Happy Yankee Day!

(Picture via)

Over at the Replacement Level Yankees Weblog, Sean McNally continues a tradition he started over at Baseball Think Factory: declaring January 3rd "Yankee Day":

Why? Simple, the two most significant events in the history of the franchise are credited to have occurred that day. In 1973, George Steinbrenner paid CBS $10 million for the Yankees. Adjusted for inflation that’s roughly 2.1 million dollars* in 2008 funds. Just absurd.

Going back into history, Baseball Reference cites Jan. 3, 1920 as the day the transaction sending George Herman “Babe” Ruth to the Yankees was processed. I’ve since seen it elsewhere credited to dates in December, but since that doesn’t fit with my narrative, I choose to ignore it.

* I think he might have done the calculation backwards. If you go to the Government's CPI Inflation Calculator it gives the figure as $48.7M, which makes sense because $10M was worth more in 1973 than it is now.

The Yankees played their first game ever on April 26th, 1901 so I suppose that would be the franchise's birthday. I'm sure a few of their World Series victories have piled up on the same days in October, but it's unlikely that two more important (or at least symbolic) events share the same anniversary.

Curse or no curse, the acquisition of Babe Ruth changed the balance of power in the American League for years to come. In his 15 seasons with the Yankee, the team went to 7 World Series and won 4. He got on base in 48.4% of his plate appearances in Pinstripes and slugged 659 of his 714 career homers wearing them. Over that time, his OPS+ was 210. By comparison, A-Rod's best single season was 176. That tells you more about the offense production during the 20's and early 30's than it does about Ruth vs. Rodriguez, but the Babe was so far ahead of his peers that it's almost impossible than anyone will ever be better.

The Babe was probably the one thing most responsible for turning the Yankees into the preeminent franchise in all of sports initally, but it was the Boss who did the most to bring the Bombers back to glory.

Consider that Bud Selig had bought the Seattle Pilots - an ostensibly broke team on the fringes of the Major Leagues - just three years prior to George Steinbrenner's acquisition of the Yanks for $800,000 more. Selig wanted a team that he could move to Milwaukee, so it's not like he was in danger of buying the Yankees, but it goes to show that $10M was an incredible steal, even back then. While the Yankees have won both because and in spite of Steinbrenner and he certainly had his flaws as a person, it's hard to imagine the Yanks under the control of someone with a stronger desire to win than The Boss.

Almost everywhere else around the MLB and other professional sports leagues, owners are content to run their teams as if they were a business, considering profitability to be their number one concern. Even as the Boss has faded into the background, the organization has continued to put the emphasis on assembling the best team possible, even if it means spending hundreds of millions of dollars on blue chip free agents.

With a brand New Stadium and another World Series trophy, the Yankees aren't short on cash. But there are plenty of other teams who would have rested on their laurels this offseason instead of making aggressive trades and finding undervalued free agents with lots of upside. Although The Boss is no longer making the decisions, we have him to thank for the borderline irrational desire to win that makes the Yankees who they are today.

Happy Yankee Day, indeed!

Only A Year?

I hadn't heard of Matthew Pouliot before Circling the Bases was formed, but I've found myself linking to his thoughts pretty frequently as of late. He's got a theory about the Manny revelations today:

However, I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that he started up about a year ago.

I thought Ramirez was done as a superstar last May. His OPS dropped all of the way from 1058 in 2006 to 881 in 2007. He homered once every 12.3 at-bats in 2005, once every 12.8 at-bats in 2006 and once every 24.2 at-bats in 2007. The home run bounced back somewhat in the first half of 2008, but he finished the first three months at .286/.377/.514. It'd be a great line for the typical corner outfielder, but it wasn't typical Manny.

It wasn't just the numbers, though. Right-handers capable of throwing in the mid-90s and unleashing quality sliders were making quick work of him. Ramirez really is about as smart of a hitter that there is in the game, and he was still feasting on mistakes. But to my eyes, the quality pitches that he used to line for doubles were instead resulting in swings and misses. Ramirez was always a guy fans wanted up at the end of close games. However, that's when teams usually have their best pure arms on the mound and Ramirez just wasn't having any luck against them.

Ramirez had to know he wasn't catching up to fastballs like he once did. Maybe that's when he decided he needed a boost. A month or two to kick in, a trade to the easier league, a happier situation… the perfect storm?

Anyway, it's just a thought. It probably didn't go down like that at all. Nothing is going to surprise me.

