Props, Giants, and the 30-year cycle
by bucdaddy on Nov 2, 2010 10:51 AM EDT
Email
Print
I would have been OK with whoever won.
Because neither team had pulled down a championship in 56 years (Giants) or ever (Rangers), and that brings me to one of my pet theories. Bear with me, I even complicate myself with this one.
Every expansion (as baseball went through in the 1990s) adds to the potential misery of teams at the bottom and, by extension, their fans. Consider: Back when there were 16 major-league teams, if world championships were randomly distributed without regard to things like financial resources or talent, then teams on average could expect to win a world championship every 16 years or so. With championships in 1909, 1925, 1960, 1971 and 1979, the Pirates were right on schedule: 80 years divided by five titles = one every 16 years (for purposes of this exercise, we're ignoring the expansions of the early and late 1960s).
Meanwhile, some teams (Yankees) won more than their share of titles while other teams (Browns) won fewer. And every time the Yankees won an extra title or three or 10 in the same 16-year cycle, they deprived the Browns, the Cubs, the Red Sox of one, to the point where some of these franchises were going 80 or 100 years (and counting) between world championships.
Follow? OK.
Now the Cubs and Red Sox used to be outliers as franchises that would go that long without a championship, even back in the days when there were just 16 teams. A drought like the Pirates endured between 1925 and 1960 was almost unimaginable.
Today, we have 30 teams. If championships were randomly distributed without regard to resources, all things being equal, everyone would get a championship more or less every 30 YEARS. Think about that a second. If you could devise the fairererist system possible in MLB (and, for that matter, the NFL, NBA and NHL), the levelest playing field, it would mean every team's fans would have to wait 30 years between titles, almost as long as the drought the Pirates endured in what was considered to be a really, really long stretch between championships.
Now, consider that even with the levelest possible playing field, it's entirely possible and probable that one team (at least) will win a second championship in the 30-year window, through random luck. That means some other team will not get a championship in the current 30-year window, will be pushed out and will have to wait until the next 30-year window to get lucky. Same goes for every second or third extra championship one team earns -- or if more than one team lucks into more than one championship in that window. Now you're talking five, six, seven teams or more getting shoved back into the next 30-year cycle. And, inevitably, in that next 30-year cycle, through random good luck, one or more franchises will win more than one championship, and as many more teams will get pushed back to the NEXT 30-year cycle. And if that number happens to include one or more of the teams that didn't get a championship in the FIRST 30-year cycle ...
Well, you can see where this is headed. Pretty soon going 80 years (Red Sox) or 100 years and counting (Cubs) between championships will not be unusual. It will be the norm. And, of course, all thing are not equal in baseball. So when you have a team like the Yankees winning something like 26 championships in 100 years, or even the Cardinals copping nine, that means a lot of other teams are going to wait a very very VERY long time to win one.
At least as long as 56 years.
This is why (I believe, and this all kind of comes back to the "fairerer" fanpost of yesterday) we've been given wild cards and six (or eight NFL) divisions, why sports have had to create so many pseudo championships (think of the phrase "winning the wild card" -- it's not really winning anything, it's a consolation prize), because do you think a team that goes 90 or 120 or 150 years without a championship in its sport is going to have many followers left by then? How patient would Pirates fans be if the team didn't win another championship until 2079? Would there even BE a franchise in Pittsburgh under those circumstances?
So we're expected to content ourselves with "winning" wild cards and "winning" divisions which are nice and all but really have little relevance to the effing purpose of the sport, which is to win the WORLD SERIES (Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, what have you). And we buy into it. I mean, I suppose I'd party like it's 2099 if the Pirates won a division. But really, if you tried to wrap your head around how extremely hard it is anymore, how much the odds are stacked against you, to win an actual championship in any sport, logically you'd spend your money someplace else.
So props to the Giants, who cracked through the cycles against enormous odds to win a championship for the first time since they (and the Dodgers) were still in freaking New York. It could easily be another 56 years before they see another one. Tim Lincecum will be 82 and I'll be dead.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We need bonds to officially retire
We got our own curse with him, since he left havent had a winning season and he has yet to officially retire. My prediction when he does officially retire we get our first winning season
Okay...
Your point is understood if not succinct.
I think the more interesting development is that the Giants just won a World Series with a team that is decidedly NOT star-studded. They have a young, superstar pitcher. A couple of other very good, self developed and still cheap young arms. A star closer that they developed after TJ surgery. And a lineup featuring a bunch of fairly ordinary players aside from the Kung Fu Panda and a rookie catcher, neither of whom are superstars yet.
Seems to me like a model that can be reasonably re-produced in other towns like, say, Pittsburgh, that has invested heavily in elite amateur pitching.
