Yanks acquire Nady, Marte from Bucs for 4 prospects .

[yankees228]

But Lawton was not useful for the Yankees...

[Gom]

Great, so he did his job. Thanks. Next.

[Jayhawk Bill]

you're an idiot...had a brain fart and f***ed up

 

Hey, I was watching the Twins game and I didn't find LaTroy Hawkins. What's his new uniform number?

 

***

 

Mod team: if you're serious about your new standards, take action. If you're not, hey, I'm cool with spewing profanity in the MLB forums.

[Gom]

Hey, I was watching the Twins game and I didn't find LaTroy Hawkins. What's his new uniform number?

***

I was mistaken, I mean Astros. I know the Twins were looking at him, so that's what I meant when I said Twins. My mistake.

 

Wow...see how easy that was JHB? Admit you made a mistake, and move on. Try it on for size. You see, when you're wrong, people will give you more credit for admitting you were wrong than trying to prove you were right.

 

THIS JUST IN....BREAKING NEWS. ACCORDING TO JOHN HEYMAN, JAYSON STARK, & KEN ROSENTHAL, THE DODGERS ARE GUILTY OF CHEATING: Read about it here:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jon_heyman/08/01/winners.losers/index.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3513865

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8401438/Take-your-pick:-Manny-deal-produced-winners-all-around?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=49

 

Three sources...and two of them actually VALIDATE what JHB says. I stand corrected...TWICE IN THE SAME POST!!!!

 

THE YANKEES ALSO CHEATED!

 

I'm so sorry JHB...I take back everything I said...by your standards, the Yankees DID cheat...my mistake. By winning a trade...you cheated. How silly of me. My bad.

 

P.S. Still waiting on your proof. I have a feeling that the Red Sox will catch up in championships before I get it.

[jacksonianmarch]

JHB is such a hypocrite. All about stats and evidence, yet will arbitrarily call a move a win when it was a flat out dump or had a negative impact on the team. Tool.

[Jayhawk Bill]

JHB is such a hypocrite. All about stats and evidence' date=' yet will arbitrarily call a move a win when it was a flat out dump or had a negative impact on the team. Tool.[/quote']

 

Joining the Yankees Fans Without Class group? Nothing to post that adds to the discussion, so you throw out a gratuitous insult?

 

Care for me to go back over your posting history for every time you defined something differently than a critic of yours and insult you? Yeah, really worthy of my time. But that's exactly what you're doing.

 

***

 

FWIW, I'm wrapping up my work on the first complete month of deadline trades I studied, July 2001. That involves the following:

 

1) Determine what trades took place;

 

2) For every trade, determine relative standings of both teams at that date;

 

3) Determine for each player their contract status;

 

4) Determine the WARP1 of each player both that August-September and through obligated service.

 

That's research and recording of around 400 data elements for one month's trades. It's not as big a database as I'd like--I'll probably expand it later--but at least it offers a set of probabilities for various definitions of "win."

 

Details to follow.

[jacksonianmarch]

you see JHB, I like ya. But your bias is showing big time. The fact that you are calling the Sal Fasano and Matt Lawton acquisitions wins for the yankees is just flat out hilarious and it makes your argument difficult to take seriously. I will give you this. The yankees have won far more than they have lost in their trade deadline dealings. This has to do with Cashman being able to take advantage of GMs in difficult spots and his ability to absorb salary. If you took away the yankee cash machine, half these deals dont get done

[jacksonianmarch]

Nady just became a yankee!

[Jayhawk Bill]

The fact that you are calling the Sal Fasano and Matt Lawton acquisitions wins for the yankees is just flat out hilarious and it makes your argument difficult to take seriously.

 

The fact that you consider getting MLB players for minor league trash as a losing deal for an MLB team is flat out hilarious and shows your bias big time.

[TheKilo]

Nady just became a yankee!

 

lol so gay

[Jayhawk Bill]

OK, as promised. Using July 2001 stats on trades:

 

Median current-year talent gained by contending team: 0.3 wins

Mean current-year talent gained by contending team: 0.5 wins

Standard deviation: 0.99 wins

 

Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a current-year win (1.0 WARP): 22.6%

 

Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a current-year win (1.0 WARP) or a trade for nothing (cash or a minor league player never destined to play in MLB ): 29.0%

 

Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a long-term win (1.0 WARP): 29.0%

 

Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a long-term win (1.0 WARP) or a trade for nothing (cash or a minor league player never destined to play in MLB ): 35.5%

 

OK, let's go to the Yankees seven July trades* 2005-2007.

 

Number of trades acquiring over one current-year win: Three, the Molina trade, the Abreu/Lidle trade and the Chacon trade.

 

Odds of getting three or more such successes in seven trades: 18.4%

 

Number of trades acquiring over one current-year win or involving a trade for nothing (cash or a minor league player never destined to play in MLB ): Four, the Fasano trade, the Molina trade, the Abreu/Lidle trade and the Chacon trade.

 

Odds of getting four or more such successes in seven trades: 11.3%

 

 

Number of trades with current-year acquired value being one-in-one hundred outliers, greater than three standard deviations from the mean: Two, the Abreu/Lidle trade and the first Chacon trade.

 

Odds of two out of seven items being a 1% outlier: 0.02%, or roughly 1 in 492

 

OK, we're up to that 99.5%** certainty that something's awry. If one includes the Lawton deal--or, more importantly, if one includes reasonable projections of MLB results and includes the Marte/Nady deal and the Pudge Rodriguez deal--one can find other ways that things are unusual at the 95% degree of confidence or more.

 

***

 

Proof? Few posters offer this degree of research and analysis to support their points.

 

You think that 99.5% confidence isn't enough? Well, there are varying standards of proof. Some might demand more for certainty, but most would apologize for having insulted somebody for "having no proof" when 99.5% confidence was presented.

 

We'll see what standards of etiquette apply regarding posters here at Talksox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* One deadline trade, the Matt Lawton-for-nothing trade, was an August waiver deal, and it shouldn't be included until August waiver deals are examined. August deals appear to differ from July deals. Inclusion of the Lawton deal would significantly increase the probability that something is unusual in Yankees dealings, but it technically shouldn't be included because of the difference in July non-waiver deals and August waiver deals.

 

** 99.797%

[Gom]

OK' date=' as promised. Using July 2001 stats on trades: [/quote']

Why are you using 2001 stats on deals that made between 2005-2007? I'm not just being argumentative, I'm simply trying to understand your logic.

