And your Winner of the 2012 World Series is...

   According to the preseason hype of the past couple of years or so the New York Yankees have dominated, winning five World Series, second only to the Philadelphia Phillies set of four. Who knows what this season's speculation will crown the supreme champion of baseball. In all the fracas though, what does reality say about the past ten years? Angels (2002), Marlins (2003), Red Sox (2004), White Sox (2005), Cardinals (2006), Red Sox (2007), Phillies (2008), Yankees (2009), Giants (2010), Cardinals (2011). Looks like the predictions aren't so clear-cut after all.


   What makes a team so hyped year after year after year? Sure, it's probably the talent, but how do you get that talent? By using a lot of money. This is probably the biggest reason why the Yankees are always favored; because they have the finances to make these glamorous moves. This is such a part of their identity that fans of rival teams accuse them of buying championships. It is a wide spread notion that clubs which spend the most will be prematurely ordained winners. From a more sullen angle this can be said of the NY Mets. In referencing the movie, Moneyball, Jon Stewart quipped, "Do you think they’ll ever a make a movie about a big-market team that has the money to spend, but still sucks. We could call it something fictitious, like, the Mets."

   If one looks the amount spent and who actually wins, you'll get a different picture. Last year, for example, the combined payroll of both World Series opponents (Cardinals and Rangers) was still just four million shy of the the Yankees' top spending ($201.7 million). For eleven consecutive seasons, the Yankees have spent the most, winning one World Series in that duration. I'm sure its infuriating to hear that, if you're a Yankee fan, but it's annoying for a regular fan. Currently, gambling odds are in favor of the Phillies winning it all this year, with the Yankees second.

   There is also the other side of the spectrum. Instead of spending a boatload, spend the least amount possible, but focus on statistical similarities to richer teams. What I am referring to is Moneyball. It pretty much consists of building a competitive, efficient team with the lowest possible payroll. So far, all that it has proved is you can keep a team competitive. In their prime years, the Oakland A's who were the main proponents of this system, went to the playoffs four straight times, never making passed the first round; the farthest they ever got was to compete for the pennant in 2006.


   There is no one way to win it all, but focusing on the amount of money spent doesn't guarantee anything. It's almost ludicrous how much objective analysis becomes blinded by all the money one organization can throw around. Even in the case of a Moneyball themed organization, there is still the fact that baseball has implemented a luxury tax. This is supposed to take money from those who spend more to those who have less; so, small market clubs do need financial help and not all can contend like the Oakland A's.

   Analysis should stop favoring the richest and actually try to find who has the best chance my examining talent and experience. Added to this now is the MLB's new playoff system which will add one more team to the mix, in a one game elimination. This would make the final number of postseason teams five for both leagues. Baseball is a marathon and the one that survives will only gain a chance to play fall ball. Nearing the end though, there is always one team that is on a hot streak that most of the analysts don't predict. Teams can't "buy" their way to a World Series anymore, but like the rest of us they need to spend their money well, and with a little bit of luck, can be champions.