But MLB wants more..

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2247401

The New York Yankees lost between $50 million and $85 million for the 2005 season, the New York Daily News reported Sunday.

Despite drawing more than four million fans, a payroll of $200 million plus an additional $110 million in revenue sharing and luxury taxes has left the Yankees in the red, according to the paper.

"Yes, even George has his limits," one source told the Daily News.

The paper also reports that the Yankees might have to open up their checkbooks even further if a consultant hired by MLB decides the team undervalued their television rights.

The Yankees currently charge the YES Network about $60 million a year to broadcast games, but if it's found to be undervalued, the Yankees will have to make up the difference put more money into the revenue-sharing fund, the paper reported.

"They're going to owe us money," one MLB source predicted to the paper.

The final numbers won't be crunched for a few months, but it's believed the final number will be roughly $80 million when all is tallied. According to Forbes magazine, the Yankees lost $37.1 million in 2004.

Damn, even for a franchise worth like the Yankees, how can you pay out $100 Million over two years?

bullfeathers

That's not a productive answer, St.cronin.. you're saying that they're cooking the books?

That's not a productive answer, St.cronin.. you're saying that they're cooking the books?

When you own your own TV network, you don't need to cook the books to record fictional losses. Since the Yankees have no real TV contract, they record no TV income. In reality, however, they make a ton with their network.

The paper also reports that the Yankees might have to open up their checkbooks even further if a consultant hired by MLB decides the team undervalued their television rights.

The Yankees currently charge the YES Network about $60 million a year to broadcast games, but if it's found to be undervalued, the Yankees will have to make up the difference put more money into the revenue-sharing fund, the paper reported.

"They're going to owe us money," one MLB source predicted to the paper.

It's cool that they paid out all of that revenue sharing money, especially since the poor teams of the league used that cash to upgrade their rosters.

Oh wait.

It's cool that they paid out all those lucrative contracts because the rest of MLB forced them to.

Oh wait.

this just goes to show, that even a team like the yankees cannot afford those ludicris contracts.

That's not a productive answer, St.cronin.. you're saying that they're cooking the books?

Player depreciation could have a sizable effect, but not sure if that would be considered cooking the books.

When you own your own TV network, you don't need to cook the books to record fictional losses. Since the Yankees have no real TV contract, they record no TV income. In reality, however, they make a ton with their network. Precisely. You can manipulate the numbers a lot of ways to show whatever you want.

Plus, the newspaper hasn't seen the books. We're taking their word for it that they lost that money. If they did, they deserve to lose it. Steinbrenner has done his best to try and ruin baseball. But I doubt they lost anywhere close to that money. I'll bet that with revenue sources they are not including, they made a tidy profit.

It's cool that they paid out all of that revenue sharing money, especially since the poor teams of the league used that cash to upgrade their rosters.

Oh wait.It's cool that those teams that got revenue sharing have to shell out big contracts, escalated by big market teams, to crap players who don't want to play there because there's not a level playing field. And then everyone blasts them for making foolish contracts because they have a much smaller pool of players who want to go play in some godforsaken baseball hellhole like Detroit or Milwaukee.

Oh wait.

SI

Precisely. You can manipulate the numbers a lot of ways to show whatever you want.

Plus, the newspaper hasn't seen the books. We're taking their word for it that they lost that money. If they did, they deserve to lose it. Steinbrenner has done his best to try and ruin baseball. But I doubt they lost anywhere close to that money. I'll bet that with revenue sources they are not including, they made a tidy profit.Exactly- I'm sure the Yankees lost money on paper. But the Yankee ownership group (re: Steinbrenner) made money hand over fist. It's all about how you want to pretend you're making and losing money. Basically, make the Yankees look like they're losing money so they don't have to pay as much in taxes but reap it other places (YES). I think we're a long way from seeing George in the poor house.

SI

It's cool that those teams that got revenue sharing have to shell out big contracts, escalated by big market teams, to crap players who don't want to play there because there's not a level playing field. And then everyone blasts them for making foolish contracts because they have a much smaller pool of players who want to go play in some godforsaken baseball hellhole like Detroit or Milwaukee.

Oh wait.

SI
So, you think that the only way you can upgrade your roster is by signing free agents? You can upgrade by trading, and by spending more resources on scouting as well.

Oh, c'mon, I know you're smarter than this. I'm not saying there aren't some teams pocketing their revenue sharing but you can't tell me that it's much easier to be the Yankees than to be anyone else.

Point me towards league scouting cost rankings and I'll take that off the "immaterial" list. If you spend the most in the league on scouting but a low payroll, people are still going to blast you for having a low payroll. Do you know, say, Minnesota's or Oakland's scouting costs? How about the Yankees or Dodgers?

As for trades, it sure as heck helps your bargaining power if you can absorb crappy contracts. If you eat part of the cost, you can actually get back good stuff in return (see: Carlos Delgado's trade). No only that, but if you can spend bucks, you can get better quality players. Even if they leave, you get draft picks as compensation, making it quicker and easier to rebuild.

Never mind that being rich means you don't have to worry about draft signability. You can go fishing for 1st and 2nd round talent that is represented by Scott Boras in the later rounds because you can cough up that cash to take a chance while other teams have to fill their systems with guys they know they can afford. You know, talent that you can't afford to blow a bunch of cash on who has never used a wooden bat or pitched to anything above high school talent.

SI

A few points.

1. The Yankees are almost certainly lying about their revenue-- just like every other team has doing for years. The main reason for the YES network was probably to take advantage of the same loophole that the Cubs and Braves exploited for years.

Before YES, the Yanks had to accurately report their revenue, and it was to their detriment considering how most teams hide revenue.

2. No amount of Yankee signings forces small market teams to make stupid signings. The Royals and Pirates and such teams should not be spending 4-5 million dollars on replaceable talent. Small market teams continue to do this.

If you leave alone the Derek Bells of the world and spend that five in Latin America or Asia, you'll get at least an equivalent payout within five years. The diffierence, though, is that your scouting builds renewable resources.

3. Revenue sharing is useless without a guaruntee that the teams use the money to improve their on field performance.

4. Tieing Revenue Sharing to payroll is stupid and transparent. It's just a de facto salary cap. Unfortunately, most fans are too stupid to see through it.

All but the five or so smallest teams fans should be annoyed with it. It's just an excuse for greedy owners and poor fron office personnell to whine about market inequities. I'm still waiting for Oakland to stop winning.

The same Oakland A's who have never made it out of the first round, losing to vastly better funded teams?

The same Oakland A's who built their empire on the backs of essentially three very good pitchers?

The same Oakland A's who will have had to trade away all of those very good pitchers proabably by the end of this week?

The same Oakland A's who will have a hard time winning their division now that they have a rival who is willing to throw money around?

You can't tell me that having more money doesn't help erase big mistakes any more than I can tell you that these smaller teams haven't made some mistakes- every team does. But therein lies the rub- the Yankees can piss away $5M a year without even blinking while a team like the Pirates gets crippled by Operation Shutdown.

For instance, the Royals have $22M to play with this offseason and in the first week, Giles, Burnett, and Furcal all told them to take a hike and that they didn't even want to listen to their offers. So, now, they're going to go spend that money on some asshats like Reggie Sanders or Elmer Dessens or some other piece of crap because no one will take their money.

Not only that but this is directly caused by the converse of your faulty assumption of "no amount of Yankee signings forces small market teams to make stupid signings". If the Mets doesn't go out and overpay for Billy Wagner than the Jays don't fork over an insane amount for BJ Ryan and the Phils don't pay 3 years for a 38yo Tom Gordon. When you're directly competing with 29 other teams for players, everything you do affects everyone else.

As to your points about Central America or Asia- everyone is doing that now and it's no guarantee any more than handing an amateur draft rookie a $3M signing bonus, only with more csah at risk. For every Hideki Matsui, there's a Kazuo Matsui. For every Jose Contreras 2005 vintage, there's a Jose Contreras 2004 vintage.

SI

4. Tieing Revenue Sharing to payroll is stupid and transparent. It's just a de facto salary cap. Unfortunately, most fans are too stupid to see through it.


Maybe that's what people want?

i'm all for a salary cap in baseball. and that's coming from a fan of the team with the 2nd highest payroll in baseball.

sports without salary caps are weak. they reward teams with $$ and don't reward teams that put the effort into delveloping players

You're missing a few facts here.

1. The Blue Jays are the team that blew up the market by giving that huge contract for too many years to Ryan. That forced the Mets to up the ante on Wagner. The Jays aren't most people's idea of a big market team.

2. The playoffs are a crapshoot. It's silly to point to the A's playoff performance as an idictment of the current finacial system in Baseball. They've been a hell of a lot more successful than planty of huge teams. And I could have just as easily used the Twins in my example.

3. Players that you sign in most of Latin America and Asia are not subject to the draft. Those players sign young for tiny signing bonuses. You get control of them for six years at a remarkably low salary. And you can churn them for more prospects from other people's systems when they get too expensive.

Both the A's and Twins have done this. The Marlins have done something similar with their 'fire sales.'

When I'm talking about scouting Asia, I'm talking about Hee Seop Choi and Cheng Ming Wang-- young players that come over cheap. Even if they only become marginal major leaguers, they still give you much more bang for your buck than Elmer Dessens or Reggie Sanders.