Median current-year talent gained by contending team: 0.3 wins

Mean current-year talent gained by contending team: 0.5 wins

Standard deviation: 0.99 wins

 

Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a current-year win (1.0 WARP): 22.6%

 

Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a current-year win (1.0 WARP) or a trade for nothing (cash or a minor league player never destined to play in MLB ): 29.0%

You have to question this one. I'm not questioning the math you've done, just the logic of the outcome. A contending team making a salary dump pickup would invariably get at least one win a much greater percentage of the time. This is probably due to a high statistical variance of using just one season. Case in point. Go take a look at 2000, when the Yankees picked up Justice. Check out the average wins that year. I'm not saying that that deal was a salary dump, but it would kill your average wins per deal in 2001. Too much statistical variance. Back to the point. 29% is more than likely a) an aberration subjective selection on your part. By this I mean how is it you determine which deals are dumps and aren't? Majority are clear-cut, but some would be difficult to determine.

Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a long-term win (1.0 WARP): 29.0%

 

Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a long-term win (1.0 WARP) or a trade for nothing (cash or a minor league player never destined to play in MLB ): 35.5%

 

OK, let's go to the Yankees seven July trades* 2005-2007.

 

Number of trades acquiring over one current-year win: Three, the Molina trade, the Abreu/Lidle trade and the Chacon trade.

 

Odds of getting three or more such successes in seven trades: 18.4%

Statistical analysis with way too many variables that are not accounted for, rendering the analysis invalid. Think about this one: Abreu was nothing more than a salary dump for the Phillies. With his option coming up, the Phillies wanted him off the team and to shed his salary. The Yankees agreed to the following in trading for Abreu [taken from Cot's Baseball Contract]:

Yankees to pay salary remaining on Abreu's contract (about $4.4M for 2006, $15M for 2007 and $16M salary or $2M buyout for 2008)

With this alone, you would presume the Yankees would HAVE to get at least a few wins for a minimum of $21 million, don't you think?

 

Molina was expendable to the Angels due to the return of Mike Napoli, the emergence of Mathis, and the fact that he was causing a distraction that wasn't worth his .224 BA. The Angels looked at it as addition by subtraction, and had evaluated Kennard higher than he turned out. Also, the Angels were not in a fire sale mode, as that team made the playoffs. Simply a team that found a taker in a .224 hitting catcher with no power but great defensive skills.

 

Chacon was nothing more than lightning in a bottle. No one in his right mind say that one coming. However, the Rockies were clearing out Chacon due to the emergence of Zach Day, and got some mid level prospects for Chacon, who was their 5th starter. They found an opportunity to trade Chacon, get rid of his salary, and get some players for him. Check the link. http://colorado.rockies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050728&content_id=1148669&vkey=news_col&fext=.jsp&c_id=col

 

Note: Chacon was 1-7 at the time of the trade. With the Yankees lineup, and with him pitching mediocre, he was expected to net at least 1 win.

 

However, to get back to you "statistics", it was pretty much a given that Abreu would net them at least one win, as well as Molina, and Chacon's deal. You actually believe that considering the deals, 18.4% is an accurate estimate? I would have said that at worst, it would be 50% for those three deals, by my estimate, 99% for Abreu, and 75% for Chacon and Molina.

 

Are you saying that all deadline deals are the same? That the Sabathia or Teixeira deal will net the same return as say..the Griffey deal or the Hawkins deal? Hawkins will probably net the Astros a win [at least I got the team right this time] while the player the Yankees got won't ever see the majors. Does that count against Cashman, or does it factor in that he was DFA'd and had approximately 1 million left on his contract for the year.

 

Cut to the end, your hypothesis, because the rest of the logic is just as flawed.

Proof? Few posters offer this degree of research and analysis to support their points.

 

You think that 99.5% confidence isn't enough? Well, there are varying standards of proof. Some might demand more for certainty, but most would apologize for having insulted somebody for "having no proof" when 99.5% confidence was presented.

I will say this. You do a lot of research, but you don't think worth a lick. What is your point to this? It's obvious you've backed off on the whole cheating part, otherwise you would have given us here some proof. Basically, you have shown all of the following, in varying degrees that are open for debate.

 

a) Cashman has been very lucky

Cashman has been very smart

c) Cashman has had a mix of luck and intelligence considering his deadline deals.

d) The players he acquired have for the most part over-performed

 

Is this your point?

 

Also, don't you think that using only one season, and a season that is four years removed from the deals in question, has such a high degree of statistical variance, that it would be far outside the accepted norms, therefore rendering the analysis inconsequential [i.e. void as construed]?

 

Your analysis, which does not take into effect salary [a more accurate representation would be take the amount of money dumped and divide that by the wins. You'll see results that would surprise you, I'd think], and each team's motive [as shown with the Rockies excited about Day and the delegation of Molina to 3rd string on the Angels].

 

Or...are you alleging that the Phillies and Angels conspired with the league office to help the Yankees in some underhanded dealing? Considering the Phillies actually rebounded and were eliminated on the last or second to last day of the season, and the Angels went to the playoffs as well, is this what you're still driving at, JHB?

 

Please...what is your point to this? Your analysis is flawed, and I'm not sure of your point. As to the rules of etiquette, it's obvious you're demeaning yourself more than I can, so please let us all know what your point to this flawed analysis is all about?

 

I await your response.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Why are you using 2001 stats on deals that made between 2005-2007? I'm not just being argumentative, I'm simply trying to understand your logic.

 

You have to question this one. I'm not questioning the math you've done, just the logic of the outcome. A contending team making a salary dump pickup would invariably get at least one win a much greater percentage of the time. This is probably due to a high statistical variance of using just one season. Case in point. Go take a look at 2000, when the Yankees picked up Justice. Check out the average wins that year. I'm not saying that that deal was a salary dump, but it would kill your average wins per deal in 2001. Too much statistical variance. Back to the point. 29% is more than likely a) an aberration subjective selection on your part. By this I mean how is it you determine which deals are dumps and aren't? Majority are clear-cut, but some would be difficult to determine.

 

Statistical analysis with way too many variables that are not accounted for, rendering the analysis invalid. Think about this one: Abreu was nothing more than a salary dump for the Phillies. With his option coming up, the Phillies wanted him off the team and to shed his salary. The Yankees agreed to the following in trading for Abreu [taken from Cot's Baseball Contract]:

Yankees to pay salary remaining on Abreu's contract (about $4.4M for 2006, $15M for 2007 and $16M salary or $2M buyout for 2008)

With this alone, you would presume the Yankees would HAVE to get at least a few wins for a minimum of $21 million, don't you think?

 

Molina was expendable to the Angels due to the return of Mike Napoli, the emergence of Mathis, and the fact that he was causing a distraction that wasn't worth his .224 BA. The Angels looked at it as addition by subtraction, and had evaluated Kennard higher than he turned out. Also, the Angels were not in a fire sale mode, as that team made the playoffs. Simply a team that found a taker in a .224 hitting catcher with no power but great defensive skills.

 

Chacon was nothing more than lightning in a bottle. No one in his right mind say that one coming. However, the Rockies were clearing out Chacon due to the emergence of Zach Day, and got some mid level prospects for Chacon, who was their 5th starter. They found an opportunity to trade Chacon, get rid of his salary, and get some players for him. Check the link. http://colorado.rockies.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050728&content_id=1148669&vkey=news_col&fext=.jsp&c_id=col

 

Note: Chacon was 1-7 at the time of the trade. With the Yankees lineup, and with him pitching mediocre, he was expected to net at least 1 win.

