• The Only #’s That May Get Yanks Ownership Attention?

    Posted by on July 2nd, 2013 · Comments (131)

    Empty seats and declining ratings. Via the Times today –

    At dusk on the first day of summer at Yankee Stadium, there was a gentle breeze blowing to left field as a rim of fading sunlight marched across the bleachers in right. It was, in every respect, a sweet Friday night for baseball, with the Yankees taking on a formidable division rival, the Tampa Bay Rays.

    The only thing wrong with the picture was the number of empty seats that remained visible in the stands as the game progressed — and the missing names from the Yankees’ lineup.

    The attendance for the game was announced as being slightly more than 41,000, or about 9,000 short of capacity. That was a solid number for a regular-season game but not as robust as it might have been in other seasons in the Bronx, where the Yankees usually reign as the most distinguished name in American sports.

    Through 41 home games this season, the Yankees have drawn nearly 106,000 fewer fans than at this point a year ago, a 6.1 percent drop that is almost twice as large as the overall decline in baseball. More than half a dozen other teams have had bigger attendance losses than the Yankees, but without exception they are teams that went from good to bad, at least for a while, or from bad to worse, or that play in cities without a notably intense fan base.

    The Yankees do not fit in any of those categories, which makes their attendance falloff more intriguing. And while they also experienced a decrease in attendance the last two years, the one this season is more pronounced.

    Even more sobering for the team: the television ratings for their games have plummeted. Through June 25, the ratings on their YES Network were down 40 percent to 2.52 from 4.17 at this point last season, and from 4.08, 4.50 and 4.72 in the three previous seasons, with each rating point this year representing 73,843 households.

    Yet the sizable drop in the number of people watching the Yankees is not reflected by the team’s performance. Battered by injuries to many of their stars, they have, for the most part, played admirably, holding on to first place until late May. Even now, while in a slump, they remain in contention with a lineup filled with castoffs and call-ups, although that could be a reason fewer people are paying attention.

    For now, it is left to Levine, the forceful team president, to argue that whatever the ratings and attendance figures show, there is no cause for alarm. He has presided as the Yankees’ president for the last 13 ½ years, a period in which the team’s attendance soared to more than four million for four straight seasons, then leveled off when the newer, smaller, higher-priced stadium opened during the recession.

    Last fall the Yankees failed to sell out several playoff games, although that was generally attributed to the fact that the team had to play five postseason games in a row at home, without a day off, leaving fans overwhelmed.

    In addressing the current numbers, Levine noted the numerous instances of bad weather in April and May, the attendance drop-offs in baseball-strong cities like Boston and Philadelphia, and the Yankees’ decision to spurn StubHub and establish their own online ticket resale operation with Ticketmaster. The move was intended to encourage fans to buy more tickets directly from the Yankees, and Levine said it was paying dividends but that the initial adjustment might have hurt attendance.

    As for the larger point, the need for big names in the Bronx, he seemed as confident as Jeter normally is before a big at-bat.

    “This is the Yankees,” he said. “We’ve been around a lot of years. There will be more stars.”

    But not just yet. And when the Yankees return home Friday to begin a 10-day homestand that will carry them into the All-Star Game break, there may still be a noticeable number of empty seats at Yankee Stadium and too few viewers turning on the TV. In every respect, it has been an unusual season in the Bronx.

    The only interesting part left to this is finding out who will be the fall guy amongst the Yankees front office.

    Comments on The Only #’s That May Get Yanks Ownership Attention?

    1. Ricketson
      July 17th, 2013 | 8:11 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I point out that even if this is true, and an accurate represntation of the probabilities going forward, that the probability of a team winning three such series, and winning a title, is considerably less than 50%. Whether you choose to accept it or not, this is a valid argument in favor of “crapshoot”.

      Where has someone suggested that what makes the postseason not a crap-shoot is a probability of winning a World Series at above 50%? Or that the discussion should be centered on, or extended to, the World Series?

      The World Series was only brought up to begin with to refute the non-sensical argument that the postseason is a crapshoot because only 3 teams with the best record in M.L.B. have won the Series since 1995.

      After that, it’s been you who have focused on the World Series for some reason. If you’ll recall, you and I have gone back-and-forth on this quite a bit in terms of evaluating a G.M.’s record on the basis of pennants, not world championships, won.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      This is the only type of fact presented as an argument against “crapshoot” your side has come up with.

      Well, what other “type of fact” would you like?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I am attempting to show that it’s not nearly determinative enough to demonstrate the post-season is not a crapshoot.

      And you’re wrong: 72.5% is pretty damn “determinative.” No one is suggesting that luck is not a factor in the postseason, but the term crapshoot is an overstatement.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      “If regular season record was determinative, as you claim, the Yanks would have gone 6-5 or perhaps 7-4 in those 11 series. They haven’t, so it isn’t.”

      I have a fair amount difficulty understanding your writing and I’m not certain of what you mean by “determinative.”

      I have not interpreted anything written by anyone to suggest that the Yankees would have gone 6-5 or perhaps 7-4 – I have no idea where you’re getting that from or coming up with it. What’s been suggested is that the Yankees SHOULD have gone 6-5 or perhaps 7-4 not on this thread and at least several others.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      In fact, it is your side who has offered one type of statistic to try to prove your side, and I’ve already kicked that to the curb in two different ways.

      What you’ve done is re-defined the argument, selectively presented certain data associated with a relatively-small number of teams to support a position, and thrown in some b.s. about Las Vegas.

    2. Ricketson
      July 17th, 2013 | 8:13 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      100% “not a crapshoot”.

      No one said that.

    3. Evan3457
      July 17th, 2013 | 9:19 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      100% “not a crapshoot”.
      No one said that.

      Well, we’re getting closer.

    4. Mr. October
      July 18th, 2013 | 8:40 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      We’re discussing a single point here, or at least I thought we were, and that is this: Is the post-season in baseball, taken as a whole, a crapshoot. I think it is, for the most part.

      Weasel words (“taken as a whole,” “for the most part”).

      With the payroll advantage this team has had, that advantage should have translated into better teams. Better teams win more often in the postseason as evidenced by these statistics.

      The reason this team has not won more in the postseason is not attributable as much to “luck,” but the fact that that even with $230-35 million spent each year, the team has not been able to win more than 45.4% of these series, and has won only 1 pennant since 2005.

      The teams should have been better for the money spent.

      What’s been discussed is the percentage of series won, and the fact that only 45.4% of postseason series have been won within the timeframe of this G.M.’s “autonomy.”

      Your attempt to recast the discussion in terms of World Series won and nothing else would seem to be an attempt to introduce a probability of “less than 40%” into a discussion where it really has little relevance.

      The issue is the number of regular season games, pennants and World Series won given the amount of money spent since 2005 and what might have been expected statistically, not the number of World Series won or the odds of winning a World Series.

      It’s been asked “what would consititute the appropriate amount of success?” The statistics would seem to suggest that more than 1 pennant should have been won since 2005 for the money spent.

    5. Raf
      July 18th, 2013 | 11:39 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      With the payroll advantage this team has had, that advantage should have translated into better teams.

