The ball is in the Cardinals’ court as to whether catcher Yadier Molina remains with the team past 2012. (Photo: AP)

Once thought of a defensive specialist, Molina’s offense has gradually improved over the years. However, his 2011 performance with the bat exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. Entering the year, it seemed as if the catcher had plateaued around league average, but instead, he turned in a breakout season. With an OPS+ and wRC+ of 126 and 123, respectively, Molina ranked among the top offensive catchers in the game. It remains to be seen whether he can repeat that performance in 2012, but if Molina has permanently established himself as an above average hitter, his value will skyrocket. Ironically, that’s probably bad news for the Cardinals.

As much as the Cardinals would benefit from Molina’s improved offense in 2012, if the catcher continues to hit, he could price himself out of St. Louis. Even though he’ll be 30 this year, catchers who can both hit and play top defense are uncommon on the open market, so if the Cardinals let him get that far, Molina is sure to attract considerable interest. What’s more, almost every high revenue team would likely be in the mix. In addition to the Yankees and Red Sox, who do not have a long-term commitment behind the plate, the Mets and Dodgers might also be in the market for a catcher by next offseason. Even teams like the Angels, Rangers, and Cubs could be looking to upgrade at the position, so unless Molina is willing to reverse course and offer the Cardinals a home team discount, it’s hard imagine him remaining in St. Louis beyond the up coming season.

Obviously our hope is to try to find a way to keep Yadi. If that means it’s something we can accomplish in the next six weeks, that’s great. If it means he has to go to free agency, our goal would still be to retain him. But we also realize once a player gets to free agency, odds do change.” – Cardinals GM John Mozeliak, quoted by STLtoday.com, February 21, 2012

One way the Cardinals could retain Molina would be to offer him an extension before the start of the season. However, doing so comes with risk. Although Molina’s pre-2011 profile still makes him a valuable player, last year’s breakout offensive season has taken him to another level. If the Cardinals make an offer based on that expectation, they’ll assume the risk of an offensive regression. On the other hand, if they wait to see if Molina can duplicate his 2011 results, and he does, the price tag will only get higher on the open market.

In a perfect world, the Cardinals would probably be better off if Molina was just a league average offensive player, especially when you consider his strong defensive reputation is bolstered by relatively under-monetized skills like pitch blocking and framing. That kind of a player has been a key member of the Cardinals for several seasons…one the team would likely still be eager to keep. However, because of his improved offense, Molina’s days in St. Louis could be numbered.

The Cardinals clearly want to retain their catcher, but the team’s ability to negotiate a palatable extension could come down to the level of confidence Molina has in his ability to maintain his improvement at the plate.  GM John Mozeliak’s job is to see if he can leverage any uncertainty, along with emotions like the desire for security and loyalty, into a discount for his team. Otherwise, he’ll be just another in a long line of bidders next winter, regardless of how well Molina hits in 2012.

Provided below are two clips from the exclusive Captain’s Blog archive. The first clip features two scoreless innings pitched by Dave Righetti in a March 30 exhibition game against the Baltimore Orioles  (the Yankees wound up losing the game 1-0 in 15 innings; today, such a game would probably have been declared a tie after 10 innings). The WPIX broadcast, which includes commentary by Phil Rizzuto and Jim Kaat, includes a discussion on whether Righetti should have been converted back to a starting pitcher after two seasons as a closer (Joba Chamberlain fans might want to turn the sound down). In addition, the clip includes a rare error by Don Mattingly as well an at bat by Cal Ripken Jr. (two All Stars playing nine innings in an exhibition game is another vestige of a bygone era). The video also provides a look at Ft. Lauderdale Stadium, where the Yankees played their spring games before moving to what is now called Steinbrenner Field.

The second clip is from a television show called “This Is Next Year”, which previewed the Yankees’ and Mets’ 1986 roster. The program, which aired on WNYW and was narrated by sportscaster Tom McDonald, features interviews with Righetti, Mattingly, Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield, Mike Pagliarulo, Brian Fisher, Joe Niekro and Ron Guidry.

Is price what made Ibanez the right choice for the Yankees? (Photo: AP)

Now matter how Brian Cashman tries to sugar coat the acquisition, the selection of Ibanez as the Yankees’ left handed DH was a fallback position. Among free agents, Johnny Damon would have been the superior choice, but the veteran’s salary demands were too rich for the Yankees’ new budget conscious approach. In addition, the Yankees also pursued left handed bats like Garrett Jones and Bobby Abreu while shopping around Burnett, so Ibanez wasn’t even a plan B. What made the former Phillies’ left fielder attractive, however, was his price tag, so now he will be wearing pinstripes in 2012.

Just because Ibanez wasn’t the Yankees first choice doesn’t mean he is a bad signing. On the contrary, the deal would quickly become a bargain if Ibanez starts to earn the incentives that could increase the contract value to $4 million.  And, because of the low base salary, if Ibanez struggles in the Bronx, the Yankees can quickly cut the cord. However, that doesn’t make the signing a no risk proposition because someone would still need to take his at bats.

