Why the best team doesn't win the World Series - Page 3

sixto · 10-04-2002, 09:45 AM

here's the thing: the yankees don't play by dungeons and dragons rules. and in the contemporary world, that's apparently a problem.

the built-in counterbalance of strength and weakness that is the foundation of fantasy games doesn't exist in baseball. D+D is a game, baseball is a sport, but we seem to be reaching the point where that distinction is gone completely.

the yankees are what, in the D+D world, would cause every other kid but the yankees to quit in anger, derision and indignation. "you can't be that strong and that smart! duh! everyone knows it's like, impossible." except that they are that smart and that rich, and now we've got kids like buddy selig and co. threatening to take their 32-sided dice and go home.

i don't think baseball is D+D, or should be. the yankees have advantages and they always have. didn't help them much between 1981-1996, but hey, what's 15 years? how many teams have won the world series more times than the twins in the last 15 years?

the argument is that the baseball landscape has changed since the twins won in 1991, and while it wasn't impossible to compete then, it is now. has it? what's the proof? who signed alex rodriguez again? who signed mike hampton? who brought in gary sheffield and bobby bonilla and al leiter and whoallelse, used them to win, then got rid of them again because the margin wasn't sufficient?

should the yankees be punished because dan o'dowd gambled that altitude wouldn't affect mike hampton? because wayne huizenga had made the money he'd come for? because richard jacobs made millions in an IPO then bailed, with no repercussions? because carl pohlad pockets his money or that jeffrey loria or bill giles doesn't have that much in the first place?

nope.

6

GForce22 · 10-04-2002, 11:27 AM

I think the biggest problem people have with the Yankees isn't even so much the Yankees, but their fans and Steinbrenner. The Yankees aren't to blame for other teams' stupid GMs. There's more to it than just money. But I think what gets most people is the act by Yankee fans and Steinbrenner that money has nothing to do with the Yankees success and the complete disregard for other teams.
People like to use business as a comparison, but it's invalid. Microsoft doesn't need other software developers to make competing products in order to be successful. If Microsoft was, in fact, a monopoly, the products would still be there. If the Yankees and baseball's financial situation shut down the competition, baseball (at least MLB) ends, because the Yankees NEED competition. Nobody will pay to watch them scrimmage themselves 162 times a year.
Don't bash the Yankees so much for having the money, but understand the real reason (IMO) why so many people hate them.

GH

Malleus Dei · 10-05-2002, 10:06 PM

FYI, Tom Tippett, the designer of Diamond Mind Baseball and one heck of an analyst, has written an excellent article on why the best team doesn't usually win the playoffs, entitled "May the best team win...some of the time."

It's at:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2002/...2/1440448.html

Highly recommended; read it and learn something.

Oh well, back to training...

GForce22 · 10-05-2002, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malleus Dei

Highly recommended; read it and learn something.

We learned somebody's opinion. Doesn't make it right. Thanks for sharing though.

GH

Draft Dodger · 10-05-2002, 10:31 PM

interesting read.

Draft Dodger · 05-09-2003, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
Oh well, back to training...

and like that, he was gone...

signed,
Verbal Kint

Total Nirvana · 05-09-2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
"Since 1989, only one team with the best regular-season record (the 1998 Yankees) has won the World Series."

Thanks to a stupid strike called ball by Brian Boeringer on Chuck Knoblauch. We all know what happend next...

magicmike · 05-09-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
i differentiate "entertainment" and "professional sports" this way: entertainment is designed purely with the consumer in mind. pro sports are designed primarily to promote pure competition. that which is the fairest and least manipulated way to judge who's best.

if you prefer the "entertainment" model, that's fine. we differ. but why would anyone chafe at my distinctions? dunno.

. . .sports are not supposed to be designed for the fan. they're supposed to be designed for the sport, for the competition. here's the rules; beat me according to them. in the modern era, that doesn't make good TV. i say, too bad.

Well, I agree with your sentiments but, respectfully, I don't think it's that black and white. I think it might be a little closer to the mark if you applied your distinction to "professional sports" versus "amateur sports."

I think professional sports is, always has been, and was always intended to be, entertainment first. It's about putting together and offering a product that people will be enthusiastic about spending money to watch. It's really no different in the end than trying to produce a good movie or write a good book. The elements of compelling interest are the same: interesting and empathetic characters involved in some dramatic conflict, the outcome of which is in doubt until the final frame/chapter/playoff game. It is for these reasons that competitive parity has become such a huge issue for professional sports, and these watered-down wild card systems of playoffs have been created to generate more dramatic tension - and thus entertainment value - during the regular and post seasons.

Now, the great thing about sports is that the compelling source of interest - that is, interesting characters embroiled in a dramatic conflict of doubtful outcome - comes up dozens of times in every single game. Every snap, every pitch, every trip down the ice or the floor, whatever. So the games themselves are marvelous vehicles for compelling entertainment. When the stakes get higher, however, effort and interest increase. That's why people pay more money for playoff tickets than they do for regular season tickets.

Amateur sports, on the other hand, I think are supposed to be more about the pure competition. The "taking part" ideal that those hypocrites who run the Olympics still like to package and sell (pretty successfully, to their credit).

So here's how I'd add to sixto's excellent distinction: I'd say that the games themselves are designed to promote competition, the organized amateur leagues and associations are intended to promote participation and competition at a higher (and since it takes money to run such programs, more commercial) level, and professional leagues and associations are intended to make as much money as they can by taking the entertaining attributes of the games themselves and packaging them into competitive formats designed to maximize interest and revenue.

Eckstein 4 Prez · 05-09-2003, 07:25 PM

Well, sixto? Care to defend your seven-month-old point?

sixto · 05-10-2003, 12:55 AM

I'm reading that and I'm like, "I'm going to need some time to formulate a response." It's like the nightmare I have where I haven't been to class all semester and it's finals time. Only it's REAL, IT'S REAL.

I was a lot more serious wayback in October of aught 2.

Anyway I am still a semi-purist when it comes to sport. I don't mind the three-pointer or the designated hitter. However I do mind the Reds switching an interleague series with the Cubs so that they can play their "rival" the Indians 6 times instead of 3.

In the era of so-called reality TV, I am no longer sure that fans would mind it if MLB, say, switched Randy Johnson to the Red Sox in the middle of a heated pennant race, to boost ratings a tenth of a percent. In Detroit there aren't a lot of other reasons to be interested in baseball already, let alone three months from now. A Randy Johnson - Yankees matchup might do the trick.

But that's not sport. As I said before, you want entertainment, accept that it's entertainment, not true competition. I love, love, love watching the NFL on Sundays. But the ridiculous salary cap rules make it so my team can't afford to sign Hugh Douglas, even though they can afford to re-sign Hugh Douglas. It's the only question I have to ask of fans of modern sporting economics: How, how, how can you believe that this is the way it's "meant to be"?

Spielman · 05-10-2003, 01:11 AM

Actually, the Eagles could afford to re-sign Hugh Douglas, cap-wise. They're well under the cap, and have been for the last couple of years... their problem is a refusal to spend the money they can spend, rather than being unduly constrained by the cap.

I still think your characterization of the NFL doesn't make an awful lot of sense. I don't see the salary cap as a great evil, since marquee players seem to stay put an awful lot better than they do in baseball.

Ah well. Such is life.

sixto · 05-10-2003, 01:31 AM

They do?

Barry Bonds: 1 team since 1993. 2 teams total.
Mark McGwire: 2 teams total.
Sammy Sosa: 3 teams, but one since 1992.
Greg Maddux, 2 teams, one since 1993
ARod, Jeter, Nomar: 1 team apiece.
Tom Glavine: Just joined team #2 after 124 years with team #1.
Barry Larkin, Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith: 1 team apiece.
Pedro Martinez: 3rd team, 2nd team since he became a superstar.

At any rate, you can find players like Randy Johnson who have moved around...I suppose you or I can twist it however we like. The NFL on occasion does manage to keep certain skill players in place. However, all the other guys gotta keep moving. Nate Wayne, Rosevelt Colvin - these are really talented guys who can't stay with their teams because of the salary cap.

The point is not that one team values Tedy Bruschi more than seems natural. The point is that sometimes a team is motivated to keep or jettison a Tedy Bruschi for reasons other than their desire to keep the player and their financial capability to do so. Such manipulation is wholly, totally, completely and in all other ways artificial.

Like TV.

SoxWin · 05-12-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
and like that, he was gone...

signed,
Verbal Kint

7 months to come up with a joke, you're slipping DD

Rich

twins15 · 05-12-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
ARod, Jeter, Nomar: 1 team apiece.

A-Rod has been on two different teams.

