JonahKeri.com

Following this weekend’s New York Times article on the Yankees’ post-World Series strategy, and the lessons they can learn from past champs, I received some thoughtful and interesting e-mails from Times readers.

So for your Thanksgiving reading pleasure: Mailbag Time!

I was reading your article where you said the Angels made a huge mistake not replacing more players. That might be true but the important fact you forgot is Disney owned the Angels and were selling them. If you just won the World Series and want to sell the champs why would you make any drastic changes? Would that make sense to the new owner? I think you should just mention that little fact. Most of the time it makes sense to make changes but not that time.
–B.C.

This is a fascinating argument, one I’ve often thought about outside the realm of World Series teams. Do ownership groups actually get a financial benefit from having recognizable players on the 25-roster? If you want to argue that the Yankees would be a more salable property with Derek Jeter on the team, I could behind that argument. But did the 2002 Angels fetch more money for Disney because Scott Spiezio was on the team? Or Ramon Ortiz?

My guess is that most of the value tied up in sports franchises lies in their status as one of a small number of entities operating within a profitable and prestigious oligarchy. Beyond a select group of global brand-type athletes (Jeter, LeBron, etc.), I don’t think sports teams see much, if any benefit from continuity in the event of a sale, even if we’re talking about very good players who aren’t breakout superstars (like Garret Anderson, Tim Salmon and other ‘02 Angels).

Re ”Giving It a Second Thought,” Nov. 22: What an insidious misuse of statistics! Jonah Keri’s derogation of recent Yankees’ heroes is breathtakingly selective, and flies in the face of logic and intuition. In the context of a discussion of how the statistics of several mediocre players “regressed to the mean” after a single “career year,” he sarcastically implies that the odds are overwhelming that Matsui, Damon, and Pettitte will perform poorly next year. I claim no special knowledge of statistics or their use, but it seems breathtakingly clear that the only meaningful “mean” for these players derives from their own individual histories: these guys have been simply great for many years, including coming back from serious injuries. Will age catch up with them? Sure, eventually. But what are the chances that this will happen to all of them in the same year?
–D.S.

I’m not implying that every Yankee over the age of 35, or even just Damon, Matsui and Pettitte, will all collapse at once in 2010. The idea here was to explore how other teams fared after winning a World Series, based on how active they were in reshaping their rosters. In the Yankees’ case, we have decades of data telling us that aging players run a greater risk of reduced success with every year that ticks by.

Now it’s certainly the case that players age better today than they did in previous generations, thanks to better training methods, improved medical science, etc. But the old Branch Rickey slogan applies here: Better to sell a player a year early than a year late. Given the advanced age of several Yankees, one could argue that the team has already rolled the dice and resisted dealing or jettisoning a number of players a year early. But they still have a chance to do it before it’s a year late. It’s an idea worth exploring.

“Hulking palace” seems like a reach; it is a pretty nice stadium
–C.P.

You’re right that “hulking palace” isn’t usually how I refer to Yankee Stadium. It’s gigantic, metallic and impersonal. Reminds me of Schiphol Airport.

Three other pieces of information would have been useful:

3. Some numbers (general or specific) to support regression in the opposite direction – do teams who perform poorly but keep their rosters relatively stable improve the next year?
–R.L.

1. Pulling these numbers together was tricky to begin with. Do you use playoff rosters from year to the next, and knowingly omit a team’s fifth starter, who’s unlikely to be in play? How do you account for injuries to key contributors before or during the postseason? And so on. I used a blend of art and science in this case, roughly speaking Aug. 31 rosters (before September roster expansion but after most deals have been made), with a sprinkle of creative liberties where appropriate. By those standards, I get the following new Phillies in 2009:

Raul Ibanez
Cliff Lee
Ben Francisco
J.A. Happ
Chan Ho Park
Pedro Martinez

So, six.

2. Throwing out the ‘97 Marlins, who staged a massive fire sale, we get an average of 6.3 players per team changing hands. Which is why I used 6 as the over/under on stand-pat teams vs. movers and shakers. Certainly any study like this could be guilty of selective end points, and there are small-sample size issues inherent in sticking only to teams in the Wild Card era.

3. Excellent question, and one that could be worthy of further study in the future.

Excellent article, one of the best examples of this was the 1964-1965 Yankees. They went from first to 6th. There was some turnover for the backup players, but the starting 9 plus the pitching staff was essentially the same. Yes it was before free agency, but the Yankees ignored the aging of their players and stood pat, not trading or developing their farm system. They got old very quickly and it took them 12 years win the pennant again.
–M.W.