 

However, to get back to you "statistics", it was pretty much a given that Abreu would net them at least one win, as well as Molina, and Chacon's deal. You actually believe that considering the deals, 18.4% is an accurate estimate? I would have said that at worst, it would be 50% for those three deals, by my estimate, 99% for Abreu, and 75% for Chacon and Molina.

 

Are you saying that all deadline deals are the same? That the Sabathia or Teixeira deal will net the same return as say..the Griffey deal or the Hawkins deal? Hawkins will probably net the Astros a win [at least I got the team right this time] while the player the Yankees got won't ever see the majors. Does that count against Cashman, or does it factor in that he was DFA'd and had approximately 1 million left on his contract for the year.

 

Cut to the end, your hypothesis, because the rest of the logic is just as flawed.

 

I will say this. You do a lot of research, but you don't think worth a lick. What is your point to this? It's obvious you've backed off on the whole cheating part, otherwise you would have given us here some proof. Basically, you have shown all of the following, in varying degrees that are open for debate.

 

a) Cashman has been very lucky

Cashman has been very smart

c) Cashman has had a mix of luck and intelligence considering his deadline deals.

d) The players he acquired have for the most part over-performed

 

Is this your point?

 

Also, don't you think that using only one season, and a season that is four years removed from the deals in question, has such a high degree of statistical variance, that it would be far outside the accepted norms, therefore rendering the analysis inconsequential [i.e. void as construed]?

 

Your analysis, which does not take into effect salary [a more accurate representation would be take the amount of money dumped and divide that by the wins. You'll see results that would surprise you, I'd think], and each team's motive [as shown with the Rockies excited about Day and the delegation of Molina to 3rd string on the Angels].

 

Or...are you alleging that the Phillies and Angels conspired with the league office to help the Yankees in some underhanded dealing? Considering the Phillies actually rebounded and were eliminated on the last or second to last day of the season, and the Angels went to the playoffs as well, is this what you're still driving at, JHB?

 

Please...what is your point to this? Your analysis is flawed, and I'm not sure of your point. As to the rules of etiquette, it's obvious you're demeaning yourself more than I can, so please let us all know what your point to this flawed analysis is all about?

 

I await your response.

 

Quoted for posterity.

 

Your analysis is flawed

 

No, Gom, you don't get it. Your analysis is flawed. You continue to seek anecdotal evidence and special circumstances. That doesn't work--that's gossip. The way to prove that something is unusual is to find a baseline of what constitutes normalcy and to show deviation.

 

There's a gut understanding of serious fans that normalcy of deadline deals is the exchange of veterans from cellar-dwellers to contenders for good prospects. That would suggest a pattern of short-term gain for contenders offset by long-term gain by cellar-dwellers.

 

Looking at the numbers thus far, it doesn't quite work out that way. Certainly the pattern of veterans for prospects applies, but the long-term gain, as well as the short-term gain, slightly favors contenders in this sample. There's at least one potential reason: contending teams are almost always picking up salary, too. The performance of players acquired by contenders and also-rans almost balances over the duration of contract obligations, but the slight edge to contenders--heavily weighted to the two months following the trades--is probably offset by salaries. But even with the results of research favoring contending teams more than expected, the Yankees still stand out as outliers.

 

A contending team making a salary dump pickup would invariably get at least one win a much greater percentage of the time...a more accurate representation would be take the amount of money dumped and divide that by the wins

 

I urge you to check the numbers yourself. Do some actual research.

 

One example from 2001 that many readers here might remember is Urbina for Ohka. There was roughly a $4 million annual salary difference, and Boston got an added 0.8 wins in 2001 from Urbina but lost 13.7 wins in the long run despite accepting eight million additional dollars of salary liability.

 

But that's one example. It's anecdotal.

 

What I know is that many of the deadline trades appear to be salary dumps, and that it's a normal condition of deadline trades. Salary dumping isn't anything unusual; it's a rule.

 

Claiming exception for the Yankees' success due to salary dumping is short-sighted.

 

Also, don't you think that using only one season, and a season that is four years removed from the deals in question, has such a high degree of statistical variance, that it would be far outside the accepted norms, therefore rendering the analysis inconsequential [i.e. void as construed]?

 

I consider one season's research far superior to anything that you've offered.

 

But you keep claiming that the sample is too small. Here's the deal: small samples create high deviations, as a rule, because of their small size. That high deviation was an element of the analysis that showed the Yankees' dealings still to be unlikely at a high confidence level. Despite the comparatively small sample--and a month's trades across MLB isn't tiny--the deviation of Yankees' trades' success is so far from the mean that they're still incredibly unlikely.

 

Gom, did you pass basic statistics? Your words suggest that you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

Or are you so eager to insult that you ignore your knowledge in favor of bluster?

 

It's obvious you've backed off on the whole cheating part, otherwise you would have given us here some proof.

 

The variety of proof I've just used is commonly used for proof of any number of things. Cigarette smokers suffer statistically shorter lifespans. Do you try to deny that cigarettes kill?

 

But what I've shown, strictly speaking, is an effect that could be explained by a few things:

 

1) External factors (bribes, revenue sharing, etc.) causing teams to give Yankees better deals in deadline trades.

 

2) Differing strike zones for Yankees players, resulting in better stats for players with the Yankees than with other teams.

 

3) Derek Jeter's intangibles.

 

There might be other factors--but the point is clear.

 

You actually believe that considering the deals, 18.4% is an accurate estimate? I would have said that at worst, it would be 50% for those three deals, by my estimate, 99% for Abreu, and 75% for Chacon and Molina.

 

Well, I use research to reach my conclusions. You, again, post numbers with no support. Oddly, though, you don't seem to understand that you have no basis...you criticize use of a multi-hundred cell spreadsheet as a reference, and you post your beliefs as if they were facts.

 

As to the rules of etiquette, it's obvious you're demeaning yourself more than I can, so please let us all know what your point to this flawed analysis is all about?

 

Well, each society has its own standards. Perhaps here at Talksox research doesn't matter and the unfounded bluster of Yankees fans is proper etiquette. I credit you with this: Yankees fans are supporting you, even if they're repeatedly getting points objectively wrong in their attempts to show how very right you are.

 

Red Sox fans: drop a post if you're reading this. If I'm demeaning myself, let me know. If you're interested in this line of research, let me know: I can enhance the size of the comparative database and track the 2008 Yankees trades, and by the end of the season, if things keep going as they are right now, we might have some interesting results at a MUCH higher level of significance than we have right now.

 

Your call, Red Sox fans. I don't care what Gom thinks; I do care, and would like to know, what you think.

