Mariano Rivera

[NoOne]

oh well if i spelled his name wrong. i'm sure yankee fans will get all in a tiff, if i did (i hope i did) the only fans more insufferable are boston fans, only because the yankees can actually back up their nonsense with titles.

so, i think i have the second coming of Rivera. 255 cutter, but he has a 2nd pitch, so as close as this game will come to him, i guess.

his "cutter" was really somethign else. it moved in all directions at will, but i've always heard it classified as a cutter. i guess that is due to his grip?

his stats are all from my other thread's tangent league that abused draft pick trading to prove a point. so, these results aren't quite real. you can see a closer starts getting very little work when you win too much. his totals would actually be better with a less successful team. luckily he was draft before my experiment, so i will get to use him in my real league.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by NoOne

oh well if i spelled his name wrong. i'm sure yankee fans will get all in a tiff, if i did (i hope i did) . . .

I hate to disappoint you, but you spelled it correctly.

Originally Posted by NoOne

. . . the only fans more insufferable are boston fans, only because the yankees can actually back up their nonsense with titles.

Um, thanks . . . yes, thanks a lot, come to think of it!

[DB930]

Originally Posted by NoOne

the only fans more insufferable are boston fans, only because the yankees can actually back up their nonsense with titles.

Yeah, I know, right? The Red Sox have only won 8 World Series. At least get to double-digits.

So what's the magic number where we're allowed to be as insufferable as Yankee fans? Do we have to wait for the whole 27, or can we start talking nonsense again at 12 or 15?

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by DB930

Yeah, I know, right? The Red Sox have only won 8 World Series. At least get to double-digits.

So what's the magic number where we're allowed to be as insufferable as Yankee fans? Do we have to wait for the whole 27, or can we start talking nonsense again at 12 or 15?

you have to win one when not outspending the entire league. just like in this game, if i have any organization that can reach 200mill player salary (basically market size 5 or 6 and above), i will win nearly every year, lol.

but, it's okay for me to do it. not new york... it makes sense, you'll just have to trust me on this one.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by NoOne

you have to win one when not outspending the entire league. just like in this game, if i have any organization that can reach 200mill player salary (basically market size 5 or 6 and above), i will win nearly every year, lol.

but, it's okay for me to do it. not new york... it makes sense, you'll just have to trust me on this one.

I believe the real-life 1998 Yankees would qualify in that regard, although I don't have the stats to back that up; just the memory of those guys being a bunch of non-mega stars who played well together. I used to be called "1998 Yankees" before I went with plain old Déjà Bru here.

Believe it or not, I agree with you about the "200mill player salary" abhorrence. Were I to join these forums today for the first time, I would not be calling myself "2009 Yankees."

My OOTPB playing style reflects my preference for well-drafted, craftily traded, home-grown young talent who, unfortunately, end up treating my organization as if we were the "Kansas City Yankees." Cannot hold on to 'em, alas.

[DB930]

Originally Posted by NoOne

you have to win one when not outspending the entire league. just like in this game, if i have any organization that can reach 200mill player salary (basically market size 5 or 6 and above), i will win nearly every year, lol.

but, it's okay for me to do it. not new york... it makes sense, you'll just have to trust me on this one.

LOL, so now there's stipulations on it? "Outspend the entire league," you say? Hmm...

2004: NY Yankees payroll--$184 million; Boston Red Sox payroll--$127 million. World Champions? Red Sox. 2007: Yankees payroll--$207 million; Red Sox--$143 million. World Champions? Red Sox. 2013: LA Dodgers payroll--$254 million; Yankees payroll--$246 million; Red Sox payroll--$178 million. Champions? What do you know--Red Sox, again.

3 championships in the last 12 years, without once being the highest-spending team in baseball, or even their own league. Unless you're gonna put more stipulations on it and say that the Yankees and Dodgers don't count? All I know is you claimed Red Sox fans can't back up their nonsense with titles, and when I look up the list of WS champs, I see them there 8 times, without a single asterisk about how they had a high payroll.

