Home Field Advantage -- Part II
by chuckb on Mar 1, 2009 10:15 AM EST
in St. Louis Cardinals News
Email
PrintAs I noted yesterday, I wanted to expand on my analysis of the Cards’ BABIP home/road splits and look to see how we compare w/ the rest of the NL. First, however, I have to critique and correct my own methodology. Yesterday when I looked at the effect that the home/road splits had on our pitching staff, I took the staff’s road BABIP and multiplied that times the number of home ABs in an attempt to see how many additional hits the team would have given up if we had there were no difference between our BABIPs at home and on the road. The problem w/ that was that I wasn’t measuring BABIP – I was simply measuring batting average. What I needed to do was use the formula for calculating BABIP to determine the number of additional hits the staff would’ve given up w/ the higher BABIP. Instead of the 140 hits and 67 runs (and therefore, 6+ wins) I came up with yesterday, the true numbers are 55 hits and 26 runs (roughly 2.5 wins). To me, that sounds more correct than 6.5 wins. Essentially, the fact that we had a lower BABIP at home than on the road was worth 2.5 wins in the standings.
In order to find the new BABIP numbers, I had to determine each team’s staff’s HR/AB, K/ AB, and SF/AB as well as the number of runs the team gave up for every hit at home. All the numbers can be found here.
| Team | Home BABIP | Road BABIP | Runs saved at home |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cards | .286 | .310 | 26.31 |
| Cubs | .289 | .279 | -10.94 |
| Brewers | .290 | .288 | -2.57 |
| Astros | .294 | .298 | 5.17 |
| Reds | .312 | .324 | 13.76 |
| Pirates | .311 | .321 | 11.8 |
| Phillies | .294 | .297 | 2.98 |
| Mets | .274 | .314 | 44.83 |
| Braves | .299 | .298 | -1.11 |
| Nationals | .298 | .304 | 7.42 |
| Marlins | .303 | .288 | -17.38 |
| Dodgers | .281 | .316 | 30.39 |
| D-backs | .298 | .307 | 9.66 |
| Giants | .304 | .306 | 3.01 |
| Rockies | .314 | .312 | -2.62 |
| Padres | .285 | .313 | 30.34 |
So the Cards gained a little more than 2.5 wins by having a considerably lower BABIP at home than on the road. Whether you want to see that as a gain of 2.5 wins b/c we were better at home or a loss of 2.5 wins b/c we were worse on the road is up to you.
In truth, however, it’s probably not as great as 2.5 wins gained or lost. When you figure that the average team saved 19.66 hits at home by having lower BABIPs and saved 9.44 runs at home, the Cards saved 35.17 hits 16.87 runs more than the average NL team w/ their lower BABIP. So the difference between the Cards and the average NL team was a little more than a win and a half.
What else stands out here? First of all it’s that 5 teams had higher BABIPs at home than on the road and 2 of them were the Cubs and the Brewers. If they regress to the mean this year, what effect will that have on their win total? Will the Cubs be better by a win or worse by a win? Not sure.
The next thing is that, as I pointed out yesterday, and as Dave Cameron pointed out here we have no idea why this happens. He calls it a home field advantage so that’s what I’m calling it as well. It is, as he points out, a pattern that has emerged and has occurred each year over the last 14 seasons of playing. This is no aberration. Why does it occur? I noticed something as I was looking at the team’s that had the greatest "home field advantage." What do you notice about them – the Mets, Dodgers, Padres, and Cardinals? What I notice is that they all play in home parks that are considered to be pitcher’s parks – parks where we might expect for the home team to have a greater advantage. The table below has the 1 year park factors (per B-R) for each of the 4 teams who had the strongest home field BABIP advantage last year. Under 100 favors pitchers. Above 100 favors hitters.
| Team | Batting park factor | Pitching park factor |
|---|---|---|
| Mets | 100 | 99 |
| Dodgers | 95 | 94 |
| Padres | 88 | 89 |
| Cards | 98 | 98 |
Though Shea Stadium basically had a neutral effect last season, it’s traditionally known as a pitcher’s park, as the others are. The other 3 played to a pitcher’s advantage last year, though Busch did only slightly. Could the park effect be one of the causes of the stronger home/road splits? I have no idea really. It may be coincidence. As Dave Cameron said in the post linked above, "Isolating a single factor is going to be next to impossible and, in reality, it probably isn’t a single factor." The other question is, of course, how will it affect the Cards this year and, is it predictable?
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A few comments...
