Econ. Professor: Yankees Did Not Buy World Series

Posted without comment

about 2 years ago bewwolv 15 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just goes to show you what the study of Economics will do for ya.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Nov 17, 2009 12:19 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

this seems more than a little silly

he’s taking the fact that team payroll is not a good predictor of playoff success and concluding it means that, in 2009, the yankees’ did not spend their way to a world series victory. isn’t that tantamount to saying that since batting average isn’t a very good predictive stat, joe mauer didn’t really OPS 1031 this year? by his logic, we might as well disregard stuff we actually observe in favor of points on the regression line.

i mean, nevermind the fact that the guys who actually carried the yanks to a championship this year—a-rod, sabathia, masui, teixera—are in new york solely because the yankees were the only team willing/able to sign them. it’s not like new york was especially savvy in acquiring those players—they just blew every other bidder out of the water. nobody’s arguing that the yankees don’t play by the rules; they’re arguing that the rules themselves need to be changed.

If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.

by Cap'n Snegiryov on Nov 17, 2009 6:39 AM EST reply actions

The thing missing from most of the defenses of the Yankees is an acknowledgement that the rules of engagement fundamentally changed this year. The Jackasses seemed heretofore willing to try to develop prospects, particularly pitchers, in addition to padding the roster with high-priced superstars. Then Justin, Hughes, et al. missed the playoffs, and the Steinbrenners implemented their Scorched Earth Policy, signing Tex, CC and Burnett for more than most teams pay their entire rosters. That is fundamentally different than what they did the previous few years, and thus pointing to playoff failures is a fundamentally flawed proposition (the evidence is inapposite, as we lawyers would say). It worked, and they’re already talking about Holliday and Halladay and Mauer.

by FredOx on Nov 17, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

Scorched Earth Policy also happened because the Yanks had a lot of contracts coming off the books. Giambi, et al.

by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

The thing missing from most of the defenses of the Yankees is logic.

by fg28 on Nov 17, 2009 10:42 PM EST up reply actions

Those salaries will weigh on the team’s ability to acquire other players.

They won’t, which is the point Zimbalist misses. No other team can bid in that range because no other team can carry these salaries beyond their useful lives.

by SuddenSam on Nov 17, 2009 11:05 AM EST reply actions

Isn’t the point of paying those guys so much that they don’t have to worry about getting other players?

Everybody should get ice cream every day.

by Joel D on Nov 17, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions

Kinda, but they got it even better than that. But they can screw-up, sign a Pavano or three, blow $50-70M and not even feel it. The Indians do that and it’s two more years in the desert.

Resident LGT results-oriented boob.

by mauichuck on Nov 18, 2009 12:50 AM EST up reply actions

Just because the Mets and Cubs, and a couple other teams, don’t know how to use their financial advantage doesn’t mean the Yankees didn’t benefit greatly from an unfair system. Is it that hard to understand?

by 7foot3 on Nov 17, 2009 11:34 AM EST reply actions

I find somewhere between 15% and 30% of the variance in team win percentage can be explained by the variance in team payroll.

…which is actually pretty significant (enough to swing a pennant race, certainly), even if it’s not 100 % (which he seems somewhat surprised to have discovered).

by baergagaga on Nov 17, 2009 12:36 PM EST reply actions

Craig Calcaterra discusses this article in his blog at NBC. Also, in case anybody cares, he recently announced that he’s giving up his day job to blog about baseball full-time. So Chuck should be happy that there’s one less lawyer in the world.

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 17, 2009 12:40 PM EST reply actions

Well this is stupid. The only empirical observation is the overall correlation between payroll and winning (which as baergaga points out isn’t actually so small in this context), and then a lot of waving of hands. Plus, he misspelled “Sabathia” consistently, which tells me he’s clearly paying a lot of attention.

by Logodaedalus on Nov 17, 2009 12:52 PM EST reply actions