Ibanez’ Relative Performance Against Right Handed Pitchers

Source: baseball-reference.com (sOPS+) and fangraphs.com (wRC+)

If the Yankees almost exclusively use Ibanez to hit against right handers (and keep him away from the outfield), his value is comparable to most of the other options being considered. But, what happens if he is thrust into a more full-time position, or, fails in the limited role he was signed to fill? By forgoing a better all-around player like Damon, who is not only younger, but comes without the red flags of a rapid decline phase, Brian Cashman will be forced to scramble midseason if either of these circumstances come to fruition. Is that safety net worth the reported $4 million difference (or less, depending on incentives) between Ibanez and Damon? At the moment, it doesn’t seem so, but if the Yankees find themselves desperately looking for an upgrade at DH in July, their decision making in February could wind up being penny wise.

Putting aside the potential replacement risk, Ibanez does have some upside. His 2011 season represented a significant decline, but he was still a league average hitter against right handed pitching. In previous seasons, the lefty had much more success against righties, so if he regains some of that form, the Yankees will have a potent DH-platoon. Also, Ibanez has had success pulling the ball, which could become an accentuated positive at Yankee Stadium. So, although he won’t please those who crave small ball and marvel at the sweet science of hitting, if he deposits his fair share of fly balls into the short porch, the Yankees will wind up getting their money’s worth. Of course, that assumes he doesn’t also get more than his fair share of playing time.

For 16 years, Tampa has been the Yankees’ spring training home, but it still seems like just yesterday when the team’s camp was located down the coast in Ft. Lauderdale. I am sure most fans who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s still reflexively hearken back to those days of yore, while the real old timers’ memories probably take them all the way back to St. Petersburg, where Yankees’ legends from Ruth to Mantle toiled under the Florida sun.

Over the years, spring training has evolved significantly. Once upon a time, it was a pre-season retreat designed to help out-of-shape ballplayers shed the pounds added over the winter. In the early part of the last century, before even reporting to camp, players would often attend spas in places like Hot Springs, where they would purge their bodies of the inequities from the offseason. Then, games would either be played among split squads (in the old days, the camps would be split into teams of veterans and hopeful rookies, the latter often called Yannigans) or against local minor league and college ballclubs. Finally, the teams would barnstorm their way back up north before finally kicking off the regular season.

Today, spring training is more big business than quaint tradition. Thanks to the growing competition between cities in Arizona and Florida (each state now hosts 15 major league clubs), teams have been able to extract sweetheart stadium deals, allowing them to turn the exhibition season into a significant profit center. Still, at the heart of spring training is hope and renewal, as teams begin the long journey that is the baseball season.

The Yankees’ spring history has been a journey all its own. Below is an outline of some significant mileposts along the way.

Yankees’ Spring Training Homes Since 1901

1901-1902: The Orioles of the brand new American League began preparations for their inaugural season in Baltimore, the same city in which they would play their regular season games. Unfortunately, the rainy weather in Baltimore would make for a less than efficient camp and lead to excessive “loafing” by the ball players. In 1902, manager John McGraw took his ball club down to Savannah, GA, where the franchise trained while a member of the National League (before folding at the end of the 1899 season). In the Baltimore Sun, McGraw vowed to have a more productive preseason and proclaimed that there would be “no loafing” this time around.

1903-1904: When the Orioles assembled in Atlanta for spring training, they no longer played in Baltimore and weren’t really the Orioles. During the offseason, American League president Ban Johnson had finally succeeded in his attempt to place a franchise in New York, and the Orioles were the team selected to move. The only problem was there was no place to play and an unwelcoming political environment in New York that had no interest in helping out. With McGraw now managing the Giants, and that team’s owner committed to keeping the A.L. out of his city, Johnson had to race against the clock to ensure that his orphan team would soon find a home in the Big Apple. In the meantime, Johnson stocked the New York Americans, as they were being called, with stars like Clark Griffith, Wee Willie Keeler, Jack Chesbro and Jess Tannehill. Instead of focusing on getting ready for the season, this group of talented ball players spent more time worrying about whether they would be paid in the upcoming season. Despite rumors of possible defection, Johnson found a home and an owner for the Highlanders, as they would officially be called for the better part of the decade.

1905-1906: After spending two springs in Atlanta, manager Clark Griffith took his team to Alabama in 1905 and 1906. The first year, the team settled in Montgomery at the Highland Oval. According to newspaper accounts, Griffith had his troops march to and from the team hotel, which was located two miles away. One of the interesting stories that spring centered on a bat that catcher Pat Duff brought back from Cuba. “The wood is light, but with more wood in the stick to it heavier, it ought to be good, as the ball leaves it swiftly,” said Griffith, who planned to order a batch for the team.

