A Cup of Joe

I really thought the Yankees were bitches about the Joe Torre situation.

Joe Torre managed the Yankees for twelve seasons, did one heck of a job, by all accounts. In twelve years, he made the playoffs twelve times, won four World Series, made the playoffs twelve times and his team finished first ten times. Of course he did have great players, but that's a pretty amazing run.

In George Steinbrenner's universe and in Yankee culture, though, the only way a team has a successful year, is to actually win the World Series. I mean, everyone says their goal is to win the Fall Classic in April, but most don't really believe they can. The Yankees mean it, that's the only thing that is acceptable and that's an amazingly high bar to set.

Torre hadn't made it over that bar in this century (2000 is still the 20th Century, dumbass) - unacceptable for his organization.

Now, the expectations are absurd, and it sounds like a really hard organization to work in, but it also has produced 26 World Series championships.

Anyway, that's the culture and I thought it was OK for them to fire him, but they didn't do it in the 'right' way - first Steinbrenner said he'd be fired if they lost during the playoffs, then they let him hang out there for a week, and then they gave him an offer he would refuse. (Yes, a lot of money, but the one-year thing isn't good. The bonuses for rounds won in the playoffs seems insulting, like the guy needed motivation or something).

I'm not sure if it was that they didn't have the nerve/heart to do it outright or they were trying to do some public relations posturing, but it would have been much better to say, "Joe, thanks, but we're going to make a change because we feel we need to shake things up."

After millions of dollars and twelve years and all those wins, you don't owe him a job, but you do owe him a bit of respect, and their lack of it was poor form.

Got More Hits Than The Mets And The Yankees

Just felt like giving a little bit of a mid-season baseball recap.

National League
The Mets have the best record in the National League and are matched in wins, somewhat amazingly, by the Arizona Diamondbacks. The D-backs have a young team who is playing well in a tough division. It will be interesting to see if they can hold on.

As far as the Mets go, they seem like they're playing just well enough to hold on to their first place lead. They give the other teams hope, and hten go on a run to bring their lead back out to for or 5 games. Currently it's 4 after a win last night that really served to encapsulate their season. They came from behind to take the lead from the Braves, who they can't beat traditionally, and then held on to their one run lead despite having the bases loaded with none out in the top of the 9th.

I think we're forgetting that their outfield has been in disarray all season. Every one of their ourfielders, Beltran, Alou, Green, Chavez, Milledge, and Gomez, has spent time on the DL this season; some far more than others. I think we shouldn't unerestimate the impact that Endy Chavez has on the team and his absence hurts their bench and their defense. Lastings Milledge has been great recently. I think his time on the DL actually helped him in cooling him down a little bit. I hope he can keep it up. Carlos Gomez is a nice player who swings a little too hard. If he can rein that in a little bit, I think the outfield is looking good for the next few years. Imagine Beltran, Milledge, and Gomez in the outfield (3 natural center fielders) with Chavez on the bench (another center fielder).

Also as a tangent, I would really like to see David Wright stay in the the 3 hole and Beltran move to 2 when he comes back, but I know that there is no chance in the world that would happen. Also Castillo, the new 2B is a pretty good 2 hitter, so it's almost a guarantee that D-Dub is moving back down to 5.

I have a feeling that they're really not playing well at all, but the other teams in the National League are not really playing any better. On top of that, the Mets have room to improve whereas the Diamondbacks, Padres, Brewers, and Cubs are playing up the their ability. I still think the Phillies are dangerous, but they strike me as a team built in the same vein as the Mets, but just not as well. I think the Mets will hold them off. You have to worry about the Braves, but Chipper and Smoltz are aging, and Andruw Jones is the biggest waste of talent in the league over the last two seasons turning from Vernon Wells into Jeromy Burnitz. Can you believe that Andruw Jones is only 29 years old? He's been in the league since 1996 as a 19 year old rookie. That was about 100 pounds ago, though. Today he just looks like a fat guy trying to hit home runs in his beer league. His swing is gross. Anyway, save for Andruw, the Braves may get their new chemistry working and we might have to look out for them.

The NL wild card race is tight. The Padres, Rockies, Phillies, Braves, Cubs, and Dodgers are all within 3 games of each other. Not to mention the Brewers, who have a tenuous grasp on first place in the central. So I feel like the Mets are going to hold on to the division, and with a bit of luck one of those other teams will win the wild card and keep the Phillies and Braves out of the playoffs. I don't have supreme faith in the Mets this year, but they are still clearly the best team. If someone gets lucky, they could easily win the NL pennant, however, a la the Cardinals of last year.