Matt Davis · 05-13-2003, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
I'm reading that and I'm like, "I'm going to need some time to formulate a response." It's like the nightmare I have where I haven't been to class all semester and it's finals time. Only it's REAL, IT'S REAL.

I was a lot more serious wayback in October of aught 2.

Anyway I am still a semi-purist when it comes to sport. I don't mind the three-pointer or the designated hitter. However I do mind the Reds switching an interleague series with the Cubs so that they can play their "rival" the Indians 6 times instead of 3.

In the era of so-called reality TV, I am no longer sure that fans would mind it if MLB, say, switched Randy Johnson to the Red Sox in the middle of a heated pennant race, to boost ratings a tenth of a percent. In Detroit there aren't a lot of other reasons to be interested in baseball already, let alone three months from now. A Randy Johnson - Yankees matchup might do the trick.

But that's not sport. As I said before, you want entertainment, accept that it's entertainment, not true competition. I love, love, love watching the NFL on Sundays. But the ridiculous salary cap rules make it so my team can't afford to sign Hugh Douglas, even though they can afford to re-sign Hugh Douglas. It's the only question I have to ask of fans of modern sporting economics: How, how, how can you believe that this is the way it's "meant to be"?

How did you like that NFC Championship game

? All the crap you Eagles fans talked about how you guys were gonna beat us and then we came in your house and wooped your ass.

sixto · 05-13-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt Davis
How did you like that NFC Championship game ? All the crap you Eagles fans talked about how you guys were gonna beat us and then we came in your house and wooped your ass.

It was mitigated for me only because my parents live in Tampa and I am truly happy for the rednecks, er, fans in the Tampa Bay region, for whom the opportunity to buy a Super Bowl Champion t-shirt from every gas station in town must have been truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

The true comedy of that game was watching it with bandwagon Eagles fans who only watched the playoffs. "Put in Feeley put in Feeley!!!1" McNabb may be why we lost that game, but he's also why we consider ourselves perennial division winning contenders.

Total Nirvana · 05-13-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
Ozzie Smith: 1 team apiece.

Was on two teams (San Diego Padres)

Eckstein 4 Prez · 05-13-2003, 10:41 AM

Wow - no love for the 7-month-old point, and then people pointing out the factual errors..... not to mention being called out by Manny. It's a rough morning for ol' Six.

I'd say he gets about a C+ on this final, with a "You can do better work than this" in red across the top of his paper.......

sixto · 05-13-2003, 10:48 AM

Everybody knows that Sixto got B+ in half of his college courses. Interestingly this failed to have a positive effect on his GPA. I hate a system with B+ but no A- because teachers love to give that B+.

10-05-2002, 10:31 PM	#45
Draft Dodger Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: formerly of the OTBL Posts: 4,113	interesting read. __________________ Draft Dodger (Anarchy: Anything goes. The Draft Dodger viewpoint.) Sophmoric[sic] Member of the OOTP Boards (It's not OOTP; it's your computer) 15 GB Webhosting for $6.95 a month IMO we are best off abandoning that sinking ship that is Off Topic to the rats infesting it and just starting a whole new Baseball Forum from scratch.

05-09-2003, 07:25 PM	#49
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,358	Well, sixto? Care to defend your seven-month-old point? __________________ Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.

05-13-2003, 10:41 AM	#58
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,358	Wow - no love for the 7-month-old point, and then people pointing out the factual errors..... not to mention being called out by Manny. It's a rough morning for ol' Six. I'd say he gets about a C+ on this final, with a "You can do better work than this" in red across the top of his paper....... __________________ Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.

10-04-2002, 09:45 AM	#41
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	here's the thing: the yankees don't play by dungeons and dragons rules. and in the contemporary world, that's apparently a problem. the built-in counterbalance of strength and weakness that is the foundation of fantasy games doesn't exist in baseball. D+D is a game, baseball is a sport, but we seem to be reaching the point where that distinction is gone completely. the yankees are what, in the D+D world, would cause every other kid but the yankees to quit in anger, derision and indignation. "you can't be that strong and that smart! duh! everyone knows it's like, impossible." except that they are that smart and that rich, and now we've got kids like buddy selig and co. threatening to take their 32-sided dice and go home. i don't think baseball is D+D, or should be. the yankees have advantages and they always have. didn't help them much between 1981-1996, but hey, what's 15 years? how many teams have won the world series more times than the twins in the last 15 years? the argument is that the baseball landscape has changed since the twins won in 1991, and while it wasn't impossible to compete then, it is now. has it? what's the proof? who signed alex rodriguez again? who signed mike hampton? who brought in gary sheffield and bobby bonilla and al leiter and whoallelse, used them to win, then got rid of them again because the margin wasn't sufficient? should the yankees be punished because dan o'dowd gambled that altitude wouldn't affect mike hampton? because wayne huizenga had made the money he'd come for? because richard jacobs made millions in an IPO then bailed, with no repercussions? because carl pohlad pockets his money or that jeffrey loria or bill giles doesn't have that much in the first place? nope. 6