In 1906, the Yankees set up camp at the Birmingham Training Grounds, but the city was stricken by poor weather. “It is exercise of the legs only that the Greater New Yorks are able to get here,” The New York Times reported. “Cold has set in good and stout, and the city is as frozen as New York.”

An assembly of sportswriters at the Yankees' 1911 spring training camp.

1907-1912: During this period, the Yankees hopped around the state of Georgia, playing in Atlanta, Macon, Athens and then Atlanta again. In 1910, manager Gene Stallings named Hal Chase team captain, and the following year Prince Hal would return to Macon as skipper. Not one to shy away from a good time as a player, Chase took a much more serious tone as a manager, beginning with a strict training camp in 1911. Unfortunately for Chase, it would be his only spring as manager. The following year, under the leadership of Harry Wolverton, the Yankees returned to Atlanta for the third and final time, and once again ran into bad weather. Midway through March, so much rain had fallen that the team had to move from its flooded training facility and set up camp at the University of Georgia’s Herty Field.

1913: Perhaps seeking refuge from the cold and rain that seemed to dominate past spring trainings, the Yankees moved their camp outside of the country for the first and only time. On March 3, most of the squad set sail for Hamilton, Bermuda, but rampant seasickness from a rough voyage set manager Frank Chance’s timetable back a bit. The facility used was a converted cricket field, and most of the games took place against an overmatched local team from Jersey called the Skeeters. Still, team owner Frank Farrell was said to be so pleased with the experience that he was considering the establishment of a permanent training grounds on the island. The biggest news, however, came at the end of spring when Chance, who ran the camp as a disciplinarian, lifted his ban on pie and cake. Interestingly, the same scenario would play out nearly 100 years later when new manager Joe Girardi opened his first camp with a series of strict guidelines that included the banishment of candy and gum.

1914: The Yankees’ gave Texas a try when they opened up camp in Houston. Still the disciplinarian, Chance opened the spring by fining pitcher Ray Caldwell the hefty sum of $50 for violating his training rules.

1915-1918: Under Bill Donovan, the Yankees returned to Georgia for one last stint, including a three-year stay in Macon, the team’s longest tenure in one location to date.

1919-1920: The Yankees joined a growing trend in baseball by relocating its preseason training program to Florida in 1919. In fact, all three New York teams decided to relocate to the Sunshine state: the Giants selected Gainesville, while the Yankees and Dodgers settled in Jacksonville. According to a note in the Providence News, “The villagers burst into a wonderful display of straw hats…when the New York delegation of Yankees got into town”. Because the Dodgers were training nearby, the two teams broke from tradition by scheduling several exhibition games against each other. “The clubs expect to benefit by the arrangement, for it will give each club the advantage of playing against major league opposition from the very start of the training season,” explained the New York Times.

In 1920, the Yankees returned to Jacksonville, but this time they brought an added attraction. Over the off season, the Yankees acquired Babe Ruth from the Red Sox, so all of New York and Jacksonville anxiously awaited his arrival in camp. When he finally appeared, Ruth had more success hitting golf balls than baseballs at first, but eventually found his homerun swing. In the meantime, he also exhibited some of the eccentric behavior that made the Red Sox anxious to trade him. During a Saturday exhibition, Ruth jumped into the bleachers to confront a noisy fan upset by the slugger’s frequent strikeouts. However, after the fan brandished a knife, Ruth quickly hopped back on to the field, averting a tragedy that could have ended his Yankee career before it started.

A team photo from the spring of 1921.

1921-1924: The Yankees took their show on the road to Louisiana in the early-1920s. The first stop was in Shreveport, where hordes of amateur photographers descended on the Yankee camp to get a snap shot of the Babe. Before his arrival, a local optician took out an ad in the morning paper promising a $5 prize for the best photo of the Bambino, but the anxious fans probably didn’t need the incentive. Shreveport went crazy for Ruth, but nothing topped March 14, the day he knocked three mammoth blasts and tallied six hits in one game versus the local Gassers.

From 1922 to 1924, the Yankees held their training program in New Orleans, returning to the site of the old New York Mutuals tour of the south in 1869-70, which first brought East Coast baseball to the Gulf. Spending several weeks in the Big Easy must have seemed like paradise to Ruth, at least until he lost a $1,000 bill in 1924.

1925-1942: After much lobbying by Florida State League president Al Lang, not to mention a brand new $35,000 practice facility paid for by the city, the Yankees returned to the Sunshine State by establishing camp in St. Petersburg.  On February 23, Lang tossed out a ceremonial first pitch to Yankees manager Miller Huggins, inaugurating Crescent Lake Park and signaling the beginning of a lengthy relationship between the team and city. Following the death of the Yankees’ skipper in 1929, the facility was renamed Miller Huggins Park before the 1930 season, giving the Yankees a constant reminder of their former manager for many decades to come. Although the Yankees trained at Crescent Lake/Miller Huggins Park during this time, exhibition games were held at Waterfront Park, which the team shared with the Boston Braves and then later St. Louis Cardinals.

