November 4, 2009

WS6: Yankees 7, Phillies 3

Phillies - 001 002 000 - 3  6  0
Yankees - 022 030 00x - 7 8 0
MVP: Shemp (8-for-13, 3 HR, 8 RBI; 6 RBI in Game 6).
Pedro Martinez (G2: 6-6-3-2-8, 107) / Andy Pettitte (G3: 6-5-4-3-7, 104)
Two old goats out there doing the best they can and having fun with it. I don't have enough words to describe how excited I am about being here. This is just a great gift to me.
Chris Jaffe, Hardball Times:
[T]here have been 57 previous best-of-seven World Series that reached a Game Six. In the sixth contest*, the trailing [team] has amassed an impressive record of 35-22. Not too shabby. Actually, it was achieved in a very odd manner. The first two dozen such games were split evenly 12-12 between leaders and trailers. The most recent 18 games have been likewise split down the middle, 50% each. However, from 1955 to 1975, 15 World Series reached Game Six - and the trailing team went 14-1 in those games. Only in 1959 did the Series end in the sixth contest. Weird.

[*:Note: for purposes of this research, the tie in the 1912 World Series never happened. Thus Game Eight is considered Game Seven, and so on down the line).]

Anyhow, that's only half the battle. After going 35-22 in Game Six, the survivors went 17-18 in Game Seven. Overall then, teams trailing 3 games to 2 in a best of seven World Series go 17-40 in their quest for the World Championship, so odds are a bit over one-third.
The Daily News sounds somewhat worried:


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 208 of 208
Harleypeyton said...

A short note to Kevin and the rest of the casual fans who assume the Yankees 'buy' their championships (and the Sox, apparently, do not).

The Yankee payroll advantage was not made manifest until 2002. That was the first year they were 10 mill. higher than the competition. Prior to that, the difference was small. The four titles in the 90s came at a time when the payroll gap between the Yankees and the next teams was a million and change. In fact, in 1998, the Orioles had the highest payroll.

There are plenty of reasons for Sox fans to hate the Yankees. However, bitching about payroll inequalities reveals little more than ignorance, and ignorance with regards to *both* teams in this yearly rivalry.

redsock said...

Please keep in mind that I do not use payrolls as an excuse. I usually regard it as unseemly whining.

However, I want to reply:

The Yankee payroll advantage was not made manifest until 2002.

And by "2002", you mean the late 1920s, right?

In fact, in 1998, the Orioles had the highest payroll.

That's true, with the Yankees #2. However, the Yankees were #1 in 1994, #2 in 1995, #1 in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000, etc., so I don't know what your point is by mentioning one random year.

The four titles in the 90s came at a time when the payroll gap between the Yankees and the next teams was a million and change.

This is incorrect, as everyone can see from the above links. In 2000, for example, the difference between the #1 Yankees and the #5 Red Sox is $11 million.

Also in 2000, the Yankees payroll was more than double that of 11 of the other 29 teams. That's a bigger issue to some people than how far ahead of the #2 and #3 teams they were.

The Red Sox spend gobs of money and in 2004, the Yankees and Red Sox were 1-2 in payroll. But New York's payroll was roughly 50% more than Boston's. The difference between #1 and #2 in 2004 was greater than the difference between #2 and #13.

And in 2009, the difference between the #1 Yankees and #4 Red Sox was roughly $80 million -- which was more than the entire payroll of 14 teams (exactly half of the remaining teams).

The Red Sox could have had its own payroll of $121 million and absorbed the entire Blue Jays payroll (or taken on the payrolls of the Padres AND the Marlins) -- and still been roughly even with the MFY payroll.

There is a huge difference. Don't act like it doesn't exist.

Zenslinger said...

When #1's payroll is half again what #2's is, it makes a difference. Now that's all relative. If an A's fan wants to point out payroll differences vs. the Red Sox, you have to concede the point. But that point can be made effectively against the Yankees -- by anyone. It's the way things are and there's no point refusing to accept it (like the DH rule). But it's not ignorant to say the Yankees have a clear advantage every year.

redsock said...


The MFY spent $80 million more than the Red Sox this year (probably more with the luxury tax thrown in).

Boston spent $80 million more than the Nationals, the team with the lowest payroll in MLB (actually $85 million).

So if Yankee fans want to yell "Shut up, Red Sox fans, your team spends money too!", then they have to accept the logic of a Red Sox fan saying "Shut up, Nats fan, your team spends money too!"

Amy said...

A friend sent me this link

Sort of interesting....

redsock said...

Man, the Mets suck.

Amy said...

Yes, but more relevant to the comments here, the Yankees had the MOST wins and yet they also spent the MOST money PER win. I think that shows just how much bigger their payroll really is and how they used money to buy those wins.

Harleypeyton said...

I"m not arguing re their payroll now. The idea that the disparities were that big in the 90s is a myth that your links do not dispel. (eg five mill in '97, and so on.) As for the Sox payroll, I'm curious. How much of the Dice-K money are you counting as payroll?

But yes, you're right about one thing. Using payrolls as an excuse is unseemly whining.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 208 of 208   Newer› Newest»