NBA Flow and more

Who's more qualified to talk about flow than a PhD student working on shallow-water modeling?

While some people are pointing the blame at the officials for the lack of "flow" in the conference finals series pitting the Lakers against the Nuggets and the Cavs against the Magic, I think the majority of the blame belongs elsewhere. Now, don't get carried away and think I'm saying that the officiating has been excellent in the playoffs. That definitely hasn't been the case ... and more on that subject later. No, the blame belongs on the players, coaches and commentators.

Obviously, the players are the ones committing the fouls being called by the officials. From Andrew Bynum's two-handed hatchet job on Chris "Birdnest" Andersen to Dante Jones' two-hand shove to the back of Kobe Bryant to Anderson Varejao attempting to hug Dwight Howard to prevent, to no avail, an easy two - which Howard made 3, even if he got his 6th technical foul for celebrating after muscling in the lay-up - it's the players who are committing the fouls. Sure, some of the contact could be let go, but there are a lot of fouls that are obvious, too. And, why are there so many blatant fouls? Well ... I'm glad you asked.

It's the coaches and commentators. I'm lumping them together because I think they are jointly (though not necessarily equally) responsible for helping the players think that they should be fouling extra in the playoffs. I'm not sure when the "no lay-ups" idea started to pick up steam, but the scope has been widened in recent year to include "no fast breaks". If you're going to foul Dwight Howard every time he gets close to the basket, he's going to march to the FT line quite a bit. But, it certainly doesn't stop there. West hammered Pietrus on a baseline drive to the basket today in the game 4 victory by the Magic. LeBron James took almost 20 FTs because the Magic didn't want him getting to the rim and dunking. Rashard Lewis reached in, Pietrus slid in front and picked up blocking fouls, etc. But, this type of behavior is nothing new. What is relatively new is fouling to prevent fast breaks. Rather than try to play defense in open court situations, players have started to look for opportunities to commit fouls to stop the play to make the other team take it out of bounds if the defense is at any disadvantage. Phil Jackson thought Dante Jones tripping Kobe Bryant was unsportsmanlike. Well, I tend to agree, but I also think it's unsportsmanlike to grab LeBron or Kobe at half court to prevent him from being able to go one on one at another defender as he approaches the basket on a break.

Certainly, there have been fouls called that shouldn't have been. Dwight Howard's 6th foul in game 3 comes to mind. He had a clean block of LeBron and the ref just blew the call. Howard was whistled for another foul today when LeBron bounced off him and missed a fallaway. It looked like Howard was in legal guarding position to me. I'm sure that if I reviewed the tapes of the other games - fortunately, I don't have them, so I won't be doing that - I would find numerous other phantom fouls. But, for every phantom foul, I could probably find at least two more that could have been called ... the Jones trip of Kobe comes to mind right off the bat.

*****

Hyperbole?
Moving on to other topics, I've blasted Jay Mariotti a little bit before, but I couldn't let this gem (from Around the Horn today) slide: "Here's the disparity, 58-40 rebounding, Denver all over the boards led by "Birdman" Anderson, in my opinion the best player on the court ..." Really Jay? Chris Anderson is the best player on the court in the Lakers v. Nuggets series? Hmmm. Chris Anderson has been effective and, frankly, I don't understand why more players don't play like he does. He's puts his length and athleticism to good use by being active rebounding, blocking shots in help defense, and getting easy baskets by crashing the boards and cutting to the basket. He seems to know his limitations - although he did throw up a three-pointer yesterday - and does a good job playing to his strengths and staying away from his weaknesses. You don't often see him pulling down defensive rebounds and leading the break a la Magic Johnson. Anderson's play reminds me a lot of the way Tyson Chandler played last year on a Hornets team that made a strong playoff run. But, while Anderson has been relatively productive, he's only been in double digits in scoring once in the four playoff games against the Lakers. And, while he pulled down 14 rebounds in game 4, he accumulated a total of just 16 in the first three games of the series. He's also averaging 2 blocks while playing approximately half the minutes against Los Angeles. Kobe is the best player on the court when those teams collide. Chauncey Billups is also very good. Carmelo Anthony, Pau Gasol, Nene, etc.

