Yankees Collapsing

[Balzac]

Of course not, they can't even get credit for winning 4 World Series in a 5 year span, I wouldn't expect any credit for a measly 10 game winning streak.

 

817488[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Apples and oranges, dude.

[Rovers]

Of course not, they can't even get credit for winning 4 World Series in a 5 year span, I wouldn't expect any credit for a measly 10 game winning streak.

 

817488[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

LegF, that is some of the funniest chit I've even seen at the Huddle, really, it is. They DON"T get credit for a 4 out of 5 run in the WS? What planet are you living on? Man, some Crankee fans have serious inferiority complexes. They were an undisputed dynasty! Who ever said they weren't? seriously funny stuff, that made me ROTFFLMAO!

 

Now, the Mets prepare for the Darth Vader invasion. He wears a turtle neck to go incognito these days. I predict a Mets sweep of the ovepaid Yankee storm troopers. The yankees get knocked back down into the dirt of the AL East, where they belong this weekend. Pedro shuts them out. He beans Tino. Jeter gets hurt. Steroids come squirtin out of Sheffield's arms while in the batter's box. Giambi falls down, with a steroid related heart attack. I can't wait!

[LegFuJohnson]

Rovers, I have to give you credit. You might be the biggest Yankee fan on the board. As a fellow fan, thank you for the reverse jinx and starting them on their streak. And thanks again for coming back after one loss to try to start a new one.

 

And if you gave the Yankees credit for their championships, great. But many just whine payroll.

[LegFuJohnson]

"Way I see it, Yanks aren't a terrible team and they aren't a great team. They should play above .500, but I can't see them making the playoffs with that lineup and that pitching. "

 

 

"...particularly when it's a team that is supposed to be dominant that is doing the winning."

 

Which one is it?

 

See that's one of the other problems with (some of) the Yankee haters. In the offseason, it's all about payroll, so of course they have to win. Once the Yankees start losing, people might actually take an objective view at the team.

They are getting old... injury prone... not a lot on the farm to help out... they probably won't make the playoffs.

Then they start winning, and its back to the payroll, and they're supposed to be winning, so of course they are winning.

What happened to the objective analysis? A 10-game hitting streak for Ichiro might not be impressive, because he's might be the best singles hitter in the game. But the Yankees aren't a great team, a team that might play above .500, but not make the playoffs, right?

[Balzac]

"Way I see it, Yanks aren't a terrible team and they aren't a great team. They should play above .500, but I can't see them making the playoffs with that lineup and that pitching. "

"...particularly when it's a team that is supposed to be dominant that is doing the winning."

 

Which one is it?

 

See that's one of the other problems with (some of) the Yankee haters.  In the offseason, it's all about payroll, so of course they have to win.  Once the Yankees start losing, people might actually take an objective view at the team. 

They are getting old... injury prone... not a lot on the farm to help out...  they probably won't make the playoffs. 

Then they start winning, and its back to the payroll, and they're supposed to be winning, so of course they are winning. 

What happened to the objective analysis?  A 10-game hitting streak for Ichiro might not be impressive, because he's might be the best singles hitter in the game.  But the Yankees aren't a great team, a team that might play above .500, but not make the playoffs, right?

 

817798[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

It's both. This was a team that was supposed to steamroll everyone, but they haven't done so. When they actually start steamrolling the cellar teams, I'm sorry but I'm not impressed - that's all I'm saying.

 

I'm not sure why you think my two statements are an either/or type thing - they're entirely different concepts. As I've mentioned, I expected the Yanks to rattle off a streak like this because they simply aren't a team that's going to finish 10 games under 500. Now that they've hit their streak, they're right around where I thought they'd be. If they continue winning and get up around .560-.570 ball for the rest of the year, I'll be impressed and will gladly eat my words on this.

 

As far as the credit for winning goes, it depends how you define credit and who you're assigning it to. The way I see it, the players deserve all the credit in the world. The organization is a different story.

[LegFuJohnson]

I guess I don't remember calling the same team "supposed to be dominant" and "can't see them making the playoffs"

 

at least not until late August or September.

 

Now, the interesting thing you said... was that if they get to .560-.570 you'd be impressed. Now, why would you be impressed? They've got the highest payroll in the league. By a lot. Aren't they supposed to win?

[jackshi17]

It's May......let's recall this post in Sept!

 

801611[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

No sense arguing with people whose minds are made up.

I hope Rovers predictions here are as accurate as the ones before where he declared Tino all washed up.

