering and team stores at Yankee Stadium (as well as at the new Dallas Cowboys stadium).? Reportedly, Yankee Global Enterprises owns a stake in dozens of smaller businesses, including Yankee Steiner Collectibles, the company that (in)famously sold dirt from the old Yankee Stadium to souvenir collectors at roughly $80 a tablespoonful.

In short: the Yankees are a business conglomerate.? More precisely, the Yankees are a part of a larger group of businesses, some of which (like the YES Network) are not fully owned by the Steinbrenners.? Is this conglomerate profitable?? We don’t know for certain (again, these are all private businesses), but it is almost certain that these businesses together are earning healthy profits.

Let’s look more closely at the most valuable business in this conglomeration of businesses, the YES regional sports network. Various estimates show the YES Network with annual revenues of over $300 million, or over $400 million, and with annual net profits of $150 million, or $200 million, or 60% of revenues.? These are huge numbers in relation to the normal business of baseball.? Consider that the YES Network revenues are higher than those of any single baseball team, other than the Yankees.? Consider that the YES Network profits are higher than those of any baseball team, including the Yankees.? In fact, if we take the highest estimate of YES profits, they exceed the combined 2009 operating income of all14 teams in the American League (as reported by Forbes).

We mentioned above that the Yankees are one of the most valuable franchises in sports, with a Forbes-estimated worth of $1.6 billion. Well … the estimated value of the YES network is higher than this — roughly twice this high. Hard to believe, but the regional network that covers the Yankees is probably worth twice as much as the team itself.

When we consider the YES Network and the other businesses that make up the Yankee conglomerate, it becomes nearly impossible to figure out an appropriate budget for the Yankee payroll. I mentioned above that reader-commenter Brian wrote that the Yankee budget is whatever it takes to make the playoffs. It might be more accurate to say that the Yankee budget is whatever it takes to maintain the value of the Yankee business enterprises.? But I have no idea how much (or little) such a budget might be.

(We’ve been posting quite a bit about the negotiations between Derek Jeter and the Yankees, and reportedly the two sides are about $8 million apart with respect to Jeter’s upcoming annual salary. But $8 million is a small number compared to the numbers we’ve been discussing here. If another $8 million in payroll is required to maintain the Yankees’ brand (and that, of course, is the big question), then the Yankees will gladly pay it.? That $8 million is chicken feed compared to the numbers being generated over at the YES Network.? It would take about a week for the YES Network to earn that kind of money.? Not quite “all in a day’s work”, but close.)

Let’s try another tack.? By my best estimates, the Yankees are struggling to break even and the YES Network is making hundreds of millions annually.? Should some of the YES Network revenues be transferred over to the Yankees?? Of course, some of these revenues are transferred to the Yankees — the YES Network pays the Yankees somewhere between $60 million and $67 million annually for the right to broadcast the Yankees’ games.? However, by any way of thinking, this is a bargain rate.? Consider the amounts received by other teams for their broadcast rights — Fox pays the LA Dodgers $45 million a year; and has agreed at some future point to pay the Texas Rangers a reported $80 million a year.? Approximately 68,000 households watch an average Rangers game; roughly 92,000 households watch an average Dodgers game.? But a lot more people — approximately 328,000 households — watch an average YES Network broadcast of a Yankees game.? By those numbers, the Yankees ought to receive somewhere between $160 million and $385 million annually for their broadcast rights (based on the price per household paid by Fox for Dodgers and Rangers broadcast rights).? That’s a lot more than the Yankees are currently receiving from the YES Network.

So… if the Yankees were to sell their TV rights on the open market, they’d probably receive at least another $100 million in annual revenue on top of the $600 million they’re already taking in.? The $100 million+ saved annually by the YES Network is value that the Steinbrenners transferred to the YES Network, to help the network get started and attract investors.? If the Yankees were receiving that extra $100 million, that money would be included in the calculations that determine the Yankees’ revenue sharing payments, so some portion of that money would flow to teams like the Marlins and the Pirates (this is one reason why the Steinbrenners might prefer to leave this money over at the YES Network).? But the remainder of this money would be available to increase payroll.

Of course, the Yankees cannot presently sell their broadcast rights on the open market — they’ve already sold these rights to the YES Network.? If as a result there’s more money at the YES Network and less money over at Yankees headquarters, this is not a situation that can be changed.? Even if there was a legal way to move the money from the YES Network account to the Yankees account, there’s no reason why the YES Network would agree to such a plan.? The YES Network is not owned by the Yankees, and it is not 100% owned by the Steinbrenners. The YES Network’s ownership includes people and institutions (such as Goldman Sachs) who have no direct interest in the Yankees.? Also, reportedly, all of the YES Network’s cash flow is spent to pay down the network’s more than $1 billion in debt. In other words, the YES Network’s money is not available to pay salaries for players like Cliff Lee and Derek Jeter, because this money is already being used, for the network’s own business purposes.