Good day.
the Giants just won a World Series with a team that is decidedly NOT star-studded
Lincecum and Cain are legitimate stars, and Posey is at worst a star-in-the-making. A lot of their other players have fairly distinguished pasts, too. Renteria’s a five-time All-Star, for example, and Zito’s a former Cy Young winner, and we all know about Freddy…
A lot of the time, it seems like players don’t get blessed by the star-making wand if they don’t happen to have played in NY or Boston or Chicago or LA. But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t star-caliber players. I mean, who was the better pitcher this year, Phil Hughes or Jonathan Sanchez? And which of those two is the bigger star?
Seems to me like a model that can be reasonably re-produced in other towns like, say, Pittsburgh, that has invested heavily in elite amateur pitching.
Don’t forget that the Giants are spending a ton of money on this roster. Their opening day payroll was $98.6M, ninth-highest in MLB. They aren’t deploying their resources particularly efficiently (Zito, Rowand, etc.), but that doesn’t mean that they’re doing things on the cheap, y’know?
To clarify...
I should’ve have used the word “model” perhaps as much as “evidence”. This team isn’t loaded with players other teams desire and found success with a fairly low payroll considering the FA busts (Zito & Rowand).
Bottom line: it isn’t as if the Bucs need to build an unbelievably loaded team to succeed. The Giants did it with one superstar pitcher, a couple of high caliber young pitchers and a couple of solid hitters in a fairly pedestrian lineup – as well as a good dose of luck. I think sometimes we as Pirate fans are so removed from winning that we think that we will fail unless we have a top 5 player at every position. The Giants just reminded us that isn’t true.
Good day.
QFT
Everything written above me is true. Hence QFT.
congrats
to Freddy Sanchez & J. Lopez, ex pirates who are now CHAMPS….
by cmypath78 on Nov 2, 2010 12:12 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Gotta agree with Vlad on this one..
Despite liking the team as a whole, kinda makes me sick Sabean’s going to get praised for putting a World Series team together. He spends nearly 100 million, including massives busts in Zito and Rowand, yet still brings home the ring.
SF seems like it would be a small-market team, but as Vlad says, 9th highest payroll. This team is no underdog. Lincy, Cain, and Sanchez were probably 2nd only to Philly’s Big 3 in terms of top 3 starters in the entire league. A case can be made that Wilson has been the best closer of the past two seasons as well.
It really is incredible how much money they spent on some guys who did nothing for the team. Zito had an OK season, but nothing close to what you pay $18 million for. Rowand was basically a replacement level player for $13.5 million. Mark DeRosa got $6 million and barely played. Edgar Renteria had a decent half season when he was healthy and won the World Series MVP, but he’s really not close to being a $10 million per year player. There’s probably about $40 million being wasted in there.
So, really,
they won the Series with contributions from about $60 million worth of players. Heck, we can pay THAT much.
Zito
may be a “bust” at $18.5M but really, he hasn’t pitched terribly the past two years, just about league average. He’d be our No. 2/3 starter. And, really, who shouldn’t have expected his ERA to go up half a run or more moving out of the Coliseum?
I disagree
At $18.5m he is a bust if he pitches at replacement level or below.
ElDuce made my point better than I did: they Giants largely did this with a $60m payroll and some timely luck (Renteria).
Good day.
All due respect,
when I think of “bust” I think of Iwamura, though I can understand if Giants fans think they’re not getting what they paid for.
Huh. Zito’s FIPs alway trend higher than his ERAs, and he’s consistently about a half-run better. Cain is too, for the past three years. Are the Giants particularly good defensively?
Also,
“average” isn’t “replacement level or below.” He’s been average for two years after a poor season, and average has value.
I get your point, but “bust” seems kind of harsh. It’s not his fault they offered him huge money after he threw 200+ innings six straight years and now he’s merely decent.
If you take that 1 WAR is equal to $4.5m Then Aki cost the Pirates $4.85 in contract and his value was -$4.95 (-1.1 WAR * 4.5). Leaving with a loss of $9.8m.
Zito cost the Giants $18.5m but his value was $9.45m (2.1*4.5), leaving his total value as a loss of $9.05m.
Overall, they were very close to the same amount of wasted money. Pirate fans went crazy about the Aki 1 year deal. Zito’s is just as bad.
If Aki is a bust, then so is Zito
This is an intersing point you make...
However, the Giants have not expected Zito to live up to that contract value for a couple of years now. He is already a sunk cost so to speak so I’m not sure looking at his net value (in relation to salary) is the way to go here; expecially since the Giants obviously have a bigger budget. I would say we need to look at what percentage of wins (or WAR) is said player (ZIto, Aki or whomever) expected to contribute in a given year. I don’t think the Giants were expecting a 4 WAR season from Zito. If they were smart they were probably expecting somehwere between his 2008 and 2009 performance which would have been about 1.8 WAR. He gave them 2.1 WAR last year so I don’t think he was really a “bust” last year in fact he’s probably been a real pleasant surprise considering where he was at after the 2008 season. So evaluating Zito’s performance in isolation it’s hard to consider him a bust. It’s certainly does not change the fact that he was given a bad contract but he is contributing at a level that may be even better than expected.