Of course most of the Yankee haters will be invisible once they take over first place.

Edited May 20, 2005 by jackshi17

[Balzac]

I guess I don't remember calling the same team "supposed to be dominant"  and "can't see them making the playoffs"

 

at least not until late August or September.

 

Now, the interesting thing you said... was that if they get to .560-.570 you'd be impressed.  Now, why would you be impressed?  They've got the highest payroll in the league.  By a lot.  Aren't they supposed to win?

 

817980[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

The key word is "supposed." Not sure where the confusion is here - it happens fairly frequently where teams are "supposed" to be dominant but don't end up playing well out of the blocks . . . people then change their opinions and say things like "I don't see them making the playoffs." Take the Chiefs this past year, for example - how many "experts" had them going to the Super Bowl? How many of those experts had changed their tune after week 4? Teams with huge talent and potentials bomb sometimes - we all know this.

 

On the same note, when people asked me before the baseball season started who I thought would take the WS, my answer was the Yankees - too much talent on the squad for them not to be the favorite. They stumbled out of the blocks and ended up digging themselves a huge hole. There are a lot of good teams in the AL that didn't dig the same hole, so I thought (and still do) that they wouldn't be able to recover enough to make the playoffs. Where is the inconsistency with saying they were "supposed" to be dominant?

 

And, gee - let me explain why I'd be impressed. 2 facts that you need to pay attention to:

 

1. They were 10 games under .500; and

 

2. I don't think that they're very good (you'll recall that I've said this a few times).

 

In order for them to get to .560, they'd have to make up 30 games over the course of the season (i.e. they'd have to end up around 91-71, or 20 games over). Seeing as how I don't think they're a great team, it shouldn't surprise you that I'd be impressed if they made up 30 games from the beginning of May through the end of the season. Making up 30 games would be the markings of a great team.

 

To be clear - I'm not impressed that they made up 10 games to make it back to .500 (because that's at least where they should be), but I would be impressed if they continued this level of play and played 20 games over.500 for the remainder of the season.

 

Separate my payroll comments from the above, dude - they're different issues. Same goes for being impressed vs. giving credit.

[jackshi17]

I think the deepest hole they were in was 8 games below .500 when they were 11-19.

[LegFuJohnson]

So, just to be clear, you are saying you can be impressed if the $200M+ team plays .560, because they were 10 games under .500.

 

So, if they never dug that hole, you wouldn't be impressed?

A team with a high payroll has to dig a hole first?

 

So, if you can be impressed... Are the fans allowed to be proud? Again, just going back to earlier comments about there not being anything to be proud of when you outspend everyone else.

 

Do you need to change the earlier comments to something like... If you team outspends everyone else, there really isn't a lot to be proud of... unless they dig themselves a hole first?

 

 

And to switch over to the giving credit thing... the organization that through the draft and undrafted free agents (meaning not raiding other teams) that put Petitte, Jeter, Posada, Bernie, and Mariano together and wins 4 titles with that core doesn't derserve credit? The payroll didn't really explode until the Mussina/Giambi year.

[Balzac]

So, just to be clear, you are saying you can be impressed if the $200M+ team plays .560, because they were 10 games under .500. 

 

818015[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yes - feel free to read my responses above to see why b/c I'm not typing it again.

 

So, if they never dug that hole, you wouldn't be impressed?

A team with a high payroll has to dig a hole first?

 

818015[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No. In order to dig out of that hole, they'd have to play 30 games over .500 - something that I don't think they're capable of doing. If they do that, I'll be impressed. You're confusing the credit/impressed issue again.

 

So, if you can be impressed...  Are the fans allowed to be proud?  Again, just going back to earlier comments about there not being anything to be proud of when you outspend everyone else.

 

818015[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Being impressed and being proud are completely different things. One can be impressed with the sheer athletic talent and accomplishments of a team while not being proud of the franchise b/c they outspent everyone to get said talent. While I would be "impressed" if the Yankees made it back to .560-.570 (that is, impressed by the talent and the accomplishment of fighting back from such a deep hole - not the franchise), I still don't think that Yanks fans would have much to be "proud" of overall. I guess they could be proud of the comeback itself, but the miserable start and overall record would still be disappointing. $200mm for a .560 team? I wouldn't be proud of that, but that's just me.

 

Do you need to change the earlier comments to something like... If you team outspends everyone else, there really isn't a lot to be proud of... unless they dig themselves a hole first?