Still, the YES Network has an interest in how the Yankees perform on the field.? What if the Yankees were playing .500 ball, and YES Network viewership declined, and YES Network ad revenue declined, and YES Network cash flow and earnings declined?? The $3 billion+ value of the YES Network depends on the network having a premium product for broadcast.? To maintain that value, the network MIGHT find a way to invest funds in the Yankees.? Or … in order to maintain the value of their investment in the YES Network, the Steinbrenners might allow the Yankees to operate at a loss, and the Steinbrenners might agree to make good those losses.? In essence, this is what George Steinbrenner did during the prior decade — the team lost hundreds of millions of dollars, but the value of the Yankee financial empire increased by many times that amount.

Where does this leave us?

If we think that the Yankees’ payroll budget is limited to what the team can afford to spend without losing money, then the budget should be set at around $213 million.

If we think that the Yankees’ payroll budget should be at a point designed to maintain the value of the various Yankees properties, then the budget might be set somewhat higher than $213 million.? How much higher we cannot say.? Perhaps the Yankees could sustain losses this decade comparable to the losses they sustained in the preceding decade.? This would allow for a higher budget, perhaps around $240 million.? The budget might be pushed much higher than even $240 million if the Yankees stopped playing championship level baseball, and as a result the team saw a decline in attendance and TV viewership.? Remember that the combined value of the team and the YES Network is something like $5 billion.? It would be worthwhile to increase the Yankees’ payroll by 10%, if that was needed to avoid a 10% decline in the value of the Yankees financial empire.

But at the moment, the Yankees team is not in crisis.? The guys who run the baseball operations seem to think that the team is one quality arm away from a possible 28th World Championship.? Under these circumstances, there is no threat to the continued growth of the Yankees’ brand, and no need for a dramatic increase in the size of the budget for payroll.

Remember, the financial goal is to maintain and grow the value of the Yankees’ brand.? It didn’t hurt the Yankees’ brand when they lost around $30 million a year during the last decade, but if losses got a lot larger than this, at some point the value of the Yankees enterprises would have taken a hit.? No one likes to own a business enterprise that bleeds money.? Not even the Steinbrenners.

We’re not done analyzing the Yankees’ budget!? The next thing we need consider is the upcoming negotiation of a new baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement.? This agreement will have a major impact on what the Yankees can spend … and the Yankees will try to do everything in their power to shape this agreement in their favor.? I believe that the Yankees will be in the best possible position to negotiate a favorable agreement if they keep 2011 payroll at the lowest level possible.

More on this in an upcoming post.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Minor League Recap: Staten Island Yankees

Curtain Calls:
Gary Sanchez (c): Sanchez’s strong performance in the Gulf Coast League led to him playing sixteen games with Staten Island.? He put up some of the stronger offensive numbers on the team during his short time there.? His line was .278/333/.426/.759.? He hit two doubles and two homers, driving in seven RBIs.

Garrison Lassiter (3B): Lassiter led the offense for Staten Island during his 39 games.? He hit .285/.389/.325/.714.? He struck out 29 times, walked nineteen times and drove in ten RBIs.

Michael O’Brien (SP):Over eleven starts, O’Brien went 6-2 with a 2.08 ERA.? He gave up nineteen runs (fourteen earned runs), walked just eighteen hitters while striking out 38.

Chase Whitley (RP): This year’s fifteenth round pick has shown some sleeper potential in his first season of professional ball. Whitley gave Staten Island some strong innings out of the ‘pen.? He went 4-2 over 34.1 innings of work (28 games).? His 1.31 ERA was accompanied by 44 strikeouts and just fifteen walks.

Richard Martinez (P): Martinez had a 4-1 record with a 1.69 ERA over sixteen games (two starts).? He allowed just nine runs (six earned) and walked sixteen hitters while striking out 34.

Players to Watch:
Cito Culver (SS): Culver’s fifteen games in Staten Island were a disappointment, but the Yankees’ first round pick from this year showed some great potential in the Gulf Coast League.? During his time on Staten Island, however, Culver hit .186/.340/.209/.549 and committed six errors.

Kelvin De Leon (RF): While De Leon has been viewed at having a significant ceiling as a prospect, his development has been rather slow.? Over 69 games for Staten Island, he went .236/.288/.359/.647.?? Unfortunately, he struck out 80 times while walking just seventeen times.? He had 37 RBIs with six homers and twelve doubles.? De Leon will need to improve on his defense if he is going to continue to move along in the farm system.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Yankees Lack Flexibility This Offseason

For purposes of this discussion, we have to operate under the assumption that all three of the Yankee standards (Jeter, Mo, Pettitte) will return–because even if the Yankees think they won’t, they risk serious fallout were they to add insult to injury by signing a SS or CL before negotiations with Jeter or Mariano conclude–or if they go out and sign (gulp…) two starting pitchers before Pettitte officially retires. The Yankees current agenda isn’t going to include filling these slots until they know that they’re truly open.

It’s already been penciled in that Posada will likely be a part-time catcher/part-time DH this coming season–which would open the door for a signing or a trade if the Yankees weren’t fully stocked in the minors (Montero, Romine, J.R. Murphy, Gary Sanchez are all solid to incredible prospects.) That means the Yankees can’t go out and try to find themselves a bargain at DH, which is typically a good spot to underpay for value (Guerrerro and Thome stick out the most in 2010, and there are any number of candidates in 2011). In fact, this will be an issue for the forseeable future, as Cashman is going to have to reserve the spot for his aging generals (Posada, A-Rod, Jeter, even Teixeira from time to time). We should also include Nick Swisher in this group, who spent 1/10 of 2010 as a DH. They could theoretically go the Brian Sabean route and pick up a catcher to share duties with Posada while Montero gets his final seasoning in the minors, but I don’t see it happening.