…I’m not convinced that BABIP tells us what we think it tells us. Even in your analysis you acknowledge this implicity, unwilling to do what the BP’rs tell us we should do: conclude that BABIP is purely the product of luck. It simply isn’t. It matters whether a ball is a line drive, a fly ball, or a grounder. Pitchers can consistently produce more or less of all of those types of BIP’s. It matters how well the ball is struck, and that is indeed a product of pitcher skill…as much swinging and missing is. Which isn’t to say that there isn’t some luck in BABIP…maybe alot. But it likely varys from pitcher to pitcher and we have no good measure of the ‘luckiness’ of BABIP. We know its not all luck, we know its not independent of luck…and that’s about it.
Oh, and when we move to evaluating parks rather than pitchers, I think BABIP pretty much falls a part as a ‘luck’ factor. There’s undoubtedly luck when evaluating pitchers, since park effects can be adjusted for, or assumed away given a large enough sample of pitchers pitching in different ball parks. But ball parks should affect BABIP. And I think if you look at your numbers, we find a pretty consistent result. The pitchers parks (Cards, Dodgers, Padres) have lower BABIP…and hitters parks have higher. The fact that hitters parks don’t necessarily produce reverse home/road spits is likely a consequence of some of the factors you mentioned previously (the true ‘home’ advantage of a home team knowing their own park). D.GOOCH
-- GOOCH
the luck factor
not only do I acknowledge it implicitly, but I acknowledged it explicitly yesterday and today that luck was not the only thing occurring here. Luck is an element of BABIP, and an important one, but not the only one —as Dave acknowledged in his post and I acknowledged in both of mine.
I doubt that luck is a factor
Over that large of a sample, size luck tends to be removed from the equation. Obviously the quality of batted balls and the quality of defense along with other factors (travel, fans, familiarity) are probably the reasons for the variation.
I would like to see the batted ball data of home vs. road. It would be my inclination that home pitchers allow a lower quality of batted balls, which would then partially explain the BABIP disparity. I would also like to see UZR splits for home and road.
Chuck, do you have any idea where I could access those numbers? I tried Retrosheet, but they don’t seem to have home/road batted ball data organized.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 2, 2009 12:06 AM EST up reply actions
FWIW
I checked the espn park factors for the four teams you listed. The two-year averages are as follows (hits/runs):
Mets .925/.931
Cards .995/.938
Pads .876/.776
Bums .959/.948
I was going to do a three-year average, but the park factors for 2006 looked pretty screwy for the Mets (.660/.606) and Dodgers (1.969/1.888). Since I didn’t have time to do a sanity check, I just left that year out.
Is there such a thing as slugging percentage for balls in play?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
statistically significant...
… i read through Dave’s post three times and nowhere does he say that his results are “statistically significant”. nor does he show any regression results. he does say that “it’s essentially impossible for this to happen randomly” but we don’t know that unless he runs the regression and gets the SEs.
anyway, “statistically significant” refers to a specific test of regression coefficients, and i don’t see that he’s done the test.
also, some commenters over there mentioned two possibilities for why this happens: 1. hometown scorekeepers tend to give hits to home hitters and errors to home fielders. 2. home teams don’t always bat in the 9th inning. BABIP is lower in a later innings for all teams, so the fact that home teams aren’t batting in that inning probably has some effect.
all in all, those two factors alone probably explain 1/3 – 1/2 of the gap in home-away BABIP split.
I'd bet a million dollars
That 14 years of batted ball data n=million+, where the relationship stays just about the same the entire time is statistically significant. Half assing it, if it was random chance we would expect to see the road BABIP be lower or even during 7 of the 14 years. It’s statistically significant: whether it’s practically significant is another story.
Not afraid to nitpick
guess that depends on the unit...
… he’s not using every AB as the unit of analysis. he’s using the year, so n=14. if he were doing a pooled time series with the team/year as the unit of analysis, then n = 30×14 = 420.
the null is that BABIP>BABIP(road), and we would expect 5% of observations to deviate randomly (or 0.8 teams per year in the NL). in just the past year, according to chuck’s graph above, 5 NL teams were actually negative last year.
i’m not sure it is statistically significant. in any case, i’d actually like to see that established rather than simply asserted, especially since we’re dealing with very small margins of difference here.
also...
… significance depends on the SEs, and we get no indication from Dave what those are. if there is a ton of variance from year to year (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there were), then even if it looks like there’s an obvious relationship it might not actually be a significant one.
the fact that 5 teams were negative last year
as you well know, doesn’t refute the analysis. We know that lefthanded pitchers have more success vs. lefthanded batters than righthanded pitchers do. This has been tested over and over but it doesn’t mean that every lefthanded pitcher every year will be better against all lefties than all righties.
yes...