 

818015[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No. Like I said above, pride and being impressed are wholly different.

 

And to switch over to the giving credit thing... the organization that through the draft and undrafted free agents (meaning not raiding other teams) that put Petitte, Jeter, Posada, Bernie, and Mariano together and wins 4 titles with that core doesn't derserve credit?  The payroll didn't really explode until the Mussina/Giambi year.

 

818015[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That's just not true (though I guess it depends on your definition of "explode"). They had the highest payroll in MLB in every one of the last 12 years except for 1 (where Baltimore stupidly overspent and it blew up in their face). We've already had this discussion - no reason to waste our time on it again. We disagree - oh well.

[LegFuJohnson]

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not. People want to keep using the payroll excuse to not give the Yankees any credit for anything. I don't think we disagree on that.

 

The Yankees payroll has almost always been the highest. They bought Babe Ruth from the Sox, I think they had the highest payroll back then as well. We don't disagree on that either.

 

The Yankees have won LESS often in the approximately 30 years of Steinbrenner/Free Agency era than they did before Steinbrenner/free agency/YES Network. I don't think we're disagreeing on that either.

 

I guess we're disagreeing on what we can be proud of. After a decade-plus of overspending and trading away top prospects, the Yankees got their act together, kept a lot of the home grown talent, developed a core group of players and won 4 titles in 5 years. I think I can be proud of that, and you don't. The Red Sox can put together a team that might have had 1 or 2 players (I say might because I can only think of one, but I don't remember all the middle relievers) not bought from another team, then beat a team with a lesser payroll in the World Series, and that's OK because they hadn't done it in 86 years. If the Sox win again, you don't think you can be proud, because their payroll will be higher than their NL opponent, while I think you can be.

 

I'm curious when the payroll/success/pride thing started for you. Can an old-time Yankee fan be proud of the DiMaggio/Mantle years? Can an Oakland A's fan be proud of their run of pennants from 1988-1990? Did it only start with the mid-90's Yankees?

Edited May 20, 2005 by LegFuJohnson

[Balzac]

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not.  People want to keep using the payroll excuse to not give the Yankees any credit for anything.  I don't think we disagree on that.

 

The Yankees payroll has almost always been the highest.  They bought Babe Ruth from the Sox, I think they had the highest payroll back then as well.  We don't disagree on that either.

 

The Yankees have won LESS often in the approximately 30 years of Steinbrenner/Free Agency era than they did before Steinbrenner/free agency/YES Network.   I don't think we're disagreeing on that either.

 

I guess we're disagreeing on what we can be proud of.  After a decade-plus of overspending and trading away top prospects, the Yankees got their act together, kept a lot of the home grown talent, developed a core group of players and won 4 titles in 5 years.  I think I can be proud of that, and you don't.  The Red Sox can put together a team that might have had 1 or 2 players (I say might because I can only think of one, but I don't remember all the middle relievers) not bought from another team, then beat a team with a lesser payroll in the World Series, and that's OK because they hadn't done it in 86 years.  If the Sox win again, you don't think you can be proud, because their payroll will be higher than their NL opponent, while I think you can be.

 

I'm curious when the payroll/success/pride thing started for you.  Can an old-time Yankee fan be proud of the DiMaggio/Mantle years?  Can an Oakland A's fan be proud of their run of pennants from 1988-1990?  Did it only start with the mid-90's Yankees?

818335[/snapback]

 

You can call the payroll thing an "excuse" but I call it a fact. There's no getting around it - they simply used a lot more money than anyone else did. The fact that this method failed in the past is irrelevant. I'll give you that there was reason for pride after their first win in the 90s - there's something to be said for finally getting it right after years and years of overspending stupidly (see Sox, '04). But when a team continues to dominate primarily b/c they have the money to pay (whether keeping players or via free agency) the best players, I think that changes things.

 

Yankees fans can be proud of whatever they want to be proud of - I just wouldn't be all that proud if it were me. Maybe we're stuck on what pride is - if I were a Yanks fan, I'd still be happier than a pig in shuckse and would be rooting my nuts off for the team, but there would always be the payroll issue in the back of my head. I do the same for the Sox right now, but I'm rational enough to understand that a huge reason for their success last year was the money.

 

Maybe I was wrong before when I said that I was proud when the Sox won - I was just straight up happy (and exhausted) . . . the fact that they spent so much in order to get there will always take away from what they did in my eyes. That said, I'm happy that they won and I'm ok with the way they did it. If they keep winning with these huge payrolls, I'll be happy and I'll be a fan - but I won't be very proud of them.