It's the multiple five million dollar mistakes that kill these teams. They should stop making them. Beane has made a few dumb moves. But he keeps them to a minimum.

You can get rid of a single mistake (Jermaine Dye) provided you have something to sweeten the deal.

The Royals, Pirates, et al. make one or two of these dumb signings a year. But the Cubs and other larger market teams also kill their rosters with them. The Mets just made one with the Lo Duca signing.

Small market teams, though, do, as you've said, have less room to make stupid mistakes. So, they should stop making them.

It's a fallacy to say that the Yanks are inflating salaries. They are to a lesser extent than a few other teams. Boston and Texas blew out the position player market. The only thing the Yanks are guilty of is setting the market for closers by paying Mariano, the greatest closer of all time, marginally more than the highest reliever salary and paying those dumb bonuses on extensions they were forced to give to Clemens and Johnson. Every other signing that they've made has been at the previously set market.

The market isn't exclusively set at the top player. The Yankees overpaid Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams when it was time to sign them to extensions- that inflates the market for everyone below them. How about every single RP they've ever signed and turned middle relievers from the fungible replacement level guys to $3M per year inconsistencies on the salary?

SI

The market isn't exclusively set at the top player. The Yankees overpaid Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams when it was time to sign them to extensions- that inflates the market for everyone below them. How about every single RP they've ever signed and turned middle relievers from the fungible replacement level guys to $3M per year inconsistencies on the salary?

SI

It is the top guys that set market. Them... and the early guys. The Yanks haven't recently signed the either the top guys or the early guys. It's revising history to say that they've disproportionately raised the bar on free agents.

The Yanks only paid Bernie Williams to the deal they did after the Red Sox had offered almost the same amount. Derek Jeter's was about what the market dictated.

If you're looking for the position player that was out of line you should be looking at Giambi.

Derek Jeter at 10 years/$189M was insanely out of touch with the rest of baseball at the time.

Can we all agree that A-Rod's was a once in a forever contract that will not be duplicated without a major shift in how baseball operates (ie magically all teams have $150M payrolls or something)?

Even if we don't, look at A-Rod: at the time, easily the best young hitter in the game. Manny, one of the other best hitters in the game, gets a contract similar to Jeter's, actually less. Jeter is nowhere near the caliber of hitters these guys were, are, or ever will be. He was, is, and never will be the power hitter these guys were.

No one else besides Manny or A-Rod have gotten cash even close to that since- Helton at 9/$145 is the next in line. Pujols at 7/$100 is the only one in the last couple of years. Jeter is not nearly the hitter either of those guys are and they have contracts significantly lower.

SI

Derek Jeter at 10 years/$189M was insanely out of touch with the rest of baseball at the time.

Can we all agree that A-Rod's was a once in a forever contract that will not be duplicated without a major shift in how baseball operates (ie magically all teams have $150M payrolls or something)?

Even if we don't, look at A-Rod: at the time, easily the best young hitter in the game. Manny, one of the other best hitters in the game, gets a contract similar to Jeter's, actually less. Jeter is nowhere near the caliber of hitters these guys were, are, or ever will be. He was, is, and never will be the power hitter these guys were.

No one else besides Manny or A-Rod have gotten cash even close to that since- Helton at 9/$145 is the next in line. Pujols at 7/$100 is the only one in the last couple of years. Jeter is not nearly the hitter either of those guys are and they have contracts significantly lower.

SI

My point is that Jeter's contract was in line with what the market had indicated. He got his deal after A-Rod's and it was significantly less. Considering he was only two years removed from a season where he was the best player in baseball and in the same offseason Manyy got $20M/yr, his contract was what one would expect.

Many people accuse the Yankees of inflating contracts. They have obstinately waited until the market has been set on free agents before making their big push ever since the days of Bonds and Maddux just using them for leverage. We're talking over ten years of waiting for the market to be set with the exception of Giambi, and if you really want to stretch, Mussina.

Are you telling me that if you look at the five or so other teams in the Yanks general revenue range we haven't seen them all blow up contracts more than that?

The point could be made that they are screwing with arbitration by overpaying slightly to keep their guys. But they are not killing the free agent market. And Jeter's contract really has little impact on the Royals.

Small market teams need to start sucking it up and performing better in the front office. Teams like Tampa, the Royals, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati can't blame the Yankees for how lousy they are. Rather, they can, but they'll stay terrible.

Look at the A's and the Twins. They don't spend all year whining. They go out and put together winning teams.

Even better, look at Cleveland. They were a mid-market team that was punished for doing well. They wouldn't have had such a dry spell if they'd not had to pay out sixty or so million in revenue sharing to teams like the Phillies because of baseball's stupid revenue sharing rules.

But, still, they managed to put a wining team back together in short order.

Maybe that's what people want?

And most people say it's because prices have gotten out of hand. I guess none of them has ever tried to see a live NFL, NBA, or NHL game. Salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices.

Then, there are those that say competetive balance is achieved that way. But the dawn of Free Agency brought the most competetive balance we've ever seen in baseball.

But all that is beside the point. The way the current system works doesn't move toward either goal.

I always find it funny that people in this country are usually pro-capitalism and anti-socialism, EXCEPT when it comes to sports. Baseball is the last major sport left where it isn't completely, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". The Yankees don't have a huge payroll solely because of their huge market. The Mets are in the same market, and they are only now starting to catch up. And look at Boston. Boston is a small town, didn't win for 80 years, is not in a good geographic spot for baseball (cold most of the year), and they STILL could roll out a huge payroll because of their marketing and business practices. And Boston bought a title more than the Yankees did. The Yankees' recent titles were on account of their farm system (Bernie, Jeter, Pettite, Posada, Rivera) and shrewd midlevel FA's (O'Neill, Brosius, etc). They haven't won since they went on the spending spree.

i'm all for a salary cap in baseball. and that's coming from a fan of the team with the 2nd highest payroll in baseball.

sports without salary caps are weak. they reward teams with $$ and don't reward teams that put the effort into delveloping players

Sports with salary caps are pointless - its an unneeded restraint of trade existing primarily so that owners can usually get a bigger chunk of the pie.

I always find it funny that people in this country are usually pro-capitalism and anti-socialism, EXCEPT when it comes to sports. Baseball is the last major sport left where it isn't completely, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". The Yankees don't have a huge payroll solely because of their huge market. The Mets are in the same market, and they are only now starting to catch up. And look at Boston. Boston is a small town, didn't win for 80 years, is not in a good geographic spot for baseball (cold most of the year), and they STILL could roll out a huge payroll because of their marketing and business practices. And Boston bought a title more than the Yankees did. The Yankees' recent titles were on account of their farm system (Bernie, Jeter, Pettite, Posada, Rivera) and shrewd midlevel FA's (O'Neill, Brosius, etc). They haven't won since they went on the spending spree.

yup - ditto. I also find it hilarious that many of these same fans are college fans, which is even more socialist in nature when it comes to player salaries, but not so when it comes to talent acquistion. Look, no one is saying that Money doesn't play a role -but money does not play THE role, and its an excuse used by the Pirates and Kansas City's of the world.

trola,
the Yankees did not lose a $100 million by any stretch of the imagination. the TV contract, for which YES pays $60 million per year, is worth at least double that on the open market- the Yanks choose to funnel funds to other entities (see the Red Sox and NESN), but it doesn't change the fact.

yup - ditto. I also find it hilarious that many of these same fans are college fans, which is even more socialist in nature when it comes to player salaries, but not so when it comes to talent acquistion. Look, no one is saying that Money doesn't play a role -but money does not play THE role, and its an excuse used by the Pirates and Kansas City's of the world.
This is just semantics, but I would say that the college system is more of the corporate fascism type than anything else, if you think of the Universities as corporations. They make millions and millions of dollars, plus get a ton of marketing, and play their indentured 'employees' (players) what amounts to little more than minimum wage. If the employees don't like where they are and leave, they are penalized. What is important is the 'state' (NCAA), and rules are put into place not to benefit the individual but rather to keep the 'integrity' of the game, such as not allowing the players to have part time jobs. Besides emphasis of state over the individual, another aspect of economic facsism is strong government-business partnerships, so that the state could better control the corporations to serve the interests of the state. The NCAA has it's conferences.

I'm happy with baseball as it is. In all sports, regardless of whether there is a salary cap or not, you have great teams and you have shit teams. When it comes down to it, what's the real difference between the Cincinnati Bengals of the past 15 years and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays? Neither have had management or owners who have a plan to win in their sport.

Sports are a zero-sum game - when one set of teams wins, another set has to lose. So while people want to point out how the Pittsburgh Pirates haven't been able to win since the early 90s because of economics, what's the reason for the 49ers or the Texans or the Lions sucking? Nearly all habitually bad sports franchises have one thing in common - inept management and tightwad/uncaring/inept owners.

I'm happy with baseball as it is. In all sports, regardless of whether there is a salary cap or not, you have great teams and you have shit teams. When it comes down to it, what's the real difference between the Cincinnati Bengals of the past 15 years and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays? Neither have had management or owners who have a plan to win in their sport.

