sportsfanIQ

So the Yankees are again World Series Champions of baseball.  After finishing off the, previously, defending World Series Champions in six games, the Bombers from the Bronx brought back a title that was beginning to seem elusive.

We know what the critics are saying: "It's been nine whole years since the poor Yankees last tasted victory."

And in some respect, it's true.  

Fans of the New York Yankees are spoiled to be given a competitive team year in and year out.  But so what.  Fans of other teams are simply resentful and jealous that it isn't their team attempting to win every title.

But wait a second.  The Yankees don't win every title.  So what's all the fuss about?

Just because the Yankees spend money to win - you know, the whole point of sports in the first place - doesn't guarantee them a title (as the last nine years have proven).

Personally, there are friends in my life that are Red Sox fans, Phillies fans and Mets fans.  But bitterness is never a flavor I experience.  Maybe it's because, up until last night, four titles in five years provided me with a palate immune to resentment.

When the Red Sox won their first title, this writer was respectful of their championship, even though they did it in historic fashion over the Yankees.  

When the Phillies theirs, same thing.  Even when the Mets, a team situated on a fellow-neighboring borough of Manhattan, fell one pitch away from making an appearance in the World Series, I rooted the Metropolitans on.  

It's my feeling that every fan should have the opportunity to experience the taste of victory.

Five years later, and two championships, you would think Red Sox fans would have the decency to sit back quietly, respecting what it takes to win it all. 

But no.

Let's keep things in perspective here.  The Sox sought Alex Rodriguez.  They dangled large amounts of money (although seemingly not enough) in the eyes of Mark Teixeira.  And don't dare claim they didn't want CC Sabathia this off season.

But because they couldn't wrangle them in, they're once again bitter.

The adage goes: It isn't a rivalry until both teams win.  

Well, now that the Sox have captured their glory, and the Yankees once again theirs, the battle resumes.

But we digress.

For now, the New York Yankees are champions.  

In six games, the best team of 2009 showed what it took to win.  No one made predictions.  They simply went out and played ball.  They hit, they pitched, they fielded, and they did it all with purpose.

Say what you may about the boys from the Bronx.  But if your team woke up today as World Series Champions, I would say congratulations!

Peter Gammons beat this article's intent to the punch.  But as you can tell from sportsfanIQ's "Daily Discussion's" page, the following is an elaboration on a previous concern. 

Come Week One of the NFL season, markets which produce both baseball and football see a change in viewership, as MLB fans quickly shift their attention toward the NFL. 

It's understandable to see this pattern in areas like Kansas City, Cincinnati or Pittsburgh, where their respective teams are, for the most part, not in contention by September.  

In major markets like New York and Boston, however, where the Yankees and Red Sox consistently prepare for October, fan interest drops off just as dramatically in the last month of the baseball calendar. 

For the true fan whose team will be competing in October, their attention will refocus.  But for the casual fan, the one that most sports depend on for added viewership, seasons like MLB's 2009 could become an issue.

So rather than sit by idly, MLB needs to be proactive. 

Last year at this time, the Red Sox were within three of Tampa Bay; Minnesota and Chicago were neck and neck (they ended up playing a one-game playoff); the Mets were fighting for their wild card and divisional lives; and the Diamondbacks were only two games behind the Dodgers.  

Fast forward to this year and the Yankees are 8.5 up on the Sox, who are six up on the Rangers in the wild card, who are six behind the Angels for the division.  In the NL, the Phillies are five up on the Braves; the Cardinals are 8.5 up on the Cubs; and the Dodgers are five up on the Rockies.  

The only two races worth watching are the Tigers and Twins, separated by two games; as well as the Rockies and Braves divided by 2.5.

Reacting to the current criticism the game is facing, MLB aims to prove this year an anomaly.  

They responded with the following:

   -From 2001-2008, only the Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals have made it to the World Series more than once. 

   -In this time, of the 30 MLB teams, 23 made the playoffs.  In three of the six divisions, every team but one made it to October (AL Central, AL West & NL East) and in a fourth, the NL West, all five teams moved on to the post-season, including three World Series runs.    