[NoOne]

you can find one year and find anomalies due to a greater proportion of the roster being under club control.

in that draft pick trading thread i made, the year i had 140+wins was the smallest salary team while doing that. 170-some million mlb salaries

if scaled by wins, i'm sure it would be similar to those teams mentioned. however, that's a 250-300million dollar team once you start paying your dues. and those yankees and red sox examples aren't far behind in future expenses and they didn't keep everybody, just most.

[DB930]

They're not "one-year anomalies". The Yankees have had higher payrolls than the Red Sox every... single... season--often by $40-90 million (the only season in the last 20 where it was even remotely close was 2001, when NY edged 'em by just $2 mil).

But that's really not the point. If you want to argue that it's easier to win by spending a lot of money, I don't think many people would disagree with that.

What I took issue with was your comparison between the Red Sox and Yankees. Both franchises have won multiple WS since the free agency era began. But according to you, Boston's don't count ("they can't back up their fans' talk with titles"), because they've spent a lot of money to win them. Yet somehow the Yankees' do count, even though they've spent dramatically more, and have the highest payroll in baseball nearly every year.

And it's not just a recent thing for NY, either. They didn't get Babe Ruth by making a shrewd "baseball" trade for him. They bought him, for (what was at the time) a huge amount of money, and built most of the foundation of their 1920s championship teams the same way. Over the next 40 years they continued to win with this same formula--by spending more than anyone else. Buying players from poor teams that needed a cash infusion, outbidding everyone for the best young talent in the days before the draft, etc. (That's not a criticism; they played within the rules, and still had to spend their money smartly, which they definitely did.) So you can't argue that they've bought their last 6 but won the first 21 on a level playing field with the rest of MLB.

You said that the Red Sox have to win "when not outspending everyone else"... which they have; they get outspent every year (by a wide margin) by a team in their own division. You apparently have no problem with the Yankees outspending everyone else (highest-payroll in baseball for 3 of their last 5 championships, within $400k of the highest for 1 of those other 2 years, within $5.5 mil of the highest in 1998). So why are the standards you set for the Red Sox so much higher than those you have for the Yankees?

[GoodOlKevin]

Originally Posted by DB930

They're not "one-year anomalies". The Yankees have had higher payrolls than the Red Sox every... single... season--often by $40-90 million (the only season in the last 20 where it was even remotely close was 2001, when NY edged 'em by just $2 mil).

But that's really not the point. If you want to argue that it's easier to win by spending a lot of money, I don't think many people would disagree with that.

What I took issue with was your comparison between the Red Sox and Yankees. Both franchises have won multiple WS since the free agency era began. But according to you, Boston's don't count ("they can't back up their fans' talk with titles"), because they've spent a lot of money to win them. Yet somehow the Yankees' do count, even though they've spent dramatically more, and have the highest payroll in baseball nearly every year.

And it's not just a recent thing for NY, either. They didn't get Babe Ruth by making a shrewd "baseball" trade for him. They bought him, for (what was at the time) a huge amount of money, and built most of the foundation of their 1920s championship teams the same way. Over the next 40 years they continued to win with this same formula--by spending more than anyone else. Buying players from poor teams that needed a cash infusion, outbidding everyone for the best young talent in the days before the draft, etc. (That's not a criticism; they played within the rules, and still had to spend their money smartly, which they definitely did.) So you can't argue that they've bought their last 6 but won the first 21 on a level playing field with the rest of MLB.

You said that the Red Sox have to win "when not outspending everyone else"... which they have; they get outspent every year (by a wide margin) by a team in their own division. You apparently have no problem with the Yankees outspending everyone else (highest-payroll in baseball for 3 of their last 5 championships, within $400k of the highest for 1 of those other 2 years, within $5.5 mil of the highest in 1998). So why are the standards you set for the Red Sox so much higher than those you have for the Yankees?

the crickets are out in abundance....