Sports are a zero-sum game - when one set of teams wins, another set has to lose. So while people want to point out how the Pittsburgh Pirates haven't been able to win since the early 90s because of economics, what's the reason for the 49ers or the Texans or the Lions sucking? Nearly all habitually bad sports franchises have one thing in common - inept management and tightwad/uncaring/inept owners.

The Devil Rays have to endure 162 editions of suck. At least the Texans only have 16 games.

So? Percentage-wise, the worst baseball teams win far more often than the worst football teams, so it evens out in a bizarre way. At least with the Devil Rays, you can og into a weekend with a reasonable expectation that they'll win 1 of the 3 games they play. With football, you could get 1 or 2 wins in an entire year.

So? Percentage-wise, the worst baseball teams win far more often than the worst football teams, so it evens out in a bizarre way. At least with the Devil Rays, you can og into a weekend with a reasonable expectation that they'll win 1 of the 3 games they play. With football, you could get 1 or 2 wins in an entire year.


I guess it just feels more hopeless in baseball.

I think K hit it on the mark - the worst baseball team of all time had a winning percentage of rought .300 - the best had a winning percentage of close to .700 . For all the talk about "unfairness", baseball does fine.

I guess it just feels more hopeless in baseball.
I think the problem is that since the Yankees went nuts with spending, people have pointed to a few franchises who never have a chance of winning and automatically equate it with lack of money. The reality is, there are always going to be poorly run franchises who can't win, no matter what. The economics are just an excuse. If/when those teams turn it around, they will become the As/Twins of the league, and othe rteams will fall behind them. It's cyclical, so you don't have teams changing positions every year like i nthe short-attention-span NFL. That's one of the things I like most about the MLB, actually - the sense of history and slowly evolving changes in the league that play out over a period of 5-15-25 years. You can look back and see how teams evolved or devolved over a period of years.

Now, don't get me wrong, certainly having $200M to spend gives a team an edge over most teams with a $50M budget. But as someone pointed out above, while the Yankees continue to make the playoffs, they haven't won it all since they began spending indiscriminately on free agents. The core of their championship teams came from their farm system, plus good value/missing pieces-type free agents that other teams could have signed or traded for. Mussina, Big Unit, Giambi, Sheffield, Matsui, Brown, etc. - none of them have a championship.

My point is that Jeter's contract was in line with what the market had indicated. He got his deal after A-Rod's and it was significantly less. Considering he was only two years removed from a season where he was the best player in baseball and in the same offseason Manyy got $20M/yr, his contract was what one would expect.What year was he the best player in baseball? 1999 was the only year IN HIS CAREER he was even in the top 10 in his league in OPS and that was at 5th. He was never in the top 10 players in the game yet got paid the second highest.

Many people accuse the Yankees of inflating contracts. They have obstinately waited until the market has been set on free agents before making their big push ever since the days of Bonds and Maddux just using them for leverage. We're talking over ten years of waiting for the market to be set with the exception of Giambi, and if you really want to stretch, Mussina.

Are you telling me that if you look at the five or so other teams in the Yanks general revenue range we haven't seen them all blow up contracts more than that?The Yankees may unfairly get the brunt of the criticism. It's hard not to be the poster child when you have the top salary every year. And it's not as if the Yankees aren't part of the problem. They're just not the only problem. But my point from before remains- they are helping.

People love to talk about their "homegrown" team from the 90s. Any other team would have had to make tough choices to decide who to keep. Instead the Yankees helped push the market by resigning all of them to inflated contracts.

The point could be made that they are screwing with arbitration by overpaying slightly to keep their guys. But they are not killing the free agent market. And Jeter's contract really has little impact on the Royals.
And, again, that's where you are completely missing the point. Everything every other team does affects all the other teams. Do any other teams force the Royals to, say, trade for Terrance Long? No- but why did they have to make that move? Because they had to trade Carlos Beltran the year before because he wouldn't resign. How about Jose Lima last year? No one else would even look at the Royals except pitchers who wanted under $5M even if the Royals offered it up.

Now could they have targeted people better than Long and Lima? Yes, but when you don't have the cash to go spend $10M on good pitching, you take a lot bigger of a chance on whoever you are signing and are much more likely to fail. Yes, there is replacement level talent but it's not as if it's easy to find, as you claim. Heck, the Royals are even pretty good at it- Raul Ibanez, Jose Lima's 8-0 off the indepedent league scrap heap, Darrell May's first year back in the US, Emil Brown, Jaime Cerda, Shawn Camp, etc. But you can't build a team around that- you can only use it to plug holes and it's a hit-or-miss proposition and even someone who looks good statistically in limited time can flame out completely (see: Pickering, Calvin). In short, it's not reliable and not easy.

I can't believe baseball numbers people still lean on the crutch that this is entirely management's fault. You know that it's still all a percentages game- there are no absolutes. Many a player have done well and fallen off the face of the earth or vice versa and come out of nowhere. The money you pay is directly proportional to the chance that a player fails/succeeds. If a player has had a lot of success in the past and is very likely to do well in the future, he is at a premium. If a player has had lots of success in the past but also lot of failure and is basically a boom or bust guy, then he will be much cheaper but still carries a decent price tag because he has had that success in the past.

If there were absolutes, why would we even bother playing the game? We would know who win and we would know who loses before even playing. Fantasy baseball would be similarly pointless- it'd be easy if you knew who was going to succeed. And by that same token, as fans, it's why hope springs eternal- we hope our team bucks those trends. But to deny that money plays a huge role in hedging your bets- how can you even attempt to make that argument. How is that even fair unless you're looking at it solely through your team's views rather than what is fair to everyone?

Small market teams need to start sucking it up and performing better in the front office. Teams like Tampa, the Royals, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati can't blame the Yankees for how lousy they are. Rather, they can, but they'll stay terrible.

Look at the A's and the Twins. They don't spend all year whining. They go out and put together winning teams.
Nice to see you have to resort to cheap shots to back your argument :rolleyes:

Even better, look at Cleveland. They were a mid-market team that was punished for doing well. They wouldn't have had such a dry spell if they'd not had to pay out sixty or so million in revenue sharing to teams like the Phillies because of baseball's stupid revenue sharing rules.

But, still, they managed to put a wining team back together in short order.Yes, they did quite well, but even they had to endure 3 losing seasons to get back to being competitive and there's no guarantee that success lasts in this league. What's to say they don't all of a sudden go back into medicority or losing because some of those guys had career years and have peaked? Let's let them actually make the playoffs before we claim they have a winning team put back together.

SI

You really believe that all things (i.e., money) being equal, Carlos Beltran would have come back to the Royals? That team is going nowhere fast mainly because they don't know what the hell they're doing. Not having money to throw at people who would have no interest in playing for a losing team otherwise is just masking their real problems. That team kept Tony Muser employed for like 5 years!

95% of players who deserved big contracts wouldn't want to play for them, and if they really did have $50M extra money to throw at free agents or to resign their own "talent," they would end up spending unwisely because they can, not because those players are worth it. Miss out on the top tier free agents? They'd be in line to give the Russ Ortiz's of the world $36M contracts! Why? Because their management is fucking stupid!

What year was he the best player in baseball? 1999 was the only year IN HIS CAREER he was even in the top 10 in his league in OPS and that was at 5th. He was never in the top 10 players in the game yet got paid the second highest.

In 1999, Jeter was certainly the best player in the American League and should have won the MVP. That he finished sixth that year was an absolute joke.

The Yankees may unfairly get the brunt of the criticism. It's hard not to be the poster child when you have the top salary every year. And it's not as if the Yankees aren't part of the problem. They're just not the only problem. But my point from before remains- they are helping.

People love to talk about their "homegrown" team from the 90s. Any other team would have had to make tough choices to decide who to keep. Instead the Yankees helped push the market by resigning all of them to inflated contracts.

Well, you're pointing out something that has little to do with the point you're trying to make. The Yankees are not primarily responsible for the inflation of salaries over the last ten years or so. They generally only sign players after the market has een set by other teams.

And there are about ten teams that could have kept their teams together during the nineties. Both NY teams, Both LA area teams, Both Chicago teams, the Orioles, The Red Sox, The Mariners, and Texas all made/make enough money to keep winners together. Cleveland certainly could have kept their winning product on the field longer if it weren't for the asinine revenue sharing rules in place. Philly, the Braves, and Arizona also make enough bread to keep a success cycle going as long a they make moderately shrewd decisions.


And, again, that's where you are completely missing the point. Everything every other team does affects all the other teams. Do any other teams force the Royals to, say, trade for Terrance Long? No- but why did they have to make that move? Because they had to trade Carlos Beltran the year before because he wouldn't resign. How about Jose Lima last year? No one else would even look at the Royals except pitchers who wanted under $5M even if the Royals offered it up.

Now could they have targeted people better than Long and Lima? Yes, but when you don't have the cash to go spend $10M on good pitching, you take a lot bigger of a chance on whoever you are signing and are much more likely to fail. Yes, there is replacement level talent but it's not as if it's easy to find, as you claim. Heck, the Royals are even pretty good at it- Raul Ibanez, Jose Lima's 8-0 off the indepedent league scrap heap, Darrell May's first year back in the US, Emil Brown, Jaime Cerda, Shawn Camp, etc. But you can't build a team around that- you can only use it to plug holes and it's a hit-or-miss proposition and even someone who looks good statistically in limited time can flame out completely (see: Pickering, Calvin). In short, it's not reliable and not easy.