It's an interesting thought, and it's just as plausible as any other theory you are going to hear thrown against the wall at this point.  

That's the frustrating part of all this PED bullshit. When there is some sort of dramatic reveal, it invariably only leads to more questions. All you get are intentionally vague half truths, which bring out the conspiracy theorists in all of us, trying to connect the dots.

While it's certainly tempting as a Yankees' fan to chalk Manny's .321/.411/.618 line against the Bombers to steroid use, we can't. His 50 2B, 55 HR, 163 RsBI and 448 total bases are all the highest totals against any opponent, and that's probably the reason behind the temptation. I got rightfully called out by Mass Hysteria earlier, for bringing the Sox' World Series titles into it. I still think it's a valid point, given the fact that the Mitchell Report (which is being exposed for the incomplete sham that it was with each passing outed player) named 9 Yankees on the 2000 World Series team, and we had to hear that bullshit too. 

But pointing back to previous World Series titles isn't going to change anything. They are in the record books. The emotions have come and gone and retroactively labeling them tainted isn't going to change them in our memories. I'll never forget going apeshit in Falcone 201 when Aarone Boone hit that home run. I'll still remember walking back to my dorm room on the sixth floor of Collins that night in 2004, and watching every elated Red Sox fan spill out into greenspace, losing their minds. 

It just goes to show how insidiously PED use weaved it's way into the game. It's like an invasive species. At a certain point, it becomes impossible to separate it from what originally existed. You can try to slice and segment what would or should have happened in Played X wasn't on Drug Y, but it's only imaginary, no different from re-playing the season on MVP Baseball 2004.

Even if you are a Yankees fan, I don't think there is cause for celebration. For every player who at one point or another who seemed beyond reproach is tagged for PED use, the less we have witnessed history. If baseball is ever able to get ahead of the drug use, much of this era will be dismissed in retrospect because so many of the best players were not clean.  

Womp, Womp, Waaaaaaaaaang

Today, Tyler Kepner brakes down the Chien Ming Wang situation. Here are the takeaways:

1. With an ERA of 34.50, CMW is off to the worst statistical start of any Yankees pitcher ever.


2. Wang is probably going to get skipped in the rotation.


3. He is out of minor league options and there is no possible way he could be sent down without other teams having the option of claiming him.

#1 - Yes, he has pitched horribly. I called him the greatest batting practice pitcher the world has ever seen. At a certain point, he's getting a little unlucky too. If you were trying to give up that many runs without just intentionally walking everyone, I'm not sure you could. It's hard to imagine he's gone from a guy who pitched about three full seasons with an ERA under 4.00 to the worst Major League pitcher in the history of the game.

#2 - Pulling him out of the rotation lines up Burnett, Pettitte and Sabathia to start against the Red Sox at Fenway. Even if there is nothing fundamentally wrong with him, there's just no way the Yankees could throw him to the wolves against the Sox based on what he's done so far.

#3 - This puts him at a huge disadvantage. Wang is a humble guy, and I think he would accept a tune-up start in AAA to get his feet back under him, if that were an option. Now he has to throw in side sessions and won't be able to face live batters until his next start in the majors.

-----

What will become of Chien Ming Wang? Is he ever going to be the dominating presence he once was? How many more disastrous showings is it going to take before the Yanks give up on him? Luckily his next start projects to be against Detroit at Comerica, because the fans at home have already turned on him in the worst way. I'm starting to get nervous.

Use of the Word "Historic"

Am I the only one who gets annoyed at the continuous, cliched use of the word "historic"?

The word is overused in every facet of life, from sports (i.e. the Cardinals Super Bowl run) to politics (Obama's inauguration).

What are the standards for the use of this word?

Isn't everything historic? Last night I was at Bogie's when they kicked a keg of Guinness. Guess who got the first one from the new barrel... HISTORIC!

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "historic" is defined as:

: historic :
a: famous or important in history
b: having great and lasting importance
c: known or established in the past
d: dating from or preserved from a past time or culture

But when we use the word in the present, how do we know that it will be "famous or important in history" given that history is what occurs in the past? Another cliche is "witnessing history". Isn't whatever we see "witnessing history"? And why exactly is the Cardinals Super Bowl run "historic"? It doesn't fit into any of those definitions.

Why can't writers come up with another word?

[Ed. Note: I blame Joe Buck. I can just hear him saying it.]