Where does the league stand?
The NBA rules allow teams to foul intentionally to prevent teams from attempting three-pointers to tie games. The Lakers did this in game 1 against the Nuggets. But, the NBA rules also allow teams to advance the ball by using a time out. The Cavs did this at the end of game 2, which helped them pull out a victory to tie the series at 1-1. I don't get it. While the advancing the ball rule allows teams better opportunities to come back in late game situations, intentional fouls not being called intentional allows teams to preserve leads late by making the game a FT contest and draining the clock. Advancing the ball adds excitement ... intentional fouls drain the energy out of games. Personally, I would have the rules be exactly opposite. Intentional fouls would be called intentional fouls, which would result in teams at least having to be more clever in the way they foul, although if I were really in charge, the penalty for regular fouls would be more severe, so teams would not want to foul. But, I digress. I would also not allow teams to advance the ball. While it is certainly more difficult to score from 94 feet away than from 40 feet away, if the other team takes the lead with 2 seconds left, too bad. Figure out a way to get someone a decent look at the basket. We won a game in HS my junior year (I don't remember exactly what my role in the play was, but it wasn't a big one) on a last second, full-court play our coach drew up during a time out. I think we beat NM-Highlands on a play when I was at Mines on a full-court play with just a couple seconds on the clock as well. Valpo. Duke-Kentucky. Pro players hit crazy shots all the time at the ends of quarters, there is no reason to give teams an unfair advantage by allowing them to advance the ball. If a football team scores a TD with less than two minutes left, the other team doesn't automatically get to advance the ball if they call a time out. That would be ridiculous. The team that scored the TD kicks off from the same spot you kick-off from if you score at any point in the game (assuming there aren't any penalties). The only case I can think of for advancing the ball is to "add excitement" ... but, if that's the case, why does the league allow the intentional fouling?

Unsportsmanlike Conduct Helps LA Beat Denver

There are many distasteful things about the NBA these days, but the one that is getting increasing amounts of attention is the "play" to foul intentionally at the end of a game if you are up by 3 in the final seconds to prevent teams from having an opportunity to tie the game with a three-pointer. By sending your opponent to the line, you force them to get an offensive rebound off a FT to have a chance to prolong the game. I'm all for strategy, but I think the premise that you can intentionally benefit by committing an intentional foul - obviously it's not going to be called intentional, though - is ludicrous.

If the defense commits a foul intentionally, why isn't an intentional foul called? If it wasn't intentional, why else would Derek Fisher be fouling J.R. Smith at half court? I didn't see that happening earlier in the game.

Taking the foul is an unsportsmanlike attempt to manipulate the rules just because there isn't a provision in the rules that doesn't prevent it. It's along the same lines as the Hack-a-<* Insert name of bad FT shooter here *> strategy. In an ideal world, you wouldn't have to write in rules to prevent these types of actions. However, as long as someone is trying to gain an advantage by going by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, there will be a need to more specifically define the rules to address the perpetrators.

The Surface Matters!

Nadal is 12-6 against Federer ... so, Nadal's obviously the favorite in the Australian Open final, right? And, Nadal is 5-2 against Roger in grand slam events ... so it's a done deal, right? That's what ESPN would have you think. But, it's not that simple. Nadal has done a lot of damage against Federer in Paris, on the clay, at the French Open. Nadal also got Federer at Wimbledon last year. However, despite taking over the #1 ranking last year (from Federer), Nadal wasn't victorious at either hard court slam last year. In fact, Nadal hasn't even made a hard court GS final before this year. Maybe Nadal has turned the corner and will finally prevail in a hard court slam. Or, maybe Federer is back on top after a down year following a bout with mono. Either way, we can only hope that people are a little more diligent with presentation of statistics in the future.

The problem with Utah

With Rick Reilly dismissing the Florida v. Oklahoma game, stating that Utah is the actual national champion, I feel obligated to argue against the Utes.

While the Mountain West was a solid conference this year, Utah didn't do enough in the Mountain West (which, let's face it, isn't the SEC or Big 12) or in non-conference play to warrant a top 2 ranking heading into bowl season, in spite of their 12-0 regular season.

You can't bring the Alabama win into the discussion because you can't use a bowl win as a justification that a team should have been in a different bowl because that information isn't available when the bowl match-ups are constructed.