No, it's you who miss the point. You should never be trading for Neifi Perez or Terrence Long or signing them to multi-million dollar contracts. They are players that perform almost exactly at replacement level. If you take the thirty or forty million dollars that the Royals have invested in replacement level players (Tucker, Perez, Long, Knoblauch, Hernandez, et al.) and invest it in scouting and player development, they'd have the farm system that the Twins and A's do.

The Twins and A's know enough to only pay for impact players. Beane realized that Chavez was his best player, and made sure to keep him. He's churned his other stars for real talent or draft picks. The Royals have let themseves be butt-raped on every deal they've made for departing players and have squandered most of their draft picks.

I can't believe baseball numbers people still lean on the crutch that this is entirely management's fault. You know that it's still all a percentages game- there are no absolutes. Many a player have done well and fallen off the face of the earth or vice versa and come out of nowhere. The money you pay is directly proportional to the chance that a player fails/succeeds. If a player has had a lot of success in the past and is very likely to do well in the future, he is at a premium. If a player has had lots of success in the past but also lot of failure and is basically a boom or bust guy, then he will be much cheaper but still carries a decent price tag because he has had that success in the past.

It's funny that you say this considering that some teams manage to keep coming up with high-level performers. It's not a perfect science. But it's a hell of a lot more perfect than Baird and company are capable of understanding.

If there were absolutes, why would we even bother playing the game? We would know who win and we would know who loses before even playing. Fantasy baseball would be similarly pointless- it'd be easy if you knew who was going to succeed. And by that same token, as fans, it's why hope springs eternal- we hope our team bucks those trends. But to deny that money plays a huge role in hedging your bets- how can you even attempt to make that argument. How is that even fair unless you're looking at it solely through your team's views rather than what is fair to everyone?

How is it fair to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from George Steinbrenner? Because he has paid out that much since revenue sharing started. And the majority of that money has just been pocketed by other 'poor' billionaires.


Nice to see you have to resort to cheap shots to back your argument :rolleyes:

It's not a cheap shot. The Royals management has been terrible. Oakland is just as lousy a market and they are about the winningest team of the last ten years.

Yes, they did quite well, but even they had to endure 3 losing seasons to get back to being competitive and there's no guarantee that success lasts in this league. What's to say they don't all of a sudden go back into medicority or losing because some of those guys had career years and have peaked? Let's let them actually make the playoffs before we claim they have a winning team put back together.

SI

Did you miss the whole point that Cleveland, which is not a huge market, paid out something like sixty million dollars in revenue sharing during their hey day while the Phillies, which are in a huge market, collected nearly the same amount. There were plenty of articles about how that extra fifty or so mil was the margin that let the Phils steal Thome away, which led to the rebuilding phase of the Indians.

The revenue sharing scheme doesn't accomplish what it should. I think MLB should share revenues. But I don't think it should punish teams for maximizing their business performance or putting together good teams. There are better ways to set up revenue sharing.

In 1999, Jeter was certainly the best player in the American League and should have won the MVP. That he finished sixth that year was an absolute joke.
"Certainly the best player in the American League..."? It's far from certain he was the best Shortstop - both Nomar and A-Rod arguably had as good, if not better offensive seasons than Jeter. And please don't tell me you are one of the few holdouts that still thinks Jeter has been a good fielder?

How is it fair to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from George Steinbrenner? Because he has paid out that much since revenue sharing started. And the majority of that money has just been pocketed by other 'poor' billionaires.
"Steal"? I'm sorry, I must've missed the news where the Yankees play intraquad games only. While I don't agree with the exact methodology of the current revenue-sharing plan, I also have no problem seeing the Yankees share some of the money they bring in given the following:

a) They (and the Mets) have a tremendous built-in advantage of the concentration not just of population but of highly valued advertising demographics; compare the market that the Yankees and Mets share vs. the one occupied by say Kansas City - to truly level the field a bit, a 3rd and maybe even a 4th team should be added to New York or the immediate vicinity;

b) They aren't playing amongst themselves; they play every other team in the AL, and some of the draw for the games isn't just the home team

The fairest solution to revenue sharing in baseball would be for all teams to keep half of their ticket, radio and TV revenue and pool the other half into a central fund that is then even re-distributed to all the teams. That will never work of course, since the majority of TV and radio revenue comes from local contracts that are often given to another business owned by the team's owner, and thus the actual value of the contracts can be fudged in the books, unlike the NFL where the TV contracts are national and there's no hiding the actual value of the deals.

b) They aren't playing amongst themselves; they play every other team in the AL, and some of the draw for the games isn't just the home team
This is an illogical reason. You are assuming that the draw for Team B coming into NY is more than the draw for NY going to play at Team B's stadium. That is false for a vast majority of teams, maybe even all the teams. The Yankees therefore, having a team with high visibility players, is in itself a form of revenue sharing since they act as a draw for away crowds, completely opposite of what you were trying to argue.

"Certainly the best player in the American League..."? It's far from certain he was the best Shortstop - both Nomar and A-Rod arguably had as good, if not better offensive seasons than Jeter. And please don't tell me you are one of the few holdouts that still thinks Jeter has been a good fielder?


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
1999 25 NYY AL 158 627 134 219 37 9 24 102 19 8 91 116 .349 .438 .552 346 3 6 5 12 12
1999 25 BOS AL 135 532 103 190 42 4 27 104 14 3 51 39 .357 .418 .603 321 0 4 7 8 11
1999 23 SEA AL 129 502 110 143 25 0 42 111 21 7 56 109 .285 .357 .586 294 1 8 2 5 12


I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out both who the three players above are and which one of them had the best season.


"Steal"? I'm sorry, I must've missed the news where the Yankees play intraquad games only. While I don't agree with the exact methodology of the current revenue-sharing plan, I also have no problem seeing the Yankees share some of the money they bring in given the following:

a) They (and the Mets) have a tremendous built-in advantage of the concentration not just of population but of highly valued advertising demographics; compare the market that the Yankees and Mets share vs. the one occupied by say Kansas City - to truly level the field a bit, a 3rd and maybe even a 4th team should be added to New York or the immediate vicinity;

b) They aren't playing amongst themselves; they play every other team in the AL, and some of the draw for the games isn't just the home team

The fairest solution to revenue sharing in baseball would be for all teams to keep half of their ticket, radio and TV revenue and pool the other half into a central fund that is then even re-distributed to all the teams. That will never work of course, since the majority of TV and radio revenue comes from local contracts that are often given to another business owned by the team's owner, and thus the actual value of the contracts can be fudged in the books, unlike the NFL where the TV contracts are national and there's no hiding the actual value of the deals.

That would not be fair. The big market owners all paid more money for their teams than the small market ones. And as for big market teams, the Yankees are something of an outlier mainly because of unparalleled management. The revenue sharing system in place is essentially just theft. And honestly there are plaenty of reports that Steinbrenner and company have at times been about this far from going AL Davis on MLB. A suit that he'd probably win.

It would be better for baseball to find a revenue sharing scheme that actually encouraged good management rather than being simple welfare.

The idea that adding more teams to the New York market would even things out is also stupid. No one's going to stop following the Yanks or Mets to pick up some expansion team. And no one wants anyone's lousy transplant either. That's not even getting to the problem of where such a team would even play.

I always find it funny that people in this country are usually pro-capitalism and anti-socialism, EXCEPT when it comes to sports. Baseball is the last major sport left where it isn't completely, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

It's the same reason that sports leagues get some leeway from antitrust prosecution (well, aside from baseball's absurd exemption): they are marketing competition, an edeavor that would be "completely ineffective if there were no rules on which the competitors agreed to create and define the competition to be marketed." (NCAA v. Board of Regents). Rules are inherent to sports. Some are on the field, some are off. Three strikes you're out, don't use steroids, you can't be drafted in the NFL when you're 18... It's not a matter of socialism or capitalism, it's a matter of defining your sport and figuring out the boundaries of fair competition.

There happen to be some of us (I would think on this message board, a lot of us) who feel that the competition should also extend to off field personnel manuevering, what you might refer to as the "front office" part of the game, both as an entertaining part of league in itself, and as a necessary condition to having consistently satisfying competition on the field. Where you want competition to thrive (on field and off field), rules should exist to create a level playing field. As an example, would you want to play in an online FOF league where you had a salary cap of $25m, and you know certain of your opponents had a cap of $200m? Seriously? Forget about it. Trying to convince FOF afficionados that money is not important to a GM is, I think, a spectacularly lost cause.

It's the same reason that sports leagues get some leeway from antitrust prosecution (well, aside from baseball's absurd exemption): they are marketing competition, an edeavor that would be "completely ineffective if there were no rules on which the competitors agreed to create and define the competition to be marketed." (NCAA v. Board of Regents). Rules are inherent to sports. Some are on the field, some are off. Three strikes you're out, don't use steroids, you can't be drafted in the NFL when you're 18... It's not a matter of socialism or capitalism, it's a matter of defining your sport and figuring out the boundaries of fair competition.
The government passes laws and regulations intending to increase competition in business as well. Competition between businesses creates a better product for the consumer, just as competition in baseball creates a better product. The anti-trust exemption of baseball just makes it so that you can suck hard and still stay in business. Trust me, if there were no anti-trust exemptions, someone would start a new team in Philly and try to compete the Phillies out of business.

bullfeathers
Yeah, I don't buy it either.

Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
1999 25 NYY AL 158 627 134 219 37 9 24 102 19 8 91 116 .349 .438 .552 346 3 6 5 12 12
1999 25 BOS AL 135 532 103 190 42 4 27 104 14 3 51 39 .357 .418 .603 321 0 4 7 8 11
1999 23 SEA AL 129 502 110 143 25 0 42 111 21 7 56 109 .285 .357 .586 294 1 8 2 5 12


I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out both who the three players above are and which one of them had the best season.
You're seriously pushing the idea that one of these three shortstops was clearly superior to the others that year? Jesus you have incredibly effective Yankee blinders on.

Jeter gets points for playing the most games and for the superior OBP.

Nomar gets points for having the best overall offensive rate between his OBP and his SLG.

A-Rod gets points when you do a park-adjustment on the numbers and for being by far the superior fielder amongst the three.

That would not be fair. The big market owners all paid more money for their teams than the small market ones. And as for big market teams, the Yankees are something of an outlier mainly because of unparalleled management.
Bullshit. The Yankees are an outlier due to their history and their location. And the amount the owners paid is inconsequential given that every owner turns a handsome profit on their investment when they eventually sell. Yeah, Steinbrenner paid more when he bought the Yankees, and he'll get more if/when he ever sells.

The revenue sharing system in place is essentially just theft. And honestly there are plaenty of reports that Steinbrenner and company have at times been about this far from going AL Davis on MLB. A suit that he'd probably win.
I don't know enough of the legalities to know if he'd win or not; I'm curious how MLB having an anti-trust exemption changes things in comparison to the NFL which doesn't.

Theft - that's a funny word in this case. I take it you deplore the socialist economy of the NFL then?

It would be better for baseball to find a revenue sharing scheme that actually encouraged good management rather than being simple welfare.
No question. The current scheme is flawed, and the fairest solution is unworkable given the localized nature of broadcast revenues and the unlikelihood you'd ever get accurate revenue information for those deals to split fairly.

The idea that adding more teams to the New York market would even things out is also stupid. No one's going to stop following the Yanks or Mets to pick up some expansion team. And no one wants anyone's lousy transplant either. That's not even getting to the problem of where such a team would even play.
MLB should never have allowed the Dodgers and Giants to move - they should've expanded instead.

That said, while I acknowledge that any new team introduced to the NY-area market would be at a huge disadvantage initially, I'm not so sure it would be unworkable, especially if you put a team across the Hudson in New Jersey and played to the NJ vs. NY element.

The problem would be with putting only one extra team in the area - whichever league it is, the associated NY team would raise a shitstorm of protest. If you could put two teams in the area it would lessen this argument.

All that considered, I know it would be very difficult to pull off and won't happen anytime soon. But that doesn't lessen the fact that the New York teams enjoy a big advantage over most other baseball teams in terms of market, both quality (read: attractive to advertisers) and quantity.

The government passes laws and regulations intending to increase competition in business as well. Competition between businesses creates a better product for the consumer, just as competition in baseball creates a better product. The anti-trust exemption of baseball just makes it so that you can suck hard and still stay in business. Trust me, if there were no anti-trust exemptions, someone would start a new team in Philly and try to compete the Phillies out of business.

Key difference: competition is not the product in business. The product is the product in business. Competition is the product in sports.

In business regulation, competition is a means to promote consumer welfare (i.e. to get consumers the best product at the lowest prices). It's not illegal to have a monopoly (no competition) if you get it by just being better than other companies. Anticompetitive tactics are not bad because they hurt competition, they're bad because they hurt consumers by restricting supply, driving up prices and reducing economic efficiency. In sports, the competition is not a means to an end, it is the end. The rules exist to protect the competition itself. This is a significant difference.

When competition is the end, we have these ideas about having fair starting conditions and abiding by rules to restrict competition within certain constraints. In a sprint, everyone starts from the same place and ends at the same place and they all start at the same time. That's the point of the thing. It would be no fun if someone started half-way to the finish line. In business we don't care. There we just want someone to cross the finish line (whatever that metaphorically may be), it doesn't matter where they started from or if they ride a motorcycle instead of running.

Except the problem where all of these "normal business" models break down is that in no other business does the health of a company rely on the health of its competitors. Microsoft wants to bury Sun and other OS providers so that they can get a complete monopoly. Chrysler wants to try and crush GM, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, etc. If the competitors go out of business, people will still need operating systems and cars. If the Yankees run anyone who can't maintain a $100M payroll out of business, the baseball market as a whole shrinks severly.

SI

Key difference: competition is not the product in business. The product is the product in business. Competition is the product in sports.

In business regulation, competition is a means to promote consumer welfare (i.e. to get consumers the best product at the lowest prices). It's not illegal to have a monopoly (no competition) if you get it by just being better than other companies. Anticompetitive tactics are not bad because they hurt competition, they're bad because they hurt consumers by restricting supply, driving up prices and reducing economic efficiency. In sports, the competition is not a means to an end, it is the end. The rules exist to protect the competition itself. This is a significant difference.

When competition is the end, we have these ideas about having fair starting conditions and abiding by rules to restrict competition within certain constraints. In a sprint, everyone starts from the same place and ends at the same place and they all start at the same time. That's the point of the thing. It would be no fun if someone started half-way to the finish line. In business we don't care. There we just want someone to cross the finish line (whatever that metaphorically may be), it doesn't matter where they started from or if they ride a motorcycle instead of running.


Exactly - the Yankees aren't competing with the Boston Red Sox, they're competing with the New York Knicks, or the new X-men movie.

Trust me, if there were no anti-trust exemptions, someone would start a new team in Philly and try to compete the Phillies out of business.
Bullshit. There's no anti-trust exemption in the other major sports, and the rate of success of upstart leagues isn't very good. You can't just start a new team in Philly to compete for the entertainment dollars of the Phillies - you have to have other teams to play against in order for the business venture to make any sense. Someone can found a new professional baseball team in Philly, but there's no reason for MLB to admit that team into the fold if they don't want to, anti-trust exemption or not.

Exactly - the Yankees aren't competing with the Boston Red Sox, they're competing with the New York Knicks, or the new X-men movie.

They are competing with both (or are you seriously going to tell me the Yankees don't want to beat the Red Sox), just in different ways.

Look, we started here from Biggie's remark that he can't understand how anti-capitalist people are to want salary caps and revenue sharing in their sports when they want free competition in their business. My response is that these are two very different types of competition. The salary caps and revenue sharing govern the competition within the league; i.e. sports competition. The competition you're talking about above happens outside the league; i.e. business competition. There is no interest in "fair" competition in business. There is an interest in fair competition in sports. Business competion != sports competition.

It might be socialism if the government redistributed entertainment revenues between the Yankees, the Knicks, and the X-Men movie.. But having sports teams, who sell competition between the teams as their product, agree to the terms of that competition is not socialism. That is simply a necessary element of any sports league. The terms and rules of competition must be defined in order for the league to function. It's the league's job to determine how best to define those rules to allow them to compete, in a business sense, with movies and the NBA. Sometimes those rules of competition involve money, but that doesn't make them fundamentally different from any of the other rules.

You're seriously pushing the idea that one of these three shortstops was clearly superior to the others that year? Jesus you have incredibly effective Yankee blinders on.

Jeter gets points for playing the most games and for the superior OBP.

Nomar gets points for having the best overall offensive rate between his OBP and his SLG.

A-Rod gets points when you do a park-adjustment on the numbers and for being by far the superior fielder amongst the three.


1999 OPS+ (which is park adjusted)

Jeter 161
Nomar 152
A-Rod 133

Considering that only Jeter played a full season, I'd think that it's clear that he was superioir.

I can't conveniently find 1999 Win Shares. But IIRC Jeter had the highest in the league.


Bullshit. The Yankees are an outlier due to their history and their location. And the amount the owners paid is inconsequential given that every owner turns a handsome profit on their investment when they eventually sell. Yeah, Steinbrenner paid more when he bought the Yankees, and he'll get more if/when he ever sells.


That's not true. Up until the very recent past-- within the last ten years or so-- the Mets made more money and outdrew the Yankees. It's good management that has changed that.

And part of good management is location. Steinbenner is from Cleveland and he lives in Tampa. He didn't buy the Indians or Devil Rays. He knew the potential of the purchase when he made it.


Theft - that's a funny word in this case. I take it you deplore the socialist economy of the NFL then?

No. The NFL just splits the national TV revenue, which is their bigest revenue source, to even out the playing field. And they did that when the disparity was smaller.

Had baseball created a good scheme in 1978, there wouldn't have been a problem. Now, you're talking about businesses with value differences in the hundreds of millions. You can't expect the owners of teams who've built up that kind of value to lightly give it away.