[jacksonianmarch]

The fact that you consider getting MLB players for minor league trash as a losing deal for an MLB team is flat out hilarious and shows your bias big time.

 

there are guys on the scrap heap all the time. These are two examples. If you wanted to get Jason Johnson or Kevin Mench right now for the rights to Abe Alvarez, you could. They'll play for the big leagues and suck, is that still a win? Just because they were on the big league roster does not mean they were good or useful. Can that get through your skull or not? Its like saying the Jason Johnson, Rudy Seanez and Mike Remlinger moves were wins for the sox. Flat out stupid.

[Jayhawk Bill]

there are guys on the scrap heap all the time. These are two examples. If you wanted to get Jason Johnson or Kevin Mench right now for the rights to Abe Alvarez' date=' you could. They'll play for the big leagues and suck, is that still a win? Just because they were on the big league roster does not mean they were good or useful. Can that get through your skull or not? Flat out stupid.[/quote']

 

Jason Johnson has a 1.38 ERA with the LA Dodgers this year, Jacko. Do you seriously think that he can be had for free?

 

Each of the three players acquired by the Yankees for minor league players who never reached MLB from 2005-2007, Fasano, Lawton and Molina, had positive value that averaged 1.8 WARP1 in the part of the season prior to their acquisition. All signed contracts in the offseason following their work with the Yankees, and all played again in MLB.

 

Players with positive WARP aren't on the scrap heap. Furthermore, only a handful of deadline trades involve the surrender of any player in return for nothing but minor league players who never reach MLB. In 2001 there were only two July trades where the players received by one team never reached MLB. Interestingly, one of those two trades involved players surrendered by the Yankees...

 

Edit: Note the unacknowledged edit by Jacko in his post that I quoted.

 

Stupid? More Yankee etiquette.

[Gom]

Quoted for posterity.

Stop doing this. It lengthens the thread for no reason.

No, Gom, you don't get it. Your analysis is flawed.

No, JHB, your logic is not only flawed, it's outright useless. You use analysis from one year's deadline deals, and then apply them to one team's deadline deals over three years...four years later. Doesn't work. You're not even compaing apples to oranges. That would be a stretch to assume so.

 

You continue to seek anecdotal evidence and special circumstances. That doesn't work--that's gossip. The way to prove that something is unusual is to find a baseline of what constitutes normalcy and to show deviation.

Your statistical variance is outside what would be accepted as the norm. Is there any logical fan that believes that deadline deals that are the result in less than one win is the norm over 70% of the time? Do you want anyone with a base high school education to believe this? Does anyone outside of JHB believe this? However, this is what your "statistical analysis" has shown us. Why is this value almost definitely incorrect. Sample size. Look up the definition. Let me educate you in what sample size means.

If a player hits .300 over 1000 ABs, he will get a hit 300 times in 1000 ABs. However, if you shrink the sample size to 3 ABs, he will have an average of 0. .333, .667, or 1.000. Only one of them is remotely close to his "actual" average, and even that can be considered a high degree of error based on the model. The other three outcomes are so far off the "actual" that the entire research is considered useless. This is the essence of the sample size error that I keep pointing out to you.

There's a gut understanding of serious fans that normalcy of deadline deals is the exchange of veterans from cellar-dwellers to contenders for good prospects. That would suggest a pattern of short-term gain for contenders offset by long-term gain by cellar-dwellers.

 

Looking at the numbers thus far, it doesn't quite work out that way. Certainly the pattern of veterans for prospects applies, but the long-term gain, as well as the short-term gain, slightly favors contenders in this sample. There's at least one potential reason: contending teams are almost always picking up salary, too. The performance of players acquired by contenders and also-rans almost balances over the duration of contract obligations, but the slight edge to contenders--heavily weighted to the two months following the trades--is probably offset by salaries. But even with the results of research favoring contending teams more than expected, the Yankees still stand out as outliers.

 

I urge you to check the numbers yourself. Do some actual research.

 

One example from 2001 that many readers here might remember is Urbina for Ohka. There was roughly a $4 million annual salary difference, and Boston got an added 0.8 wins in 2001 from Urbina but lost 13.7 wins in the long run despite accepting eight million additional dollars of salary liability.

 

But that's one example. It's anecdotal.

 

What I know is that many of the deadline trades appear to be salary dumps, and that it's a normal condition of deadline trades. Salary dumping isn't anything unusual; it's a rule.

No disagreement here. In fact, it's pretty much what I've been saying all along, when you take out the anti-Yankee bias and your point to due research as futile as yours. Go on.

Claiming exception for the Yankees' success due to salary dumping is short-sighted.

Claiming it's cheating is just plain stupidity, and if you worked in baseball and made such a statement, it would probably cost you your job.

I consider one season's research far superior to anything that you've offered.

Back to the example of 3 ABs. Your sample size is too small, both as your master and your control. If you understand what these terms mean, then you understand what I mean.

But you keep claiming that the sample is too small. Here's the deal: small samples create high deviations, as a rule, because of their small size. That high deviation was an element of the analysis that showed the Yankees' dealings still to be unlikely at a high confidence level. Despite the comparatively small sample--and a month's trades across MLB isn't tiny--the deviation of Yankees' trades' success is so far from the mean that they're still incredibly unlikely.

Not true at all. This is where your argument falls completely apart. That's like saying 11 ABs is sufficient. You've got to look at hundreds of deals to figure this out, and even then, that's not enough. You've got to factor in so many intangibles, such as team motive, upcoming players, future free agent market, agent involved, etc. This is not as simple as a batting average, where you either get a hit or an out, and is easily quantifiable. Look at the Zambrano/Kazmir deal. Although I'm a Yankee fan, it was all over the papers here that Peterson, the Mets pitching coach, said he could fix Zambrano in "ten minutes" and that Kazmir was at least three years away. Based on his reccommendation, the Mets made the deal. Would you dare equate the Rays trade as "cheating"? Maybe the Rays bribed Peterson.

Gom, did you pass basic statistics? Your words suggest that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Did you ever take a class on logic? The very aspect that you are trying to pass off as scientific evidence such a small sample size as legitimate shows off one probable thing. If you passed the class, you probably cheated. [i really couldn't resist this one LOL!]

Or are you so eager to insult that you ignore your knowledge in favor of bluster?

Truthfully, I'd rather engage in meaningful discussion, but you don't really bring much to the table.

The variety of proof I've just used is commonly used for proof of any number of things. Cigarette smokers suffer statistically shorter lifespans. Do you try to deny that cigarettes kill?

So do inane comments from Red Sox fans. Your point?

But what I've shown, strictly speaking, is an effect that could be explained by a few things:

 

1) External factors (bribes, revenue sharing, etc.) causing teams to give Yankees better deals in deadline trades.

 

2) Differing strike zones for Yankees players, resulting in better stats for players with the Yankees than with other teams.

 

3) Derek Jeter's intangibles.