 

The pride/payroll thing is applicable to any team that experiences prolonged success while shelling out more dollars than the other teams to do so - this isn't a Yankee-specific thing (though they are the greatest example) . . . the thread just happens to be about the Yanks.

 

I think they should just institute a hard salary cap and do away with all of these arguments.

Edited May 20, 2005 by Balzac

[LegFuJohnson]

OK, I guess. So an A's fan can be happy about getting to World Series in 1998, but not so proud of the rest of their run. But I guess that depends on how long is "prolonged success".

 

The 1997 Marlins (for example), spent a lot, won a title, then dismantled the team. At the time, most people thought that was a bad thing for baseball, and that you owed it to the team and the fans to try to keep a championship team together as much as possible. But you are saying that it was good. If they had kept the team together, then fans couldn't be proud of any sustained success.

 

 

And I'll happily agree to a salary cap as soon as I see a system that might work for baseball (the basketball and football ones would not). And we'll forget, for a second, that baseball has had 5 different champs in 5 years, while the salary cap sports don't have that parity level.

Edited May 20, 2005 by LegFuJohnson

[Balzac]

OK, I guess.  So an A's fan can be happy about getting to World Series in 1998, but not so proud of the rest of their run.  But I guess that depends on how long is "prolonged success".

 

The 1997 Marlins (for example), spent a lot, won a title, then dismantled the team.  At the time, most people thought that was a bad thing for baseball, and that you owed it to the team and the fans to try to keep a championship team together as much as possible.  But you are saying that it was good.  If they had kept the team together, then fans couldn't be proud of any sustained success.

And I'll happily agree to a salary cap as soon as I see a system that might work for baseball (the basketball and football ones would not).  And we'll forget, for a second, that baseball has had 5 different champs in 5 years, while the salary cap sports don't have that parity level.

818406[/snapback]

 

 

I don't think your Oakland and Florida examples really work - Oakland had the 14th highest team salary in 1988 (assuming you meant 88 and not 98). Florida had the 7th highest in 1997. This isn't anywhere near having the highest payroll in baseball for 1 year, let alone several.

 

Despite the fact that the Marlins' payroll wasn't all that high (yes - they spent a lot in the offseason prior to 97, but it was never really realized b/c they dumped everyone the next year), I think the biggest criticism was the fact that Huizenga basically just cashed out after he won his title. That was an altogether f-d up situation where the dude basically treated the team like a quick investment, made his money and ran with it. Not good for baseball at all in that respect. I couldn't compare this to Big Stein b/c Stein clearly loves his team and wants it to succeed on a yearly basis - it's clearly not all about making money for him . . . it's about winning (which is how it should be).

[LegFuJohnson]

I didn't look up the payrolls of those years... I think the beginning of Moneyball stated that Oakland had the highest during their run, perhaps that was just the writer building drama.

 

But do you have a site with all the historical years? I wouldn't mind perusing it.

 

And I still have some trouble following some of the logic.

 

"Stein clearly loves his team and wants it to succeed on a yearly basis - it's clearly not all about making money for him . . . it's about winning (which is how it should be). "

 

Most people would take that as a compliment, a good quality for an owner to have. And yet that very fact makes it (in your mind) impossible for fans to be proud of the team's accomplishments. I would think that win or lose, fans can be proud of team that does things "how it should be"

Edited May 20, 2005 by LegFuJohnson

[Rovers]

Annnnd, the pitch on the way.......

[Rovers]

Jeter, after looking foolish on strike two, grounds out weakly to second.

[Balzac]

I didn't look up the payrolls of those years... I think the beginning of Moneyball stated that Oakland had the highest during their run, perhaps that was just the writer building drama.

 

But do you have a site with all the historical years?  I wouldn't mind perusing it.

 

And I still have some trouble following some of the logic.

 

"Stein clearly loves his team and wants it to succeed on a yearly basis - it's clearly not all about making money for him . . . it's about winning (which is how it should be). "

 

Most people would take that as a compliment, a good quality for an owner to have.  And yet that very fact makes it (in your mind) impossible for fans to be proud of the team's accomplishments.  I would think that win or lose, fans can be proud of team that does things "how it should be"

 

818545[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry I didn't get this to you sooner - was out of town for the weekend:

 

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sa....aspx?year=2005

 

An owner that stresses winning over making money is "how it should be." That said, I don't think allowing an owner to spend whatever he/she likes in order to reach that goal is how it should be at all - the results (and the general baseball public's responses) speak for themselves. I have no problem with the fact that Stein spends the money (it's his money and he's free to spend it howver he pleases to better his team) - it's the fact that he's ALLOWED TO that burns my @$$.