No question. The current scheme is flawed, and the fairest solution is unworkable given the localized nature of broadcast revenues and the unlikelihood you'd ever get accurate revenue information for those deals to split fairly.


But that doesn't lessen the fact that the New York teams enjoy a big advantage over most other baseball teams in terms of market, both quality (read: attractive to advertisers) and quantity.

Yes NY does have an advantage. That's why you have to pay about four times more to buy the Yanks or Mets than KC.

I haven't seen a good reason why Steinbrenner should have to give away half of his hard-earned money to the Glass family and the other 'poor Susans' of MLB.

1999 OPS+ (which is park adjusted)

Jeter 161
Nomar 152
A-Rod 133

Considering that only Jeter played a full season, I'd think that it's clear that he was superioir.
I have serious doubts that A-Rod's totals were accurately calculated. The M's moved into Safeco midway through the '99 season, yet Baseball-Reference shows the park factors for the '99 season to be 103/103, consistent with all the recent previous Kingdome seasons and not at all consistent with the subsequent Safeco seasons (typically 91-93). We know that Safeco is the most extreme pitcher's park in the game, so either the Kingdome was abnormally hitter friendly that year to offset the pitching friendly effects of Safeco, or that park factor number is not accurate.

Also consider that the park effects rating for Yankee Stadium in '99 was an extreme outlier (91/92), by far the lowest rating of the Stadium since the early '70's remodel (ratings typically ranging between 98-102). Was there really something that made it inherently that much more difficult to hit in Yankee Stadium that year, or was it a fluke result?

I can't conveniently find 1999 Win Shares. But IIRC Jeter had the highest in the league.
Maybe. I'm not entirely convinced though given how mediocre his fielding is considered to be by most sabermetric analysis.

[qoute]That's not true. Up until the very recent past-- within the last ten years or so-- the Mets made more money and outdrew the Yankees. It's good management that has changed that.[/quote]
Good management is one thing, and I'll give them credit for that. But you can't deny that the tremendous history of the team is a huge resource to be tapped by the ownership. That history will always allow the Yankees to trump the Mets in terms of local popularity, unless/until the Mets are able to win a ton of championships in a short period of time. The Devil Rays could have Billy Beane running them and they still don't have anywhere near the same potential for revenue and popularity that the Yankees due, both because of location and because of history.

And part of good management is location. Steinbenner is from Cleveland and he lives in Tampa. He didn't buy the Indians or Devil Rays. He knew the potential of the purchase when he made it.
What's your point here? That the owners of the Royals, Devil Rays, A's and other low-revenue teams should move to New York? I wouldn't necessarily argue against this.

Steinbrenner had the opportunity and means to buy the Yankees. It was a good investment (just like any professional sports franchise outside of the NHL is a good investment). At times he fucked that investment up by meddling in personnel matters and sending his team into mediocrity. At times he's been smart enough to give the baseball people enough room to operate and have smart guys running that part of the operation.

He could have the same group of people running the team but if it were Cleveland instead of New York, he simply wouldn't have the opportunity available to him to generate and maintain the same level of revenue.

The extent to which Steinbrenner's reign has added to the historical legacy of the Yankees and renewed enthusiasm around the team in his fan base is a credit to his management. But don't kid yourself that the history and location of that team isn't an inherent advantage over every other team in the country. No amount of brilliant management at a place like Oakland, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh or Kansas City for example can make up the difference any time soon.

No. The NFL just splits the national TV revenue, which is their bigest revenue source, to even out the playing field. And they did that when the disparity was smaller.

Had baseball created a good scheme in 1978, there wouldn't have been a problem. Now, you're talking about businesses with value differences in the hundreds of millions. You can't expect the owners of teams who've built up that kind of value to lightly give it away.
I agree that the situation is very difficult to resolve. Given the nature of the game, a series of limited national broadcast contracts in baseball are never going to equal those in football - the majority of the money is in local broadcast rights. And since the local broadcasters are often owned by the same people as the team, fudging of the accounting is to be expected and a fair distribution of that revenue throughout the league will be impossible.

I think my revenue sharing goal is the most equitable sharing system. It's also something that would be nearly impossible to implement fairly - you'd have to get independent arbiters to decide on the true values of all local broadcast rights in cases where the broadcaster and the team were under the same ownership, and good luck getting most owners affected to be happy with this.

Yes NY does have an advantage. That's why you have to pay about four times more to buy the Yanks or Mets than KC.
This argument has nothing to do with the discussion of revenue sharing and competitive balance. Yeah, you pay 4 times more to buy the Mets or Yankees than the Royals. You also get back 4 times more when you sell the team.

I haven't seen a good reason why Steinbrenner should have to give away half of his hard-earned money to the Glass family and the other 'poor Susans' of MLB.
Because he's not in a league by himself - he needs other teams to compete against for his own team to have any relevance.

Again, I agree the current system is flawed. But I see no reason why, in an ideal world where this would be feasible, requiring all teams to collect half of their ticket and broadcast revenue and pool the other half into a central fund that is distributed among all the teams wouldn't be an equitable solution. Is it 100% fair in a strictly capitalistic sense? No, but it's a reasonable sacrifice to make to ensure a better overall product, and the payoff in increased overall fan interest could very well more than compensate for any short-term cuts in a particular team's revenue. The sharing concept seems to have worked out extremely well for the NFL...

No park factor can make up the difference between a 161 and a 133 OPS+. That's especially true when you factor in that Jeter played more than an extra month's worth of games.

No park factor can make up the difference between a 161 and a 133 OPS+. That's especially true when you factor in that Jeter played more than an extra month's worth of games.
Actually, it can. A-Rod had an unadjusted OPS of .943; Jeter's was .989. In every other season since the re-build of Yankee Stadium, it has played as basically a neutral park (between 96-104, usually right around 99). In '99, it played as an extreme pitcher's park at a 91/92. Unless the Yankees moved the fences out that year or New York suffered far colder temperatures that summer than normal, that number is a fluke. Adjusting Jeter's home stats up 9% makes a big difference.

And at the same time, I'm having a hard time believing the park adjustment ratings for Seattle for '99 as shown by Baseball-Reference.com. A-Rod played half his home games that year in Safeco, the most extreme pitcher's park in the game, and half in the Kingdome, a place that (despite a reputation to the contrary) was only a mild hitter's park. Yet the park adjustment listing for Seattle that year is 103/103, as high as the Kingdome had been rated in the previous 10 years and much higher than Safeco has ever been rated.

If the Yankee Stadium data is indeed a fluke outlier and the Seattle home park info is incorrect or a fluke statistical outlier, the differences caused by those valuations would indeed be enough to eliminate that OPS+ gap.

Also, games played has no bearing whatsoever on OPS+ - it's simply a rate state. Games played affects VORP, and I don't doubt that Jeter's VORP that year tops A-Rod's based on the games played difference. However, I'd like to see a Win Shares listing, as I have a strong suspicion that A-Rod superior fielding narrows or eliminates any gap created by the difference in games played.

Even if that number is dead on, Jeter was #2 to Manny in OPS+ (174 to 161) in 1999 with Raffy Palmeiro right behind (160). But to call him the best player in baseball after seasons of 101, 104, 126, and 161 is just insane. ARod had put up 160, 119, 135, 133 in the previous 4 years. Manny went 148, 145, 143, and 146 before his 174. Hell, Thome had put up 5 straight seasons of 140+ and the aging Rafael Palmeiro had put up 6 of the last 7 at 130+.

Derek's Jeter's was a, wait for it, "career year"- he hasnt gone over 130 before or since and that's not grounds to give him the second highest contract ever in the history of baseball.

And that's just using your metric of choice (we can leave the "but it's an incomplete stat that has inherent biases" vs "but it's an all encompassing rate stat" for another day) and the American League. I'm sure if I looked in the NL, I could find Chipper, Bagwell, Sosa, etc who had much better hitting stats over the past couple of seasons.

SI

As to your first point, park factors are only applied to half of your games. So it wouldn't be 9% in any case. Secondly, half of A-Rod's season was at the Kingdome.

And you're leaving out the fact that A-Rod missed over thirty games.

Manny's OPS+ was higher. But if you'd have rather had Manny and his 174 in left as opposed to Jeter and his 161 at short, you're on crack.

BTW, if 1999 was such an outlier in terms of park factor, why is Yankee Stadium listed as #21 for the 2005 season at .922. Safeco is at #30 at .834.

Jeter was the best player in the AL 1999 whether you want to admit it or not. Two years later he on the free agent market and he's your player, he's only 27, and he's already become the leader on your team that's won four titles in the six years he's been playing. You're telling me if that were the Royals back when they could have paid the going rate, you don't think they should have paid him? Be real.

Jeter got what he deserved. The Yanks did not overpay for him. At the time it was a reasonable contract. And it fell in behind both what his direct peer, A-Rod, got and what the top free agent that year, Manny, got.

And are you just being obstinate with this?
Also, games played has no bearing whatsoever on OPS+ - it's simply a rate state.

No shit. But if a player has significantly superior rate stats and plays a month more games, then I think it's clear who the better player is.

I've never argued the point that A-Rod was the better player overall. But in 1999 Jeter was the best. I will argue that I always thought Jeter's career would turn out to be better than Nomar's. But that's also beside the point. My statement was that if you've got a 27 year old SS who had the best season in the league when he was 25 and you have the chance to lock him up, you do. That players is, rightly, going to be among the top free agents of that season.