Due to the aforementioned DH bottleneck, while most AL teams look to pick up power on the cheap at the DH role, the Yankees will need to look to find that most elusive of creatures, the effective infield utility player who is actually worth a roster spot (to fill in around the diamond when the ancients are DHing). These are excessively difficult to find, because most players who are good enough to play every day at the majors play only one position. This makes sense, right? GMs want to be able to write out their roster and know who is playing where on a regular basis. Players aren’t really incented to learn to play multiple positions competently unless they know that they *need* to do this to garner a contract. This tends to lead to players who can cover the defensive positions, but not contribute at the plate–a breed that the Yankees have mostly avoided since the days of Tony Womack were cut short by the ascension of Robinson Cano (excepting a cameo by Jerry Hairston Jr.)

It’s also possible that the Yankees could trade one of their three starting outfielders to make space for a Carl Crawford, Jason Werth, or either of the Upton brothers (who are both on the trading block this offseason). If you open up this can of worms, there are plenty of other options as well–but in most cases, it would either lead to a serious expansion of the Yankees already sizable payroll, or a significant outlay from the minor league treasure trove Brian Cashman has built up.

Here at IIATMS, we’ll be covering each of these options and more over the coming weeks–check back soon to get in on the discussion.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

So it’s not $25 million/year; it’s only $23-24 million/year

After yesterday’s ride on the Jeter Express, we are now “learning” that the demands of out the Close/Jeter camp are/were closer to $23-$24 million per year, not $25 million. And the term was shorter at four-to-five years. Glad that’s settled. From the NY Times:

Derek Jeter’s agent, Casey Close, is currently asking the Yankees to agree to a new contract of either four or five years at $23 to $24 million a year, according to a person in baseball who had been briefed on the matter. [...]

The person familiar with the bargaining, said the Yankees and Close have been frozen at their offers for the last week and that in recent days there had been little, if any, negotiating. [...]

Still, the current offers — three years at $15 million a year by the Yankees and a maximum five years at $23 to $24 million by Close — suggest an obvious compromise in which the two sides would settle at four years and, say, $19 million a year.

That is still a huge chasm, ain’t it? Yanks offering $45 million and Jeter’s demands start at $96m. Has anybody seen the bridge?

(click “view full post” to find the bridge)

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Mien Ruys: Leader of The New Perennial Movement

Mien Ruys, whose garden has?influenced generations of well known designers, including Piet Oudolf and Jacqueline van der Kloet, is?considered by many?to be the leader of the ‘New Perennial Movement.”

Mien was surrounded?by plants from the time she was young.?Her father?founded Moerheim Nursery?in Dedemsvaart?in the late 1800s; it specialized in perennials, eventually becoming?a very?well known perennial nursery in Europe.

At the age of 19, Mien wrote in her diary “Today is the first day of my career.”?Her father had started a small design department at the nursery; within a short time,?she was put in charge.?By this time, Mien?had already exhibited an intense?interest and talent?in using perennials in gardens.

Because there was no training for garden design in Holland at that time, Mien studied in Berlin and?then?got some practical experience?at Tunbridge Wells in England.

Mien?began experimenting with designs and plants?in her parents’ garden, making a straight path from the kitchen garden?onward until she reached the fruit trees. Continuing with her vision, Mien built a small square pond, surrounded by the?perennials she loved. Within a year, most of the perennials?had died off due to the?acid ground in Dedemsvaart. The death of these perennials was a turning point in?her philosophy; either?she needed to continually amend the soil or she had to choose plants which could adapt to their new home.?Mien chose?plants with adaptability.

She?continued experimenting, making small perennial gardens on her parents’ property, eventually becoming as interested in the materials used for building gardens as the plant material. In the 1960s, Mien began using railway sleepers in a large number of Dutch gardens which led to her being known as ‘sleeper Mien’. She also came up with the?idea of using ‘washed gravel’ paving stones.

When I made the trek to Mien’s garden early last spring, what grabbed me was its simplicity, elegance and outstanding bones, but most of all its timelessness. The word ‘experimental’ is synonymous when describing?her garden. To see it first hand and learn that much of what?appears ‘cutting edge’ was designed several decades ago is a testament to her outstanding talent and vision.

The outline of the garden is designed geometrically with modernistic elements seamlessly integrated. Mien is known to have always created a space based on simplicity and functionality, which her colleagues did as well. But it was her?use of loose natural plantings surrounding the?space and the?emphasis on the perennial borders that differentiated Mien’s designs from those of her peers. She felt that the perennials allowed an individual to interact and have a direct?experience with nature.

I?fell in love with?the portable raised garden beds with storage space underneath them, one of Mien’s inventions.?For someone who has a rooftop, terrace or is an individual with special needs, this type of raised garden is ideal. And if I’m not mistaken, they are?constructed of recycled wood.