[LegFuJohnson]

Sorry I didn't get this to you sooner - was out of town for the weekend:

 

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sa....aspx?year=2005

 

An owner that stresses winning over making money is "how it should be."  That said, I don't think allowing an owner to spend whatever he/she likes in order to reach that goal is how it should be at all - the results (and the general baseball public's responses) speak for themselves.  I have no problem with the fact that Stein spends the money (it's his money and he's free to spend it howver he pleases to better his team) - it's the fact that he's ALLOWED TO that burns my @$$.

 

819667[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No problem, appreciate the dialogue, and wondering why a Yahoo or askJevees search on 1996 MLB payrolls couldn't find this site for me...

 

Although I had thought I found an article with the 1999 payrolls, and the numbers were a little different than these... semantics, I guess.

 

But from this site, the Yankees were #1, but barely #1 in 96/97/99/2000. And I'm not sure if the #2 team in those years even made the playoffs, seems like accusing the Yanks of buying titles (especially considering that they've won zero WS titles the last few years... with a higher payroll, and higher gap between them and #2) seems silly. The gap didn't really become significant until after the Giambi/Mussina signings.

 

But needs to make sure the anger is placed properly. George is allowed to spend money. So is everyone else. Perhaps the anger should be placed on the owners, for example, that take their revenue sharing and luxury tax money and just pocket the cash. Or the ones that aren't trying to increase revenues. George didn't have to start the YES network, but it was a way to increase revenues. He didn't have to make that deal with Adidas, or the cross-promotion with the Japanese team... but its a way to make money. I don't know what the Brewers are doing to try to increase revenues. I don't know what the Devil Rays are doing.

 

Now, on the other note... and we keep repeating... a high payroll guarantees nothing. If the White Sox or Padres or Cardinals or Orioles or Rangers (not saying they are favorites, but they are near or at the top of their divisions right now) were to win the World Series, that would make 6 different champions in the last six years. The NBA has a salary cap. Pistons, Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Rockets. Now you have to go back to the late 80's to find another champion.

 

I realize that it's not really the cap here... basketball, by nature, is a lot less competitive than baseball is. But my point, is that baseball is competitive enough that people should stop worrying about payroll. How would a cap make things more level than 5 champs in 5 years? It's not that big of a deal. Anything can happen in a short series. And now you've got to win 3 of them to win the title. And thanks to the Wild Card, no team has to compete with the Yankees to make the playoffs. At most... Tampa, Baltimore and Toronto can complain that they've got to compete with the free spending Yanks and Sox. But no other team needs to worry. And Baltimore seems to be dealing just fine right now.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Yanks have no farm system. An aging lineup with huge contracts remaining with Giambi, and a pitching staff that is on its last leg/season.

 

I look for the Yanks to turn into the 80s version very soon for about a decade.

[Balzac]

But needs to make sure the anger is placed properly.  George is allowed to spend money.  So is everyone else. 

 

819901[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I know this - it's the fact that certain owners have more money to spend or are willing to spend A LOT more that results in the imbalance.

 

George didn't have to start the YES network, but it was a way to increase revenues.  He didn't have to make that deal with Adidas, or the cross-promotion with the Japanese team... but its a way to make money.  I don't know what the Brewers are doing to try to increase revenues.  I don't know what the Devil Rays are doing.

 

819901[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

These aren't big market teams (i.e. if there's no market for these products, they're kinda stuck). They couldn't support a YES-type network, their doors aren't being beaten down by shoe companies and nobody in Japan gives a rat's ass about them. They aren't the Yankees (the most recognized team in baseball since long before Stein came around). Fact is, big market teams are really the only teams capable of generating the type of revenues that you're talking about.

 

Now, on the other note... and we keep repeating... a high payroll guarantees nothing.  If the White Sox or Padres or Cardinals or Orioles or Rangers (not saying they are favorites, but they are near or at the top of their divisions right now) were to win the World Series, that would make 6 different champions in the last six years.  The NBA has a salary cap.  Pistons, Lakers, Spurs, Bulls, Rockets.  Now you have to go back to the late 80's to find another champion.