[CHOWDERHEAD]

Originally Posted by DB930

LOL, so now there's stipulations on it? "Outspend the entire league," you say? Hmm...

2004: NY Yankees payroll--$184 million; Boston Red Sox payroll--$127 million. World Champions? Red Sox. 2007: Yankees payroll--$207 million; Red Sox--$143 million. World Champions? Red Sox. 2013: LA Dodgers payroll--$254 million; Yankees payroll--$246 million; Red Sox payroll--$178 million. Champions? What do you know--Red Sox, again.

3 championships in the last 12 years, without once being the highest-spending team in baseball, or even their own league. Unless you're gonna put more stipulations on it and say that the Yankees and Dodgers don't count? All I know is you claimed Red Sox fans can't back up their nonsense with titles, and when I look up the list of WS champs, I see them there 8 times, without a single asterisk about how they had a high payroll.

Love it!

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by DB930

They're not "one-year anomalies". The Yankees have had higher payrolls than the Red Sox every... single... season--often by $40-90 million (the only season in the last 20 where it was even remotely close was 2001, when NY edged 'em by just $2 mil).

But that's really not the point. If you want to argue that it's easier to win by spending a lot of money, I don't think many people would disagree with that.

What I took issue with was your comparison between the Red Sox and Yankees. Both franchises have won multiple WS since the free agency era began. But according to you, Boston's don't count ("they can't back up their fans' talk with titles"), because they've spent a lot of money to win them. Yet somehow the Yankees' do count, even though they've spent dramatically more, and have the highest payroll in baseball nearly every year.

And it's not just a recent thing for NY, either. They didn't get Babe Ruth by making a shrewd "baseball" trade for him. They bought him, for (what was at the time) a huge amount of money, and built most of the foundation of their 1920s championship teams the same way. Over the next 40 years they continued to win with this same formula--by spending more than anyone else. Buying players from poor teams that needed a cash infusion, outbidding everyone for the best young talent in the days before the draft, etc. (That's not a criticism; they played within the rules, and still had to spend their money smartly, which they definitely did.) So you can't argue that they've bought their last 6 but won the first 21 on a level playing field with the rest of MLB.

You said that the Red Sox have to win "when not outspending everyone else"... which they have; they get outspent every year (by a wide margin) by a team in their own division. You apparently have no problem with the Yankees outspending everyone else (highest-payroll in baseball for 3 of their last 5 championships, within $400k of the highest for 1 of those other 2 years, within $5.5 mil of the highest in 1998). So why are the standards you set for the Red Sox so much higher than those you have for the Yankees?

i think there is a bit of misplaced angst going on. you seem to be arguing about things i didn't say. so, if i didn't argue it, i'm not going to reply to it. i will try to clear a couple things up, though.

the only time i singled out boston was due to insufferable fans. irony is a cruel mistress. (you thought i said yanks were more insufferable when i actually said the opposite). clearly not a serious comment in context.

me saying it's okay for the yanks to be that way and the sawks not to be that way due to titles was clearly a joke, too. i assure you that i have equal anomisity for any organization that exhibits entitled or self-absorbed behaviour, even my own hometown team, players and fans.

you are taking the comment about winning one without the largest budget a little too literally and filling in the blanks with things that have nothing to do with the concept i touched on. yeah, they may spend less than the yanks in any given year recently, but they were still a top-5 to top-10 payroll in recent years. if they aren't at any particular moment, they soon will be in the future, because they can do so, and others cannot. that is the point behind the joking.

i never said they bought their titles. everyone pays for their titles. they just have the ability to pay more than most of the league. that means over time that they have a higher probability of winning when compared to most of the league. it isn't a level playing field. some teams have greater opportunity than others when it comes to budgets, ceterus paribus.

edit: "Jets suck, Yankees suck, Knicks suck... Krypton sucks." - Peter Griffon.
"pats suck, red sox suck, celtics suck... bruins suck" - Noone (by the way, you're not correctly pronouncing "Celtic." C's don't sound like S's in that culture's language)