At the beginning of her career, Mien designed large?private gardens. After the war, she designed many communal gardens and did alot of work for building societies.?From the 60s on, the oblique lines that?she had used in the period after the war?became straight again; she?began implementing straight clipped squares of greenery, contrasting with the lush, exuberance of perennials.

Mien wrote?many books and published a quarterly magazine called ‘Our Own Garden’, Onze eigen tuin in Dutch.?She died in 1999 at the age of 94.

Below are some photos that?give a glimpes?of Mien’s garden in spring, courtesy of? the International Flower Bulb Centre.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Pre-Holiday Thoughts on Jeter

That said, if anything, I think Casey Close may want to tamp down his rhetoric a bit. For all the talk about how the Yankees may or may not be insulting or devaluing Jeter, if anything the harshest words have come from Close. Everyone associated with the front office has acknowledged Jeter’s value to the franchise above what he does on the field, and the fact of the matter is that the Yankees have made Jeter an offer that is larger than what anyone else is likely to offer. I assume that Close is aware of that, so doing things like calling the offer “baffling” can’t do anything but hurt Jeter. It’s not going to get him a 5 year, $100 million deal by any stretch.

Ultimately, I think there’s a problem here of perception versus reality. I was talking to a friend the other day and reiterated that I thought it was crucial not to significantly overpay Jeter, to which he rather indignantly responded that they overpay everyone else, so why would they stop with Jeter of all people? He’s not a Yankee fan by any means, so I dropped it there, but had I been in a more Quixotic mood, I would have pointed out that, no, the Yankees actually don’t overpay anyone really. They overpaid A-Rod, yes, and that was a blunder and ownership now realizes it was a blunder. They might have overpaid Posada a bit by giving him a guaranteed 4th year, but he was coming off of a career best year in 2007 and there simply aren’t many catchers who can hit like Posada is capable of. In any event, the deal they gave him was certainly consistent with the market I’d imagine.

And that’s really the point, you can look at “busts” like Jason Giambi and Carl Pavano (who, incidentally, really didn’t get that large of a contract, though everyone seems to think he made $100 million or something) and conclude that they were overpaid based on results, but that’s not information available at the time of signing. In that context, the Yankees have consistently made offers more or less in line with the market value of the player at the time. I suppose you could hold up C.C. Sabathia as a counter-example, but that was a rather extreme case of the team having a severe need for the player, skewing the demand curve a bit. The only real exception to this rule is A-Rod’s current contract, and that’s a mistake the team seems intent on not making again, with Jeter or anyone else. And good on them.

The only thing that’s really irritated me about the whole thing is that the Yankees somehow owe Derek Jeter. And not just that they owe him some sort of a premium for being Derek Jeter, but that they must pay Jeter whatever he wants, because he’s Derek Jeter. This galls me a bit because, to put it bluntly, the Yankees have been very, very good to Derek Jeter. In salary alone he’s made $205 million from the organization. Add in his next contract and however much money in endorsements he wouldn’t have made playing anywhere else, and when it’s all said and done the Yankees will have made Derek Jeter some North of a quarter of a billion dollars over his baseball career, plus however much money he can parlay his personal brand into after he retires. And that’s not even counting the number of championships he’s won thanks in no small part to the talent he’s been surrounded with in the Bronx. I won’t go so far as to say that Jeter owes the Yankees anything, because he doesn’t. The Yankees compensated him very well over his career so far and allowed him to make more money off the field as well, and in return Jeter played Hall of Fame caliber baseball at a premium position and earned every bit of what the team paid him. It was the personification of a mutually beneficial agreement between the two sides, and now it’s time for a new one. But let’s be clear, neither side “owes” anything to the other beyond another mutually beneficial agreement, whatever that may be, and anyone who says otherwise, in either direction, is just being silly.

Finally, as Craig says, all this talk about the “Yankee brand” needs to stop. Just stop. Now. Derek Jeter is not the “Yankee brand,” the Yankees are the Yankee brand. Winning is the Yankee brand. Obviously the Yankees have a long and proud history that extends back well before Derek Jeter came on the scene, and will go on when Jeter is no longer a Yankee. It will have to, sooner or later. People don’t fill up Yankee Stadium in October or watch games on YES to see Derek Jeter, they do it to see the New York Yankees. That’s not meant as an insult to Jeter by any means, it’s simply a fact. The New York Yankees are the pre-eminent brand in North American sports. Babe Ruth himself isn’t bigger than the New York Yankees at this point. Jeter is certainly right there in the upper echelon of Yankee greats, and that’s part of what goes into the Yankee brand, but it’s the collective of those greats out in Monument Park, more so than any one individual, that makes the Yankees what they are. One day Derek Jeter will be gone. And people will still come to the Stadium, they’ll still buy Yankee merchandise, they’ll still watch on YES, and some of them will still live and die with the team.Because they’re the New York Yankees, and that’s what we do.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Happy Thanksgiving!

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Pettitte leaning towards playing; Cliff Lee rumor

I can’t say I have been counting on this, but this does not shock me (Davidoff Twitter) at all:

Andy Pettitte is leaning toward a 2011 return to the #Yankees, according to an industry source.