I'm praying that this is a joke. I'll assume that #2 and #3 is attempted as tongue in cheek, so I'll address number one only.

 

a) What you're saying is that the Yankees bribe other teams.

Ludicrous. Back to the original point. I swear, you remind of the chick from the Matrix movie, when she got stabbed and didn't die for what felt like ten minutes. You're as good as dead here, but you just keep talking. I swear, you have nothing to say...yet you still speak. The Yankees are not bribing other teams. I've brought to everyone's attention earlier the very real possibility of your Red Sox bribing Japanese teams, and I let it go just to prove my point. You are saying the Yankees are bribing other team executives or money under the table to other owners. In all my time here at Talksox, the most useless and baseless allegation ever. This isn't even about the Yankees. I wouldn't believe a single one of these allegations if it were any two teams in baseball. There is just way too much risk involved in baseball for the teams bribing, getting bribed, and the sport in general. Just ask Pete Rose.

 

Seriously, you are stating that the Yankees are cheating on what is probably the weakest statistical argument in the history of Talksox. Show me any proof of cheating from anyone in the baseball business. You know why you haven't? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

 

What you're saying is that teams give Yankees preferential treatment due to revenue sharing.

So Cashman goes up to the Angels, and says...if you don't trade us Molina, we won't sign that big name free agent and throw in 50 million in revenue sharing that is split up amongst X number of teams. Did the Phillies get money from revenue sharing? Did the Angels? You'd figure they'd be trading with the Marlins every week if this was the case?

 

c) Etc.

Your strongest argument so far. Skipping the rest of your post that has no bearing.

Red Sox fans: drop a post if you're reading this. If I'm demeaning myself, let me know. If you're interested in this line of research, let me know: I can enhance the size of the comparative database and track the 2008 Yankees trades, and by the end of the season, if things keep going as they are right now, we might have some interesting results at a MUCH higher level of significance than we have right now.

You are demeaning yourself. However, I don't take things personally, but I'd like to know how this pans out. Not just for the Yankees, but all teams over a few years period. It would be interesting reading.

Your call, Red Sox fans. I don't care what Gom thinks; I do care, and would like to know, what you think.

There we go. So...based on JHB's painstaking, very long research, he's come to the conclusion that external factors, such as bribes/cheating are major factors in the Yankees recent deadline trading success. I postulate, without hundreds of pages of Excel spreadsheets, that due to external factors, such as team intent, payroll, upcoming free agents, etc., and wait....I will also say luck, because this is actually a game that's played on a field and not on a spreadsheet, as well as the fact that I'm alluding to, sample size, is way too small to back up his research.

 

To shorten it up for those of you still reading.

 

I say the Yankees deadline dealing success is mainly due to their ability to absorb payroll and they've been lucky [Chacon: 1-7, 4.09 ERA with Rockies, 7-3 2.85 ERA with Yankees.]

 

You believe that their success is far outside the realm of normal probability that they are cheating somehow, maybe by bribing the executives of other teams.

 

I joined Talksox because even though I'm a Yankee fan, I though collectively, you guys as a group were about as sharp as baseball fans as I've ever met. Although you guys are Red Sox fans, I don't believe that your fandom would exceed your logic. I hope I'm not mistaken. Do you guys really believe the Yankees as an organization cheated, and got away with it if they did?

 

I'm dying to see how this one turns out.

[jacksonianmarch]

I argue with Gom all the time. But I agree with him here. Sample sizes are small. The bias is swaying JHB's judgement. And the idea of a conspiracy to make the yankees better is just hilarious. Just drop it JHB. You keep backpedaling when you want to make progress. This one is a lost cause.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Stop doing this. It lengthens the thread for no reason.

 

To the contrary, it preserves your words in a post that you cannot edit.

 

No, JHB, your logic is not only flawed, it's outright useless. You use analysis from one year's deadline deals, and then apply them to one team's deadline deals over three years...four years later. Doesn't work. You're not even compaing apples to oranges. That would be a stretch to assume so.

 

Choosing analysis of the years in question would be trying to predict the probability of an event from the data set that included the event, which is frowned upon in stats. Furthermore, trades more recent than 2001 often aren't yet done because players are still under contract and playing for the team that received rights in the trade.

 

Your statistical variance is outside what would be accepted as the norm. Is there any logical fan that believes that deadline deals that are the result in less than one win is the norm over 70% of the time? Do you want anyone with a base high school education to believe this? Does anyone outside of JHB believe this? However, this is what your "statistical analysis" has shown us. Why is this value almost definitely incorrect. Sample size. Look up the definition. Let me educate you in what sample size means.

If a player hits .300 over 1000 ABs, he will get a hit 300 times in 1000 ABs. However, if you shrink the sample size to 3 ABs, he will have an average of 0. .333, .667, or 1.000. Only one of them is remotely close to his "actual" average, and even that can be considered a high degree of error based on the model. The other three outcomes are so far off the "actual" that the entire research is considered useless. This is the essence of the sample size error that I keep pointing out to you.

There's a gut understanding of serious fans that normalcy of deadline deals is the exchange of veterans from cellar-dwellers to contenders for good prospects. That would suggest a pattern of short-term gain for contenders offset by long-term gain by cellar-dwellers.

 

Looking at the numbers thus far, it doesn't quite work out that way. Certainly the pattern of veterans for prospects applies, but the long-term gain, as well as the short-term gain, slightly favors contenders in this sample. There's at least one potential reason: contending teams are almost always picking up salary, too. The performance of players acquired by contenders and also-rans almost balances over the duration of contract obligations, but the slight edge to contenders--heavily weighted to the two months following the trades--is probably offset by salaries. But even with the results of research favoring contending teams more than expected, the Yankees still stand out as outliers.

 

I urge you to check the numbers yourself. Do some actual research.

 

One example from 2001 that many readers here might remember is Urbina for Ohka. There was roughly a $4 million annual salary difference, and Boston got an added 0.8 wins in 2001 from Urbina but lost 13.7 wins in the long run despite accepting eight million additional dollars of salary liability.

 

But that's one example. It's anecdotal.

 

What I know is that many of the deadline trades appear to be salary dumps, and that it's a normal condition of deadline trades. Salary dumping isn't anything unusual; it's a rule.

 

No disagreement here. In fact, it's pretty much what I've been saying all along, when you take out the anti-Yankee bias. Go on.

 

Claiming it's cheating is just plain stupidity, and if you worked in baseball and made such a statement, it would probably cost you your job.

Back to the example of 3 ABs. Your sample size is too small, both as your master and your control. If you understand what these terms mean, then you understand what I mean.

