YFSF

The Outlier

In his latest bestseller, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell argues that great success is driven not purely by talent or genius, but by a combination of ability, determined practice over a long term, and fortunate circumstance. The book is full of challenging ideas and conclusions, some of them debatable; one of its most provocative and irrefutable arguments comes in regard to sport, and is broadly applicable to baseball. Gladwell notes that an overwhelming preponderance of high-level athletes are born in the days and months immediately following the annual cutoff date for youth sports leagues. The example he uses in the book is hockey. Canadian youth hockey programs have a January first birthday cutoff date. That means a kid born on the first day of the year will play on the same age level team as a kid born on the last day of the same year, even though he is practically a year older. Not surprisingly, the kid born on January 1 has a big advantage—he's basically a year older, stronger, faster, and more experienced than the kid born on December 31, even though they're on the same team. When the league those kids play in choose its all star squads, guess who's more likely to get selected: The older kid. And then you have a self-reinforcing loop. Because the older kid is perceived to be more talented, he gets better coaching and spends ever more time playing the sport under ideal conditions. Soon what was only the advantage of age develops into real advantage, thanks to all the extra work and coaching. To prove his point, Gladwell only needs to look at the birth dates on Canada's youth hockey championship teams. The kids are all born in January and February. Baseball is a little different. The youth baseball year in the US doesn't begin on January 1. It begins on August 1. He notes that in 2005, MLB had more than 500 players born in August, and just over 300 born in July. That's a huge discrepancy. And it does make you wonder about Alex Rodriguez, born on July 27, just 4 days short of the cutoff. Did he somehow manage to get himself put into the post-August 1 group? That would have given him a big advantage on his peers. Or could it be that his talent was so immense, that he is such an outlier, that he somehow developed into the generational player that he is despite being one of the youngest kids on his youth team? Food for thought.

Memo to Corporate America: Be Like the Yanks

Though it kills him to say so, Red Sox fan and YFSF regular Daniel Drezner has no problem with the Yankees' big spending ways this offseason, and, indeed, thinks they should be a model:

First, it would be awesome if American corporations acted more like the Yankees.  One cause of the deepening recession is that firms are afraid to do anything other than hold cash in hand at the moment. The smart ones should invest in expansion—capital is ridiculously cheap right now and they’ll be well-poised once the economy takes off again. If enough firms acted that way, the economy actually would take off again. In signing these players, the Yankees have made long-term investments while keeping their expenditures constant relative to last year’s payroll. Given their move to a new stadium, their revenues should increase. They have made these moves in order to improve their chances of competing. That’s how corporations should behave.

He also notes, for those advocating such a system, that leagues with salary caps are more prone to dynasties than those without. A lot to mull there on a holiday weekend....

The Road We Travel

Our family is on the way from Brooklyn to suburban Washington DC. The picture below is our GPS, and not, we hope, TPS.

It Must Be Today

Mark Teixeira has said he wants to know where he's playing next year by Christmas. Even Scott Boras Jon Heyman says a decision is likely before then. That leaves today and tomorrow as the only possible days.

Tomorrow, of course, is Christmas Eve. Who wants to make life-changing decisions on Christmas Eve? That's a day for snuggling up in front of a fire and pretending it's already Christmas. Heck, some people even open presents then. 

So it must be today, the last day before pre-Christmas. The only question is which GM will find Teixeira under their tree (and replace their home security system soon after) -- Epstein, Bowden, Reagins, Cashman or MacPhail?

And Then There Were...

3?: Washington, Boston, Baltimore
4?: Washington, Boston, Baltimore, New York
5?: Washington, Boston, Baltimore, New York, The Angels (this report is just a bluff)
6?: Washington, Boston, Baltimore, New York, The Angels, Mystery Team

The newest development in the "Teixeira Affair", day 5,693:

Tim Mead, the Angels' vice president of communications, confirmed a foxsports.com report that the team has withdrawn its offer to Mark Teixeira and is no longer pursuing the free-agent first baseman.

Subtext

"We met with Mr. Teixeira and were very much impressed with him," Henry said. "After hearing about his other offers, however, it seems clear that we are not going to be a factor."

By now we have probably all seen John Henry's statement issued last night at 10:45 on the status of his visit to see a certain free agent.  But this hasn't, as far as we've seen, been truly parsed.  Let's take a stab at it.

"We"

We.  Not much to see here.  Maybe. Perhaps Henry is referring to those who travelled with him, but perhaps he is referring to the greater "we", as in "all white men" (the Sox have been accused of getting too white, after all), or "Americans", or "rich guys who own hedge funds, baseball teams, and private planes".  Or, all three.  We (as in "woefully distracted Red Sox bloggers") don't know.  Let's move on.