Qualifies as news, I guess. It’d be great to have Andy back for a final go-round. Although his leverage would be infinitely higher if the Yanks didn’t land Cliff Lee.

Oh, maybe you heard this today, too:

An industry source said Monday the Yankees have offered Cliff Lee nearly $140 million over six years, but Lee continues to hold out for a seventh year. Neither Lee’s camp nor the Yankees would confirm those numbers. The Boston Globe has reported the Yankees offered as much as $120 million over five years.

I’ll believe it when I see it. Six years is a lot; seven is crazy for a 32 year old. At some point, this deck of high priced cards is going to collapse, or someone’s going to be eating a ton of dead cash.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Al Jeterzeera in full effect

Main course:

Cashman calls offer to Jeter ‘appropriate and fair’

“There is nothing baffling about our position,” Cashman said. “We have been very honest and direct with them, not through the press. We feel our offer is appropriate and fair. We appreciate the contributions Derek has made to our organization and we have made it clear to them. Our primary focus is his on-the-field performance the last couple of years in conjunction with his age, and we have some concerns in that area that need to be addressed in a multiyear deal going forward.

“I restate Derek Jeter is the best shortstop for this franchise as we move forward. The difficulty is finding out what is fair between both sides.”

The Yankees have made Jeter a three-year offer of $45 million, obviously short of what the 36-year-old icon is seeking.

Dessert:

In this numbers game, Jeter’s don’t add up

Derek Jeter’s position when it comes to his contract negotiations appears to be this: I am Derek Jeter, pay me.

It doesn’t matter he has almost no leverage or he is coming off his worst season or the production of shortstops 37 and older in major league history is dismal.

Logic and facts are not supposed to matter. All that is supposed to matter is this: I am Derek Jeter, pay me.

-

I’ve said plenty about this over the last few days.? Your turn. Who’s right, who’s wrong?? Where is this going to wind up and when?

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Crazy Talk

Yes, it is crazy to think about Jeter in Dodger blue. It is crazy to think about Jeter wearing anything other than Yankee pinstripes.? Jeter as a Dodger is a crazy thought because the Dodgers are strapped for cash, what with their ownership fighting tooth and nail in divorce court.? It is crazy because the Dodgers already have an excellent shortstop, one of the best in baseball, Rafael Furcal, who produced 4.1 fWAR in two-thirds of a season in 2010.

Jeter could only play for the Dodgers if he agreed to play a position other than shortstop.? But where else might Jeter play?? The Dodgers have $5.25 million committed in 2011 to Casey Blake, so presumably there’s no room for Jeter at third base.? But what about second base? Ryan Theriot manned second base for the Dodgers after his acquisition from the Cubs, but he produced a 0.0 fWAR in 2010 and the Dodgers may not tender him an offer in 2011.? Theriot’s backup at 2B is Jamey Carroll, but Carroll is also the Dodgers’ backup at shortstop and third base.? The Dodgers might be in the market for a good second baseman like …

… like Derek Jeter? Jeter at second base? ?Really?

Why not?? It’s been suggested many times that Jeter is too old to play shortstop full time.? Second base is a less demanding position.? Actually, I’m not finding many examples of second basemen who fielded their position well at Jeter’s age, but assuming that Jeter could adjust to life on the right side of the second base bag, Jeter should fare no worse at second than he has at shortstop.

Would the Dodgers match the Yankees’ offer of $15 million per year?? Not a chance.? They’d probably offer Jeter a base salary of $8 to $10 million per year.? But what the Dodgers could do is pack Jeter’s contract with incentives.? Dodger attendance declined this year – 2010 attendance was roughly 44,000 per game, third best in baseball (behind the Yankees), compared to around 46,500 per game (ahead of the Yankees) in 2009.? If Jeter could restore the Dodgers’ attendance to 2009 levels, that extra 2,500 fans per game (at an average ticket price of $44) would be worth about $9,000,000 in extra revenue to the Dodgers.? The Dodgers could easily afford to offer Jeter an attendance-based incentive of $4,000,000 if they reached 2009 attendance levels, more than that if the Dodgers broke their all-time attendance record of around 47,600 a game (set in 2007).

The Dodgers might offer an extra bonus if the Dodgers’ 2011 attendance exceeded that of the Yankees.? If they did that, they would also be advised to announce it publicly.? People in LA are competitive when it comes to New York.? (Disclosure: I live in LA)? I think people would turn out to Dodger Stadium in extra numbers, just to try to stick it to the Yankees.

The Dodgers could offer Jeter an extra bonus if the team made it to the World Series in 2011.? There’d be little risk in offering such a bonus – we’ve already reported on the money a team can make in the post-season, and it doesn’t look like the Dodgers are going to make the post-season without Jeter.? Jeter can then announce that one reason for his move to LA is to meet the challenge of bringing a World Championship to the Dodgers – a team that hasn’t won it all since 1988, when another winner (guy named Kirk Gibson) pushed the team over the top.

The World Series business is another reason why Jeter might consider LA.? Jeter has five World Championship rings … but he can’t really say that he brought a championship to New York.? When Jeter played his first full season for the Yankees, in 1996, the team was already pretty good.? In 2009, when the Yankees won a World Series after a nine-year drought, the difference was thought to be a new crop of players like Mark Teixeira and CC Sabathia.? Jeter could be for the Dodgers in 2011 what Teixiera was for the Yankees in 2009: a difference-maker.