10-04-2002, 11:27 AM	#42
GForce22 Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	I think the biggest problem people have with the Yankees isn't even so much the Yankees, but their fans and Steinbrenner. The Yankees aren't to blame for other teams' stupid GMs. There's more to it than just money. But I think what gets most people is the act by Yankee fans and Steinbrenner that money has nothing to do with the Yankees success and the complete disregard for other teams. People like to use business as a comparison, but it's invalid. Microsoft doesn't need other software developers to make competing products in order to be successful. If Microsoft was, in fact, a monopoly, the products would still be there. If the Yankees and baseball's financial situation shut down the competition, baseball (at least MLB) ends, because the Yankees NEED competition. Nobody will pay to watch them scrimmage themselves 162 times a year. Don't bash the Yankees so much for having the money, but understand the real reason (IMO) why so many people hate them. GH

05-10-2003, 12:55 AM	#50
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	I'm reading that and I'm like, "I'm going to need some time to formulate a response." It's like the nightmare I have where I haven't been to class all semester and it's finals time. Only it's REAL, IT'S REAL. I was a lot more serious wayback in October of aught 2. Anyway I am still a semi-purist when it comes to sport. I don't mind the three-pointer or the designated hitter. However I do mind the Reds switching an interleague series with the Cubs so that they can play their "rival" the Indians 6 times instead of 3. In the era of so-called reality TV, I am no longer sure that fans would mind it if MLB, say, switched Randy Johnson to the Red Sox in the middle of a heated pennant race, to boost ratings a tenth of a percent. In Detroit there aren't a lot of other reasons to be interested in baseball already, let alone three months from now. A Randy Johnson - Yankees matchup might do the trick. But that's not sport. As I said before, you want entertainment, accept that it's entertainment, not true competition. I love, love, love watching the NFL on Sundays. But the ridiculous salary cap rules make it so my team can't afford to sign Hugh Douglas, even though they can afford to re-sign Hugh Douglas. It's the only question I have to ask of fans of modern sporting economics: How, how, how can you believe that this is the way it's "meant to be"?

05-10-2003, 01:11 AM	#51
Spielman All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,668	Actually, the Eagles could afford to re-sign Hugh Douglas, cap-wise. They're well under the cap, and have been for the last couple of years... their problem is a refusal to spend the money they can spend, rather than being unduly constrained by the cap. I still think your characterization of the NFL doesn't make an awful lot of sense. I don't see the salary cap as a great evil, since marquee players seem to stay put an awful lot better than they do in baseball. Ah well. Such is life.

05-10-2003, 01:31 AM	#52
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	They do? Barry Bonds: 1 team since 1993. 2 teams total. Mark McGwire: 2 teams total. Sammy Sosa: 3 teams, but one since 1992. Greg Maddux, 2 teams, one since 1993 ARod, Jeter, Nomar: 1 team apiece. Tom Glavine: Just joined team #2 after 124 years with team #1. Barry Larkin, Cal Ripken, Ozzie Smith: 1 team apiece. Pedro Martinez: 3rd team, 2nd team since he became a superstar. At any rate, you can find players like Randy Johnson who have moved around...I suppose you or I can twist it however we like. The NFL on occasion does manage to keep certain skill players in place. However, all the other guys gotta keep moving. Nate Wayne, Rosevelt Colvin - these are really talented guys who can't stay with their teams because of the salary cap. The point is not that one team values Tedy Bruschi more than seems natural. The point is that sometimes a team is motivated to keep or jettison a Tedy Bruschi for reasons other than their desire to keep the player and their financial capability to do so. Such manipulation is wholly, totally, completely and in all other ways artificial. Like TV.

05-13-2003, 10:48 AM	#59
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	Everybody knows that Sixto got B+ in half of his college courses. Interestingly this failed to have a positive effect on his GPA. I hate a system with B+ but no A- because teachers love to give that B+.