Thus far
NL MVP: Matt Holiday
NL Cy Young: Jake Peavy (not John Maine, unfortunately)
Rookie of the Year: Hunter Pence

American League

Dear American League, NL playoff teams, and Yankee haters: Be Afraid. The Yankees are going to win the wild card. It's a bit too late for them to win the division, even though they were as close as 5 games yesterday, but they are going to buck up and make the playoffs. I almost don't believe it myself, but it's true. Those of you who hate the Yankees are going to respond with, "Yeah, but this is by far the easiest part of their schedule. They played the Royals, Blue Jays, Devil Rays, and Orioles, for the past month. Why don't you wait until this upcoming stretch against Cleveland, Detroit, Anaheim (I refuse to call them the LA Angels), and Boston before you start handing out rings?" I respond with the fact that the Yankees are built to be the best team in baseball (they're not, but that's how they're built) and if they start clicking on all cylinders, then you had better watch out. They *averaged* 10 runs per game on their last homestand. The only reason that Bobby Abreu didn't win AL player of the month of July is because Robinson Cano and Hideki Matsui had better months than him. They've finally let Melky Cabrera play every day, and everyone else is in trouble.

I predict that the Yankees will beat up on Cleveland and Detroit over the next couple of weeks, both of whom have been on the slide recently, and put themselves in prime position for the wild card. They're also playing the Angels and Red Sox this month, and that will be the test of their playoff potential. There are two things that might keep the Yankees from success here at the end of the season and their names are Mike Mussina and Jason Giambi. The problem is that both of them suck. If, this is a big if, but if Phil Hughes can pitch well into the end of the season, and Joe Torre can get his head out of his ass, then the rotation in the playoffs can be Pettitte, Wang, Clemens, and Hughes. I have absolutely no faith in Mussina. Giambi might throw a wrench into the recnet Yankee success. They have made intimations that when he comes back next week, he shouldn't expect to play all that much and I hope they stick with that. He could get hot, but I doubt it.

The wild card right now is a three team race including the Yankees, Detroit/Cleveland, and Seattle. Seattle is actually playing well and could get all up in the playoff race by the end of the season. The worst case scenario would be for the Mariners to continue to play well, challenge Anaheim for the division, and get them involved in the wild card race too. The best case would be for them to fall off out of the picture and for Cleveland and Detroit to pull each other down.

Now I don't think the Yankees pitching and bullpen will pull them through a playoff stretch, but it's conceivable that the Yankees take the Phoenix Suns approach to the playoffs and just try to outscore everyone. Plus I would feel pretty comfortable with the Yankee lineup and Pettitte or Wang on the mound.

My prediction is that this is the year for the Los Anglels California Angels of Anaheim to win it. They are just the most consistent team. As a side note, if there is no run-away winner within the next couple of years, then Chone Figgins could very well win the MVP. Not this year, but one year. Boston is just complacent at this point. They won't make a playoff run. Detroit and Cleveland have been exposed recently, I think. It's not out of the realm of possibility for the Yankees to win the pennant, but I don't see it this year.

Thus far:
AL MVP: A-Rod (hard to argue against him, even though Magglio Ordonez is great)
AL Cy Young: Dan Haren (of Oakland. This is a really tough one. You could argue for Sabathia, Beckett, Carmona or a couple others too)
Rookie of the year: Travis Buck (of Oakland. He just has the best name of all the candidates including Dustin Pedroia, Hideki Okajima, Daisuke Matsuzaka, and Jeremy Guthrie)

Counterpoint: Squeezing the Baseball Market in NY

So Jerry just posted about the two new "stadia" (Ms. Guerra would be proud) that the New York baseball teams are building over the next few years. The point, I think, is that ticket prices will necessarily go up because each stadium will have fewer seats; Jerry blames the Mets in particular, as they are downsizing 12,000 seats, comparted to the yankees' 6,000. While ticket prices will go up (I think both teams have already said this), I disagree with Jerry's reasoning that is particularly critical of the Mets.

It's not enough to say that the Mets are squeezing fans more than the yankees merely because the Mets are cutting out more seats. In fact, based on ticket demand, the opposite is the case. In 2006, the Mets set a club record by drawing an average of 43,327 fans to each home game. By contrast, the yankees drew an average of 51,858 fans to each home game. In order to determine whether each team can cut seats without raising prices, however, you also have to look at capacity. The Mets' attendance figures for 2006 amounted to a 75.5% capacity ratio (13th in MLB despite being 3rd in overall attendance), while the yankees capacity ratio was 90.2% (side note: in 2004, the Boston Red Sox had a capacity ratio of 100.7%; subject of a separate post).


So what's the point? The point is that the yankees are cutting their seat availability below current capacity (51,858 per game > 50,000 seats in new stadium), while the Mets are merely harmonizing their seat capacity with current demand (43,327 fans per game <> would have to raise ticket prices, while the Mets would not.


Now, there are obvious problems with the above reasoning. The Mets actually can sell 57,000 tickets to games against the yankees, the opener, playoffs, etc., and the Mets clearly cannot sell 43,327 tickets to a game against Pittsburgh on a rainy Tuesday night in August, but I think it is fair to point out that the 12,000 seat reduction needs to be viewed against capacity and demand in determining whether it is reasonable.