A 1930s era postcard from Yankees Spring Training in St. Petersburg.

1943-1945: War time travel restrictions forced most teams to train close to home, which unfortunately for the Yankees meant trading in the warm Florida sun for the still chilly Jersey shore. In 1943, the team used a high school in Asbury Park before spending the final two years of WWII training in the 112th Field Artillery Armory and playing exhibition games at Bader Field in Atlantic City.

1946-1950: The end of the war meant the Yankees could return to their spring time home in St. Petersburg. However, years of neglect weren’t kind to old Waterfront Park, so after the 1946 training season, a new stadium was erected. In 1947, the city of St. Petersburg unveiled a brand new stadium called Al Lang Field, which would serve as the joint spring home for the Yankees and Cardinals.

1951: The Yankees and Giants agreed to swap training facilities in 1951. As a result, the Yankees spent their first and only spring preparing in Arizona, while the Giants became the first team other than the Yankees to utilize Miller Huggins Park.  The one-year trade was agreed upon by the Giants as a courtesy to Yankees’ co-owner and vice president Del Webb, whose hometown was Phoenix.

Despite only spending one year in Arizona, it was an eventful one. First, the team suffered salary holdouts by pitcher Eddie Lopat and catcher Yogi Berra, and then Joe DiMaggio announced his intention to retire after the season. One positive, however, was the play of a young rookie named Mickey Mantle, whose prodigious hitting ability would force his way onto the roster for the 1951 season.

Also in 1951, a Negro League team was permitted to train at Miller Huggins Field for the first time.

A scene from Spring Training in 1957.

1952-1961: The Yankees returned to St. Petersburg in 1952, but over the team’s waning years in the city, grumblings of dissatisfaction began to emerge. Not only were the Yankees’ unhappy with the portion of the spring training proceeds being taken by the city, but they also bristled at perceived favorable treatment extended to the Cardinals. So, in the spring of 1961, rumors about a potential shift to Fort Lauderdale were finally confirmed. “In St. Petersburg, we practice on one field and play on another,” said Yankees co-owner Dan Topping. “In Fort Lauderdale, we would have the town to ourselves”.

St. Petersburg wasn’t without a second team for long, however. Shortly after the Yankees announcement, the New York Mets decided they would train at Miller Huggins Park before the 1962 season.

1962-1995: The Yankees brand new $600,000 Ft. Lauderdale Stadium opened up in 1962. The facility included an 8,000 seat stadium to accommodate larger crowds as well as unheard of spring amenities like air-conditioned clubhouses and offices on the premises. By moving to the east coast of Florida, the Yankees joined four other teams who had broken away from the center of the state: Orioles (Miami), Dodgers (Vero Beach), Senators (Pompano Beach), and Athletics (West Palm Beach).

In 1965, the five-time defending American League champions had a miserable spring, foreshadowing the team’s imminent decline under new manager Johnny Keane, who the previous year had led the St. Louis Cardinals to victory over the Bronx Bombers in the World Series. Not only did the Yankees struggle on the field in the spring, but they also had their share of troubles off it. In late March, Roger Maris and Clete Boyer were both charged with assault stemming from their involvement in a brawl outside Nick’s Cocktail Lounge in Ft. Lauderdale. Although Maris was found innocent of all charges before breaking camp (Boyer plead no contest and paid a $175 fine in November), the eventful preseason was an ominous sign of things to come.

Don Mattingly signs for autograph seekers at Ft. Lauderdale Stadium.

During the 1970s, spring training in Ft. Lauderdale served as each season’s opening act of the Bronx Zoo. From salary disputes to Reggie Jackson’s “straw that stirs the drink” interview to fallout from Sparky Lyle’s book, Yankee camp was always chock full of entertaining stories. However, they could just as easily have taken place in Ocala, where new owner George M. Steinbrenner owned a horse farm. Shortly after taking over as principal owner in 1973, Steinbrenner was reportedly dissatisfied with the state of the Ft. Lauderdale facilities and reached out to Ocala power brokers about making another switch. On more than one occasion, Steinbrenner used that leverage to extract improvements to the Yankees’ training facility from the city government, including the furnishing of a private box in 1980, the relocation of a motorcross course in 1985 (Steinbrenner felt that its proximity to the ballpark was not aesthetically pleasing), and significant renovations to locker room facilities and concessions in 1989.

In 1993, Ft. Lauderdale was the backdrop for Steinbrenner’s triumphant return from suspension, but it also marked the beginning of the end for the Yankees relationship with the city. With the team’s most recent lease set to expire that year, the Yankees started actively negotiating with other cities in Florida before finally settling on Steinbrenner’s adopted hometown of Tampa.

Legends/Steinbrenner Field in Tampa.