 

Not true at all. This is where your argument falls completely apart. That's like saying 11 ABs is sufficient. You've got to look at hundreds of deals to figure this out, and even then, that's not enough. You've got to factor in so many intangibles, such as team motive, upcoming players, future free agent market, agent involved, etc. This is not as simple as a batting average, where you either get a hit or an out, and is easily quantifiable. Look at the Zambrano/Kazmir deal. Although I'm a Yankee fan, it was all over the papers here that Peterson, the Mets pitching coach, said he could fix Zambrano in "ten minutes" and that Kazmir was at least three years away. Based on his reccommendation, the Mets made the deal. Would you dare equate the Rays trade as "cheating".

 

Gom, no analysis would satisfy you. We know that.

 

Regarding the bolded text, I certainly agree. Nobody employed by MLB could make such a comment on the record, regardless of its truth. No journalist needing cooperation of MLB for contacts could write such a thing, either, lest their contacts refuse to communicate. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

 

Once upon a time nobody could write about steroids in baseball, either. We know how that turned out. Just because something cannot be said does not necessarily mean that it is untrue.

 

Did you ever take a class on logic? The very aspect that you are trying to pass off as scientific evidence such a small sample size as legitimate shows off one probable thing. If you passed the class, you probably cheated. [i really couldn't resist this one LOL!]

 

I am logical enough to know that you won't accept any degree of statistical evidence as proof. That may have been my college; it may have been my personal reading; it may have been my knowledge of life, meeting many thousands of people, including hundreds of Yankees fans.

 

Truthfully, I'd rather engage in meaningful discussion, but you don't really bring much to the table.

So do inane comments from Red Sox fans. Your point?

 

I am, however, surprised that you choose this moment to insult all Red Sox fans on a Red Sox board.

 

I'm praying that this is a joke. I'll assume that #2 and #3 is attempted as tongue in cheek, so I'll address number one only.

 

a) What you're saying is that the Yankees bribe other teams.

Ludicrous. Back to the original point. I swear, you remind of the chick from the Matrix movie, when she got stabbed and didn't die for what felt like ten minutes. You're as good as dead here, but you just keep breathing.

 

It's ludicrous that Yankees bribe other teams? Why did you accuse the Red Sox of bribing Seibu if such bribes are ludicrous?

 

Seriously, you are stating that the Yankees are cheating on what is probably the weakest statistical argument in the history of Talksox. Show me any proof of cheating from anyone in the baseball business. You know why you haven't? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

 

What you're saying is that teams give Yankees preferential treatment due to revenue sharing.

So Cashman goes up to the Angels, and says...if you don't trade us Molina, we won't sign that big name free agent and throw in 50 million in revenue sharing that is split up amongst X number of teams. Did the Phillies get money from revenue sharing? Did the Angels? You'd figure they'd be trading with the Marlins every week if this was the case?

 

I merely submitted a possibility. Frankly, bribes sound more likely than the desire for revenue sharing dollars. Fixed umpiring sounds more likely, too--we already know that the NBA has had fixed referees.

 

c) Etc.

Your strongest argument so far. Skipping the rest of your post that has no bearing.

 

Ah, Jeter's intangibles account for 99.5% improbable performance by the Yankees.

 

You are demeaning yourself. However, I don't take things personally, but I'd like to know how this pans out. Not just for the Yankees, but all teams over a few years period. It would be interesting reading.

 

There we go. So...based on JHB's painstaking, very long research, he's come to the conclusion that external factors, such as bribes/cheating are major factors in the Yankees recent deadline trading success. I postulate, without hundreds of pages of Excel spreadsheets, that due to external factors, such as team intent, payroll, upcoming free agents, etc., and wait....I will also say luck, because this is actually a game that's played on a field and not on a spreadsheet, as well as the fact that I'm alluding to, sample size, is way too small to back up his research.

 

To shorten it up for those of you still reading.

 

I say the Yankees deadline dealing success is mainly due to their ability to absorb payroll and they've been lucky [Chacon: 1-7, 4.09 ERA with Rockies, 7-3 2.85 ERA with Yankees.

 

You believe that their success is far outside the realm of normal probability that they are cheating somehow, maybe by bribing the executives of other teams.

 

I joined Talksox because even though I'm a Yankee fan, I though collectively, you guys as a group were about as sharp as baseball fans as I've ever met. Do you really believe the Yankees as an organization cheated, and got away with it if they did?

 

I'm dying to see how this one turns out.

 

More to the point regarding the bolded text, I'm demonstrating probabilities that something is up with some external factor favoring the Yankees in the outcome of trades. You posted that you thought similar factors were possible for Boston with respect to the Drew signing and the Matsuzaka posting and signing, so you obviously believe that they're possible. I merely point out the improbability that no external factor is at work regarding the Yankees.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I argue with Gom all the time. But I agree with him here. Sample sizes are small. The bias is swaying JHB's judgement. And the idea of a conspiracy to make the yankees better is just hilarious. Just drop it JHB. You keep backpedaling when you want to make progress. This one is a lost cause.

 

Another Yankees fan heard from.

 

For the record, though, if the issue is sample sizes, why are you requesting that I stop looking rather than requesting that I seek a larger sample?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Stop doing this. It lengthens the thread for no reason.

No, JHB, your logic is not only flawed, it's outright useless. You use analysis from one year's deadline deals, and then apply them to one team's deadline deals over three years...four years later. Doesn't work. You're not even compaing apples to oranges. That would be a stretch to assume so.

 

Your statistical variance is outside what would be accepted as the norm. Is there any logical fan that believes that deadline deals that are the result in less than one win is the norm over 70% of the time? Do you want anyone with a base high school education to believe this? Does anyone outside of JHB believe this? However, this is what your "statistical analysis" has shown us. Why is this value almost definitely incorrect. Sample size. Look up the definition. Let me educate you in what sample size means.

If a player hits .300 over 1000 ABs, he will get a hit 300 times in 1000 ABs. However, if you shrink the sample size to 3 ABs, he will have an average of 0. .333, .667, or 1.000. Only one of them is remotely close to his "actual" average, and even that can be considered a high degree of error based on the model. The other three outcomes are so far off the "actual" that the entire research is considered useless. This is the essence of the sample size error that I keep pointing out to you.

 

No disagreement here. In fact, it's pretty much what I've been saying all along, when you take out the anti-Yankee bias and your point to due research as futile as yours. Go on.

 

Claiming it's cheating is just plain stupidity, and if you worked in baseball and made such a statement, it would probably cost you your job.

Back to the example of 3 ABs. Your sample size is too small, both as your master and your control. If you understand what these terms mean, then you understand what I mean.

 

Not true at all. This is where your argument falls completely apart. That's like saying 11 ABs is sufficient. You've got to look at hundreds of deals to figure this out, and even then, that's not enough. You've got to factor in so many intangibles, such as team motive, upcoming players, future free agent market, agent involved, etc. This is not as simple as a batting average, where you either get a hit or an out, and is easily quantifiable. Look at the Zambrano/Kazmir deal. Although I'm a Yankee fan, it was all over the papers here that Peterson, the Mets pitching coach, said he could fix Zambrano in "ten minutes" and that Kazmir was at least three years away. Based on his reccommendation, the Mets made the deal. Would you dare equate the Rays trade as "cheating"? Maybe the Rays bribed Peterson.