Thus, Utah is left with victories over the following teams (rankings are final BCS ranks and all records are regular season records):
11. TCU (10-2)
16. BYU (10-2)
Oregon State (8-4)
Air Force (8-4)
Colorado State (6-6)
UNLV (5-7)
New Mexico (4-8)
Wyoming (4-8)
Michigan (3-9)
Utah State (3-9)
San Diego State (2-10)
Weber State - FCS

At the end of the season, the Utes held 2 wins over top 25 teams. How does that compare to OU and UF? OU beat Texas Tech (#7), TCU (#11), Cincinnati (#12), Oklahoma State (#13), and Missouri (#21). That's five top 25 wins for the Sooners. UF only had two - Alabama (#4) and Georgia (#15) - but the rest of the Gators' schedule was much more difficult that the schedule for the Utes, with non-conference drubbings of Miami and Florida State and conference tilts with LSU, Vandy and South Carolina (plus, the loss to Ole Miss). And, Florida made up for a lack of top 25 competition by taking teams to the woodshed. Before the SEC Championship game, every Florida win was by at least 23 points and the last 8 were all by at least 28. That's a dominant stretch.

Utah didn't have a particularly rough schedule and they barely squeaked out quite a few games. I'm not in favor of running up the score. Beating a team by 50 isn't necessarily more impressive than winning by 30, but winning by 3 makes you wonder. And, while Utah won all of their games, they had multiple squeakers, including two against teams with losing records (25-23 over Michigan and 13-10 over New Mexico). Utah also pulled two out at home: agaisnt Oregon State the week after the Beavers upset USC (31-28) and late against TCU, 13-10. While TCU put up an impressive record, they failed to show anything in non-conference play (beating Stephen F. Austin, Stanford and SMU) that makes you believe they are an elite team. Sure, they beat a mediocre Pac-10 team, but they were outclassed early in the season by OU (35-10) before OU even got rolling. The other prominent MWC team, BYU, displayed it's superiority (yes, that's sarcasm seeping through) by beating up on the bottom-feeders in the Pac-10 (UCLA and Washington) ... and UW would have had a chance to win in OT if the refs hadn't insanely penalized Jake Locker, but that's neither here nor there. So, the Mountain West has three teams in the top 16 based on what? The ability to beat decent competition? Ahhh ... their pretty good records. The three MWC juggernauts marquee win is Utah over Oregon State at home by 3 points with the Beavers coming down after taking down Pac-10 giant USC.

Hmmm ... I'm not sure Utah is such a clear cut choice to play for the national title. A good story ... maybe. Deserving of consideration ... probably, because they finished the regular season undefeated (but, so did Boise State ... and the Broncos went to Eugene and beat the Oregon Ducks - who finished 2nd in the Pac-10, ahead of the Beavers) 37-32). But, come on, are you really ready to say Utah would beat OU, UF, UT, or USC for the national title? I'm not.

Arguments for All

Now that USC, Texas and Utah have won their BCS bowl games, coaches from each of the squads are calling for a national championship. Hmmm ... not everyone can win it, but everyone thinks they should. The problem is, everyone has an argument. I'm going to go through those arguments, neglecting the bowl games because I'm giving the arguments for the teams to play in the national title game. I'm going to go through them in order of the final BCS ranking (pre-bowl season).

1. Oklahoma - The argument for Oklahoma is simple ... the Sooners were the winner of one of the best conferences in football. The offense is incredible and the team is peaking at the right time. They split with Texas and Texas Tech, but the loss to Texas was relatively early in the season (and OU led in the 4th quarter 35-30) and the Sooners smashed an undefeated Tech squad. Plus, OU handily beat Cincinnati and TCU. The Bearcats won the Big East and the Horned Frogs took Utah to the wire at Utah.

2. Florida - The Gators only loss was by 1 point to a solid Ole Miss squad and the margin of victory was a missed extra point. A missed extra point. The Gators won the SEC, which is historically the best conference in football. And, aside from the 31 UF allowed to Mississippi in the 4th game of the season, Florida has allowed a maximum of 21 points. It's possible that offenses in the SEC aren't great this year, but Florida, obviously, has a solid D to go with a dynamic offense.

3. Texas - The argument for the Longhorns centers on their victory over OU on a neutral site. The loss was a last second loss at Texas Tech at the end of a rough stretch in the season (OU, Missouri, Oklahoma State, TTU).

4. Alabama - Nick Saban's squad was the only team to complete the regular season undefeated in a "BCS conference". Sure, they lost to UF in the SEC Championship Game, but how 'bout a rematch? Florida and Georgia are the only teams that put up more than 21 points on us and those teams are led by a couple decent (catch the sarcasm?) quarterbacks (Tebow and Stafford). Bama beat LSU and Georgia on the road and smashed Clemson to kick off the season. The SEC is the best conference ... why shouldn't Alabama get another shot at Florida?