Not sure about why we follow and spend money
So we’re expected to content ourselves with “winning” wild cards and “winning” divisions which are nice and all but really have little relevance to the effing purpose of the sport, which is to win the WORLD SERIES (Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, what have you). And we buy into it. I mean, I suppose I’d party like it’s 2099 if the Pirates won a division. But really, if you tried to wrap your head around how extremely hard it is anymore, how much the odds are stacked against you, to win an actual championship in any sport, logically you’d spend your money someplace else.
Maybe when I was younger, but when I was younger was when they (baseball, the Pirates) were putting their hooks in me. Without getting too philosophical, I think now (at 46) I enjoy the journey an awful lot. So much that I don’t think I “need” the ultimate payoff.
The fun is in not knowing. If I knew the Pirates wouldn’t win again until 2079, maybe I’d bow out as a fan. But even if you tell me the odds are 1,000,000 to 1… what you’re saying is, there’s a chance.
The Pirates should have their blueprint in the Giants
minus the 32 million dollars to Zito and Rowand.
The crop of Taillon, Allie, McDonald, Owens, Morris, and Locke needs to somehow produce two or three excellent starters for the long term. Sanchez needs to be a sturdy backstop.
Really, are these that big of reaches?
Posey > Sanchez
McCutchen > Torres
Alvarez = Huff (at first base)
Rendon > Uribe/Sandoval
Walker > Freddy
Tabata = Burrell
The Pirates don’t really have predictable long-term pieces in right or at short yet.
I mean, the Giants lineup really wasn’t that great. They did it with dominant pitching. I’m not expecting any of our prospects other than Taillon to be that good, but I can’t help but see similarities between the two teams.
Giants played some really terrific defense in the post season.
They also had the 2nd best UZR in the league. Important to remember that since Neil and Pedro don’t prject to be better than league average at best. Also, our Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez and Bumgartner are light years away if they make it at all. I do get your point though which is if you are able to develop a solid rotation with one or two aces you can win with a subpar offense if your defense is awesome as well.
Well...
that eliminates us for the semi-near future…since our defense is anything but awesome.
And we aren’t hearing about much coming through the minors about anyone with a glove…other than guys that have been deemed not capable offensively for the majors (Ciriaco/Diaz).
Unless we start getting tons of hitters (none of which are currently in our minor league system)…and bludgeoning teams to death like the old Lumber Company…we will need pitchers that get LOTS of strikeouts.
Opening day payrolls...
Giants…96M
Rangers…65M
Yankees…213M
Phillies…138M
Rays…72M
Twins…97M
Reds…76M
Padres…38M
Lowest 2009 playoff payroll…Twins at 67M…and they jumped 30M this year to hold the team together.
Unless you are going to catch lightning in a bottle…Padres…figure on a 80M payroll nowdays to get in the playoffs. The Rangers 65M would surely go up if they had to pay Cliff Lee for an entire season. And the Rays have no prayer of holding their roster together for 72M.
So…the obvious question is…are the Pirates ready to double (since their end of season payroll was likely somewhere near 35M…if that) their payroll in 2-3 years?? You will have all the young offensive guns in arbitration at least once by the end of 2013. If the Pirates ownership is not willing to figure on at least a 70M payroll…then you better figure on a “lightning in a bottle” playoff run…and pray they win the WS that season.
I agree with much of this but must take issue with “A drought like the Pirates endured between 1925 and 1960 was almost unimaginable.”
Such a drought was plenty imaginable. The White Sox, Red Sox, Cubs, Senators/Twins, Browns/Orioles, and Phillies did not win any World Series between 1925 and 1960 and all had much longer streaks than the Pirates (one still going). The A’s did not win from 1930 to 1972. Prior to 1957 the Braves had not won since 1914. And the Dodgers had not won any championships until 1955. That’s 10 out of 16 pre-expansion era teams that had losing streaks at least as long as the Pirates so it seems to have been the norm rather than the exception.
That said, your essential point that with 30 teams, that going 50, 60, 100 years between championships will be common is spot on. Even as we speak, there are 8 teams that are riding longer dry spells than the Pirates, plus the Rockies and Rays which haven’t existed that long but have never won. That’s over 1/3rd of the league.
But, hey, there are 14 teams that have never won a Super Bowl.
Maybe I was thinking
Pirates fans thought it was an eternity, and there was certainly some abysmal baseball in there to endure as well, but you are, of course, correct.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