I think the Mets will raise ticket prices, and I think the Yankees will do the same. The price for fans to pay for a winning club, I guess. In all fairness, though, 57,000 seats is way too big for a baseball stadium, and I think the Mets' proposed reduction is about right.

My point, though, is that the seat reduction in Flushing doesn't require a price increase to maintain income levels. Given the demand to see a winning team in a brand new ballpark, the Mets can reasonably hope to sell out pretty much every home game at the new stadium for the first year or two (look at the Blue Jays, Indians for previous examples). If they sell 45,000 tickets 81 times a year, they will total 3,645,000 tickets in the season, which would be more than they have ever drawn before. In that case, they wouldn't need to raise ticket prices in order to maintain current ticket income (side note: they will still do it, because the demand will exist, and billionaires are generally good businessmen). By contrast, the yankees know that the demand exists, and are consciously reducing supply below demand . . . . that decision is more likely to result in a ticket price increase.



Or, to put it another way:

Squeezing the Baseball Market in New York

Both the New York Mets and Yankees are building new stadiums (stadia?) for the 2009 season. It seems to me like both teams are looking to screw the fans to a certain extent, and I know that this blog is generally a Mets sympathizer, but I have to take a shot at them in this post.

The New Yankee Stadium is going to have many more luxury boxes and new facilities and those people who are able to get over the fact that they won't actually be playing on the original site of Yankee Stadium recognize that the innards of the stadium, the clubhouses, dugouts, press box, TV booths, and so forth, are dilapidated and need to be replaced. They could obviously continue to play in this stadium, but in this era of new stadiums, the richest team in baseball should have state of the art facilities. And, to the Yankees credit, they are footing $800 million of the $1 billion price tag.

The current Yankee stadium holds 57,000 fans and the new stadium will hold 51,000, leaving 6,000 fans out in the cold. This is not a negligible number for the Yankees, because they sell out many games. They will have more luxury boxes, so capacity will probably be similar to what it is now, but the average fan is not sitting in luxury boxes. The Yankees, amazingly, have already sold 3.5 million tickets for this upcoming season before even one game has been played. Over 81 games, that's an average of 43,210 fans per game that have already been sold. Clearly there's a demand for tickets, and when the new stadium opens the demand will certainly increase rather than decrease. On some level I'll give the Yankees credit. The new trend in baseball is toward smaller stadiums and for the Yankees to put 50,000 seats in a brand new stadium, even though it's less than they currently have, is at least acceptable.

Citi Field, which will replace Shea Stadium in 2009, has similar issues, but to a larger extent. Citi Field will hold approximately 45,000 fans, down from 57,000 in the current Shea Stadium. A difference of 12,000 seats. 12,000 is the capacity of Madison Square Garden, and that's the number of fans who won't be seeing Mets games in person. The Mets also have serious demand for tickets. They have pre-sold 2.5 million tickets (25 of which have been purchased by me), again before any games have been played, which is 30,865 fans per game. I guess the reasoning here is that there is a more intimate feeling in the stadium with fewer seats, but I have a real problem with such a difference in capacity.

On most nights, the Mets don't need 57,000 seats, whereas the Yankees need all the space they can get to house their fairweather fans. On a random Wednesday at Shea there are probably 35-40 thousand people there, with a spike on the weekends and a full stadium for big games and holidays and such.

What's interesting about both new stadiums is that neither field is changing very much. The field at Yankee Stadium will be almost exactly the same, with the short right porch and double bleachers in the outfield. The upper level seats seem as if the will be recessed from the field a bit more than they are now, but otherwise it seems like it will be similar. Yankee Stadium is beautiful and is a fun place to watch a game, so I guess there's no need to change much.

Citi Field is not going to be perfectly symmetrical like Shea is, but the fences will still be similar. The main change is the asymmetry in right field and a deep gap in right center. Watching a game in Citi Field seems like it will be drastically different. Moving from an all purpose, cookie cutter 1960s stadium to a uniquely baseball stadium should make it a better experience from the fans' perspective.

Here's why I have a problem with the lack of seating. We know that neither team is going to start spending less money or lower their payroll, so what this means is that ticket prices are going to go drastically up, especially for the Mets. The Mets charge more money for the better games, and clearly get more fans as well. In terms of revenue, a good amount of their ticket revenue comes from their sell out games. If they have 12,000 people who are not going to be able to buy tickets for those big games, then they have to make up that revenue somewhere. The Yankees do not have this issue to such a large extent for several reasons. First is that they are losing fewer seats. Second is that their attendance is far more consistent, so they don't need to make up revenue just on big games. Third is that the increase in luxury box seating and the undoubtedly huge prices those will command essentially even out any lost revenue. Now that's not to say that the Yankees are not going to raise ticket prices, they undoubtedly will, but they've at least provided for most of their fans. Tickets for the big Mets games are going to get Stub Hubbed for hundreds of dollars.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to both new stadiums, I just hope I can get in.