   -From 2005-2006, only one team in both leagues made the playoffs back-to-back. (Not surprisingly, the Yankees.)

But parity isn't MLB's main concern.

The sport has seen variety in October, sure.  But in a season of 162 games, when the casual fan decides to tune in with the hopes of catching exciting, down-to-the-wire baseball, if the product is suffering down the stretch, further revisions may be necessary.

Since most complain about the length of the season anyway, shorten it back to 154 games.  Include two additional wild card teams per league (three total) and structure it according to the NFL standard - top two get a first round bye and so on.

If this system were in place this year, we'd see the Mariners, Twins and Rays all within two games of the final spot with the Rangers holding a four game lead for the fifth position.

In the NL, the Braves would hold a 2.5 game lead for the fifth slot, with the Marlins, Giants and Cubs jockeying for the sixth, all separated by only 1.5 games.

This suggestion may sound like it would water down the prospect of making the post-season, but so did the initial wild card format when it was implemented in 1994.  And for that matter, the thought of adding two division winners per league probably didn't go over so well when first conceived in 1969.  

In order to survive, leagues need to evolve. 

Eventually, more than one wild card per league will become essential for MLB to do just that.   

Immediately following his appearance on ESPN's First Take, in the midst of a 30-game hitting streak, Ryan Zimmerman proceeded to go 0-for-3 in the Washington Nationals' 6-3 win over the San Francisco Giants, thus ending his run at history.

Zimmerman became yet another player to threaten Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, but in doing so, also reminded us once again what an achievement 56 straight games with a hit was and still is.

Every year, someone gets in the high twenties, and every so often even the low thirties.  But they all fail to match Joe's mark.  Their failures, in turn, become a testament to DiMaggio's success.

In a sport that puts so much emphasis on numbers, 56 seems unbreakable.

In the modern era, only Pete Rose has gotten close; he reached 44 games in 1978.  Paul Molitor hit for 39 consecutive games in 1987 before being stopped.  Most recently, Jimmy Rollins reached 38 games over two seasons in 2005-2006.

Solid runs, but no one even gets to 50.

When you consider that DiMaggio hit .408 over his stretch with 15 HRs and 55 RBIs, it's awfully hard to imagine someone from this era remaining focused for that long.  With media coverage the way it is, the pressure seems too much.  Fifty-six games means a player must stay in the zone a long time.

Of course, 56 is nothing in comparison to 2,632.

In 1995, Cal Ripken Jr. became the ultimate "Iron Man" when he surpassed Lou Gehrig for consecutive games played at 2,131.  Ripken eventually settled at 2,632, covering 16 years in the process.  For his career, Cal finished with a .276 average, 431 HRs and 3,184 hits.  He played a combined 3,001 games, with the majority being at the shortstop position, which, aside from catcher, may be the toughest on the diamond.

Will 2,632 be tested? Currently, no active player tops 1,000; to reach the milestone, an individual would have to complete 16-plus seasons all with, most likely, the same team.  It wouldn't seem practical to shuffle someone of that stature from team to team.

With this in mind, Ripken's feat could become the most unbreakable of them all.

Another seemingly indestructible number is 4,256.

Pete Rose owns MLB's record for most hits.  His 4,256 are 1,555 better than all active players (Ken Griffey Jr. is tops right now with 2,701).

The only active player within reach is Derek Jeter.  He stands at 2,575, but even if he plays as long as Rose did, would have to average 185 over nine more years to catch him.  Comparatively, during Rose's final nine years, he averaged 110 hits.

The likelihood that someone with Rose's grittiness and determination to win will come along, all while performing from both sides of the plate, is low.  The mark of 4,256 will stand the test of time.

And as for 60 feet, six inches away: What about 5,714, or seven?

In 1993, Nolan Ryan finished his major league career with 5,714 strikeouts.  More impressively, he threw seven no-hitters in the Bigs, beginning with his first in 1973 (he threw two in 1973) and ending with his last in 1991.