1996-Present: Over 30 years earlier, the Yankees abandoned the Tampa area to lead a pilgrimage to Florida’s east coast. Now, they were leading the charge back. In 1996, the Yankees unveiled Legends Field, a state-of-the-art $30 million facility that was constructed to the identical dimensions of Yankee Stadium. The new facility opened to rave reviews as new manager Joe Torre held his first training camp with the Yankees. That season, the Yankees not only ushered in a new preseason home, but also staged a return to past glory. Future legends like Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte and Jorge Posada entered that first camp in Tampa without even being guaranteed a job, but all emerged as prominent leaders in the organizations dynastic revival. Later on in the era, Legends Field was also host to episodes of infamy when Jason Giambi, Andy Pettitte and Alex Rodriguez were all forced to address PED allegations. At the heart of it all…both the good and the bad…was the Boss. In 2008, at the recommendation of the Hillsborough County Commission and Tampa City Council, the facility was renamed Steinbrenner Field in honor of the Yankees’ principal owner.

Yankees’ Spring Training Facilities, 1901 to Present

Source: Proprietary

The Yankees had many reasons for trading A.J. Burnett, but the deal also came in the nick of time for the right hander, assuming he is sensitive about his legacy with the team. After a solid debut campaign in 2009, Burnett’s subsequent futility was of historic proportions, making him one of the least effective pitchers in franchise history.

Among all qualified pitchers who have taken the mound for the Yankees, Burnett’s 2010 and 2011 seasons rank third and sixth worst (out of 396), respectively, in terms of ERA. Using ERA+ is a little more generous to the righty, but even on that basis, his last two seasons each rank among the bottom-25 in team history. That’s not exactly what the Yankees had in mind when they inked Burnett to a five-year deal.

Highest Season ERAs in Yankees’ History

Note: Includes only pitchers who qualified for the ERA title.
Source: baseball-reference.com

Only an eternal optimist could have expected a turnaround for Burnett in 2012, so the Yankees’ decision to cut bait spares them another season of the right hander’s epic struggles. What’s more, it also saves Burnett from further soiling his Yankee career by adding another stinker on top of his last two. As it stands, his 4.79 ERA with the Yankees ranks fourth worst among all hurlers who have thrown at least 400 innings for the Bronx Bombers. Had the trend of recent poor performance continued over the life of his contract, Burnett might have claimed the ignominious throne that currently belongs to Sterling Hitchcock.

Highest Career ERAs in Yankees’ History

Note: Includes pitchers with at least 400 innings; “From-To” periods are not necessarily consecutive.
Source: baseball-reference.com

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Burnett is in spite of his historically poor cumulative record as a Yankee, he still wound up being a key contributor to a championship in 2009. Of course, in typical Burnett style, even that year wasn’t without its ups and downs. Despite an overall strong season with an ERA+ of 114, he still managed 10 games with a game score lower than 45, and, during the postseason, alternated between good and bad starts. At his best, Burnett was a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde pitcher, and over the last two years, the doctor didn’t make many house calls.

Burnett’s Yankees career was defined by so many contradictions. He had more “stuff” than just about every other pitcher, but the results were never commensurate. Whereas he had thrived against the beasts of the A.L. East with the Blue Jays, his three-year record against the Red Sox while in pinstripes was an abysmal 1-4 with a 7.29 ERA in 10 starts. Beat writers covering the team would always report on how hard Burnett worked in between starts, but then, when things went awry during the game, he appeared to give up easily. According to most accounts, he was a well-liked member of the clubhouse, but that didn’t stop him from showing up his teammates and manager on the field. And, while he was perhaps best known for the merriment associated with throwing pies after a walk off win, he wasn’t immune to expressing his anger by punching a wall following a tough outing. In three years, the Yankees could never quite get to the bottom of the Burnett riddle. Now, it’s the Pirates burden.

With the approximately $6.5 million in annual savings, the Yankees are expected to fill out their roster by signing a designated hitter.  Among consideration for that role is a list of usual suspects that includes old friends Hideki Matsui and Johnny Damon as well as Vladimir Guerrero and Raul Ibanez. Over the past few weeks, there have been several stories about either the Yankees having interest in one of that quartet, or their expressing a desire to play in the Bronx. So, once the Burnett trade is completed, another announcement could be forthcoming.

Comparison of Yankees’ DH Candidates: Cumulative Statistics

 Source: fangraphs.com and baseball-reference.com

Assuming the Yankees are limited to the four DH options mentioned above, which would make the most sense? Based on overall 2011 performance, Damon seems like the obvious answer. His OPS+ of 110 and wRC+ of 109 from last season both suggest the former Yankee is still an above average offensive player, something the other three candidates can no longer boast. Using a larger sample of the last three seasons, Damon still comes out on top in terms of wRC+, but by a much smaller margin. However, it should be noted that because of his base running contribution, Damon’s WAR (using both versions) was 2x-4x higher than the others.