 

Did you ever take a class on logic? The very aspect that you are trying to pass off as scientific evidence such a small sample size as legitimate shows off one probable thing. If you passed the class, you probably cheated. [i really couldn't resist this one LOL!]

Truthfully, I'd rather engage in meaningful discussion, but you don't really bring much to the table.

So do inane comments from Red Sox fans. Your point?

 

I'm praying that this is a joke. I'll assume that #2 and #3 is attempted as tongue in cheek, so I'll address number one only.

 

a) What you're saying is that the Yankees bribe other teams.

Ludicrous. Back to the original point. I swear, you remind of the chick from the Matrix movie, when she got stabbed and didn't die for what felt like ten minutes. You're as good as dead here, but you just keep talking. I swear, you have nothing to say...yet you still speak. The Yankees are not bribing other teams. I've brought to everyone's attention earlier the very real possibility of your Red Sox bribing Japanese teams, and I let it go just to prove my point. You are saying the Yankees are bribing other team executives or money under the table to other owners. In all my time here at Talksox, the most useless and baseless allegation ever. This isn't even about the Yankees. I wouldn't believe a single one of these allegations if it were any two teams in baseball. There is just way too much risk involved in baseball for the teams bribing, getting bribed, and the sport in general. Just ask Pete Rose.

 

Seriously, you are stating that the Yankees are cheating on what is probably the weakest statistical argument in the history of Talksox. Show me any proof of cheating from anyone in the baseball business. You know why you haven't? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

 

What you're saying is that teams give Yankees preferential treatment due to revenue sharing.

So Cashman goes up to the Angels, and says...if you don't trade us Molina, we won't sign that big name free agent and throw in 50 million in revenue sharing that is split up amongst X number of teams. Did the Phillies get money from revenue sharing? Did the Angels? You'd figure they'd be trading with the Marlins every week if this was the case?

 

c) Etc.

Your strongest argument so far. Skipping the rest of your post that has no bearing.

 

You are demeaning yourself. However, I don't take things personally, but I'd like to know how this pans out. Not just for the Yankees, but all teams over a few years period. It would be interesting reading.

 

There we go. So...based on JHB's painstaking, very long research, he's come to the conclusion that external factors, such as bribes/cheating are major factors in the Yankees recent deadline trading success. I postulate, without hundreds of pages of Excel spreadsheets, that due to external factors, such as team intent, payroll, upcoming free agents, etc., and wait....I will also say luck, because this is actually a game that's played on a field and not on a spreadsheet, as well as the fact that I'm alluding to, sample size, is way too small to back up his research.

 

To shorten it up for those of you still reading.

 

I say the Yankees deadline dealing success is mainly due to their ability to absorb payroll and they've been lucky [Chacon: 1-7, 4.09 ERA with Rockies, 7-3 2.85 ERA with Yankees.]

 

You believe that their success is far outside the realm of normal probability that they are cheating somehow, maybe by bribing the executives of other teams.

 

I joined Talksox because even though I'm a Yankee fan, I though collectively, you guys as a group were about as sharp as baseball fans as I've ever met. Although you guys are Red Sox fans, I don't believe that your fandom would exceed your logic. I hope I'm not mistaken. Do you guys really believe the Yankees as an organization cheated, and got away with it if they did?

 

I'm dying to see how this one turns out.

 

Hey, you edited your post. See, this is why I quote full posts.

 

The Yankees are not bribing other teams. I've brought to everyone's attention earlier the very real possibility of your Red Sox bribing Japanese teams, and I let it go just to prove my point. You are saying the Yankees are bribing other team executives or money under the table to other owners. In all my time here at Talksox, the most useless and baseless allegation ever. This isn't even about the Yankees. I wouldn't believe a single one of these allegations if it were any two teams in baseball. There is just way too much risk involved in baseball for the teams bribing, getting bribed, and the sport in general.

 

This part that you edited to create is a gem. It's reasonable that Boston would've resorted to bribes, and there's way too much risk involved in baseball for the teams bribing? Your paragraph is self-contradictory.

[Gom]

I think the Red Sox could have gotten away with it because it was a Japanese team, and this kind of stuff goes on over there from what I remember reading.

 

If you feel like expanding the research, go ahead. It would be interesting to see how certain teams and GMs do. I'm guessing the better teams do better. Go figure.

 

 

Once again, there is no external factor. Your sample size is too small, and the inherent risks associated with the integrity of the game, both to the team and to the individial as well as the sport, are too high. You can't even speak about another player under contract or you'd be tampering. Did the Red Sox tamper with Drew? Probably. Is there proof? No.

 

Did the Yankees cheat? No. Is there proof? No.

 

Do I believe that any team cheated when it came to trades? No. Even the Red Sox? No.

 

Do teams bend the rules with free agents and Japanese players? Probably. Why? Because it's nearly impossible to get caught. In fact, it's pretty much impossible without a paper trail.

 

Another thing...most of these owners are rich beyond our wildest dreams BEFORE they bought the team. Pohlad could buy Steinbrenner many times over, he just doesn't want to spend on his team. I don't think that Steinbrenner could bribe, or Henry could bribe the other owners.

 

I'm waiting for others to chime in. That will be the ultimate proof that you are lost. The only chance you have is that Red Sox fans side with you because they're Red Sox fans. Tell you what. Take this thread to say...an Astros or Brewers cite. See what they say? You wouldn't get 10% of the vote.

 

Once again, for those of you are interested in chiming in, I'll quote my own post:

 

To shorten it up for those of you still reading.

 

I say the Yankees deadline dealing success is mainly due to their ability to absorb payroll and they've been lucky [Chacon: 1-7, 4.09 ERA with Rockies, 7-3 2.85 ERA with Yankees.]

 

You believe that their success is far outside the realm of normal probability that they are cheating somehow, maybe by bribing the executives of other teams.

 

I joined Talksox because even though I'm a Yankee fan, I though collectively, you guys as a group were about as sharp as baseball fans as I've ever met. Although you guys are Red Sox fans, I don't believe that your fandom would exceed your logic. I hope I'm not mistaken. Do you guys really believe the Yankees as an organization cheated, and got away with it if they did?

 

I'm dying to see how this one turns out.

[jacksonianmarch]

Another Yankees fan heard from.

 

For the record, though, if the issue is sample sizes, why are you requesting that I stop looking rather than requesting that I seek a larger sample?

 

I am not requesting anything. I am saying that the idea of other teams trading players to the yankees intentionally for poor return is preposterous. If that were the case, wouldnt those teams then be pissed at the yankees since their new stadium will kill a lot of revenue sharing?

[Jayhawk Bill]

I think the Red Sox could have gotten away with it because it was a Japanese team, and this kind of stuff goes on over there from what I remember reading.