5. USC - The Trojans have been really good for quite some time ... and this is just a continuation. The loss to Oregon State was a fluke. The defense is really good and the offense showed that it can put up a lot of points against teams from the state of Washington. The Trojans smashed Ohio State in a marquee early-season showdown and gave up a season-high 27 points against the Beavers. Oklahoma, Florida, Texas and Alabama can't say the most points they allowed was 27. USC didn't schedule any non-BCS conference schools and allowed 3 or less points in 6 games, 7 or less in 8 games, and 10 or less in 10 of 12 games. Defense wins championships ... and the USC defense is pretty dang good.

6. Utah - The Utes are undefeated. They haven't lost, how can you not allow them to play for the national title? The Mountain West is a good conference, too. Plus, Utah scheduled 2 big non-conference games, although the Michigan win doesn't look quite so good ... but how were the Utes supposed to know when they scheduled the match-up? Utah beat the same Oregon State team that beat USC the week before!

7. Texas Tech - The Red Raiders beat Texas. By splitting with Texas and OU, aren't they just as worthy as the others to represent the Big 12 South in post-season play? Sure, the non-conference schedule was lacking, but Utah played Weber State and Utah State in non-conference matches!

8. Penn State - The Nittany Lions smashed Oregon State early in the season ... if you want to use the Beavers as a benchmark, you have to put Penn State above Utah and USC. Penn State won the Big 10(11) and the only loss was a one-point loss at Iowa in bad weather. Penn State allowed 24 points twice ... that's even less than the most points USC allowed! And, Penn State posted 40+ 7 times, including 5 times against teams from BCS conferences. Offense and defense, what more could you want?

9. Boise State - The Broncos finished the regular season undefeated. Boise State beat Oregon. Boise State allowed 10 or less 8 times and scored 40+ 6 times. Only twice did Boise State allow more than 16 points. Not everyone can be in BCS conferences ... Boise State is undefeated ... how can you keep them out?

Obviously, each of these teams can be argued against as well. Maybe I'll do that soon ... it's more fun, anyway.

Orioles falling behind?

Buster Olney reported that the likelihood of free agent 1B Mark Teixeira signing with the Baltimore Orioles is slim, unless the O's increase their offer. He says the other teams pursuing Teixeira "have gone beyond Baltimore's proposal for the slugging first baseman."

According to Olney's column, the Orioles offer is believed to be for 7 years and $150 million. The Nationals' offer is reportedly 8 years for $160 million. Olney starts his column with the following sentence: "Unless free agent Mark Teixeira is willing to give the Orioles a major hometown discount, it does not appear he will be playing in Baltimore."

What? Taking the offer from the Orioles instead of the Nationals (or any other team - Red Sox, Angels, etc. - with a similar 8 year deal) is not giving Baltimore a "major hometown discount". As long as Teixeira is worth $10 million dollars seven years from now, it's the same amount of money. And, because he's only 28 and plays 1B, his value is likely to remain high into his late 30's. In all likelihood, he'd actually be better off financially (in the short term and the long term) taking $150 over 7 ($21.4 million per year) instead of $160 over 8 ($20 million per year).

Playoffs?

So, you want an 8-team playoff in college football. Who are your 8? The top 8 in the BCS, Avg. computer rankings, and polls are:
BCS Computers AP Coaches Harris
OU OU UF OU UF
UF UT OU UF OU
UT UF UT UT UT
Ala TTU Ala Ala(T-4) Ala
USC Utah USC USC(T-4) USC
Utah Ala PSU PSU PSU
TTU USC Utah Utah Utah
PSU BSU TTU TTU TTU

The polls like Penn State (as #6), while the computers think Boise State (#8, w/PSU at #9) is deserving of a top 8 spot. Seven choices (OU, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Utah and Texas Tech) are consensus selections.

But, are you really going to keep out an undefeated team (Boise State). And, if they are included, who goes? Who's the better team: Texas Tech or Penn State? The computers think Texas Tech by a wide margin (remember, Tech is #2 in one ranking and 3rd in two others, while Penn State ranges from 8th to 10th in the rankings). What about participation from the ACC and/or Big East? If you go to the top 16, you'll surely include the top 8 ... but there will be a debate about who should be in and who should be out as you pick 14, 15, 16. And, if you go to 4, who are your top 4 this year? Is USC in or out? If, they're in, then, who's out?