Jeter could also come to LA to help out his old buddy, Donny “Baseball” Mattingly.? Actually, I don’t know if these two guys are friends.? But Mattingly is about to take over as manager of the Dodgers, and he’s never managed a baseball team before (outside of the Arizona Fall League, where he’s had at least one embarrassing rookie moment).? Jeter’s presence in the Dodger clubhouse might bring some needed leadership to the Boys in Blue while Mattingly got himself established.

Jeter’s presence in LA would do something even more important: it would remove the stench left over from the McCourt’s divorce trial.? The Dodgers’ standing in LA is at an all-time low.? Jeter would restore some luster to the franchise.

Speaking of luster … LA is a town that loves star power, and Jeter is a star.? This town practically fawned over Manny Ramirez, simply because he was quirky (also because he hit for an insane 1.232 OPS in his first few months in LA).? LA would practically lose its collective mind over Derek Jeter.

And this is where the idea of Jeter as a Dodger starts to truly make sense.? We all struggle with the idea of Jeter playing for the Washington Nationals, or the Houston Astros, or the Seattle Mariners.? What would Jeter do if he had to play on a small stage, away from the bright lights and the big city?? It’s like trying to imagine Angelina Jolie performing dinner theatre somewhere in Indiana.? But LA is not a small stage.? LA is movies and Hollywood; when it comes to glitz and money, LA is the equal of New York.? Jeter’s star quality, his endorsement value, his fame and market power, would only grow if he came to Los Angeles.? He’d become the prince of two coasts, the guy who conquered two leagues and two media centers.

Jeter might make more money outside of baseball as a Dodger than he could as a Yankee.? He’d certainly get more attention.? Other than Kobe Bryant, Jeter would OWN the attention of LA sports fans.

A few minor points to add: Jeter would enjoy hitting against the somewhat weaker pitching in the National League.? He’d have to face intense and probably unpleasant scrutiny the few games a year he’d play at Citi Field, but he would not have to play against the Yankees in 2011 (except perhaps in a World Series).

All of this would be possible … so long as Jeter would accept a base salary about half of what the Yankees have offered … and if Jeter was willing to play second base.

OK, sure.? We all know that Jeter will be playing shortstop for the Yankees in 2011, just like he’s done for the 15 preceding years and every single game of his major league career.? The idea of Jeter playing second base for the Dodgers … is crazy.? Crazy, crazy, crazy.

And maybe I’m crazy too.? Because the more I think about Jeter as a Dodger, the less crazy it seems to me.

What the heck.? Cashman has practically dared Jeter to test the market.? It wouldn’t hurt Jeter to just fly out here, and talk things over with Ned Colletti and Don Mattingly.? If only to call Cashman’s bluff.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Preview: AL Most Valuable Player

Adrian Beltre

One of the Red Sox’s 2009 off-season investments that actually worked, Beltre was simply resplendent in his vacation away from the West Coast. Beltre’s .390 wOBA is his best since 2004, and he was awesome on defense yet again. Okay, but how does that compare to Hamilton? Offensively, there’s no competition—Hamilton is ridiculously better even counting the 20 games played difference—but defense is again the tricky part. Beltre is considered an elite defender at third, but how “elite” is he? Is he +20 elite or just +10, because that’s a win difference? That win difference is the difference between the two in essentially both measurements. Given that UZR has consistently put him in the 11-13 range over the past few years, he’s probably just that. And if he is just that, then he wasn’t better than Hamilton this season.

Evan Longoria

Couldn't be helped.

Longoria’s numbers are amazingly similar to Beltre’s. In FanGraphs, they really almost are identical, but B-Ref (in which Longoria is a win and a half better than Hamilton and Beltre) really messes things up. Longoria is somehow 1 bWAR better on offense than Beltre, which doesn’t seem possible considering their similar slash rates. Defense is also throwing things off again due to the defensive measurement. Longoria gets his another advantage on Beltre from being +15 on defense (Beltre is only +6) after being +21 the year before and only +6 the season before that. What does FanGraphs say? UZR says he was +15 and +18 the two years previous, so I might actually be tempted to give Longoria a few more points in his fWAR, making him better than Beltre, because it only has him at +11 for this season. But a few more points in fWAR doesn’t nearly close the gap, and what should be a major loss on offense in bWAR closes the gap significantly there.

Jose Bautista

The only things Bautista did better than Hamilton did were play in more games and hit more home runs. Otherwise, Hamilton was better offensively, defensively (much better), and played more valuable positions. I’m not sure there’s much of an argument here.

Robinson Cano

Cano‘s .319/.381/.534 slash line translates to a .389 wOBA, which is significantly lower than Hamilton’s, but Cano A) played in more games and B) played a more valuable position. There’s nothing particularly troubling about any of his numbers, which is odd because everyone else does. His defensive numbers are stable and place him as an average second baseman, and his offensive numbers even look repeatable, which is also odd. But even considering all of that, the metrics still have him 1-1.5 wins behind Hamilton, and there’s nothing that give Cano extra points to close the gap. It’s a little unfortunate actually. He and Longoria are the most likely of all these candidates to have another similar year to this one, but this year wasn’t extraordinary enough to put them over the top.