Comparison of Yankees’ DH Candidates: Statistics vs. Right Handed Pitchers

Source: fangraphs.com and baseball-reference.com

If the Yankees were looking for a full-time DH, Damon would be a no brainer, but instead the team really just needs a left-handed platoon partner for Andruw Jones, whose success against left handed pitchers dictates he be given half the role. Even though that would seem to eliminate the righty Guerrero, last year’s splits suggest the free swinger might be just as effective taking at bats against pitchers from the same side. In fact, over the last three seasons, all four players have been equally productive against right handers, so if someone is going to be eliminated by this emphasis, it might actually be Matsui, whose 2011 performance in the split lagged the others significantly.

Because of their respective ages, it probably makes sense to weight recent performance more heavily, so, on that basis, Damon seems to be the most sensible choice for the Yankees. When you also consider his superior athleticism (at least in terms of speed), experience playing in New York, and popularity in the clubhouse when he was previously a part of the team, the case for Damon becomes even stronger. So, why haven’t the Yankees been more overt in their interest?

In a recent column, John Heyman, whose close connection to Scott Boras is widely acknowledged, hinted at a conspiracy, but it’s worth noting that the last time the Yankees parted company with Damon, the sticking point was salary. With Brian Cashman trying to stick to a budget, and Scott Boras known for holding out for maximum value, the likely disconnect is probably related to finances. If the two sides can’t bridge that gap, the Yankees will probably choose from one of the remaining three candidates, if not go in another direction altogether.

It would be a shame if the Yankees and Damon fail to reach an agreement once again because of stubbornness on either side. Who knows, once the Burnett dust settles, maybe each side will be able to see the bigger picture more clearly? If Damon really wants to play for the Yankees, and the salary relief from the Burnett trade is earmarked for the payroll, a compromise should not be hard to reach.

Yankees Positional OPS+, 1961-2011 (click to enlarge)
Note: OPS+ is a relative measure of OPS against the park-adjusted league average. An OPS+ of 120 is 20% better than the league average.Source: baseball-reference.com

Using OPS+ instead of Total Average to measure offensive performance, the chart above plots the production the Yankees received from each position since 1961 (the start of the expansion era). Whereas Jaffe’s chart had some discernible patterns, the graph above looks as if it was created by a child with a box of crayons. That’s because over the last 51 years, the Yankees have experienced significant peaks and valleys with regard to the relative offensive values of their position players. However, based on the percentage of seasons with above league average production, the Yankees strength at key positions, particularly catcher and center field (and more recently short stop and second base), becomes more evident, which, considering the team’s overall success, lends credence to the importance of building a ball club up the middle.

OPS+ > 100 Seasons by Position, 1961-2011

 Note: OPS+ is a relative measure of OPS against the park-adjusted league average. An OPS+ of 120 is 20% better than the league average.
Source: baseball-reference.com

Since 1961, the Yankees’ winning percentage has correlated most closely to the team’s relative production from short stop. Although Derek Jeter is mostly responsible for that relationship, several prior successful periods in franchise history were also punctuated by an above average offensive short stop. Production from right field, which has been manned by Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, and Paul O’Neill, among others, has also exhibited a relatively strong correlation to winning. Grouped together behind those positions have been third base, catcher, second base, and center field, which have shown a similar link to winning ballgames. Finally, the three positions with the lowest correlation to winning are the ones at the easy-end of the defensive spectrum. In fact, left field has shown a negative correlation, which can’t make Brett Gardner feel very good.

Correlation Between Yankees’ Winning Percentage and Positional OPS+, Sine 1961

Note: OPS+ is a relative measure of OPS against the park-adjusted league average. An OPS+ of 120 is 20% better than the league average.
Source: baseball-reference.com

There’s more than one way to build a championship team, but collecting good hitters at premium defensive positions is a blue print that has withstood the test of time. Since 1996, the Yankees have used that approach to great effect, and it wouldn’t be surprising if their ability to continue as a perennial contender rests on the organization’s ability to continue to acquire or cultivate top players at key positions on the spectrum. That’s all the more reason to appreciate what players like Jeter and Jorge Posada have done, enjoy the excellence of Robinson Cano and Curtis Granderson, and, perhaps, look forward to the arrival of potential future stars like Gary Sanchez and Mason Williams.

In his column, Sherman cites Damon’s declining walk rate and increased tendency to chase balls out of the zone as corroboration for the belief that the veteran has abandoned a patient approach in order to help expedite his pursuit of 3,000 hits? In other words, Damon’s anxiousness to cement his legacy has taken precedence over his obligations to the team. If the premise is true, Damon would be guilty of the ultimate sin in team sports: putting his own accomplishments ahead of winning ballgames.