One of the things I didn’t do with this article was parse out turnover of bit players (long relievers, bench types) from a team’s leading lights. As you note, merely swapping out backup players doesn’t really solve the issue of fighting complacency and avoiding the curse of an aging ballclub. Of course, the greater the dynasty, the harder it is to say goodbye to key components, and that’s been the case both before and after the advent of free agency.

To throw a wild hypothetical out there, what if the Yankees could get Josh Hamilton, Elvis Andrus and Derek Holland from the Rangers for Derek Jeter? Assuming Hamilton’s healthy, you solve your center fielder problem with a star-caliber player, sub in an early-20s defensive dynamo at short for Jeter, and add an electric lefty arm to your stable of young pitching talent behind Sabathia and Burnett. From a baseball standpoint, it’s certainly a defensible trade.

So would the Yankees ever do this? No freaking way.

I really liked your analysis of the Yankees Sunday.
I would add.
It is unlikely Posada will be able to catch as much as he has – either effectively or ineffectively.
Look at the Hall of Fame catcher numbers after 35. It is unlikely he can do it again.
Damon and Pettitte are candidates for crash and burn in a hurry. I have a great deal of respect for P. but teams have begun hitting him. Teams had big innings. That should continue because of his age, wear etc.
Ibanez is another guy who almost certainly won’t do in 10 what he did in 09.
I am not in love with the free agent class either. Bay strikes out too much. Lackey is good but not great. Figgins seems like a guy made for the Angels.
He would be good for the Twins – my team – but not at the money he wants. Feliz looks like a bargain to me. His stats for the last five years are pretty much Beltre’s – at a third the dough.
–M.C.

Another key consideration when assessing the Change Is Good theory: What’s out there? You can add Matt Holliday and a few others to the top of the free-agent class, as well as likely trade availables such as Adrian Gonzalez and Roy Halladay. But at any given time, there are only going to be a handful of true impact players on the market, and only a few more mid-tier players worth the money they’re seeking. Of course when you’re the Yankees, you have the money to overpay anyone you want if the mood strikes. What the Yankees don’t have is a deep stable of young talent to flip in trade, especially if they’re determined to keep, say, Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes.

As for your Twins, they still enough young pitching to swing a deal should the mood strike. As for third base, don’t sell Adrian Beltre short. He’s a terrific fielder, yes. But his offensive numbers also got brutalized by Safeco Field, which as tough as any park in baseball on right-handed hitters. Put him in a neutral to positive environment for hitters and you might be surprised how much better he looks, even if 2004 is a distant memory.

Interesting article and analysis regarding the effect of keeping rosters after world series titles. One thing that i thought could be very helpful and interesting was taking a look at the Yankee dynasties beginning in 1996. How was the turnover each year, since we know how they fared.
–A.R.

TEAM players lost turnover % Year-over-year records
96 to 97 Yankees: 10 40% 92-70, WS W to 96-66, WS L
98 to 99 Yankees: 5 20% 114-48, WS W to 98-64, WS W
99 to 00 Yankees: 6 24% 98-64, WS W to 87-74, WS W
00 to 01 Yankees: 7 28% 87-74, WS W to 95-65, WS L

The 2000 team throws the math out of whack a bit, in that it was easily the worst of the four World Series winners with just 87 wins. The Yanks won eight more games in 2001 than they did in 2000, but obviously failed to take home the trophy that year.

Thanks for the article on the Yankees. It makes me feel better in case they lose Matsui, Damon, or Pettitte. The only thing is, I think it would be hard to replace what they did this year with anyone else. Plus, I think these three guys are maybe different and might not regress that much if at all. For one thing, they all had been dinged up much more the year before. Once they were healthy they produced more like their early thirties selves. Injuries can affect ball players of any age. Also, all three are baseball geniuses. Think of Pettitte fielding the bunt and throwing the guy out at third against the Braves in 96, Damon taking third against the shift this year, Matsui’s success in thinking along with Pedro Martinez in big spots.

Thanks for the Yanks talk in this doleful winter of NYK, NYJ, NYG.
–D.S.

Good point about Damon, Pettitte and Matsui succeeding largely thanks to improved health. My friend Chris Liss of Rotowire.com argues that if skilled baseball players could stay healthy, their performance could easily hold up well into their 40s, given the better shape they’re in today and how far medicine has progressed. It’s an interesting thought, but one that’s very tough to prove, simply because years of wear are almost inevitably going to lead to injuries of some kind. It may be that we’re being too fine in defining what constitutes “injury” vs. “player has a lot of miles on his odometer and is slowly breaking down.”