We need more separation of teams at the top ... and we need more games between teams at the top to separate them. We don't "need" a playoff. It might be fun ... but we "need" to improve the regular season whether a playoff is implemented or not!

Head-to-head

I recently read an article that gave the UT v. OU score and said the game wasn't as close as the score indicated. Really? Anyway, I'm not going to get into that. And, I'm not going to debate the merits of Texas or Oklahoma. But, I am going to say that head-to-head shouldn't be the be-all/end-all that it is regarded to be.

If Team A beats Team B head-to-head, what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things? Does it mean that Team A is better than Team B? UT fans would argue that, but I think it's hard for Browns fans to argue that Cleveland is better than the NY Giants based on the MNF game earlier this season (the Giants only loss before Sunday). Utah beat TCU this year to win the MWC. But, is Utah better than TCU? I'm not sure. It was a close game at Utah. What if that game had been in Fort Worth? Would Boise State be in a BCS bowl? Would a one-loss TCU team (with the only blemish being at OU) be in a BCS game as a one-loss "mid-major"?

Many things go into a head-to-head match-up. Maybe, one team just doesn't match up well against another team. Maybe home field advantage played a small role. Perhaps, weather conditions favored one side over the other. It's even conceivable that a bad call swayed the outcome to some extent. Or, there may have been injuries that prevented a team from being 100% in that game, or maybe subsequent injuries hurt a previously powerful team. If Tim Tebow broke his leg on the last play of the SEC Championship, would people still be voting UF #1? Would they still vote them ahead of Alabama?

In the case of three teams that play, each ending with one win and one loss, we have a "rock, paper, scissors" situation. If Team A beats Team B but loses to Team C, while Team B beat Team C, what then? Rock smashes scissors. But, paper covers rock ... and scissors cut paper. So, which is best? What happens if you introduce "brick" to the trio of "rock, paper, scissors". Well, obviously, scissors are out of luck. However, paper benefits. What if we introduce "cardboard"? Or "box-cutters"?

The "best" teams often lose, especially when confronted with enough opponents/contests. MJ's Bulls lost games. The Patriots lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl last year. The Cowboys lost to the Rams this year. Does that mean that the Rams are better than the Cowboys? Obviously, it would be absurd to say that the Rams were a better team than the Cowboys. The idea that head-to-head isn't the ultimate trump card extends to situations where teams only lose a few games as well, especially when teams don't play most of the teams. If you get into A beat B and C beat D and E beat F and C beat A but lost to Q and this and that, you won't be able to come up with a consensus winner. There's a reason why they came up with computer rankings (computers are better at processing large amounts of data than human's are) ... and there is a reason OU is #1 in all 6 of the computer rankings, while four different teams (Texas, Florida, Texas Tech and Utah) all hold down the #2 spot in at least one computer's rankings.

Attention KH: It was the computers

Kirk Herbstreit thinks Texas should represent the Big 12 South in KC on Saturday against Missouri. He thinks the head-to-head win in the Red River Shootout/Rivalry should be the deciding factor. That's fine. That's his opinion.

Kirk Herbstreit might be my favorite CFB analyst. However, I can't help but call him out for saying tonight that he thinks the "style" points of recent weeks led to the Sooners overtaking the Longhorns in the BCS rankings. He also mentioned the Sooners playing in prime time games as a reason that OU might have edged out Texas.

I think Texas is good. I think OU is slightly better. But, I'd love to see more good football to figure it out on the field. If you don't now what I'm talking about, please see my previous CFB posts. But, I think the system did everyone a favor - in the long run - by allowing the Sooners to go to KC instead of the Longhorns. Obviously, Texas isn't happy about it now.

But, OU gained ground on the Longhorns because they kept winning and the Longhorns lost to Texas Tech. And, after everything was said and done, OU had better wins than the UT. That's why the computers like OU. UT ended the year slightly ahead of OU in the combined poll portions of the BCS (just one point behind in the coaches' poll and six ahead in the Harris - although the Harris poll has about twice as many total points ... so the difference between the teams was about three times as high in the Harris as in the coaches', rather than 6 ... but, I digress). But, OU gained ground in the computers because TCU and Cincinnati moved up, while Missouri dropped significantly following the loss to KU. Plus, OU played at OSU, a very solid team that Texas had already played.

OU: 7. Texas Tech (65-21), 11. TCU (35-10), 13. Cincy (52-26), at 14. OSU (61-41)
UT: 2. OU (45-35), 14. OSU (28-24), 20. Missouri (56-31).