-

Beltre, Longoria, Hamilton, and Bautista are the only AL players that continuously come in the top spots in the wins above replacement statistics, although several others make appearances (Shin-Soo Choo, for instance, is 2.5 fWAR behind Hamilton but second, and just behind Longoria, in bWAR). Hamilton and Bautista are the easiest to compare because they are outfielders, and Bautista loses in that competition. The next competition pits the two third basemen together. Beltre is a bit better offensively, and it appears Longoria is a bit better defensively. Specifically, I don’t know that I can put one over the other. It’s essentially a tie. So it’s Beltre/Longoria versus Hamilton. Hamilton was by far and away the better offensive player, and while Hamilton did spend most of the year in the outfield corners, the positional adjustment isn’t that severe because he played 40 games in center. The difference in games played causes some room for concern, but FanGraphs already has him a win better while he’s close in B-Ref (park factors could be the reason Longoria has more offensive WAR than Beltre, but is a park really worth a win?). Add in the difference on defense (where Hamilton could gain a win in bWAR), and I’m ready to proclaim Hamilton the winner without needing to bring up his personal history. It’s just not particularly close.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

BBWAA Afraid of Internet Bullies?

I pay very, very, little attention to Murray Chass. I’m assured by many that he was once a serious baseball writer who thought deep thoughts and so on and so forth, but in any event those days are long passed. Today he’s a curmudgeon, or at least he plays one on the internet, who more or less comes off as though he’s doing it just for the sake of being a curmudgeon. In fact, Chass doesn’t even inspire me to insult his thought process, writing style, or anything really because I honestly can’t tell if he believes what he writes or if he’s just carved out a particular niche in the internet market. I mean, the guy’s main schtick at this point is operating a blog he insists isn’t actually a blog, referring to his posts as columns as if to pretend he’s still writing for the New York Times, and getting red faced outraged anytime someone calls him a blogger. Even though he publishes on a blog. So yeah, that says everything you need to know about Murray Chass.

But every now and then he is good for a laugh, and today is one of those times:

So Felix Hernandez, as expected, won the American League Cy Young award, and he won it handily. I don’t have a problem with Hernandez. I think he is the best pitcher in the league, and I think he should have won the award last year.

My problem is with Hernandez winning the award with 13 wins. I am not alone in that view. Four writers voted for David Price (19 wins) and three voted for CC Sabathia (21).

Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune voted for Price because, he said, Hernandez’s 13 wins didn’t merit the award and Price was a dominant pitcher in his own right.

Speaking of the one-sided outcome of the vote, Rogers added, “I wonder how much of it was bullying on the Internet. There were a lot of columns written in September saying no one should be stupid enough not to vote for Felix. Maybe that’s what happened, but I hope not.”

(click “view full post” to read more)

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Votto nearly unanimous 2010 NL MVP

The Reds’ Joey Votto won the 2010 NL MVP, nearly unanimously:

Of the 32 ballots submitted by two writers from each league city, Votto was listed first on 31 and second on the other to score 443 points, based on the tabulation system that rewards 14 points for first place, nine for second, eight for third and on down to one for 10th.

Albert Pujols finished second, followed by Carlos Gonzalez. Mark had this one right on:

Though Pujols is awesome, Votto has been just as awesome and maybe better. Votto’s .324/.424/.600 line is ever-so-slightly better than Pujols’ (just better is still better), and it gives him a .439 wOBA that is quite a bit better than Pujols’ .420.

Even though Mark’s Zimmerman-love was noted, Zimm finished a distant 16th:

His .307/.388/.510 line converts to a .389 wOBA, and while that isn’t nearly as good as Pujols or Votto’s, the position adjustment and Zimmerman’s ungodly good defense make up the difference, giving him 7.2 fWAR. B-Ref says Zimmerman is only a tick above average on defense, and if I hadn’t given up on that metric already, I would now. But even if you give him a win’s worth of defense, he’s still a win behind Pujols and Votto’s adjusted value according to B-Ref, and he played in only 142 games. Zimmerman should get more attention for what he’s done, but in the end I think he’s somewhere in between FanGraphs and B-Ref, which makes him just a little worse (but still worse) than Pujols and Votto. Sorry Ryan, but you’re playing Pujols to Pujols’ Bonds this time.

(click “view full post” for full voting results in table form)

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Implicit Acceptance

If I gave you a number series of 29, 109, 200, what would you think it meant? You’d have no idea, right? In order for these numbers to have meaning, you have to give them names, and this is where historical circumstance creates problems. If the technology and investigation into statistics wasn’t very good, then there was little verification of the validity of these statistics, and if there was no verification, then we don’t know exactly what the numbers are telling us. When they named those statistics, however, they gave those numbers meaning, but the meaning wasn’t always accurate because, again, there was no investigation into the statistics before introducing them to the public. It wasn’t laziness. It wasn’t stupidity. It was a combination of something with little importance at the time (the importance of stats has since grown with the introduction of awards and the growing value of players, thus necessitating analysis) and insufficient technology. There really wasn’t anything they could do, and they had to name the statistics to tell people what they meant according to what they understood the statistics to mean. So, when I tell you those numbers at the beginning of the paragraph mean Robinson Cano’s home runs, RBI, and hits, you understand the numbers in their context. They now have meaning. But these numbers and statistics are fairly benign. Home runs are home runs. RBIs are the number of runners knocked in by a hitter. Hits are the number of hits a player had. There’s nothing controversial about them on the surface, but let’s look at some others that have more of an implication.