… but our sample size is only 16! if roughly 30% of the sampled teams deviate from the hypothesized direction, then i’m not all that convinced.
i’m not saying the overall point is wrong. it could be right. but i’m not convinced that it’s right based on the graph that Dave showed, especially since your analysis actually undercuts it. perhaps it would be better to conclude that there is some tendency towards higher BABIP for home teams, but not necessarily an especially strong tendency.
I don't think we're gonna agree on this...
The expected difference absent park effects/pitcher handedness/defense/etc biases is .007 (.302-.295). I don’t know what the exact SD number would be but in 81 games home/road even without those confounding factors I would think that it would absolutely be expected that multiple teams would be off by >.007 i.e. some teams will be negative.
Not afraid to nitpick
maybe, maybe not...
… if our confidence interval includes negative values, then it also includes ‘0’ which means that this is not statistically significant. if it doesn’t include 0 then we shouldn’t expect any more negative values than half the level of significance, which will be nothing like 30%.
The sample for Dave's analysis isn't 16
it’s 14 years worth of ABs. BABIP has trended in the home team’s favor every single time. It hasn’t been tested statistically, as you correctly pointed out, but it can’t be a fluke either.
yes it can be a fluke...
… very easily. in frequentist stats, significance comes from variances, not from trends of means. in Bayesian stats, the conditional probabilities are probably surprisingly small.
No he is using every BIP for 14 years not a time series
Over 14 years the home allowed BABIP is .295, road allowed BABIP .302—-n=million+ that’s going to be significant, it just is. The fact that the relationship hasn’t flipped even once over the course of 14 years is icing on the cake. Devil’s advocate is fun and all but come on…
Not afraid to nitpick
Statistically vs practically significant
Is a good point.
But the reason to determine whether it’s statistical is just to see whether there’s really a relationship there. And then if there is, is it due to things that make one iota of difference?
If you wanted to have some statistical confidence that it’s legit, don’t make an assessmen from the graphs. Use the graphs as a light bulb moment and then:
a) take a random sample of 50 pitchers and compare their road and home BABIPs (one year only).
or
b) run a paired test using the annual datasets. As Kindred said above, that bumps you down to an n of 14, but it’ll at least tell you what your odds of the exact data that were graphed are of being “statistically” significant.
All this is ignoring the really nice question, which is what the cause of this is, if there’s a real difference. Is it even something that can be altered by management?
I am not making my conclusion from the graphs!!!!!!!!111!!!111
Over 14 years the home allowed BABIP is .295, road allowed BABIP .302—-n=million+
Please someone tell me that (not the graphs!) isn’t statistically significant.
Not afraid to nitpick
it depends...
… on whether he’s actually using the ABs, or just averages from every year. what the graph shows is yearly averages, and he makes no indication that he’s actually used every AB in his analysis. looks to me like he just took averages across the MLs for 14 years and plotted them. so his ‘n’ isn’t anything like a million. it’s 14.
look at the bar chart chuck posted. using the average of those teams isn’t all the interesting, b/c that cancels out the differences b/t high and low values. what’s really important is the variance. and from what i can tell, Dave doesn’t look at the variance at all.
aren't you misusing n in this instance?
you’re right that n=14, if we’re trying to draw year by year conclusions, like even years are better years for hitters than odd ones because batters are luckier in even years. but we’re not comparing year to year. we’re comparing an average of 14 averages of road babip and an average of 14 averages of home babip.
but if we’re trying to compare hitting, not year by year, but hit by hit, then the n does equal one million.
think about what you’re saying — if you really think that n = 14 in this instance, do you really think that taking the average annual BABIP in the major leagues over 14 years gives you just as much information as taking the average BABIP over 14 balls in play in the grapefruit league game today? because the n there also equals 14.
n is whatever you are comparing — in this case, we’re not comparing year to year, we’re comparing balls in play.
he's just plotting means on a graph...
… and then taking the mean of the means. he’s not testing anything. so in this case, yes, the n = 14 (actually, 28, since there is home & road). if he were to test any hypotheses statistically, then n would depend on how he specified his model.
if he did a paired test, as sid mentions above, then n=14. that appears to be the way he’s specifying things.
but whatever. my point is that we should have essentially no confidence in these results. 7/1000s of a percentage point isn’t very much, esp since the variances look to be fairly high (judging by chuck’s one-year breakdown above).
isn't .295 vs. .302
7/10s of a percentage point, not 7/1000s?