Johnny Damon’s Walk Rates vs. League Average
 Source: fangraphs.com

Does the evidence support the notion that Damon’s approach at the plate has become too focused on reaching 3,000 hits? It’s hard to refute the significant decline in his walk rate, but it’s worth pointing out that his 2011 percentage isn’t completely out of line with other seasons from his career. Also, the league as a whole saw its walk rate decline from 8.5% in 2010 to 8.1% in 2011, so at least some of Damon’s drop off can be attributed to the men he was facing on the mound. In his own defense, Damon cited some tough calls as reason for aggressiveness, but regardless, the veteran hitter did have fewer walks in 2011.

The most compelling evidence provided by Sherman was the increase in the rate of Damon’s swings at balls out of the zone, which, at 31.3%, was 10 points higher than his career norm and marked the third consecutive increase. However, the figures to which Sherman referred were based on BIS data, which some believe isn’t exactly reliable. Just below the presentation of BIS, fangraphs also provides similar measures based on pitch/FX data (since 2007), and on this basis, the rate at which Damon expanded the strike zone didn’t change dramatically. So, if pitch/FX is to be believed, the case against Damon’s me-first approach loses some steam.

Johnny Damon’s “O-Swing” Rates
 Note: O-Swing refers to the percentage of pitches out of the strike zone that are swung at.
Source: fangraphs.com

There’s no question that Damon’s on-base percentage took a meaningful hit because of fewer walks, but the evidence available simply isn’t strong enough to suggest the drop off was the residue of his designs on 3,000 hits. Even if one-year’s worth of data supported such an accusation, it would still be irresponsible to make, especially considering the small samples involved and Damon’s long standing reputation for being a team player. If the Yankees are really making plans for 2012 based on what amounts to conjecture, their motives are worthy of being scrutinized a lot more closely than Damon’s.

Does the Yankees attempt to trade AJ Burnett signal renewed confidence in Phil Hughes? (Photo: AP)

For obvious reasons, the last thing the Yankees need is to open camp with an ornery Burnett besieged by reporters wanting to know how he feels about the team’s attempt to jettison him. The mercurial right hander, who has alternated between throwing pies and punching walls, has become enough of distraction by virtue of his poor performance, so adding a disgruntled element to his already over-explored psyche could prove to be a tipping point.

Aside from trying to avoid early uneasiness and distraction, another reason the Yankees are working so hard to trade Burnett before Sunday is so they can fully focus on what could be the last attempt to revive Phil Hughes’ Yankees career. As early as last November, the organization seemed committed to giving Hughes one last chance to fulfill his potential, and, all throughout the winter, there have been reports about the right hander’s offseason commitment to making good on that opportunity. One of baseball’s most clichéd annual rite of spring deals with players reporting to camp “in the best shape of their life,” but after an injury riddled early career marked by a questionable dedication to conditioning, talk of a fitter Hughes is more than just a preseason bromide.

In 2012, Hughes will be pitching in his age-25 season, the same point at which Curt Schilling finally lived up to his potential. On numerous occasions, Schilling has credited the turnaround in his career to a talk he had with Roger Clemens in 1991. While both pitchers were working out in Houston (the team to which Schilling had been traded that offseason), the veteran Clemens lectured Schilling on the dedication needed to become a top flight pitcher, a discussion he took to heart and put to good use. Perhaps, if Clemens’ off-the-field troubles hadn’t kept him away from the Yankees’ clubhouse, Hughes would already have been the beneficiary of a similar chat? Regardless, if he has truly found a renewed dedication to his craft, the realization is better late than never.

In 1991, an encounter with Roger Clemens helped Curt Schilling turn his career around.

Despite his recent struggles, which have pretty much lasted since the second half of 2010, Hughes career has not been without success. Unfortunately, it has also been plagued by injury. As a result, the optimism generated by his limited success as a starter has repeatedly been contradicted by periods of ineffectiveness, which many have attributed to his less than stellar conditioning. The talent is there, so maybe, just maybe, with improved fitness will come better health and sustained success? For many Yankees’ fans who have already given up on Hughes, that probably seems like wishful thinking, but, with the alternative being Burnett, a dream is preferable to the continuation of a nightmare.

Although Brian Cashman has repeatedly stated he is comfortable with A.J. Burnett in the rotation, the rumors from the past week speak much louder than those words. Last year, with a rotation composed of an unproven rookie and two veteran retreads, the Yankees had no choice but to roll the dice and hope for a resurgent Burnett. After a second year of snake eyes, however, Cashman made sure to bolster the starting staff, lessening the team’s dependence on Burnett. As a result, the Yankees no longer need to cross their fingers in hopes of rediscovering the good AJ. Instead, the team’s risk tolerance would be better spent seeing if Hughes can re-emerge. Either way, the fifth slot in the rotation would be question mark, but with the Hughes, an affirmative answer could have an impact far beyond 2012.