 

If you feel like expanding the research, go ahead. It would be interesting to see how certain teams and GMs do. I'm guessing the better teams do better. Go figure.

 

 

Once again, there is no external factor. Your sample size is too small, and the inherent risks associated with the integrity of the game, both to the team and to the individial as well as the sport, are too high. You can't even speak about another player under contract or you'd be tampering. Did the Red Sox tamper with Drew? Probably. Is there proof? No.

 

Then why did you claim it as fact previously in this thread if there's no proof?

 

See, when I pointed out that every allegation tracked back to one Murray Chass article that couldn't be supported, you posted with considerable certainty regarding the alleged tampering:

 

However, that stuff pales to what your team has done. Nothing like getting in bed with the team that is giving up the player in a posting fee. Or the JD Drew fiasco.

 

Drew [outright tampering]: Read the Chass article. Too long to quote.

 

What's changed, Gom?

 

Did the Yankees cheat? No. Is there proof? No.

 

If you mean that you have no proof regarding the Yankees' innocence, I concur.

 

Do I believe that any team cheated when it came to trades? No. Even the Red Sox? No.

 

Do teams bend the rules with free agents and Japanese players? Probably. Why? Because it's nearly impossible to get caught. In fact, it's pretty much impossible without a paper trail.

 

Another thing...most of these owners are rich beyond our wildest dreams BEFORE they bought the team. Pohlad could buy Steinbrenner many times over, he just doesn't want to spend on his team. I don't think that Steinbrenner could bribe, or Henry could bribe the other owners.

 

I'm waiting for others to chime in. That will be the ultimate proof that you are lost. The only chance you have is that Red Sox fans side with you because they're Red Sox fans. Tell you what. Take this thread to say...an Astros or Brewers cite. See what they say? You wouldn't get 10% of the vote.

 

Once again, for those of you are interested in chiming in, I'll quote my own post:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gom

To shorten it up for those of you still reading.

 

I say the Yankees deadline dealing success is mainly due to their ability to absorb payroll and they've been lucky [Chacon: 1-7, 4.09 ERA with Rockies, 7-3 2.85 ERA with Yankees.]

 

You believe that their success is far outside the realm of normal probability that they are cheating somehow, maybe by bribing the executives of other teams.

 

I joined Talksox because even though I'm a Yankee fan, I though collectively, you guys as a group were about as sharp as baseball fans as I've ever met. Although you guys are Red Sox fans, I don't believe that your fandom would exceed your logic. I hope I'm not mistaken. Do you guys really believe the Yankees as an organization cheated, and got away with it if they did?

 

I'm dying to see how this one turns out.

 

Regarding your bolded text, it's an interesting interpretation of what you define as "proof."

 

I don't dispute that feedback could indicate how welcome or unwelcome my perspectives are here. "Proof" I was wrong, though, would tend to require research, not opinion, and I'd be surprised if anybody else took the time to duplicate my work, let alone to increase the sample size to, say, ten years' deadline trades. I'd also be surprised were that to alter the results much.

 

Feedback from Red Sox fans can provide information on whether they want to read this analysis, as well as whether or not I'm wasting my time offering analysis on this site. You merely attribute the wins to Jeter's intangibles; I clearly define why it appears not to be random luck of trades. I don't know what people here would rather read.

[Gom]

Don't bother Jacko. That's also cheating. In fact, in his book, if you look up Yankees, the definition is cheating.

 

Anyone else want to chime in?

[TheKilo]

Don't bother Jacko. That's also cheating. In fact, in his book, if you look up Yankees, the definition is cheating.

 

Anyone else want to chime in?

 

You'd have more credibility if you didn't insist on using strawmen for your arguments.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I am not requesting anything.

 

Hmmm.

 

Just drop it JHB.

 

I'd thought that "Just drop it" was a request to, um, drop it. But you say you're not requesting anything.

 

:dunno:

 

I am saying that the idea of other teams trading players to the yankees intentionally for poor return is preposterous. If that were the case, wouldnt those teams then be pissed at the yankees since their new stadium will kill a lot of revenue sharing?

 

And I'm saying that the three-year pattern of trades isn't at all statistically likely, and that three more recent trades were lopsided enough that each generated controversy regarding why the other teams would do them. You consider it preposterous, but even Gom has accused an MLB team of collusion in this thread...it seems not to be so preposterous.

[jacksonianmarch]

Was Big Stein the mystery shooter on the Grassy Knoll too?

[jacksonianmarch]

the fact that Nady is now hitting .385 with 3HR and 10RBI in 8 games must also be another Cashman coup. How would he know Nady would get better? I smell a conspiracy

[Gom]

Then why did you claim it as fact previously in this thread if there's no proof?

 

See, when I pointed out that every allegation tracked back to one Murray Chass article that couldn't be supported, you posted with considerable certainty regarding the alleged tampering:

Of course I did. That one source was one more than yours, even until now. In fact, there were people quoted in it, Colletti to be exact. Where's ONE QUOTE, ONE ALLEGATION, ANYWHERE...that supports your claim?

If you mean that you have no proof regarding the Yankees' innocence, I concur.

Guilty until proven innocent? You're a moron. Ok. Disprove the Red Sox didn't cheat. Show me proof they didn't. The premise is "innocent until proven guilty". This quote was singularly the dumbest thing ever posted on the history of this website, or at least since I've been here. For that line alone, you should never post here again. Ever. Just disappear.

Regarding your bolded text, it's an interesting interpretation of what you define as "proof."

 

I don't dispute that feedback could indicate how welcome or unwelcome my perspectives are here. "Proof" I was wrong, though, would tend to require research, not opinion, and I'd be surprised if anybody else took the time to duplicate my work, let alone to increase the sample size to, say, ten years' deadline trades. I'd also be surprised were that to alter the results much.

No one in their right mind would waste 30 seconds trying to prove what you are trying to prove. If you want an idea of the analysis us BASEBALL fans here would like, take a look at "Kilometric". I, for one, am interested in such information. In fact, I believe I'd be interested in the information you post as long as it doesn't pertain to the Yankees or the Red Sox. I simply believe that you are incapable of impartial analysis. It is simply beyond your level of comprehension.

Feedback from Red Sox fans can provide information on whether they want to read this analysis, as well as whether or not I'm wasting my time offering analysis on this site. You merely attribute the wins to Jeter's intangibles; I clearly define why it appears not to be random luck of trades. I don't know what people here would rather read.

You brought up Jeter's intangibles. Most at Talksox here know I believe in no such thing. The only thing this thread has shown is this: You are by far the most clueless person I have ever met here.

[TheKilo]

the fact that Nady is now hitting .385 with 3HR and 10RBI in 8 games must also be another Cashman coup. How would he know Nady would get better? I smell a conspiracy

 

I smell a career year and hopefully a regression soon.

 

edit - Oh and this is a great example of SSS too.