To go back to the early stages of this discussion, I think you could use something other than regression analysis to make a claim of “statistical significance” — for instance, a t-test of the differences in means. If you had all the 14-year data that goes into the .295 and .302 averages and ran a t-test comparing the groups, I’m guessing you would find significance at conventional levels.
But I would agree once you start averaging averages, you have very few observations to try to draw conclusions from.
.007 ...
is 7 thousandths of 1, but 7/10 of one percentage point. yeah. my mistake.
yes, you could do a t-test difference of means. and if you had all the data that went into it, then it might be significant, or might not. it depends on the variances. as chuck’s table showed, many of those variances are fairly large (larger than .007) and not necessarily in the predicted direction.
although a regression would be much better, b/c then you could add other variables (e.g. each hometown scorer’s proclivity for assigning errors rather than hits, or # of daytime vs. nighttime games) and see which ones retain significance in the presence of other factors. remember, we’re trying to separate out a “home-field advantage” effect.
my whole point in all of this is that it’s not appropriate to assume significance. that’s something that has to be “proved” by rejecting alternative explanations.
you're right
he uses the word "significant’ but not the phrase statistically significant.
Over that 14 year period, home team BABIP allowed is .295, while road team BABIP allowed is .302. We’re talking millions of plate appearances here, so a seven point spread is certainly significant.
Pitchers parks..
I have always thought that pitcher’s parks are better for winning championships, as there tends to be more variation in hitter’s parks especially those that are HR prone.
Just an opinion.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!
And I agree
that scoring differences (how potential errors are scored) and well as late inning effects could account for a chunks of the 0.007 BA difference.
BTW, is anyone else surprised by the Rokies numbers? I was expecting home to be much higher than road for CO.
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!
Yes, you are right
this does look odd. My initial reaction was that they just struck out a lot more on the road and put fewer balls in play, but that doesn’’t seem to explain it.
I am not a data manipulation wizard, so I just looked at the last three years, but the BABIP data for 2006-2008 is pretty different from the table:
2006 Home: .331
2006 Away: .287
2007 Home: .333
2007 Away: .311
2008 Home: .316
2008 Away: .300
That is an average difference of .029 per year, whereas the table is -.002
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
schumaker
has two errors today. grrrrrr
I only am who I am because I was born that way. I have a gift and I'm trying to not be selfish about it, but to use it, OK? Jealousy will get you nowhere!
Better to get it over
with in spring training than in the regular season.
Gameday
… only shows one. I see the one in the second inning that lead to the first Fishy run. Where was the other?
the second one
wasn’t ruled an error, Shannon said it obviously was one however.
I only am who I am because I was born that way. I have a gift and I'm trying to not be selfish about it, but to use it, OK? Jealousy will get you nowhere!
go to FANSHOTS tab at top of this page
liam has the links listed there for this week (bless his heart).
by OKCARDSFAN_411 on Mar 1, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
brian barton
having himself a day…
"i have a feeling the answers are bigger than the questions" -Dr Heyward Floyd
isn't it
about time for barton to try his hand at the infield?
I only am who I am because I was born that way. I have a gift and I'm trying to not be selfish about it, but to use it, OK? Jealousy will get you nowhere!
I was thinking that the Skippy/Barton platoon at 2B would be daunting
Both for opposing pitchers and our own.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Mar 1, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
i would certainly take some ground balls at third base
if i was him.
"i have a feeling the answers are bigger than the questions" -Dr Heyward Floyd
So many OFers,
so few ABs…
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Mar 1, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Another dinger for crab man
E=mcGONE
by cloistermaximus on Mar 1, 2009 3:05 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Not watching (because I can't)
but I checked the score and all I can say is UGLY!
That is not a fun place to play.
Tennessee get embarrassed there in December, and it made me very glad to not have to play in that building every year.
so has a LOOGY had a successful outing yet?
i see ian ostlund’s ERA is sitting at a jolly 45.00..
For the love of god, mo, SIGN JOE BEIMEL!!!!!
"i have a feeling the answers are bigger than the questions" -Dr Heyward Floyd
The Japanese import has done well I think
But I’m with you,
I would sign Beimel and Durham to fill out the team. They would be solid role players IMO.
Have the Marlin's gloves
shown up yet?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
Don't get too panicky about today
Check the wind conditions for some explanations of why both teams are scoring as though it’s the NFL. 22 mph out to right will turn a lot of bloops into long balls.
by StanTheManFan on Mar 1, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
They've only got 1 HR today.
I chalk most of it up to the hitters being ahead of the pitchers at this point.
Watching the MLB Network, they show a lot of ST games
And I have to say that it seems to me that the hitters are far ahead of the pitchers across the league at this point in time.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Mar 1, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
The starters (other than Lohse) have been okay.