      “From 2005-2012, the Yankees made the playoffs 7 times. 4 times they had the best record in the AL.”

      The teams should have been better for the money spent.

      “[T]he Yanks of 2005-12 were the best team in the AL East 5 times.”

      It’s been asked “what would consititute the appropriate amount of success?” The statistics would seem to suggest that more than 1 pennant should have been won since 2005 for the money spent.

      What would probability seem to suggest?

    6. Evan3457
      July 19th, 2013 | 1:00 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      Weasel words (“taken as a whole,” “for the most part”).

      There have been weasel words on the other side, too. But if you’re going to insist that the post-season is 0% crapshoot, then you’re going to look idiotic.

      With the payroll advantage this team has had, that advantage should have translated into better teams.

      Maybe. Maybe not.

      Better teams win more often in the postseason as evidenced by these statistics.

      Win ONE series, yes. Win them all and the title, not so much. Hence: more crapshoot than not.

      The reason this team has not won more in the postseason is not attributable as much to “luck,” but the fact that that even with $230-35 million spent each year, the team has not been able to win more than 45.4% of these series, and has won only 1 pennant since 2005.

      And as I’ve pointed out, even with a better team, even if they had that vaunted .070 WPCT advantage in every round, they’d still fail to win it all most of the time.

      What’s been discussed is the percentage of series won, and the fact that only 45.4% of postseason series have been won within the timeframe of this G.M.’s “autonomy.”

      And, as mentioned in other threads, that “autonomy” isn’t really so autonomous, and, again, the post-season winning percentage of the Yankees during that time argues for crapshoot, and not against.

      Your attempt to recast the discussion in terms of World Series won and nothing else would seem to be an attempt to introduce a probability of “less than 40%” into a discussion where it really has little relevance.

      No, if the discussion isn’t about winning titles, then the whole discussion is about nothing at all. We’re not arguing about whether the Yankees should win more ALDS, are we? They’re 3-4 in those; 1-1 in ALCS, and 1-0 in World Series in the “autonomy” era.

      The issue is the number of regular season games, pennants and World Series won given the amount of money spent since 2005 and what might have been expected statistically, not the number of World Series won or the odds of winning a World Series.

      My first response in this thread was:

      McMillan wrote:
      An “actual discussion” about how a G.M.’s responsibility ends with a team making the postseason because the playoffs are just “crapshoots?”

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I sort of agree with that. And so would Billy Beane I bet. Maybe Andrew Freidman, too.

      My participation in this thread has been limited to one point: is the post-season, as a whole, a crapshoot. I believe that in most years, it is. And I’ve seen nothing in this thread to change my mind. As to the other points, I would say: I don’t really know. Maybe they should’ve won more. Maybe.

      It’s been asked “what would constitute the appropriate amount of success?” The statistics would seem to suggest that more than 1 pennant should have been won since 2005 for the money spent.

      And I can’t answer that question, not with any certainty.

    7. Evan3457
      July 19th, 2013 | 1:09 am

      By the way, how often in the last 8 years have the Yankees been .070 better in WPCT than their post-season competition?

      Answer: Only in 2009. And they won the title that year, just as they should’ve.

      2005: Even with the Angels, exactly. Lost 3-2.
      2006: 2 games better than the Tigers. Lost 3-1.
      2007: 2 games WORSE than the Indians, Lost 3-2.
      2009: 16 games better than the Twins. Won 3-0. 6 games better than the Angels. Won 4-2. 10 games better than the Phillies. Won 4-2.
      2010: 1 game better than the Twins. Won 3-0. 5 games better than the Rangers. Lost 4-2.
      2011: 2 games better than the Tigers. Lost 3-2.
      2012: 2 games better than the O’s. Won 3-2. 7 games better than the Tigers. Lost 4-0.

    8. Evan3457
      July 19th, 2013 | 1:10 am

      Actually just one series in 2009, the first one vs. the Twins.

    9. Ricketson
      July 19th, 2013 | 1:47 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      By the way, how often in the last 8 years have the Yankees been .070 better in WPCT than their post-season competition?

      I think you’re missing the point; otherwise, I don’t understand why you’d write this.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      2005: Even with the Angels, exactly. Lost 3-2.

      Even with the Angels in winning pct. despite having a payroll of more than 100% of the Angels’.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      2006: 2 games better than the Tigers. Lost 3-1.

      Only 2 games better than the Tigers in winning pct. despite having a payroll of more than 100% of the Tigers’.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      2007: 2 games WORSE than the Indians, Lost 3-2.

      2 games worse than the Indians in winning pct. despite having a payroll of more than approx. 150% of the Indians’.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      5 games better than the Rangers. Lost 4-2.

      5 games better than the Rangers in winning pct. despite having a payroll of approx. $220 mil. to the Rangers’ payroll of approx. $75 mil.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      2011: 2 games better than the Tigers. Lost 3-2.

      Only 2 games better than the Tigers in winning pct. despite having a payroll of more than 100% of the Tigers’.

      The teams have had comparable records with the Yankees with the latter playing in a more competitive division and having a substantial payroll advantage over even division rivals.

      Despite outspending all of these franchises by enormous margins, John Cashman’s son’s team’s have not been that much better: that’s why John Cashman’s son’s teams have not won more than 45.4% of its postseason series his teams have participated in or 1 pennant since 2005 – not because of “bad luck,” “swarms of gnats,” Chien-Ming Wang, or any other reason.

      As you correctly pointed out, when John Cashman’s son was authorized to spend $423 million in 2009, “coincidentally,” the team had opposition with a regular season winning pct. .070 less and won that series – and a pennant; he’s won nothing else since 2005.

      Reframing the argument to the odds of winning a World Series is something completely different. If John’s Cashman’s son had won more pennants and no World Series since 2005, I wouldn’t be criticizing him.

    10. Evan3457
      July 19th, 2013 | 3:23 pm

      You mean like when the Phillies lost to the Cards in 2011 despite having a payroll 64% higher?

      Or when the Phillies lost to the Giants in 2010 despite having a payroll 44% higher?

      Or when the White Sox lost to the Rays in 2008 despite having a payroll 173% higher? Or when the Red Sox lost to them the same year despite having a payroll 204% higher?

      Or when the Phillies lost to the Rockies in 2007 despite having a payroll 64% higher?

      Or in 2012, when the Red Sox, Phillies and Angels failed to even make the playoffs, losing out to teams from the same divisions despite having payrolls 113% higher, 115% higher, and 179% higher, respectively to the teams that won those spots?

      ==============================
      What’s the magic number? How high does the payroll have to be?
      How much more does it have to be than the payrolls of competitors in the same division? What percentage gap has to exist to guarantee even a post-season berth, let alone winning a post-season series, let alone winning two of them in a row, and the all-important pennant?

      ==============================
      You know, Joe Girardi should change his number from 28 to 41. After all, it’s pennants that are important, not titles.

    11. Mr. October
      July 19th, 2013 | 3:31 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      With the payroll advantage this team has had, that advantage should have translated into better teams. Better teams win more often in the postseason as evidenced by these statistics.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Maybe. Maybe not.

      The $2 bil. spent by Brian McGuire Cashman since 2005 could not have been spent better?
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Win ONE series, yes. Win them all and the title, not so much. Hence: more crapshoot than not.

      That’s you’re attempt to recast the argument for some reason. And in the process you’ve gone from “crapshoot” to “more crapshoot than not” to other positions and numerous misrepresentations in general.

      How many times does it have to be repeated that we’re not talking about a postseason in which all other teams have a winning pct. less than .070 of the team with the best regular season record?

      The issue is only 11 postseason series played since 2005, not more, and only 5 of those series won; the issue is not the number of World Series won as you try to recast it.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And as I’ve pointed out, even with a better team, even if they had that vaunted .070 WPCT advantage in every round, they’d still fail to win it all most of the time.

      This doesn’t even make sense. With a better team and a winning pct. of .070 or greater in every round, N.Y. should have won approximately 72.5% of the series played since 2005 based on the numbers for the last two decades, or at least more than 45.4%.

      And your “fail to win it all most of the time” is a “straw man” as you like to point out, because that isn’t the argument and no such position to the contrary was offered.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, if the discussion isn’t about winning titles, then the whole discussion is about nothing at all.

      I guess you haven’t been following it at all then?

      The whole discussion is about: 1. the fact that only 3 teams with the best regular season record have won the World Series DOES NOT demonstrate that the postseason IS a crapshoot; and 2. the fact that teams with a regular season winning pct. of .070 or greater than their opponents in postseason play win 72.5% of those series DOES demonstrate that the postseason IS NOT a crapshoot; better teams win most of the time.

      The discussion is about postseason play, not just winning a World Series. You’ve recast the discussion, or tried to, into one about YOUR calculated odds of winning the World Series which YOU said reflect what YOU would refer to as a “crapshoot” in YOUR opinion.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      We’re not arguing about whether the Yankees should win more ALDS, are we? They’re 3-4 in those; 1-1 in ALCS, and 1-0 in World Series in the “autonomy” era.

      Again, another attempt to recast the argument. As with this and other threads, we’ve discussed the team’s record in the postseason – not just in the World Series.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      I sort of agree with that. And so would Billy Beane I bet. Maybe Andrew Freidman, too.

      If I was Billy Beane, and I had to compete with a team with a $230-35 million payroll with a $60-5 million payroll, I’d say the same damned thing: “[I]f I’ve gotten my team to the postseason, I’ve done my job.” But Cashman has the resources to put together a much better team, a more formidable rotation, etc. and one that is capable of winning more than 45.4% of postseason series over the long-term and hasn’t done so.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      My participation in this thread has been limited to one point: is the post-season, as a whole, a crapshoot.

      The discussion started with:
      “And if the postseason is a crapshoot, and based on luck, then why not get a lucky GM in — something Cashman has not been in recent years? BTW, the flipside of that crapshoot theory is that the Yankees just got really lucky 27 times.”
      So I don’t know what your point is? Although I would have stated it differently, the poster’s comments are correct: the flipside is that the successes or victories are nothing but a product of luck as well.

      And if the postseason is, laughably, about luck, this G.M. doesn’t seem to be that lucky getting to only 11 postseason series since 2005 while spending $230-35 million each year.

      The postseason is not a crapshoot: the better team wins most of the time. With the phrase “as a whole,” you’ve again tried to redefine the “postseason” as the “World Series.” For what reason, who knows.

    12. Ricketson
      July 19th, 2013 | 3:58 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Or when the Red Sox lost to them the same year despite having a payroll 204% higher?

      LOL! And John Cashman’s son’s payroll was 57% higher than Boston’s that year when he watched the postseason from bed and with someone else’s wife.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Or when the Phillies lost to the Giants in 2010 despite having a payroll 44% higher?

      And John Cashman’s son’s payroll was not much less than the combined payrolls of both Philadelphia and San Francisco in 2010.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Or when the White Sox lost to the Rays in 2008 despite having a payroll 173% higher?

      And John Cashman’s son’s payroll was more than the combined payrolls of both Chicago and Tampa Bay in 2008 while he watched the postseason from bed and with someone else’s wife.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      You know, Joe Girardi should change his number from 28 to 41. After all, it’s pennants that are important, not titles.

      Very intelligent. I refer to pennants because once a pennant has been won, a season can be considered a success, even if the World Series is lost.

    13. Mr. October
      July 19th, 2013 | 4:03 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      What’s the magic number? How high does the payroll have to be?
      How much more does it have to be than the payrolls of competitors in the same division? What percentage gap has to exist to guarantee even a post-season berth, let alone winning a post-season series, let alone winning two of them in a row, and the all-important pennant?

      At least it can’t be said your argument was kicked to the curb – you never had one.

    14. Ricketson
      July 19th, 2013 | 4:18 pm

      Raf wrote:

      What would probability seem to suggest?

      Probability would seem to suggest the “Pud” Galvin’s performance was not positively-affected by mixing drinks with dried monkey testosterone distilled from monkey testicles in 1889 in any way. And because such a practice was also not a violation of league rules, his induction into the H.O.F. by the Veteran’s Committee in 1965 was not inappropriate.

    15. Greg H.
      July 19th, 2013 | 5:50 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      If John’s Cashman’s son had won more pennants and no World Series since 2005, I wouldn’t be criticizing him.

      So, just out of curiosity, how many pennants would it take (without winning a WS) would it take for you to be satisfied with this GM’s performance?

    16. Raf
      July 19th, 2013 | 9:09 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Even with the Angels in winning pct. despite having a payroll of more than 100% of the Angels’.

      2005-2012. Angels’ playoff appearances, 4. Less than the Yankees’ 7.

      Only 2 games better than the Tigers in winning pct. despite having a payroll of more than 100% of the Tigers’.

      2005-2012. Tigers’ playoff appearances, 3. Less than the Yankees’ 7.

      2 games worse than the Indians in winning pct. despite having a payroll of more than approx. 150% of the Indians’.

      2005-2012. Indians’ playoff appearances, 1. Less than the Yankees’ 7.

      5 games better than the Rangers in winning pct. despite having a payroll of approx. $220 mil. to the Rangers’ payroll of approx. $75 mil.

      2005-2012. Rangers’ playoff appearances, 3 (I’ll give you the wildcard play-in game, since you need all the help you can get). Less than the Yankees’ 7.

      The teams have had comparable records with the Yankees with the latter playing in a more competitive division and having a substantial payroll advantage over even division rivals.

      They’ve also had less success, as evidenced in less playoff appearances from 2005-2012. The gap widens if you include the years 1995-2004. Which you won’t, because it undermines your point even further.

      As you correctly pointed out, when John Cashman’s son was authorized to spend $423 million in 2009, “coincidentally,” the team had opposition with a regular season winning pct. .070 less and won that series – and a pennant; he’s won nothing else since 2005.

      All three players acquired with that $423 million, Sabathia, Burnett and Teixiera were with the organization in 2010 and 2011. “Coincidentally,” they did not win the world series, nor did they win the pennant. Not sure as to your point. Is it about the money spent? Because if it was, it was demolished with the following;

      Evan3457 wrote:

      You mean like when the Phillies lost to the Cards in 2011 despite having a payroll 64% higher?

      Or when the Phillies lost to the Giants in 2010 despite having a payroll 44% higher?

      Or when the White Sox lost to the Rays in 2008 despite having a payroll 173% higher? Or when the Red Sox lost to them the same year despite having a payroll 204% higher?

      Or when the Phillies lost to the Rockies in 2007 despite having a payroll 64% higher?

      Or in 2012, when the Red Sox, Phillies and Angels failed to even make the playoffs, losing out to teams from the same divisions despite having payrolls 113% higher, 115% higher, and 179% higher, respectively to the teams that won those spots?

      And John Cashman’s son’s payroll was more than the combined payrolls of both Chicago and Tampa Bay in 2008 while he watched the postseason from bed and with someone else’s wife.

      2008
      NYY vs CHW: 5-2
      NYY vs TBR: 11-7

      Figured you would appreciate that, given your fanaticism about small sample sizes. You’re welcome. 😀

      Probability would seem to suggest the “Pud” Galvin’s performance was not positively-affected by mixing drinks with dried monkey testosterone distilled from monkey testicles in 1889 in any way. And because such a practice was also not a violation of league rules, his induction into the H.O.F. by the Veteran’s Committee in 1965 was not inappropriate.

      Yeah, I didn’t think you had anything either. 🙂

      Britt wrote:

      You lost.

      U MAD, BRO?

      Raf wrote:

      Stick to obsessing over the many loves of Brian McGuire Cashman, son of John Cashman. You’re out of your depth when you discuss anything else.

      😛

    17. Evan3457
      July 20th, 2013 | 8:38 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      What’s the magic number? How high does the payroll have to be?
      How much more does it have to be than the payrolls of competitors in the same division? What percentage gap has to exist to guarantee even a post-season berth, let alone winning a post-season series, let alone winning two of them in a row, and the all-important pennant?
      At least it can’t be said your argument was kicked to the curb – you never had one.

      SS, DD.

    18. Evan3457
      July 20th, 2013 | 9:18 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      The $2 bil. spent by Brian McGuire Cashman since 2005 could not have been spent better?

      Probably. Same can be said for just about all the high payroll teams.

      That’s you’re attempt to recast the argument for some reason.

      Again, because if we’re not talking about winning titles, we’re not talking about anything at all, inasmuch as the Yankees have made the post-season 7 years out of 8.

      And in the process you’ve gone from “crapshoot” to “more crapshoot than not” to other positions and numerous misrepresentations in general.

      No misrepresentations were made. None.

      How many times does it have to be repeated that we’re not talking about a postseason in which all other teams have a winning pct. less than .070 of the team with the best regular season record?

      Because the statistic cited, one of dominance when the regular-season records differ by at least .070, is the only attempt to show that regular-season records matter in post-season play to any significant extent. I’m merely pointing out how rare that is.

      The issue is only 11 postseason series played since 2005, not more, and only 5 of those series won; the issue is not the number of World Series won as you try to recast it.

      That became the issue in the middle of the argument. It wasn’t the issue at the start.

      This doesn’t even make sense. With a better team and a winning pct. of .070 or greater in every round, N.Y. should have won approximately 72.5% of the series played since 2005 based on the numbers for the last two decades, or at least more than 45.4%.

      No, it’s YOU who aren’t making sense here. the Yankees haven’t had an WPCT advantage of .070 in all of those 11 series over the last 8 seasons. In fact, they’ve had it only once, the ALDS in 2009. And they won that; 1 for 1 or 100%.

      And your “fail to win it all most of the time” is a “straw man” as you like to point out, because that isn’t the argument and no such position to the contrary was offered.

      When you argue that the post-season isn’t a crapshoot, you can’t be arguing about one series, because that isn’t “the post-season”. You can’t even be arguing about one series in a row, three times, past series wins being a condition of winning the next one series, because that too, isn’t the “the post-season”.

      Saying “that isn’t the argument” is nonsense, because it’s the only thing I’ve been arguing here, the proposition that the post-season is/isn’t a crapshoot.

      The whole discussion is about: 1. the fact that only 3 teams with the best regular season record have won the World Series DOES NOT demonstrate that the postseason IS a crapshoot.

      Perhaps not by itself, but it’s certainly evidence on the side of the argument that it is a crapshoot; evidence you can’t merely gainsay and still be taken seriously, anyway.

      and 2. the fact that teams with a regular season winning pct. of .070 or greater than their opponents in postseason play win 72.5% of those series DOES demonstrate that the postseason IS NOT a crapshoot; better teams win most of the time.

      Except that 1) No, it’s not evidence “the post-season” is not a crapshoot, it’s evidence that one series of that post-season may not be a crapshoot, and 2) One series is not “the post-season”. The post-season consists of 3 rounds, and 3) the condition necessary for that domination is quite rare in post-season play; only 13 such series out of 126 series and 2 play-in games, or about 10% of the time. In the overwhelming majority of post-season play, the conditions necessary to show “not a crapshoot” don’t exist.

      Hence my remark that it’s not a crapshoot, for the most part. And that’s an ACCURATE description, using your sides best evidence at face value.

      The discussion is about postseason play, not just winning a World Series. You’ve recast the discussion, or tried to, into one about YOUR calculated odds of winning the World Series which YOU said reflect what YOU would refer to as a “crapshoot” in YOUR opinion.

      What you mean to say is that I’ve framed the discussion more accurately than you, because as I have stated numerous times, a single post-season series is NOT “the post-season”.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      We’re not arguing about whether the Yankees should win more ALDS, are we? They’re 3-4 in those; 1-1 in ALCS, and 1-0 in World Series in the “autonomy” era.
      Again, another attempt to recast the argument. As with this and other threads, we’ve discussed the team’s record in the postseason – not just in the World Series.

      No, actually, it’s an attempt, a repeated attempt which looks more and more like the argumentative equivalent of banging my head against a wall, that the post-season is not just one series, and the odds of winning one series under extreme difference in WPCT does not define “the post-season”, and looking at winning three series and the title does.

      But I can see why you’d want to evade the real meaning of “post-season”; it makes your side look silly.

      If I was Billy Beane, and I had to compete with a team with a $230-35 million payroll with a $60-5 million payroll, I’d say the same damned thing: “[I]f I’ve gotten my team to the postseason, I’ve done my job.” But Cashman has the resources to put together a much better team, a more formidable rotation, etc. and one that is capable of winning more than 45.4% of postseason series over the long-term and hasn’t done so.

      But I’ve just shown a bunch of other teams with significant to extreme payroll advantages that lost series, and even berths in the playoffs to teams with much, much lower payrolls. So one must conclude from that either 1) they’re all being run by terrible GMs, or 2) the playoffs are a crapshoot, for the most part.

      “And if the postseason is a crapshoot, and based on luck, then why not get a lucky GM in — something Cashman has not been in recent years? BTW, the flipside of that crapshoot theory is that the Yankees just got really lucky 27 times.”

      And that point is bullspit in two different ways:

      1) Define the characteristics of a “lucky GM” so that we can all identify them when we see them. Is Billy Beane a lucky GM? His teams are 1-6 in the post-season, 1-5 when they had the better winning percentage.
      Is Andrew Friedman a lucky GM? His teams are 2-3 in the post-season, 2-2 when they’ve had the better record. Now, I wouldn’t blame Beane and Friedman, those numbers represent very small sample sizes.

      So I don’t know what your point is? Although I would have stated it differently, the poster’s comments are correct: the flipside is that the successes or victories are nothing but a product of luck as well.

      If you don’t mind for a moment, I’ll “re-cast”:
      I’m not saying the post-season is nothing but a product of luck. In any given post-season, the team that plays the best almost always wins.

      What I’m saying is that the team that’s going to play the best is almost always not known before the post-season starts and random factors do enter into it. Hot teams go cold. Cold teams get hot. Teams whose pitching staffs look weak going in get brilliant pitching. Teams whose pitching staffs look like juggernauts going in get knocked around and bounced in the first round. Teams with top offenses have the bats go dead silent and are quickly eliminated, even against staffs that don’t look very strong going in.

      It is in that sense that I refer to the post-season as a crapshoot.
      And that’s a correct assessment.

      The postseason is not a crapshoot: the better team wins most of the time. With the phrase “as a whole,” you’ve again tried to redefine the “postseason” as the “World Series.” For what reason, who knows.

      Because the point of the post-season IS to win a World Series, not to win one round of playoffs if a team has an .070 WPCT going in.

      Sheesh. Proclaiming the post-season isn’t a crapshoot primarily on the basis of that one stat alone is particularly dense.

    19. Mr. October
      July 20th, 2013 | 12:19 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Probably. Same can be said for just about all the high payroll teams.

      No team has a payroll close to what Cashman has had to work with AND I would disagree that the records of the other G.M.s of higher payroll teams do not compare favorably Cashman’s.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Again, because if we’re not talking about winning titles, we’re not talking about anything at all, inasmuch as the Yankees have made the post-season 7 years out of 8.

      That’s what you say, because you don’t have a leg to stand on at this point. We’re talking about the postseason – that’s the division series, the league championship series, and the World Series. Since 2005, this team is gotten to only 11 series and won 5 of them.

      No one has stated N.Y. should have won 3-5 World Series since 2005, which the how you’ve been attempting to frame the argument.

      What has been stated is that the teams should have been better given the money spent, and the teams should have gotten to more postseason series than 11, and won more than 50% of them.

      The organization failed to win more postseason series or pennants because its teams were not as good as they should have been for the money spent; not because the postseason is a crapshoot.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Because the statistic cited, one of dominance when the regular-season records differ by at least .070, is the only attempt to show that regular-season records matter in post-season play to any significant extent. I’m merely pointing out how rare that is.

      The statistics clearly show that as the winning pct. margin between to teams over the course of a 162-game imbalanced schedule increases, so does the likelihood of the better team winning in the postseason. And this has been shown with more than 40 playoff series – that YOU choose to characterize more than 40 playoff series as “rare” is merely YOUR poor choice of words.
      And this is the most appropriate type of statistic to cite; you don’t like it because it doesn’t permit obfuscation.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Except that 1) No, it’s not evidence “the post-season” is not a crapshoot, it’s evidence that one series of that post-season may not be a crapshoot…

      Why do you seem to have so much difficulty understanding this simple concept? It’s not “evidence that one series of a postseason may not be a crapshoot.” It’s evidence that the better team wins a postseason series most of the time.

      If we look at teams with a smaller spread (which is what you want to do because you have no argument), we could go on endlessly about which of the two was a better team and why a particular series should have, or did in fact, come to a conclusion in a certain way. And to that end, you’ve tried to cherry-pick teams that conform to your arguments.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      2) One series is not “the post-season”.

      Once again, you don’t get it – no one has said that one series is a postseason. Please provide a quote from myself or someone else where it’s been said that one series is a postseason? Do you have the quote?
      Evan3457 wrote:

      3) the condition necessary for that domination is quite rare in post-season play; only 13 such series out of 126 series and 2 play-in games, or about 10% of the time.

      Wrong again. There have been more than 40 such series.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Hence my remark that it’s not a crapshoot, for the most part. And that’s an ACCURATE description, using your sides best evidence at face value.

      More weasel words: that’s all you got.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      What you mean to say is that I’ve framed the discussion more accurately than you, because as I have stated numerous times, a single post-season series is NOT “the post-season”.

      And for the hundreth or so time: no one has said that a single postseason series is “the postseason.” Please provide a quote from myself or someone else where it’s been said that one series is a postseason? Do you have the quote?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      No, actually, it’s an attempt, a repeated attempt which looks more and more like the argumentative equivalent of banging my head against a wall, that the post-season is not just one series, and the odds of winning one series under extreme difference in WPCT does not define “the post-season”, and looking at winning three series and the title does.

      Please go back and re-read what was written, because I’m not going to explain this again.

      You want to frame that argument as winning three series, but winning two series and a pennant would constitute a successful postseason in the opinion of most, and this team has won only one pennant since 2005.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And that point is bullspit in two different ways…

      It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. You’re the one who brought up the nonsense of Girardi’s no., and you’re the one that says winning a World Series is nothing more than winning a crapshoot, so why don’t you go explain to Girardi what an idiot he looks like wearing no. 28, since you’re so much smarter than the rest of us.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      What I’m saying is that the team that’s going to play the best is almost always not known before the post-season starts and random factors do enter into it.

      How the hell can it be known which team is going to “play the best” in the post-season before the post-season starts? Random factors enter into any contest in any sport, the existence of random factors does not mean that the M.L.B. postseason is a crapshoot. This is complete nonsense.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Hot teams go cold. Cold teams get hot.

      More nonsense: How does one know that a team was “hot” and became “cold,” or was “cold” and became “hot?”

      Evan3457 wrote:

      It is in that sense that I refer to the post-season as a crapshoot.

      A straw man argument (misrepresentation of an opponent’s position).

      No one has stated that there have not been times in the past where a pitching staff has performed worse than expected in ONE SERIES. What’s been stated repeatedly is that over the long-term, better teams win most of the time as demonstrated by more than 40 series historically in which a team with a regular season winning pct. of .070 or more has defeated its opponent on average three out of four times.
      Evan3457 wrote:

      Because the point of the post-season IS to win a World Series, not to win one round of playoffs if a team has an .070 WPCT going in.

      Once again, you’re misrepresenting something: no one has stated that the point of the post-season is to win one round of playoffs. If you want to put it that way, then the point of the postseason is to win at least two rounds of the playoffs – especially if you’re spending $230-35 million each year.

      I would not consider a division title or wildcard appearance as a successful season for a team with a $230-35 million payroll.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Sheesh. Proclaiming the post-season isn’t a crapshoot primarily on the basis of that one stat alone is particularly dense.

      It’s not one stat alone. You have nothing, so you’re just throwing as much against the wall as you can, and continuing to make a number of misrepresentations or fallacious arguments, and offering comments like this one.

    20. Ricketson
      July 20th, 2013 | 12:57 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      In any given post-season, the team that plays the best almost always wins.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      [T]he team that’s going to play the best is almost always not known before the post-season starts…

      And the better team almost always plays the best…

      Certain commenters made moronic comments about the postseason being a crapshoot, and you did your best to help them out. Nice try; a good effort.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’m THAT GUY.

      Indeed…

    21. McMillan
      July 20th, 2013 | 4:02 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Again, because if we’re not talking about winning titles, we’re not talking about anything at all, inasmuch as the Yankees have made the post-season 7 years out of 8.

      So there’s no middle ground here? There’s making it to the postseason and winning a title, is that it? I realize I’m only a “fourth-rate” logician, but isn’t there a logical fallacy in there somewhere?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      That became the issue in the middle of the argument. It wasn’t the issue at the start.

      Even if true, so?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      But I can see why you’d want to evade the real meaning of “post-season”; it makes your side look silly.

      The “real meaning” of the M.L.B. postseason is one (1) divisional series, one (1) league championship series, and one (1) World Series.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’m not saying the post-season is nothing but a product of luck. In any given post-season, the team that plays the best almost always wins…
      What I’m saying is that the team that’s going to play the best is almost always not known before the post-season starts and random factors do enter into it. Hot teams go cold. Cold teams get hot. Teams whose pitching staffs look weak going in get brilliant pitching. Teams whose pitching staffs look like juggernauts going in get knocked around and bounced in the first round. Teams with top offenses have the bats go dead silent and are quickly eliminated, even against staffs that don’t look very strong going in.
      It is in that sense that I refer to the post-season as a crapshoot.

      This is double-talk to the point that it’s essentially meaningless: the team that plays the best almost always wins but its a crapshoot.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Proclaiming the post-season isn’t a crapshoot primarily on the basis of that one stat alone is particularly dense.

      There’s also that fact that of two teams with a difference in regular season winning percentages of less than .070, one can be better-suited for postseason competition such as by having a more formidable frontend of the rotation or other non-random factors. While the regular season numbers or the team’s overall finish might suggest to you that the better team did not win, the team better-suited for postseason competition might have won. That argument can be applied to some of the teams you mentioned.

    22. McMillan
      July 20th, 2013 | 4:20 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Teams with top offenses have the bats go dead silent and are quickly eliminated, even against staffs that don’t look very strong going in.

      If you’re referring to the 2012 Yankees, take a look at the postseason histories of 6/9ths of the team’s lineup that Cashman sent up against three gentlemen named Verlander, Scherzer, and Sanchez. I wouldn’t call the bats of Martin, Rodriguez, Swisher, etc. going dead silent against Detroit an anomaly.

      McMillan wrote:

      This is double-talk to the point that it’s essentially meaningless: the team that plays the best almost always wins but its a crapshoot.

      Why wouldn’t the team that plays the best for 162 games play the best MOST – not all, MOST of the time, which is what was argued?

    23. McMillan
      July 20th, 2013 | 8:35 pm

      Raf wrote:

      All three players acquired with that $423 million, Sabathia, Burnett and Teixiera were with the organization in 2010 and 2011. “Coincidentally,” they did not win the world series, nor did they win the pennant.

      As I’ve explained to you before, N.Y. got to the 82.5 million head case, and his numbers dropped off substantially in 2010 before Cashman sent his no. 3 starter to Pittsburgh with $20 million of the Steinbrenner’s money.

      And Burnett is doing pretty well for the 52-38, $65 mil. Pirates, at team intelligent enough to recognize Burnett would pitch better and be more comfortable in a small market – that is the right environment for him.

      Raf wrote:

      The Pirates suck, and have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent.

      And $65 million Pittsburgh will be in the postseason before Brian “I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent” Cashman, son of harness racing great and George M. Steinbrenner personal friend John Cashman, or this once-great franchise, the $231 million New York Yankees.

    24. Raf
      July 20th, 2013 | 10:32 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      As I’ve explained to you before, N.Y. got to the 82.5 million head case, and his numbers dropped off substantially in 2010 before Cashman sent his no. 3 starter to Pittsburgh with $20 million of the Steinbrenner’s money.

      As I explained to you before, Burnett pitched better @ home than he did on the road.

      2011
      H: 7-6, 4.41, 8.2 (k/9), 2.31 (SO/BB)
      A: 4-5, 6.28, 8.2 (k/9), 1.82 (SO/BB)
      2010
      H: 5-7, 4.59, 7.5 (k/9), 2.03 (SO/BB)
      A: 5-8, 5.76, 7.3 (k/9), 2.00 (SO/BB)
      2009
      H: 5-3, 3.51, 8.9 (k/9), 2.00 (SO/BB)
      A: 8-6, 4.59, 8.0 (k/9), 2.02 (SO/BB)

      Pirates, at team intelligent enough to recognize Burnett would pitch better and be more comfortable in a small market – that is the right environment for him.

      Rubbish.

      Raf wrote:

      [Burnett’s] peripherals were right around his career averages. He wasn’t as good as he was in 2009, but he was better than he was in 2010. The only thing of concern is like [MJ] mentioned, the HR rate. If it’s a spike, he’ll be fine. If not, then it will be trouble.

      Burnett in Pittsburgh,
      2012: 12.7%
      2013: 11.9%

      Both less than the 17% he posted for the Yanks in 2011, but more than what he posted in 2009 (10.8%) and 2010 (11.6%).

      Small market has nothing to do with weaker NL lineups and a home park that is easier on pitchers
      http://www.parkfactors.com/PIT

      Than the one he was pitching in before (and performed well)
      http://www.parkfactors.com/NYY

      And $65 million Pittsburgh will be in the postseason before Brian “I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent” Cashman…

      Good for them, it’s about time. 20 years to be exact. As I’m sure you’re aware, since 1993, the Yankees have won quite a few world series, pennants and division titles. The Pittsburgh organization has a lot of catching up to do 😛

      Nice try, but you’re out of your element, Donny. 😀

    25. Evan3457
      July 21st, 2013 | 12:39 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      No team has a payroll close to what Cashman has had to work with AND I would disagree that the records of the other G.M.s of higher payroll teams do not compare favorably Cashman’s.

      You can disagree all you like. His team’s made the postseason more than any of ’em.

      That’s what you say, because you don’t have a leg to stand on at this point.

      That’s just laugh out loud funny. I’ve been kicking your side all over the lot.

      We’re talking about the postseason – that’s the division series, the league championship series, and the World Series.

      That’s right! Hey, you finally got it! The post-season is 3 rounds (3 rounds plus, now), not one. Good for you!

      Since 2005, this team is gotten to only 11 series and won 5 of them.
      No one has stated N.Y. should have won 3-5 World Series since 2005,

      An opinionated assertion you cannot possibly prove.

      What has been stated is that the teams should have been better given the money spent, and the teams should have gotten to more postseason series than 11, and won more than 50% of them.

      More assertions without any proof.

      The organization failed to win more postseason series or pennants because its teams were not as good as they should have been for the money spent

      And still more.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Because the statistic cited, one of dominance when the regular-season records differ by at least .070, is the only attempt to show that regular-season records matter in post-season play to any significant extent. I’m merely pointing out how rare that is.

      The statistics clearly show that as the winning pct. margin between to teams over the course of a 162-game imbalanced schedule increases, so does the likelihood of the better team winning in the postseason. And this has been shown with more than 40 playoff series – that YOU choose to characterize more than 40 playoff series as “rare” is merely YOUR poor choice of words.

      Wrong, the 10-3 figure adds up 13 post-season series. About 10% of them.

      Now, earlier in this thread, another state was cited. Teams with ANY advantage in WPCT have a series winning percentage of .543. Of the Yankees 11 post-season series since the Reign of Autonomy, the Yanks have had this advantage in exactly 9 of them. You know how many they’ve won? 5. You know what that means? The Yankees have performed exactly as they should’ve given ANY WPCT advantage.

      The one series they had the lower WPCT, they lost, which is right, according to that statistic.

      So now, to use the post-season record of the Yankees, you’re left to argue that the reason Cashman stinks is that they lost the ALDS in 2005 to the Angels, because the teams had the same WPCT, even though the Angels had the advantage of the extra game at home.

      And this is the most appropriate type of statistic to cite; you don’t like it because it doesn’t permit obfuscation.

      There’s been no obfuscation. The goal of the post-season is to win 3 series, not one.

      Why do you seem to have so much difficulty understanding this simple concept? It’s not “evidence that one series of a postseason may not be a crapshoot.” It’s evidence that the better team wins a postseason series most of the time.

      Most of the time is 54.3% according to the stat cited above.
      The probability of winning two such series, and a pennant, under those circumstances is 29.5%, or less than 1 chance in 3.
      The probability of winning three such series, and a title, drops to less than 1 chance in 6.

      If we look at teams with a smaller spread (which is what you want to do because you have no argument), we could go on endlessly about which of the two was a better team and why a particular series should have, or did in fact, come to a conclusion in a certain way. And to that end, you’ve tried to cherry-pick teams that conform to your arguments.

      There’s been no cherry-picking. I merely cited all the teams that support the notion that the post-season is a crapshoot. 7 times in 18 years, a significantly weaker team, measured by regular season WPCT, won the title. That’s evidence for “crapshoot”. You simply refuse to admit it.

      Once again, you don’t get it – no one has said that one series is a postseason. Please provide a quote from myself or someone else where it’s been said that one series is a postseason? Do you have the quote?

      No, YOU don’t get it. When you assert the 54.3% number or the 72.5% number as proof it’s not a crapshoot, you are citing a number that applies to one series, not the whole post-season. You need to win 2 to win a pennant, and 3 to win a title. This is so simple a point. I’m amazed you still don’t see it. Therefore the series numbers are proof that if the WPCT gap between the two teams is large enough, then THAT SERIES is not a crapshoot. It don’t prove a damn thing about the post-season as a whole, because those stats don’t apply to the whole post-season, only one series at a time.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      3) the condition necessary for that domination is quite rare in post-season play; only 13 such series out of 126 series and 2 play-in games, or about 10% of the time.
      Wrong again. There have been more than 40 such series.

      Wrong again. I’m referring there to the 10-3 number. That’s, uh, lemme use all my math skills here, uhhh…10 + 3 = 13. Well, it ain’t 40, that’s for sure.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Hence my remark that it’s not a crapshoot, for the most part. And that’s an ACCURATE description, using your sides best evidence at face value.
      More weasel words: that’s all you got.

      To repeat, it is an ACCURATE description, far more accurate than declaring the post-season isn’t a crapshoot and going home.

      And for the hundreth or so time: no one has said that a single postseason series is “the postseason.” Please provide a quote from myself or someone else where it’s been said that one series is a postseason? Do you have the quote?

      When you cite single-series number to prove a 3-series tournament isn’t a crapshoot, no direct quote is necessary. In fact, I wouldn’t expect a direct quote to that effect from any of you, because none of you is able to discern the gap in your collective logic.

      Please go back and re-read what was written, because I’m not going to explain this again.

      You don’t have to explain it again. I’ve read the statement of the case repeatedly, and it’s been incorrect, repeatedly.

      You want to frame that argument as winning three series, but winning two series and a pennant would constitute a successful postseason in the opinion of most, and this team has won only one pennant since 2005.

      …and, as I’ve said before, this is a different argument than the one I’m making. Taking this one head on:

      1) A “pennant is a successful post-season” is an arbitrary measure, and obviously cherry-picked to make the Yanks record look worse, so it can be argued that Cashman is worse.
      2) Again, unless the team is dominant the probability is less than 50-50 that even a good team wins two series in a row against other good teams.
      Now, one team in each league MUST win two series, every year. But that also means 3 (now, 4) other good teams in each league don’t do this, every year.

      It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. You’re the one who brought up the nonsense of Girardi’s no., and you’re the one that says winning a World Series is nothing more than winning a crapshoot, so why don’t you go explain to Girardi what an idiot he looks like wearing no. 28, since you’re so much smarter than the rest of us.

      My Girardi remark was obviously a joke, too. But your side is actually serious that a win in the ALCS is a “successful” post-season, but a win in the ALDS, and a loss in the ALCS isn’t. I don’t understand where that criterion comes from. I’ve never, ever heard that before, anywhere.

      Until now.

      How the hell can it be known which team is going to “play the best” in the post-season before the post-season starts? Random factors enter into any contest in any sport, the existence of random factors does not mean that the M.L.B. postseason is a crapshoot. This is complete nonsense.

      You just stated my case in the first sentence and a half. Thanks.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Hot teams go cold. Cold teams get hot.
      More nonsense: How does one know that a team was “hot” and became “cold,” or was “cold” and became “hot?”

      Well, just to cite one or two obvious examples…

      The 2000 Yankees lost their last 7 games, and 13 of their last 15. I think that can be fairly described as “cold”.
      Then, they went 11-5 in the post-season. I think that can fairly be described as “hot”.

      The 2006 Cards lost 8 of their last 11 games. I think that can be called cold, though they did win 2 straight the last weekend. Then they went 11-5 in the post-season. That seems pretty hot to me, anyway.

      Oh, I’m sorry, was that more cherry-picking?

      Once again, you’re misrepresenting something: no one has stated that the point of the post-season is to win one round of playoffs. If you want to put it that way, then the point of the postseason is to win at least two rounds of the playoffs – especially if you’re spending $230-35 million each year.

      Already argued and answered. Multiple times.

      It’s not one stat alone. You have nothing, so you’re just throwing as much against the wall as you can, and continuing to make a number of misrepresentations or fallacious arguments, and offering comments like this one.

      If my argument is nothing, yours is less than nothing. Because you continue to cling to that stat barnicle-like, as if it proves anything about the post-season as a whole.

    26. Evan3457
      July 21st, 2013 | 1:05 am

      And now, because I’ve had enough of this, I’m doing something I should’ve done a long time ago. Fact-checking the stat we’ve been arguing about.

      In the years since the Wild Card was added, which are the years that really matter to this whole freakin’ argument (because before 1995, you only had to win one series to win a pennant, not two, and you only had to win two series to win a title, not three), here is the complete list (because I don’t want to be accused of cherry-picking) of teams which had a WPCT advantage of .070 or greater, heading into a playoff series:

      1995: Indians beat Red Sox, Braves beat Rockies, Indians beat Mariners, Indians lose to Braves. The .070+ teams are 3-1.

      1996: Indians lose to Orioles. Only such series that year. .070+ teams are 3-2.

      1997: Braves beat Astros, Orioles lose to Indians. .070+ teams are 4-3.

      1998: Yanks beat Rangers, Braves beat Cubs, Yanks beat Indians. .070+ teams are 7-3.

      1999: No such series.

      2000: No such series.

      2001: Mariners beat Indians, Mariners lose to Yankees. .070+ teams are 8-4

      2002: No such series.

      2003: Braves lose to Cubs. Only such series. .070+ teams are 8-5.

      2004: Cards beat Dodgers, Cards beat Astros. .070+ teams are 10-5

      2005: Cards beat Padres. Only such series. .070+ teams are 11-5.

      2006: Mets lose to Cards. Tigers lose to Cards. .070+ teams are 11-7.

      2007: No such series.

      2008: Cubs lose to Dodgers. Only such series. .070+ teams are 11-8.

      2009: Yanks beat Twins. Only such series. .070+ teams are 12-8.

      2010: No such series.

      2011: Phillies lose to Cards. Only such series. .070+ teams are 12-9.

      ============================================

      What to make of all this?

      1. Neither the 13 series number nor the 40 series number is correct. The correct number in the Wild Card era is 21. Actual percentage of all series is 16.4%, still a small percentage of the whole, a little over one such series a year.

      2. The 76.9% winning percentage (or 72.5% figure, whatever) is way off. The correct figure is 57.1%, and it’s off in the direction of “crapshoot” as opposed to “not a crapshoot”. One point for my side.

      3. The trend is away from such series, not toward. In the “non-autonomy” era, such series were 15 out of 70, or 21%. In the “autonomy” era, it’s 6 series out of 58, or a little over 10%. The fact that there are far fewer such series in the last 8 years is indicative of increasing competitive balance. Increasing competitive balance is another indicator for “crapshoot” over “not a crapshoot”. Another point for my side.

      4. The winning percentage for the .070+ team has also gone way down in the “autonomy” era. It was 10-5, .667, from 1995 to 2004. Since 2005, it’s 2-4, or .333. In fact, since 1998, the .070+ teams are under .500 at 5-6. The trend here is another indicator for “crapshoot” over “not a crapshoot”. A third point for my side.

      5. And you can’t blame the Autonomy Yankees for #4, either. Of the 6 such series since 2005, the Yanks have only played one of them, the ALDS vs. the Twins in 2009. And they won it. Other .070+ teams in the “autonomy” era are 1-4, .200. Helluva an argument for “not a crapshoot”, ain’t it?

      =================================
      So, how does it feel to be arguing the side that not only had the data wrong, and in the wrong direction, but it’s also trending in the wrong direction on all indicators and interpretations?

    27. Evan3457
      July 21st, 2013 | 1:06 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      In any given post-season, the team that plays the best almost always wins.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      [T]he team that’s going to play the best is almost always not known before the post-season starts…
      And the better team almost always plays the best…
      Certain commenters made moronic comments about the postseason being a crapshoot, and you did your best to help them out. Nice try; a good effort.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      I’m THAT GUY.
      Indeed…

      Now, if you’ll just define “better team”, maybe a productive discussion can begin. Doing it by regular season winning percentages hasn’t helped your side very much, if at all.

    28. Evan3457
      July 21st, 2013 | 1:12 am

      McMillan wrote:
      <blockquote
      So there’s no middle ground here? There’s making it to the postseason and winning a title, is that it? I realize I’m only a “fourth-rate” logician, but isn’t there a logical fallacy in there somewhere?

      There might be, but where is it, and why?

      Why does ALCS win = success, but ALDS win = failure? Why does ALCS win = success, and not World Series win? You’re going to have to explain that, and carefully, if you want me to re-think my position.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      But I can see why you’d want to evade the real meaning of “post-season”; it makes your side look silly.
      The “real meaning” of the M.L.B. postseason is one (1) divisional series, one (1) league championship series, and one (1) World Series.

      Actually, it’s four (4) division series, two (2) LCS, and (1) World Series. Plus now, two (2) play-in games.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I’m not saying the post-season is nothing but a product of luck. In any given post-season, the team that plays the best almost always wins…
      What I’m saying is that the team that’s going to play the best is almost always not known before the post-season starts and random factors do enter into it. Hot teams go cold. Cold teams get hot. Teams whose pitching staffs look weak going in get brilliant pitching. Teams whose pitching staffs look like juggernauts going in get knocked around and bounced in the first round. Teams with top offenses have the bats go dead silent and are quickly eliminated, even against staffs that don’t look very strong going in.
      It is in that sense that I refer to the post-season as a crapshoot.
      This is double-talk to the point that it’s essentially meaningless: the team that plays the best almost always wins but its a crapshoot.

      Thanks for missing the whole point. Again.

      There’s also that fact that of two teams with a difference in regular season winning percentages of less than .070, one can be better-suited for postseason competition such as by having a more formidable frontend of the rotation or other non-random factors. While the regular season numbers or the team’s overall finish might suggest to you that the better team did not win, the team better-suited for postseason competition might have won. That argument can be applied to some of the teams you mentioned.

      Very good. Now tell me again why that .070 stat matters.

    29. Evan3457
      July 21st, 2013 | 1:28 am

      An error in the post above. The 2008 Dodgers Cubs series should not be in the list. I used the White Sox winning percentage by mistake.

      The correct totals, Wild Card, era are 20 series, 12-8, .600.
      Autonomy era: 5 series, 2-3, .400. Non-Yankee, 1-3, .250.

      A wee bit better for the “not a crapshoot” folks on the WPCT, a wee bit worse on the frequency of such series.

      Overall points made in that post are still valid.

    30. Evan3457
      July 21st, 2013 | 1:40 am

      I seem to recall the 12-8 figure was given for the Wild Card era somewhere.
      So that data wasn’t wrong. I was wrong. I was off by one series in 18 years.

      It is interesting to note that competitive balance has increased throughout the divisional era, and continues to increase in the last 8 years.

      If the 40 series figure goes back to 1969 (or to 1903) then the WPCT of the .070+ teams must be far greater before 1995 (or before 1969), in order to get to 31 out of 40 (72.5%). Which means again, competive balance is increasing.

      Which, when you think about it, is obvious. The last several Basic Agreements have been designed to promote greater competitive balance through the use of the luxury tax and revenue sharing, allowing smaller markets to keep their top players, instead of being forced to let them go via free agency or salary dump trade.

      I would expect the slotting in the Rule 4 draft and the capping of money for international free agents to increase competitive balance further.

      And the post-season will then become even more of a crapshoot than it already is.

    31. Evan3457
      July 21st, 2013 | 1:43 am

      Hmm…when did the luxury tax come in?

      2003. And the number of .070+ series dropped like a rock shortly thereafter.