There is a reason the computers like OU, and I don't think it's style points and prime time games. It's because OU played tougher teams. And, the difference was the non-conference schedule. While Rice is contending in C-USA, they aren't an elite team. FAU is 6-6 and was just 4-3 in the Sun Belt. Arkansas and UTEP were both 5-7.

OU played Chattanooga, which is a total joke. And, UW ended up having a tough year, although they did play BYU tough with Jake Locker. The only full games Locker played were against Oregon, OU and BYU. But, the beef of the non-conference schedule for OU were, obviously, the games against TCU and Cincinnati. TCU was close to running the table in the MWC (they had a lead late at Utah) and Cincy won the Big East. Those two teams ended up being ranked higher than the second best team that Texas beat (OSU - who also lost to OU).

I think the pollsters were torn. OU lost head-to-head to Texas, but the Sooners lost first. People always say that losses early aren't as bad as losses late in the season. OU was impressive late in the season, but Texas had a pretty good showing against A&M to end the year as well. Well, obviously, the pollsters were torn. But, if you look at the computers, you see the key.

You often hear fight commentators say "You can't leave it in the hands of the judges ... if you don't finish the fight, anything can happen." Well, the same thing applies to CFB. Texas could round up tougher games (undoubtedly, so could OU). When no one on your non-conference schedule ends up in the top 25 at the end of the season and your competition has two non-conference wins over top 15 teams, who do you think the computers will prefer? I think this is a good precedent and I hope it creates more competitive non-conference games in the future.

But, I'm also a realist. I realize that coaches are walking the line trying to minimize the chance of losing while maximizing their status in the rankings. You want to play good teams, as long as you aren't going to lose the games ... because losses are, generally, really bad in CFB. So, this year went to OU. I think that is reasonable the way everything turned out.

Of course, part of the problem for coaches is that you never know how things will turn out. LSU, Auburn, WVU and Clemson were all mulling around the top 10 when the season began. Wisconsin, Kansas, Tennessee, and South Florida were all in the top 20. TCU and Cincy were "Others receiving votes".

And, this inability to forecast into the future is all the more reason to move to a system like the one I have advocated previously, where the non-conference games are systematically scheduled after the conference season to figure out where teams actually fall.

P.S. Jesse Palmer is on talking about "style points", "prime time television" and "losing early." I'd love to see the computer formulas ... but I'm guessing (pretty sure, actually) prime time TV isn't among the parameters.

Baseball Economics

Brewers GM Doug Melvin might be a very intelligent man, but I couldn't help but cringe when I read one of his comments on the NY Yankees' pursuit of CC Sabathia:

“It sounds like they’re overbidding. If the speculation is true that we’ve offered CC $100 million, why would you offer $140 million? Why wouldn’t you offer $110 million?”

Speculation was that the Brewers offered CC $100 million over 5 years. The Yankees' offer was a six-year deal. Making a 6-year, $110 million offer shouldn't sway Sabathia toward the pinstripes. That's less per year than the offer from the Brewers! Melvin might have been much better off giving a per year figure, perhaps stating that the Yankees don't need to offer $23.3 million per year when the Brewers' offer was for a meager $20 million per.

I see where Melvin is coming from, but I'm not sure he has enough perspective on this issue. His point is that the Yankees are outbidding the other teams by more than a few million dollars. But, does he fail to realize that the Yankees might have to do that to get Sabathia?

The Yankees are an attractive location for players who want to win championships, because the team is always in the mix. Sure, they haven't won the World Series lately (was the last time really the 2000 Subway Series against the Mets?), but they have the resources, and management desire, to try to win every year.

However, there are also a lot of issues working against them, especially with Sabathia. First, not everyone wants to be in the circus that is associated with being a member of the NY Yankees. Sabathia seems content to play in smaller markets with a little less spotlight. And, he's from the left coast ... so location, location, location isn't working for the Yanks. Additionally, Sabathia is a good hitter. If he goes back to the AL, he gives up most of his opportunities at the dish and has to pitch to the opposing DH's.

So, maybe the Yankees feel that they need to give Sabathia $3 million extra per year and a sixth year to get him to sign on for 6 years in NYC pitching in the AL. Maybe it's enough ... maybe it's not. But, I think the Yankees really want Sabathia and are willing to overspend a little bit for the guy they want - and if the Brewers are willing to go $20 million per, I don't really think the Yankees are overspending.