I’m sure that things will balance out by mid-March, the longer Spring Training throws a few things off.
by notmorganfreeman on Mar 1, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
I agree wholeheartedly
Once the pitchers gain a feel for their full arsenals, scoring will dip.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
by bgh on Mar 1, 2009 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
If Brendan Ryan doesn't hurry up and wash the sand out of his panties...
Tyler Greene is going to be the RH-hitting member of the 2b platoon with backup responsibilities at SS.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Mar 1, 2009 4:15 PM EST reply actions
The 2 Greene's seem seem to have pretty similar tools.
Both good defensively (I think Tyler is known to be good with the glove), strike out a lot, and have some pop in their bats.
luckily for BR
ST lasts longer than 4 games…
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
is John Hadley...
the most obnoxious, snarky little twerp on the planet… or am I just catching him on a bad day.
He sounds like a 16-yr-old underachieving, overweight kid in his parents’ basement… barking away at… who knows who.
And how did I KNOW, even before googling his picture, that he would have a fat face and a high forehead?
You know...
There is nothing I enjoy doing more than relaxing on the deck at 10:30 pm on a hot, humid summer evening with an adult beverage, listening to the post game.
Unless Hadley is hosting. Then I just go to bed.
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
I'd be delighted...
if VEBers who live in or around St Louis {I’m 300 miles away} could tell me that losing KMOX as the flagship station has been good. It was and remains a serious blow to MY access/enjoyment of my beloved Cardinals.
KTRS is a dinker channel, all about money and gimmicks, is it not ? I can’t get it where I am because it is not 50,000 watt clear channel (as is KMOX), so I may be judging unfairly.
In any case, I can’t imagine KMOX hiring a snot like Hadley. And I’m not talking about any “what” of his spiels, like attacking one of my favorite Birds or whatever; it’s merely the manner of his delivery. He’s a juvenile.
yep
I actually pick up 106.1 FM better in Alton so I listen to the game on that change. But they only carry the night games. 550 comes in fine upstairs but not down stairs.
Agree on the KMOX to KTRS switch
I used to live in southern Indiana, and when they switched stations I went from occasionally being able to get a good signal to getting nothing at all. (Luckily I’m back in STL now, so radio is no problem.) And while I generally don’t pay much attention to the pre- and postgame stuff and have never listened to other programs that aren’t game-related, I remember the pre- and postgame stuff (the stuff not involving Shannon, Rooney, Hagin, etc.) on KMOX being considerably less irritating.
But I could just be getting old and crotchety. Get the hell of of my lawn, KTRS!!!
by BTown Birds fan on Mar 1, 2009 8:40 PM EST up reply actions
rumor is KTRS may lose them very soon
and the Cards could go back to KMOX. of course this is just a rumor. apparently the Cards owners are losing tons & tons money owning their own radio station in this current market. i really hope this happens, at night KMOX comes in clear as a bell out here in ohio.
BEN MOTHERHUSHYOURMOUTH SHEETS
ManRam
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
I loved the Cards on KMOX
but I would hope that KMOX would at least leave them twisting in the wind a little bit if this were to happen
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
i'm still looking for it
sorry, i got distracted by something shiny & i’ve lost where i read that. i’ll keep looking.
BEN MOTHERHUSHYOURMOUTH SHEETS
ManRam
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
Only way they could get more irritating...
is if they had Smash doing the promos. Ugh, drives me crazy during football season.
Whatever happened to class? Why do sports nowadays have to be treated like a combination of Pro Wrestling (the over the top annoucers like Hadley or Smash) and Girls Gone Wild (on the TV, the constant promos for sleazy sports bars…)
Felipe Lopez - next year's Joel Pineiro (on another team, thank you Mo!)
whoops
he starts tomorrow… how was the pitching today?
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Mar 1, 2009 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
He did awesome!
Kept a meticulous chart on Piniero.
Getting two tickets to an execution is like getting two tickets to NASCAR, except you KNOW Jeff Gordon's gonna die.
He stretched like a champ, too.
And I heard his outfield jog was Cy Young caliber.
hecanthithecanthithecanthithecanthit
a brain at SS
just heard the pre-game interview with Khalil Greene (delayed for me)… and holy-moly. No ’uh’s or ‘ya know’s or ‘I mean’s.
He’s more articulate than most of our congressmen.
I was all set to root for him anyway…now I really will.
Brian Barton
how I’ve missed thee.
by Hardcore Legend on Mar 1, 2009 9:56 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
- Will Smith shows why making your big-league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