That season, the top guy got $20m. Jeter got ~$19m. That seems like the way we'd expect it to break down.

No park factor can make up the difference between a 161 and a 133 OPS+. That's especially true when you factor in that Jeter played more than an extra month's worth of games.OPS+ takes park factors into account when it's calculated btw

so he deserved the second highest contract ever based on one obvious career season? riiiiiiiiiiiiight. He was overpaid plain and simple. I'm still waiting for the "intangibles" argument to justify his contract.

I think it's fair to argue that Jeter earned the contract, in the sense that you wouldn't have expected him to fall off the way he did (and if my vague recollection is correct, he was still adequate defensively at that point). If you argue that, though, then it's pretty clear he's been a major bust since -- the sort that would kill any team other than the Yanks who have the payroll headroom to absorb it.

OPS+ takes park factors into account when it's calculated btwHe's arguing that no error in park factors will be large enough to account for that much difference in OPS+.

He's arguing that no error in park factors will be large enough to account for that much difference in OPS+.whoops

i just scanned the argument and that line jumped out at me, sorry about that. carry on

As to your first point, park factors are only applied to half of your games. So it wouldn't be 9% in any case. Secondly, half of A-Rod's season was at the Kingdome.

And you're leaving out the fact that A-Rod missed over thirty games.
Your reading comprehension needs improving. Here's what I wrote:

Adjusting Jeter's home stats up 9% makes a big difference.
A-Rod played half his home games that year in Safeco, the most extreme pitcher's park in the game, and half in the Kingdome, a place that (despite a reputation to the contrary) was only a mild hitter's park.
However, I'd like to see a Win Shares listing, as I have a strong suspicion that A-Rod superior fielding narrows or eliminates any gap created by the difference in games played.
Were you simply not paying attention, or are you ignoring what I write in order to try and prove your point?

No shit. But if a player has significantly superior rate stats and plays a month more games, then I think it's clear who the better player is.
I agree.

Where you're not following is I'm pointing out that I don't think the rate stats are clearly superior for Jeter in this case - I've pointed out how the park effect ratings for Yankee Stadium that year are waaaay out of line with every other year, suggesting that was a fluke year in terms of outcomes. Unless there were some one-year adjustments to Yankee Stadium and/or unusual weather patterns that truly rendered hitting much harder in the Bronx that year, that park adjustment should be taken with a grain of salt. The extreme pitcher's park results of Yankee Stadium that year do have a notable impact on Jeter's OPS+.

Additionally, the park effects numbers for Seattle that year also look very odd given that they played nearly half their home games at Safeco, yet the overall park effect numbers shown are as high as the Kingdome had been rated for the previous 10 years. Again, it looks like an odd statistical outlier result - you'd expect the park effect results for Seattle that year to be halfway between the subsequent Safeco numbers and the previous Kingdome numbers - instead, it's as high as the Kingdome had been alone for quite some time.

You're also not addressing the fielding side of things - is there anyone out there that doesn't think A-Rod is a clearly superior fielder at SS than Jeter?

Given that you're either not comprehending or ignoring what I write, I'm done arguing this point with you.

Mature way to handle an agument.

Shaow me the math that makes up the difference between a 161 OPS+ and a 133 OPS+ and I'll admit defeat. I'll even concede the absurd notion that being a better defensive player at the same position somehow makes up for thirty games played.

As to the park factor business, even if you say that the 1999 Yankee stadium park factor was incorrectly calculated (funny how both the Yankee Stadium PF and the Safeco/Kingdome PF had to be drastically wrong and with a bias for Jeter and against A-ROd for your argument to even approach working).

If you've got to stretch so far to make your point, perhaps it's not a good argument to begin with.

Mature way to handle an agument.

Shaow me the math that makes up the difference between a 161 OPS+ and a 133 OPS+ and I'll admit defeat. I'll even concede the absurd notion that being a better defensive player at the same position somehow makes up for thirty games played.

As to the park factor business, even if you say that the 1999 Yankee stadium park factor was incorrectly calculated (funny how both the Yankee Stadium PF and the Safeco/Kingdome PF had to be drastically wrong and with a bias for Jeter and against A-ROd for your argument to even approach working).

If you've got to stretch so far to make your point, perhaps it's not a good argument to begin with.
Show me evidence that would lead anyone to believe that Jeter's 99 OPS+ was indictitive of future results and not simply a career year.

Mature way to handle an agument.

Shaow me the math that makes up the difference between a 161 OPS+ and a 133 OPS+ and I'll admit defeat. I'll even concede the absurd notion that being a better defensive player at the same position somehow makes up for thirty games played.

As to the park factor business, even if you say that the 1999 Yankee stadium park factor was incorrectly calculated (funny how both the Yankee Stadium PF and the Safeco/Kingdome PF had to be drastically wrong and with a bias for Jeter and against A-ROd for your argument to even approach working).

If you've got to stretch so far to make your point, perhaps it's not a good argument to begin with.
Again, you're not addressing my point directly. Can you explain why Yankee Stadium was so radically different in park effects that year? Can you explain why the rating for Seattle that year seems so far off from what you'd expect given the previous Kingdome only years and the subsequent Safeco only years?

When I have some time I'll recompute the OPS+ as formulated on Baseball-Reference with park effects numbers that are consistent with previous and subsequent years for both situations. But is it really that hard to comprehend that when the actual OPS numbers are as close as they are (.989 vs. .943) that a difference of 9% on Jeter's home stats closes that gap considerably, and if the Seattle numbers are off as well that the gap closes even more?

As to how I'm handling this argument, look again at how you completely missed or ignored what I've written and tell me how I should feel. When you are in a debate with someone and they continue to not comprehend or ignore what you say, at some point you just get frustrated and say "why bother?"

I said park factors are only in play for home games. And that A-rod played half his home games in the relatively comfy Kingdome in '99. So you can't stretch that far enough to cove a difference between 161 and 133 in addition to thirty games difference in games played.

Show me where that's wrong.

By the way, Yankee Stadiums park Factor for 2004-5 is .92, for 2003 it's .93, and for 2001-2 it's .95/.96. I don't see how the .92 for 1999 is so far off by those numbers.

Show me evidence that would lead anyone to believe that Jeter's 99 OPS+ was indictitive of future results and not simply a career year.

Most Similar by Age

Joe Sewell (969)
Joe Sewell (965)
Joe Cronin (942)
Joe Cronin (924)
Joe Sewell (899)
Travis Jackson (896)

Those are all the best comps Jeter had up until his age 27 season when he got his big deal. Those are all Hall of Famers.

I'd think it'd be somewhere near the front of the GM's handbook to lock up future Hall of Fame Shortstops when you have the chance.

I want to know what Jeter's previous OPS+ were in his earlier seasons.

As far as I can tell, '99 was an aberration. No one is debating he had a stellar '99, whether he was better than ARod and Nomar can be argued as can whether he deserved the 2nd largest contact in history can be argued as well.

dola - for the record, i don't know where you guys are grabbing these stats otherwise I'd just look there :(

I said park factors are only in play for home games. And that A-rod played half his home games in the relatively comfy Kingdome in '99. So you can't stretch that far enough to cove a difference between 161 and 133 in addition to thirty games difference in games played.

Show me where that's wrong.
I also acknowledged park factors are only in play for home games from the very start, but you pretended I wasn't.

Like I said, when I have some time later I'll run the numbers with the park adjustments I suspect are more reflective of reality as opposed to statistical outliers. We'll see how much that affects OPS+. And if I can find Win Shares for that year and VORP for that year, we'll see how much the Win Shares system thinks A-Rods fielding closes the games played gap.

By the way, Yankee Stadiums park Factor for 2004-5 is .92, for 2003 it's .93, and for 2001-2 it's .95/.96. I don't see how the .92 for 1999 is so far off by those numbers.
Says who? Here's the ratings from Baseball-Reference.com: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/attend.shtml

Most Similar by Age

Joe Sewell (969)
Joe Sewell (965)
Joe Cronin (942)
Joe Cronin (924)
Joe Sewell (899)
Travis Jackson (896)

Those are all the best comps Jeter had up until his age 27 season when he got his big deal. Those are all Hall of Famers.

I'd think it'd be somewhere near the front of the GM's handbook to lock up future Hall of Fame Shortstops when you have the chance.Those are by seasons, not by similarity at age 25, which is what we are talking about. Here are his comparables at age 25:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=jeterde01:Derek+Jeter&st=int&compage=25&age=25

I don't think anyone rushes out to pay Gary Templeton or Jim Fregosi or Joe Torre in their playing days (they're the three most recent) money as the second best player in baseball. There are 3 Hall of Famers on that list but 7 who aren't including some with pretty mediocre careers. Not bad players, certainly, but you only give that kind of money to powers hitters with a proven track record, of which Jeter was neither at the time.

SI

dola - for the record, i don't know where you guys are grabbing these stats otherwise I'd just look there :(Mostly, baseball-reference.com

SI

Mostly, baseball-reference.com

SI
Thanks :)

Jeter got his contract after his age 27 season. So I used it up to that point. That seems like it would be the best indicator.