Even if the urgency to trade Burnett is as much about clearing a path for Hughes as simply ridding the team of a distraction, the 25-year old right hander will still probably have to win his spot during Spring Training. However, Hughes shouldn’t have to outperform the veteran Freddy Garcia as much as exhibit improved mechanics, control, and velocity, not to mention maintain his health and conditioning. If Hughes can accomplish those goals in March, he should be back in the rotation come April. First, however, Cashman must get rid of Burnett in February.

When does a baseball player’s prime begin and end? That question, which has been hotly debated for a long time, recently prompted columnist Joe Posnanski to put down his pen in favor of a bar graph that contradicted the growing conventional wisdom that the prime years of a player’s career extend into his early-30s.

Although Posnanski’s chart was illustrative of his point, the underlying premise had a few flaws. In particular, Posnanski used cumulative data over 111 seasons to contradict recent sentiment. By failing to segment the data, there was no basis from which to identify the alleged shift in players’ aging patterns.

“Great” Offensive Seasons by Age, Since 1901

Note: Great seasons defined as those with a bWAR of six or better.
Source: Baseball-reference.com

Posnanski’s analysis wasn’t comprehensive (something he freely admitted). Rather, it was a simple look at the most common ages for “great seasons”, which were defined as having a bWAR of at least six. As evident in the chart above, which is a recreation based on Posnanski’s criteria, exactly one-half of the 1,084 applicable seasons were turned in by a player between the ages of 25 and 29. The chart also displays sharp declines in the number of great seasons produced by players as they progress throughout their 30s. However, to what extent do the same trends exist today?

In order to answer that question, the 1,084 great seasons were allocated across seven age ranges, and then each segment was compared to the total. Not only does this approach allow for the examination of more recent trends, but it also accounts for the growing player pool since the start of the expansion era, providing better context for an era-by-era comparison.

Percentage of “Great” Offensive Seasons by Age Group, Since 1901

Note: Great seasons defined as those with a bWAR of six or better; Bold border indicates highest percentage in an age group.
Source: Baseball-reference.com

The chart above indicates a gradual shift of great seasons toward the 30-something end of the spectrum. After peaking at 41.6% during the war years, when many of the game’s younger players were overseas, the percentage of bWAR>=6 campaigns by 30-year olds has plateaued at 35% over the last 20 years (see last graph below). Looking more granularly, the past 11 years have seen over 7% of great seasons turned in by players age-35 and up, a level not too far from the high watermark set during World War II. Although some will undoubtedly attribute the recent exploits of older players to the recent performance enhancing drug epidemic, WAR is a comparative statistics, so presumably, the advantage should cancel out (unless older players either disproportionately took or benefitted from PEDs).

“Great” Pitching Seasons by Age, Since 1901

Note: Great seasons defined as those with a bWAR of six or better.
Source: Baseball-reference.com

Like their offensive counterparts, pitchers have historically had their best seasons between the ages of 25 and 29. However, pitchers have exhibited a little more staying power. Since 1901, 33% of great offensive seasons were compiled by players over 30, but for pitchers, that rate is nearly 39%. What’s more, there have been several periods when pitchers over the age of 30 have outperformed their juniors in terms of great seasons. During the live ball era of the 1920s, these older pitchers turned in over 60% of the bWAR>=6 seasons, a rate that steadily declined before reversing course in the 1970s and peaking again at over 50% in the 1990s. Over the past decade, the rate has returned to a more modest rate of 33%, which is line with most of the other eras in between the aforementioned outliers.

Percentage of “Great” Pitching Seasons by Age Group, Since 1901

Note: Great seasons defined as those with a bWAR of six or better; Bold border indicates highest percentage in an age group. 
Source: Baseball-reference.com

Further down the age-scale at age-35 or older, the rate of pitchers having great seasons has also fluctuated more wildly than for hitters, with two peak periods over 15% in the 1920s and 1970s to go along with two valleys below 5% in the 1960s and 1980s. It’s hard to get a handle on why peak performance by pitchers has been far less uniform than for hitters, but it could suggest that pitching is a less physical skill (i.e., older pitchers can compensate for lost velocity with location and pitch selection) as well as one more prone to random variables like injury (i.e., eras in which top pitchers stay healthy will exhibit more great seasons by those in the older age group).

Great Seasons by Age-30+ and Age-35+ Pitchers and Offensive Players, Since 1901

Note: Great seasons defined as those with a bWAR of six or better.
Source: Baseball-reference.com

A lot of effort has been spent trying to define prime, but ultimately, the real answer has to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Although most players will conform to a general trend, the ones we really care about are those who transcend it (which explains the prominent names on the list below). In his conclusion, Posnanski asks “what are the chances that Albert Pujols will still be a great player at ages 37, 38, 39, 40″? But, can we really answer that question by looking at the aggregate performances of a group that is so vastly inferior? Players like Pujols are great because they aren’t like everyone else, so, like a prime number, their only apt comparison is themselves.

Best Seasons by Older Pitchers (38+) and Hitters (37+), Since 1901

Note: Sorted first by age and then by bWAR.
Source: Baseball-reference.com