 

819901[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Nobody's talking about guarantees - we're talking about stacking the deck in favor of teams that spend more. While they obviously won't win every time, they will come very close to it and will certainly win more often than the teams with lower payrolls. There's a very high postivie correlation b/w payroll and success in baseball - this can't really be argued.

 

How would a cap make things more level than 5 champs in 5 years?  It's not that big of a deal.  Anything can happen in a short series.  And now you've got to win 3 of them to win the title.  And thanks to the Wild Card, no team has to compete with the Yankees to make the playoffs.  At most... Tampa, Baltimore and Toronto can complain that they've got to compete with the free spending Yanks and Sox.  But no other team needs to worry.  And Baltimore seems to be dealing just fine right now.

 

819901[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that using a sample size of 5 years is really very fair here. There's been a lot of parity in baseball's WS champs over the last few years and that's been great - but it doesn't change the fact that the deck has been stacked in favor of the Yanks and other high-payroll teams.

 

Somebody please tell Curt Schilling to stop calling in to every sports-radio talk show in existence. Embarrassing.

[LegFuJohnson]

Can't argue about the Schilling thing...

 

 

The reason I use 5 years, is that's all there is. No one cared that the Yankees had the highest payroll throughout the 80's and early 90's, because they never won.

Then in 1996, they started their dynasty, and won from 1996-2000. Their payroll was highest, but barely. Since then, a new team has won each year, even as the Yankees payroll got bigger and bigger.

 

So which period is the exception?

The period of 2001- present, with the extremely high Yankee payroll, but no titles

The period of 1996-2000, the dynasty years, where the Yanks were the highest, but barely

The period of 1979-1995, when the Yanks didn't win anything, and their payroll was probably similar to the dynasty years (#1, but not by much)

 

I tend to think that the dynasty years were the exception, which is why I'm proud of the accomplishments, and don't worry about team payroll so much. It was a tremendous run, sparked by the core group of players that came through the Yankee system.

 

More recently, they've been going back the 80's version of getting players from outside the system, trading away their talent, backloading contracts so that in years to come they'll be on the hook for a lot of cash for few players. If I wasn't a Yankee fan, I'd be extremely pleased at what the Yankees are doing, because they are going to be in for a lot of trouble when the bigger part of some of these contracts are coming due. The window is closing on this group, and I'd be very happy, the field couldn't be more level.

 

I guess we aren't disagreeing that the payroll leads to an advantage. I guess the disagreement is based on how much of an advantage that is. I happen to think its tremendously overrated, and others don't. There seems to be enough facts on both sides to point to...

[Balzac]

Can't argue about the Schilling thing...

The reason I use 5 years, is that's all there is.  No one cared that the Yankees had the highest payroll throughout the 80's and early 90's, because they never won.

Then in 1996, they started their dynasty, and won from 1996-2000.  Their payroll was highest, but barely.  Since then, a new team has won each year, even as the Yankees payroll got bigger and bigger.

 

So which period is the exception? 

 

821098[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I don't think that either period is an "exception" per se. Rather, they're the general highs and lows that you'll see in any statistical analysis of a correlation.

 

Let's take a look at the 10 year period from 1995-2005 - a broader and thus more representative sample. The Yankees had the highest payroll for 8 of those 10 years, and the second highest in the other 2 years. Not surprisingly, they made the playoffs or won the world series EVERY SINGLE YEAR in that 10 year span.

 

My bottom line is that I think you're focusing too much on the WS side of the argument. Like you said, anything can happen in a 7 game series (and anything has to the Yanks, who have had some terrible luck the past few years on that front) - NOTHING can guarantee a WS championship. But throwing ludicrous amounts of money at players and picking up the best talent available is certainly a good way to stack the deck in your favor and can, in most cases, at least guarantee that your team will be competitive.

 

By and large (i.e. it's not a perfect correlation b/c nothing ever is), more money = better team. Stripped down to the barest of bones, that's all I'm saying and I don't think anyone can really argue otherwise.

 

I must say that this is the longest debate that I've seen on these boards without someone on either side getting personal. Nice.

[LegFuJohnson]

Oh yeah? Well you suck! (How's that?)

 

I guess we've gone around in so many circles its hard to circle back...

more money might equal better team, but how much is the correalation?

 

So much so that fans shouldn't be proud of their accomplishments? I don't think so.

 

 

(Then, if you want, you can try to convince me that home court matters in the NBA playoffs. That'll be fun)

Edited May 24, 2005 by LegFuJohnson