Sim Player From To Yrs G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Derek Jeter 1995-2001 7 936 3744 715 1199 188 38 99 488 397 671 .320 .392 .470 135 40 123
896* Travis Jackson 1922-1931 10 1160 4270 609 1287 215 65 99 645 307 347 .301 .349 .452 64 13 108
885 Vern Stephens 1941-1948 8 999 3866 595 1113 174 29 138 665 394 416 .288 .354 .455 17 13 123
883* Arky Vaughan 1932-1939 8 1149 4300 754 1413 231 94 71 631 640 189 .329 .420 .476 66 0 142
881* Joe Sewell 1920-1926 7 944 3533 561 1146 232 47 18 586 456 76 .324 .407 .432 54 40 116
875* Joe Cronin 1926-1934 9 990 3687 588 1117 245 74 51 687 474 292 .303 .385 .451 56 37 117
873 Edgar Renteria 1996-2003 8 1147 4336 650 1255 227 17 73 493 395 597 .289 .348 .400 220 78 97
869* Frankie Frisch 1919-1926 8 1000 4053 701 1303 180 77 54 524 280 139 .321 .367 .444 224 74 117
868* Bobby Doerr 1937-1945 8 1034 3893 572 1134 221 42 103 623 402 337 .291 .358 .449 36 46 113
865 Joe Torre 1960-1968 9 1037 3700 470 1087 154 21 142 552 334 518 .294 .356 .462 10 21 130
863 Carlos Baerga 1990-1996 7 945 3692 550 1100 193 15 105 571 199 378 .298 .338 .444 48 15 109


Only scores of about 900 are truly comparable. Travis Jackson goes back to 900 after the age 28 season. Generally, Hall of Famers are the hardest players to find good comps for. As an example, here is Cal Ripken's comp list through age 27:


Sim Player From To Yrs G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Cal Ripken 1981-1988 8 1153 4409 713 1236 236 24 183 651 496 563 .280 .351 .469 16 20 125
904 Vern Stephens 1941-1948 8 999 3866 595 1113 174 29 138 665 394 416 .288 .354 .455 17 13 123
886 Miguel Tejada 1997-2003 7 936 3584 574 968 191 11 156 604 287 542 .270 .331 .460 49 20 106
883* Travis Jackson 1922-1931 10 1160 4270 609 1287 215 65 99 645 307 347 .301 .349 .452 64 13 108
870* Johnny Bench 1967-1975 9 1236 4595 695 1246 236 18 240 855 516 751 .271 .342 .487 40 26 131
865 Ron Santo 1960-1967 8 1214 4506 633 1284 212 47 198 716 576 693 .285 .365 .485 23 26 132
858* Bobby Doerr 1937-1945 8 1034 3893 572 1134 221 42 103 623 402 337 .291 .358 .449 36 46 113
854 Joe Torre 1960-1968 9 1037 3700 470 1087 154 21 142 552 334 518 .294 .356 .462 10 21 130
853 Edgar Renteria 1996-2003 8 1147 4336 650 1255 227 17 73 493 395 597 .289 .348 .400 220 78 97
849 Ivan Rodriguez 1991-1999 9 1169 4443 649 1333 261 20 144 621 237 571 .300 .337 .465 60 28 108
849 Derek Jeter 1995-2001 7 936 3744 715 1199 188 38 99 488 397 671 .320 .392 .470 135 40 123
Cal Ripken 1981-1988 8 1153 4409 713 1236 236 24 183 651 496 563 .280 .351 .469 16 20 125

Actually, we were both wrong. I used his age 25 season, you used his age 27. He signed it after his age 26 season in Feb 2001:




Sim Player From To Yrs G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Derek Jeter (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jeterde01.shtml) 1995-2000 6 786 3130 605 1008 153 35 78 414 341 572 .322 .394 .468 108 37 122
899* Joe Sewell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/seweljo01.shtml) 1920-1925 6 790 2955 470 959 191 42 14 501 391 70 .325 .409 .432 37 33 116
899 Vern Stephens (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stephve01.shtml) 1941-1947 7 844 3231 481 942 149 21 109 528 317 360 .292 .355 .452 16 13 125
897* Joe Cronin (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cronijo01.shtml) 1926-1933 8 863 3183 520 974 215 65 44 586 421 264 .306 .390 .456 48 37 119
892* Travis Jackson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jackstr01.shtml) 1922-1930 9 1015 3715 544 1115 189 55 94 574 271 324 .300 .349 .457 51 13 108
887 Harvey Kuenn (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kuennha01.shtml) 1952-1957 6 771 3250 448 995 163 33 36 298 223 134 .306 .350 .410 39 31 106
882* Arky Vaughan (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vaughar01.shtml) 1932-1938 7 997 3705 660 1231 201 83 65 569 570 169 .332 .425 .484 54 0 146
881 Carlos Baerga (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/baergca01.shtml) 1990-1995 6 819 3185 491 971 165 15 93 505 178 351 .305 .345 .454 47 14 115
880 Bill Dahlen (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dahlebi01.shtml) 1891-1896 6 769 3107 733 935 150 90 50 441 371 266 .301 .382 .455 243 0 123
876 Alan Trammell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/trammal01.shtml) 1977-1984 8 989 3452 516 985 160 28 56 372 379 391 .285 .355 .397 110 61 108
876 Joe Torre (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/torrejo01.shtml) 1960-1967 8 922 3276 425 972 143 19 132 497 300 446 .297 .359 .473 9 21 132
Derek Jeter (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jeterde01.shtml) 1995-2000 6 786 3130 605 1008 153 35 78 414 341 572 .322 .394 .468 108 37 122
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Average of all 10 Players 7 877 3305 528 1007 172 45 69 487 342 277 .305 .370 .447 65 22 118
Avg of all 9 Retired Players 7 884 3319 533 1012 173 48 66 485 360 269 .305 .373 .447 67 23 118


And, for that matter, career numbers for those guys:


Sim Player From To Yrs G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
+Derek Jeter (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jeterde01.shtml) 1995-2005 11 1525 6167 1159 1936 308 47 169 763 636 1089 .314 .386 .461 215 57 121
899*+Joe Sewell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/seweljo01.shtml) 1920-1933 14 1903 7132 1141 2226 436 68 49 1055 842 114 .312 .391 .413 74 72 109
899 Vern Stephens (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stephve01.shtml) 1941-1955 15 1720 6497 1001 1859 307 42 247 1174 692 685 .286 .355 .460 25 22 119
897* Joe Cronin (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cronijo01.shtml) 1927-1945 19 2086 7496 1224 2263 513 116 170 1413 1053 685 .302 .390 .469 87 71 120
892* Travis Jackson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jackstr01.shtml) 1924-1936 13 1557 5751 787 1678 279 79 131 892 390 523 .292 .338 .436 68 10 103
887 +Harvey Kuenn (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kuennha01.shtml) 1952-1966 15 1833 6913 951 2092 356 56 87 671 594 404 .303 .357 .408 68 56 108
882* Arky Vaughan (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vaughar01.shtml) 1932-1948 14 1817 6622 1173 2103 356 128 96 926 937 276 .318 .406 .453 118 0 136
881 +Carlos Baerga (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/baergca01.shtml) 1990-2005 14 1630 5439 731 1583 279 17 134 774 291 580 .291 .332 .423 59 24 100
880 +Bill Dahlen (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dahlebi01.shtml) 1891-1911 21 2443 9031 1589 2457 413 163 84 1233 1064 269 .272 .358 .382 547 0 110
876 Alan Trammell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/trammal01.shtml) 1978-1996 19 2274 8245 1225 2357 412 55 185 1003 846 862 .286 .352 .416 236 109 111
876 Joe Torre (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/torrejo01.shtml) 1961-1977 17 2207 7872 996 2341 344 59 252 1185 779 1093 .297 .365 .452 23 29 129
+Derek Jeter (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jeterde01.shtml) 1995-2005 11 1525 6167 1159 1936 308 47 169 763 636 1089 .314 .386 .461 215 57 121
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Average of all 10 Players 16 1947 7099 1081 2095 369 78 143 1032 748 549 .295 .362 .430 130 39 112
Avg of all 9 Retired Players 16 1982 7284 1120 2152 379 85 144 1061 799 545 .296 .365 .431 138 41 114


I don't see any of those guys, even the Hall of Famers, worthy of crazy contracts like the one Jeter signed, particularly when the only two who signed contracts in that range are going to be surefire first ballot HOF'ers, 500+ HR guys (barring freak injury), and two of the most feared hitters of our era. Jeter does not meet any of those qualifications.

In the end, it doesn't matter if he's going to be a HoF'er (with ample help from the New York media contingent), you only give guys who are both power and average hitters that kind of cash and he's definitely not a power hitter.

SI
</pre>

OK, my head is fuzzy after a long day at work and my brain is balking at tackling the OPS+ formula as stated on the Baseball-Reference statistics glossary. Anyone more math-friendly than me feel like running numbers for Jeter and A-Rod for the '99 season using the following adjusted park factor numbers:

Yankee Stadium: 99
Seattle: 98

The OPS+ formula from Baseball-Reference can be found here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml