Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series.

Yes it did.

The year before it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

And the year before that it didn't.

This is the problem with sports fan logic - confirmation and recency bias.

Only could a sports fan conclude that something that happened in 1 the last 10 years is somehow the rule and not the exception.

jrodmc wrote:Through the injuries and slumps, the offense was never consistent enough. So how do you address that? Mo money. We've got a decent core. Flood the lineup with enough big money bats around the Core 4 and hope we can get some more quality free agent pitching. I agree with Bonn. Outspend the BlowSox.

Yankees won a 100 games and scored 851 runs, second in MLB.

They were totally a World Series winning worthy team. The lost out to a team who had the 12th highest win total in ML history and second highest in 20 years and highest since 2001.

Anyone who thinks the Red Sox win 108 games and had the team chemistry they had because of their payroll doesn't know baseball.

Payroll correlates to wins, 100%

But not 108 and the success they had in the postseason.

You don't buy that.

Again, the Yankees were a 100% worthy World Contender and in any other year we might be celebrating their brilliant regular and postseason.

They ran into an historical anomaly. You tip your cap to that.

Red Sox could in 94-95 games next year, easy.

They aren't a 108 win team. NOBODY has ever been 2 seasons in a row.

You stay your team building course, whatever that is.

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series. That exact description used to be us! I really hope this was just a one-year luxury tax reset and the new norm isn't that Boston outspends and outperforms us. The signals from Yankees' management about spending don't sound good but it could just be a messaging strategy.

I think they don’t want to spend for the sake of soending. As good as Harper and Machado can be, I don’t think they are necessities for the team. Above all, I think we need to see if we can improve from within’ when it comes to the position players and then go after starting pitching. Sevy is officially a question mark, Tanaka is a ticking time-bomb. We don’t know about anyone else. If we were going to overpay, we should have overpaid in a trade for DeGrom.... if we actually had that opportunity.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series. That exact description used to be us! I really hope this was just a one-year luxury tax reset and the new norm isn't that Boston outspends and outperforms us. The signals from Yankees' management about spending don't sound good but it could just be a messaging strategy.

I think they don’t want to spend for the sake of soending. As good as Harper and Machado can be, I don’t think they are necessities for the team. Above all, I think we need to see if we can improve from within’ when it comes to the position players and then go after starting pitching. Sevy is officially a question mark, Tanaka is a ticking time-bomb. We don’t know about anyone else. If we were going to overpay, we should have overpaid in a trade for DeGrom.... if we actually had that opportunity.

I am doubtful that our management is so smart that they will make $190 mil go farther in the win column than Boston makes $250 mil go.

Whose roster would you take right now? Houston's or LA's?

I would definitely assume our fans are spending more money than Boston's. So basically the Steinbrenners are just pocketing the extra cash.

So you're saying expenses are fixed? Yankees generate more revenue than Red Sox but Yankees and Red Sox operational expenses are the same therefore the Yankees make more money?

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series.

Yes it did.

The year before it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

And the year before that it didn't.

This is the problem with sports fan logic - confirmation and recency bias.

Only could a sports fan conclude that something that happened in 1 the last 10 years is somehow the rule and not the exception.

Except a team by chance wins 1 out of every 30 years. You can't deny that intelligent spending gives the team an edge. The Yankees won world series at a very high rate (much higher than 1 out of 30) when they were outspending every one.

Spending 100% correlates to increased winning %. No if, ands or buts.

But there IS also the law of diminishing returns. Being the highest does not correlate to winning world series. Citing this year's results as corroboration of something but ignoring the previous 10 results that didn't doesn't make the point you hoped.

The good news is the Yankees are one of the top spending teams in the baseball, consistently. It is why they're made the postseason an obscene amount of times in the last 24 seasons. They WILL be one of the top spending teams in 2019.

They won 100 games. You can't possibly ask for MORE than that in ML baseball. They lost a 5 game series to a really good team.

Spending more might help marginally. It is no guarantee of anything and whatever the Yankees spend, whether it's $197m or $230m, I'll take 100 wins right now if offered. I'd take that result without thinking twice if their payroll was $250m.

The danger of the Yankees finishing second despite winning 100 games is a certain breed of fan will now associate 100 wins with a tepid result, and boy, would that be not smart.

100 wins is AWESOME.

Either way, in the postseason whoever they meet they'll either be marginally favored or a marginal underdog in a 5 game series. And that will repeat itself in 2 more 7 games series if they keep winning. The difference between them and whomever their postseason opponents will be will be minimal in contest of best of 5 or 7.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series.

Yes it did.

The year before it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

And the year before that it didn't.

This is the problem with sports fan logic - confirmation and recency bias.

Only could a sports fan conclude that something that happened in 1 the last 10 years is somehow the rule and not the exception.

Except a team by chance wins 1 out of every 30 years. You can't deny that intelligent spending gives the team an edge. The Yankees won world series at a very high rate (much higher than 1 out of 30) when they were outspending every one.

Spending 100% correlates to increased winning %. No if, ands or buts.

But there IS also the law of diminishing returns. Being the highest does not correlate to winning world series. Citing this year's results as corroboration of something but ignoring the previous 10 results that didn't doesn't make the point you hoped.

The good news is the Yankees are one of the top spending teams in the baseball, consistently. It is why they're made the postseason an obscene amount of times in the last 24 seasons. They WILL be one of the top spending teams in 2019.

They won 100 games. You can't possibly ask for MORE than that in ML baseball. They lost a 5 game series to a really good team.

Spending more might help marginally. It is no guarantee of anything and whatever the Yankees spend, whether it's $197m or $230m, I'll take 100 wins right now if offered. I'd take that result without thinking twice if their payroll was $250m.

The danger of the Yankees finishing second despite winning 100 games is a certain breed of fan will now associate 100 wins with a tepid result, and boy, would that be not smart.

100 wins is AWESOME.

Either way, in the postseason whoever they meet they'll either be marginally favored or a marginal underdog in a 5 game series. And that will repeat itself in 2 more 7 games series if they keep winning. The difference between them and whomever their postseason opponents will be will be minimal in contest of best of 5 or 7.

Fair enough. It was lazy of me to just cite this year's example. Remember, George would happily spend just for a marginal improvement in the odds, knowing that if it doesn't work out great, the team can eat the contract and still be profitable. His philosophy was that improving the odds is always better than not improving them!

That's a myth.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1989-07-06-8902190400-story.html

Sources told the New York Daily News Tuesday that the usually free- spending Steinbrenner ordered Thrift to discontinue traveling with the team a month ago, relegating him to his stadium office.

The reason? Insiders say Steinbrenner is simply scrimping, trying to save money.

"We're cutting back on expenses," Steinbrenner said. "We're trying to run this thing like a business. Nobody ever pointed a finger at George Steinbrenner and said he's cheap. But we have a budget, like any business, and we have to stick to it."

Steinbrenner cited a player payroll of $20 million, plus $2.08 million for minor-league scouting, an additional $4.9 million for player development and $200,000 in travel expenses for the June draft.

"That's almost $7,300,000 for player development and scouting alone," Steinbrenner said. "I don't think any other team has that high a budget. And that doesn't include an $800,000 payroll for scouts, $435,000 in travel and expenses for scouts, the cost of computer hardware. It's just too much, and we're going to have to cut back."

There was also times the Yankees choose not to pursue players they theoretically could have.

Randy Johnson didn't choose the Diamondbacks over the Yankees in 1999. Yankees never pursued him. They sold trading for Clemens as 'good enough.'

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series.

Yes it did.

The year before it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

And the year before that it didn't.

This is the problem with sports fan logic - confirmation and recency bias.

Only could a sports fan conclude that something that happened in 1 the last 10 years is somehow the rule and not the exception.

Except a team by chance wins 1 out of every 30 years. You can't deny that intelligent spending gives the team an edge. The Yankees won world series at a very high rate (much higher than 1 out of 30) when they were outspending every one.

They won 100 games. You can't possibly ask for MORE than that in ML baseball. They lost a 5 game series to a really good team.

I'll take 100 wins right now if offered. I'd take that result without thinking twice if their payroll was $250m.

The danger of the Yankees finishing second despite winning 100 games is a certain breed of fan will now associate 100 wins with a tepid result, and boy, would that be not smart.

100 wins is AWESOME.

Uhh, bro, these are really great and pragmatic outlooks on baseball if you don't happen to be a Yankee fan.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series.

Yes it did.

The year before it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

And the year before that it didn't.

This is the problem with sports fan logic - confirmation and recency bias.

Only could a sports fan conclude that something that happened in 1 the last 10 years is somehow the rule and not the exception.

Except a team by chance wins 1 out of every 30 years. You can't deny that intelligent spending gives the team an edge. The Yankees won world series at a very high rate (much higher than 1 out of 30) when they were outspending every one.

Spending 100% correlates to increased winning %. No if, ands or buts.

But there IS also the law of diminishing returns. Being the highest does not correlate to winning world series. Citing this year's results as corroboration of something but ignoring the previous 10 results that didn't doesn't make the point you hoped.

The good news is the Yankees are one of the top spending teams in the baseball, consistently. It is why they're made the postseason an obscene amount of times in the last 24 seasons. They WILL be one of the top spending teams in 2019.

They won 100 games. You can't possibly ask for MORE than that in ML baseball. They lost a 5 game series to a really good team.

Spending more might help marginally. It is no guarantee of anything and whatever the Yankees spend, whether it's $197m or $230m, I'll take 100 wins right now if offered. I'd take that result without thinking twice if their payroll was $250m.

The danger of the Yankees finishing second despite winning 100 games is a certain breed of fan will now associate 100 wins with a tepid result, and boy, would that be not smart.

100 wins is AWESOME.

Either way, in the postseason whoever they meet they'll either be marginally favored or a marginal underdog in a 5 game series. And that will repeat itself in 2 more 7 games series if they keep winning. The difference between them and whomever their postseason opponents will be will be minimal in contest of best of 5 or 7.

Fair enough. It was lazy of me to just cite this year's example. Remember, George would happily spend just for a marginal improvement in the odds, knowing that if it doesn't work out great, the team can eat the contract and still be profitable. His philosophy was that improving the odds is always better than not improving them!

That's a myth.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1989-07-06-8902190400-story.html

Sources told the New York Daily News Tuesday that the usually free- spending Steinbrenner ordered Thrift to discontinue traveling with the team a month ago, relegating him to his stadium office.

The reason? Insiders say Steinbrenner is simply scrimping, trying to save money.

"We're cutting back on expenses," Steinbrenner said. "We're trying to run this thing like a business. Nobody ever pointed a finger at George Steinbrenner and said he's cheap. But we have a budget, like any business, and we have to stick to it."

Steinbrenner cited a player payroll of $20 million, plus $2.08 million for minor-league scouting, an additional $4.9 million for player development and $200,000 in travel expenses for the June draft.

"That's almost $7,300,000 for player development and scouting alone," Steinbrenner said. "I don't think any other team has that high a budget. And that doesn't include an $800,000 payroll for scouts, $435,000 in travel and expenses for scouts, the cost of computer hardware. It's just too much, and we're going to have to cut back."

There was also times the Yankees choose not to pursue players they theoretically could have.

Randy Johnson didn't choose the Diamondbacks over the Yankees in 1999. Yankees never pursued him. They sold trading for Clemens as 'good enough.'

I was focusing on the most successful portions of the George Steinbrenner era.

The most successful portion of his era was the portion in he was least involved in.

I'm less nostalgic for him throwing Arod and Randy Johnson and Kevin Brown and Mondesi and Giambi and Pavano and Clemens part 2 in there than others.

And, FWI, the Yankees weren't one of the top spending teams in 2018. They were closer to the average than the top according to this list: https://slackiebrown.com/2018-mlb-team-salary-list/. Maybe that was just a one-time luxury tax reset. They don't seem to be giving that impression but it's hard to know whether to give any weight to the off-season statements. Time will tell.

Not anywhere near average.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ai3Wo4UVZbUFtEEOnVEUwBgh2H45wwNe4nd6bXPAvRQ/pubhtml#

For LT purposes their payroll was $192m.

They added Britton, Happ, Lynn, McCutchen and Hechavarria, remember.

And look at your list, of the teams above them, one was one of the worst teams in baseball, another lost in the WC game and two more didn't make the postseason.

I think the Yankees have one of the best young, most appealing teams in the game. I think they have the raw material there to be even better, even though 100 wins is pretty much a benchmark you can't expect to break.

It just seems self-defeating to me for fans of this team to require them having the highest payroll in baseball to feel good about it.

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series.

Yes it did.

The year before it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

And the year before that it didn't.

This is the problem with sports fan logic - confirmation and recency bias.

Only could a sports fan conclude that something that happened in 1 the last 10 years is somehow the rule and not the exception.

Except a team by chance wins 1 out of every 30 years. You can't deny that intelligent spending gives the team an edge. The Yankees won world series at a very high rate (much higher than 1 out of 30) when they were outspending every one.

They won 100 games. You can't possibly ask for MORE than that in ML baseball. They lost a 5 game series to a really good team.

I'll take 100 wins right now if offered. I'd take that result without thinking twice if their payroll was $250m.

The danger of the Yankees finishing second despite winning 100 games is a certain breed of fan will now associate 100 wins with a tepid result, and boy, would that be not smart.

100 wins is AWESOME.

Uhh, bro, these are really great and pragmatic outlooks on baseball if you don't happen to be a Yankee fan.

Yeah, third best regular season record and first round playoff appearance don't meet YANKEES standards. I expect them to do everything possible within the rules of the game to come out ahead of Boston and Houston, not just to add one or two above average role-player FAs.

Do you really "expect" them to? I mean pragmatically. Do you really think they're going to run up the payroll well past $206m?

Or is that a mantra you're repeating actually expecting them NOT to do it?

Most fans I'm encountering fall into the latter. They're setting themselves to be able to complain later.

You've all managed to figure out how to turn what's by definition an enjoyable pastime into an almost certain frustration trap. You're going to be be disappointed and dissatisfied before the season even begins.

And in the weird, backwards world of sports fandom, you'll consider being frustrated a positive.

How do you combat that logic?

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Don't forget the highest priced team just won the world series.

Yes it did.

The year before it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

The year before that it didn't.

And the year before that it didn't.

This is the problem with sports fan logic - confirmation and recency bias.

Only could a sports fan conclude that something that happened in 1 the last 10 years is somehow the rule and not the exception.

Except a team by chance wins 1 out of every 30 years. You can't deny that intelligent spending gives the team an edge. The Yankees won world series at a very high rate (much higher than 1 out of 30) when they were outspending every one.

They won 100 games. You can't possibly ask for MORE than that in ML baseball. They lost a 5 game series to a really good team.

I'll take 100 wins right now if offered. I'd take that result without thinking twice if their payroll was $250m.

The danger of the Yankees finishing second despite winning 100 games is a certain breed of fan will now associate 100 wins with a tepid result, and boy, would that be not smart.

100 wins is AWESOME.

Uhh, bro, these are really great and pragmatic outlooks on baseball if you don't happen to be a Yankee fan.

Yeah, third best regular season record and first round playoff appearance don't meet YANKEES standards. I expect them to do everything possible within the rules of the game to come out ahead of Boston and Houston, not just to add one or two above average role-player FAs.

Do you really "expect" them to? I mean pragmatically. Do you really think they're going to run up the payroll well past $206m?

Or is that a mantra you're repeating actually expecting them NOT to do it?

Most fans I'm encountering fall into the latter. They're setting themselves to be able to complain later.

You've all managed to figure out how to turn what's by definition an enjoyable pastime into an almost certain frustration trap. You're going to be be disappointed and dissatisfied before the season even begins.

And in the weird, backwards world of sports fandom, you'll consider being frustrated a positive.

How do you combat that logic?

You sound quite frustrated with my view. Is that a positive? If the Yankees are the best in the business next year, I don't care how much they spent. If they stay behind Houston and Boston and they passed on the top tier players, yeah I'll be upset.

I enjoy discussing this topic, so no, the opposite. Its the offseason, I'm talking baseball and the macro-view. All positives for me.

Thing is, you can't stay behind anyone in the offseason. That only happens in the regular season, and in September or October more specifically. So that to me says withholding judgment during the offseason no matter what.

Did you have the Red Sox passing the Yankees and Astros and Indians during last offseason?

And I don't think you answered my question.

Are you REALLY expecting them to acquire the players that will make you perceive them as having passed Boston and Houston

Or not?

Bonn1997 wrote:Based on what they've said, I'm expecting them NOT to be aggressive though they haven't completely ruled it out.

As i say. I understand this isn't typical for what people think of as fans (which means they assumes all fans are like them) and is very pragmatic/macro, but it strikes me as setting yourself up certain disappointment ... for a team that just won 100 games.

I don't get that.

You mentioned 108 win teams usually don't repeat that achievement. You're right but we should be clear that the Houston and Boston were legitimately better than the Yankees. They didn't just pull off a bunch of lucky or close wins. They outscored their opponents by about 50 to 100 more runs than the Yankees did. If you add up the teams' WAR totals, Boston and Houston were about 10% better than the Yankees too.

100% accurate, in 2018.

This seems to be a thing with sports fans. They take a snapshot of the most recent results, and confuse it with something you just expect to just continue as is. To whit:

That's not really the kind of difference that adding one number 2 or 3 starter or a couple of respectable role players would typically make.

THIS is the fallacy sports fans get fooled by. That the Red Sox success is just going to repeat itself if they have largely the same roster next year.

Sometimes teams just have good years and it doesn't mean the same results will repeat themselves year after year. If this were the case, or even common, we'd have more dynasties in baseball, which are in fact, rare.

And I'm going to assume you're enough of a MLB fans to understand how rare it's been for the "winners of the offseason" to translate that to regular season success.

It more often does not work out when a team tries to add a chunk hoping to make a leap.

Excellence isn't the same animal as sustained excellence. Being a MLB fan we should all realize this. The Cubs, just two years removed from looking like a dynasty in the making, are suddenly looking still relatively good but very vulnerable.

And when the Yankees were at their best, the goal wasn't just to match the other top teams. It was to put together a roster that would be undoubtedly superior to them.

No, I don't think that describes the 1996 to 2001 Yankees at all. I think that more typically describes the 2004 to 2013 Yankees, which were successful for sure, and ultimately once, but I wouldn't describe that era as the Yankees at their best. Murder's Row and Cano was good and fine, but all of us Yankees should remember how fickle baseball can be.

One of the reasons I don't pine for a roster on paper that would be "undoubtedly superior" to any other because I also know and remember what a fallacy THAT is. That's just ANOTHER way fans set themselves up for disappointment.

As I say, it's a trap. Some fans will be disappointed if the Yankees don't construct a roster on paper to lap the field. But if they get that, then they'll be disappointed for 6 months if they don't dominate the regular season. But if they get that then they'll be disappointed if they don't get hot in October.

Since winning every year is hard and rare, this is an inevitable path to disappointment.

Some people will tell you THIS is what being a "fan" is. Always being frustrated with any close loss, with not being in first place, with not winning it all, every year.

As I say, it's a guaranteed losing proposition that i don't get it.