Batting average is easy enough—the number of this divided by the number of at-bats—but its history is not. Henry Chadwick developed the box score, and he didn’t think walks were manly or important. He left walks out of the box score and gave no credit to the hitter for getting one. When someone else came along to divine batting average, they used hits over at-bats because that was what was available and perceived as important. So let’s look at the name—batting average. It seems benign enough, but the name carries weight. By saying the word “batting”, it implies that this average indicates all that is important about hitting, but we know now that walks are important, though probably ever-so-slightly less so than hits. However, because no one questioned batting average for decades, it gained implicit acceptance because it was never refuted, thus somewhat unwittingly reaffirming its value. Sabermetrics has asked the question “Is batting average all that is important in hitting?”, and they answered no after investigation and testing. Batting average still plays a role in newer statistics, but newer statistics have adjusted to account for what batting average left out—walks and the difference between singles and extra-base hits. When saberists name their statistics, they try to be more accurate with their naming, but again, those names carry weight and sometimes more than they can carry. But they’re trying to get better.

Wins have really been in the news lately, and while some have used Felix’s win as the demise of the statistic, I think it’s still alive and well. But let’s take a look at it. Imagine being in our forefathers’ shoes. People want to know how to differentiate between pitchers, but how does one do that? There are no computers or since-accumulated knowledge. So let’s look at this in a very basic manner. Day by day, the team plays games, and there are eight guys who essentially play every one of those games. But guess who’s different? The pitcher, of course! So if the team around them is the same and the only thing that changes is the pitcher and the game’s outcome, then the pitcher must be the difference in the outcome! So, you can look at the team’s record in the games that that pitcher pitches, and the records correspond with the quality of the pitchers. Sounds good and logical, right? Well, at least when pitchers completed games it had a stronger correlation, but we know that things aren’t equal day-to-day—there are different teams faced, varying levels of offensive output, and different parks. Add the diminishing amount of innings pitched by starters and the corresponding increase in bullpen innings pitched, and that’s a lot of other things involved in the win than simply the starting pitcher. However, the term “win” causes problems when the pitcher is the only one receiving credit for the win (why not give the first baseman a W-L record? the second baseman?). The implication of the term, especially when it is called a pitching statistic, is that the pitcher is responsible for the team’s win, but we know the pitcher is not solely responsible. No one, however, seriously questioned this until a few decades ago, and like batting average, it gained implicit acceptance as a result. If no one calls it out, it must be right, correct? And when the object of the game is to win, it makes the statistic seem so much more important than other pitching statistics. If only it had been named something else.

I could do this all day, but I think you’ve gotten the point. Look, we all want to point the blame somewhere, but sometimes, stuff happens that is out of our control. Traditional statistics developed problems because of a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it was misguided machismo, and sometimes, it was a lack of available technology. Numbers were given names, and those names carried meaning. When no one challenged them, the meaning gained power and authority without anyone giving it to them, and eventually, people even gave the meaning that tangible power. As saberists have challenged these statistics, their argument encounters the neglected might of language, time, and reinforced belief. Saberists often challenge the names of the traditional statistics, but I don’t know that we delve into why those names have so much power. When these names are confronted, it’s hard to understand how we could have been wrong, or at least misguided, for so long. How could no one have noticed? If there was something wrong, we should have seen it, right? Our implied ignorance of the problem implies that we are stupid and/or negligent. The thing is that this isn’t what is going on. We believed what we did because A) it was what our forefathers declared, B) it seemed logical at the time, and C) we kept believing it over and over, through generations, and reinforcing its power by passing it on. It added up to some misguided beliefs, but there is no shame in it. Things like this happen all the time—Columbus can just sail west and hit India, the rain gods withhold or grant rain based on how happy or unhappy they are with us, etc.—but we eventually figure it out and usually as a result of having the necessary equipment, discovery, or technology. That shouldn’t be a criticism of the human mind. The ability to figure out our mistakes is a testament to human intelligence. It might take a while, but we undo previously-held beliefs all the time. After a while, those challenges become new previously-held beliefs, and they may need to be challenged (advanced statistics need to be challenged, albeit to improve them and not to destroy, and they already are). Don’t be afraid to learn. Embrace it. It’s what makes you human (though animals also learn and adapt, but I mean that we learn abstract morality and thought). You’ve always loved statistics and have always used them no matter which side you identify with. Don’t make these arguments about stats versus intangibles because it’s never been about that. It’s always been a power struggle over which stats to use and the credence and authority gained from winning that battle. And I’d argue that it’s, most importantly, a power struggle over the right to use certain words to name those statistics, with the term “win” pushing toward the forefront.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here