Ryan leads Randy Johnson in strikeouts by 883 and Sandy Koufax in no-hitters by three.  It's safe to say that the record of seven no-hitters will not be challenged when you consider Cy Young completed 749 games.

Currently, Randy Johnson leads any active pitcher with 100 complete games.  If pitchers can't throw nine innings, can they statistically manage to throw seven no-hitters in their career?

As far as striking out 5,714 batters, Nolan Ryan's career lasted 26 years.  Not even Roger Clemens—who supposedly boosted his longevity with chemical enhancements—could tally those sort of numbers.  It would be difficult to think some newbie may one day match 5,714?

56, 2,632, 4,256, 5,714, and 7.  When bunched together, these numbers seem out of place.  When constructed in a line, they appear boring and without meaning.

But when you attach career accomplishments to them in order to give them historical significance, they suddenly seem insurmountable.

If you have any MLB numbers you feel are unbreakable, feel free to share them here. 

Growing up as a Yankees fan, and being a traditionalist, I'm reluctant to accept the "new" Yankee stadium. For me, the questions have always been: what exactly was wrong with the old one?  And, what special mystique comes with the new one?

I raise these thoughts because I'm about to venture into an uneasy territory.  On Tuesday, May 5th, I'll travel via the NYC Subway once more.  This time, though, I'll be walking north, rather than south upon exiting the station. For the first time in my life, I'll be stepping foot into a stadium that Babe Ruth did not build.

The Home of 26 Championships

I will admit, I'll miss the vintage turnstiles; the concrete flooring that had been trampled on by hundreds of millions of fans; the cramped, antiquated style bathrooms lined with tight urinals, filthy stalls and sinks not even big enough to fit your hands under; the feeling of knowing where you're going; and finally, the boyish sensation that rushed over me as I made my way up the ramp toward my seats. 

On the horizon, first it's the blue sky, then the white arches, then the outfield wall with the vacant black bleachers in straight away center, then the bright green grass, and then ultimately, the entire field becomes entranced in your view.  I wonder what new feelings will replace these.

Ironically, I'll be sitting in better seats at the new Yankee Stadium than I'd ever sat in at the old Yankee Stadium. Will this influence my perspective? Perhaps. But it'll be temporary. From 14 rows behind the plate, a baseball game is a baseball game.  The amenities are what I'll be fixated on. 

Will the brand new centerfield jumbotron impress me?  Will the added width between seats allow me to enjoy my experience more?  Will the additional bathrooms - now 1 for every 60 fans, with more space between urinals and sinks large enough to wash up to your elbows - provide greater luxury for me?  The answers are undoubtedly yes.

Still, I have never, and will never attend a baseball game to be impressed.  I go because the Yankees are tradition for me and 26 World Championships means something.  If it ain't broke... 

...don't fix the old Yankee Stadium.  Sure, it was decrepit and outdated.  But that's what gave it its charm.   Walking into this sports museum was emotionally moving - both for the fans and the opposition.  Fathers brought sons there to teach them the history.  Opposing teams sometimes became intimidated by the aura.  Now, fathers must explain what used to be.  And visiting clubs will simply come to play in just another stadium.     

One block north and $1.5 billion later, the Yankees have a new home.  They now play in the "new" Yankee Stadium.  Left behind is the legacy, history and allure of the New York Yankees.  In the "old" Yankee Stadium are the hearts of millions of fans.  Mine included. 

Will MLB stadiums fill up in 2009?Now that every MLB team has hosted their 2009 home opener, it's time to address the relevant numbers: the attendances.  Incomes are down and the costs of going to ballgames are up.  As homes across America grapple with economic uncertainties, how will MLB teams handle potentially smaller crowds?  Or will they even have to?  