"met"

Hmmm.  I think this means they sat down with Boras and Teixeira, but part of me thinks it's just another provocation of the Yankees, a sly attempt to focus attention on the Bombers' crosstown rivals.  It might even be a jab at the Wilpon's investments with a fraudulent hedge funder.  Remains unclear.

"with Mr. Teixeira and were very much impressed with him". 

Ass-kissing, pretty clearly.  And come on, I know that the New York Times owns part of the Sox but what's with the "Mister" stuff?  He's twenty-eight, not a village elder.  And if you are going with "Mister", how can you have passed up a chance to truncate and reference "Mr. T"? 

"After hearing about his other offers"

No attribution to where he heard about the other offers.  We're supposed to assume it was directly from Boras, but there's no reference to the agent being the one who conveyed the information.  And really, I wouldn't trust Boras to give me the truth about what kind of pizza he had last night, much less expect him to disclose a competing contract offer.  My guess is that Henry "heard" about these offers from Nick Cafardo, who got them from an anonymous assistant to the Assistant GM, who gave him the information in an email typed in pig latin and then encoded in zapf dingbats.

"however, it seems clear that we are not going to be a factor"

Already having touched on the ambiguity of "we", let's go right for the big two-syllable guy at the end: "factor".  Oh, and "not".  "not a factor".  Hmm.  One would think of the first dictionary definition, which reads "one of the elements contributing to a particular result or situation".  Seems clear enough.  But I believe Henry is after something else.  Reading further, one sees that "factor" can also be defined as "in biochemistry, any of certain substances necessary to a biochemical or physiological process, esp. those whose exact nature and function are unknown".  So, Henry is more likely to be saying that the Sox "are not going to be a certain substance necessary to a biochemical or physiological process".  Much, much more ambiguous than what one takes away at first reading and certainly a statement which leaves the Sox' chances for Teixeira hanging out there, not yet quashed.   Keep hope alive!

So there you have it.  An nod to caucasians, a reference to the Wilpon's financial entanglements with Bernie Madoff, some biochemistry, and a missed opportunity to weave in Clubber Lang.  How did everyone miss this?

A Fantastic Farewell

The Baseball Card Blog is going off the "air," with a terrific self-sendoff.

Monetary Policy

Baseball attendance from 2000-2008, according to the site "Ballparks of Baseball":

• 2000: 72.7M
• 2001: 72.6M
• 2002: 67.8M
• 2003: 67.6M
• 2004: 72.9M
• 2005: 74.4M
• 2006: 76.0M
• 2007: 79.4M
• 2008: 78.6M

Does anyone else wonder how the economic meltdown is going to impact 2009 attendance numbers?  I certainly do.  As a business owner I know about cutbacks in staff and reductions in general operational costs, how it is trickling down from the overall world to me and then to my employees, how it impacts disposable income and spending habits.  A big question, which all baseball owners must be considering, is how much and for how long this might impact their game, financially speaking.  Based on the magnitude of the financial problems facing our country, growing unemployment, and other factors, I don't see how this won't have a substantial impact on next season and perhaps 2010.  Though baseball (and major sport) is certainly an escape and a form of entertainment that has an ability to distract us from reality, it isn't immune from a contraction in spending.  Going to a baseball game, at this point, is certainly a luxury, even when sitting in the cheapies.

I further wonder how this might be impacting free-agent signings -- not just the big name free agents but moreso the upper-middle, middle, and lower tier players. 

Thoughts welcome in the comments of course.

Right. Sure.

Two GMs who were involved in the Teixera talks both felt the Red Sox had a leg up.

"They have the highest offer on the table", said one of the GMs.

This Teixeira reporting continues to boggle our minds.  Under what circumstance would a competing GM know another team's actual bid? We're sure Theo Epstein had been in deep, full disclosure discussions with Andy MacPhail and Brian Cashman.  Because Scott Boras told them!?  Or, alternatively, their underlings are spending quality time with each other discussing numbers over instant message.  Or are we back to the days of collusion?  Because to us that's one of the only circumstances under which this kind of information might be freely exchanged between GMs.  And Cafardo has a whistleblower on his hand and doesn't even seem to know it.

Why does Cafardo approach this with zero skepticism?  How can it be taken at face value that a competing GM knows the actual dollar amount of a major free agent contract offer?  

Better question, why are we still reading this stuff?

A Contest

With whom, for how long, and for how much will Mark Teixeira sign his next contract? 

Club and player options should be included, so we're asking for an all-in number.

First prize wins a YFSF mug.

I will start the guessing after the jump.