Opening day figures are usually always high.  Game 2s have a tendency of dropping off.  After reviewing some opening day totals for a few MLB teams, then noticing how far some actually did decline for game 2, it's apparent some are suffering.  This is fair to say because we took the exact same scenario for 2008, placed them side-by-side, and as the saying goes: "the numbers speak for themselves."  (Before we tally up some figures, keep in mind, the official attendances that MLB reports are fans arriving to the games.  They are not the number of tickets sold.)  That being said...

The Yankees and Mets both introduced state-of-the-art facilities in the heart of an economic meltdown, so it's natural to wonder if New Yorkers will help with the tab?  It's also fitting that they appear to be the exception to the rule.    

The Yankees, who drew 48,271 out of a potential 50,325 (minus 2,000 standing room only tickets which were not made available for the first two games) felt only a 6.6% decline in fans from game 1 to game 2 versus 11.9% for 2008.  The Mets, too, improved.  They saw 41,007 out of 42,000 pass through the turnstiles on opening day.  Game 2's numbers fell 13.2% compared to 16.4% in 2008. 

These numbers do in fact appear to be the exception because once both New York teams hosted their first Sunday game, the economic factor seemed evident.  For the Mets, who coincidently played the Brewers in both seasons, experienced an 11.9% decrease in 2009.  In 2008: 6.3%.  The Yankees went from a 7% drop in 2008 to a 10.8% one in '09.'  Maybe both stadiums will end up drawing huge numbers in 2009, but thus far, compared to last year, ownership should be concerned.     

The Tigers, playing in an area perhaps suffering the most from the economic situation, drew 44,588 on opening day.  A similar number from last year when they attracted 44,934.  A troubling sign, however, is not the fact that Detroit experienced a 35.6% decline for game 2 as opposed to last year's 28% drop.  The real pain for Tigers' ownership is that this year's game 2 was played on a Saturday.  Last year's was a Wednesday.   

The Kansas City Royals, who have suffered poor play and low expectations for many years, had the good fortune of attracting the Yankees for opening day the last two seasons.  In 2009, game 2 was 17.9% lower than game 1.  In 2008, 49% fewer fans showed up to witness the Royals second home game of the season.  These numbers are slightly skewed, though, because 2009 was played on a weekend, whereas 2008 was not.  For an apples to apples comparison, then, the Royals first 2009 weekday game saw a 73.6% fall from opening day. 

The Florida Marlins, who time and time again produce poor attendance figures, fell 60.5% in 2008.  For '09,' 67.6%.  Perhaps this year, the Marlins can explain these figures by claiming all Florida baseball fans traveled to see the defending AL Champs host the Evil Empire.  In one of the few bright spots, the Tampa Bay Rays held back-to-back full capacity games of 36,973 fans with the Yankees in town.  (If someone would like to argue the Yankees are bad for baseball, now's not the time.) 

Even the Los Angeles Dodgers, who averaged the 3rd highest attendance for 2008 behind the Yankees and Mets experienced a 25.5% dip in fans from game 1 to game 2.  Last year, only 21.3%. 

Some notable teams which either went relatively unchanged, or, in some instances, actually improved from last year: the World Series Champion Philadelphia Phillies increased in 2008 and fell just under 1% for 2009.  The Cubs dropped off 3.9% in 2008.  This year, only 1.8%.  The Red Sox, who seem to sell out every home game anyway, increased almost 1% for both this year and last.  And finally, have the economic woes only impacted the U.S. teams?  Hardly.

The Toronto Blue Jays not only suffered lower totals on opening day than they did last year, but their drop from game 1 to game 2 more than doubled.  In 2008, the Toronto fan base decreased by 29.8%.  For 2009, 65% fewer fans came out to see their Blue Jays play in game 2.

Now obviously, these numbers reflect a small slice of an enormous pie.  Most fans, this one included, prioritizes which games to attend.  Opening day is always high on the list; game 2 of an 81-game home schedule is not.  But when most MLB teams are feeling a drastic difference in figures from one year to the next, in a time when fans are simply trying to feed their families, most must wonder - are the salaries of players surpassing the demand for the product?  We'll leave that topic for another day.