Kuzul

With the 2010 season ending for the New York Yankees after Friday night’s Game 6 loss to the Texas Rangers in the ALCS, the focus has quickly shifted to the off season and what moves the Bombers will make in order to win a 28th World Series championship in 2011.

One of the pressing items on the Yankees’ to-do list this winter is to re-sign captain and soon-to-be free agent Derek Jeter.

It has been reported that Jeter may be seeking a seven-year contract that will keep him playing baseball until the age of 43, which may put him in a position to break Pete Rose’s all-time hits record.

In a recent article for ESPNNewYork.com, Ian O’Connor wrote:

“In statements he’s made in recent years to Yankee executive Gene Michael and to his own personal trainer, Jason Riley, Jeter has indicated he wants to play until he’s about 43. He has also indicated a willingness to change positions, if necessary, for his final few seasons.”

If Jeter, who turned 36 this past June, really does have aspirations to play until he is 43, then his next contract would have to be for seven years.  With 2,926 career hits, it is very likely that he is seeking to break Pete Rose’s all-time career hits record of 4,256.

This is a quest that is not impossible as Jeter and Rose have had very similar career numbers up until the age of 36.

From his first full season in 1963 until 1977, between the ages of 22 and 36, Pete Rose amassed 2,966 hits in 2,346 games played, which is an average of 198 hits per year over 156 games played.

From his first full season in 1996 until 2010, between the same ages of 22 and 36, Derek Jeter has amassed 2,914 hits in 2,280 games played which is an average of 194 hits per year over 152 games played (for age and season average comparison purposes, I have left out Jeter’s 1995 season in which he gathered 12 hits over 15 games as a 21-year-old).

The biggest challenge for Jeter will be matching Charlie Hustle’s performance over the later years in his career.

From 1978-1984, between the ages of 37 and 43 (which will be the comparison to Jeter’s next contract), Pete Rose racked up 1,131 hits in 1,025 games played which is an average of 162 hits per year over 146 games played.

It is important to note that Rose did not retire after the 1984 season as he tacked on 107 hits in 1985 as a 44-year-old and 52 hits in 1986 as a 45-year-old for a total of 159 hits after the age of 43.

For Jeter to get the 1,331 more hits needed to break Pete Rose’s record over this reportedly desired seven-year contract, he will need to average slightly over 190 hits per year.  This is not an easy task considering that Mr. November will be in the twilight of his career where there typically is a steady decline in production and the ever-present concern with injuries.

The seven-year contract may still be beneficial to Jeter, however as he will need to average just over 180 hits per year to pass Ty Cobb for second place on the all-time hits list and average a very conceivable 121 hits per season to pass Hank Aaron for third place, which is certainly nothing to scoff at.

As if the five World Series championships weren’t enough, grabbing the third place slot on the all-time hits list will surely cement Derek Jeter’s place as one of the greatest hitters in the history of Major League Baseball.

If Jeter is indeed looking for a seven-year deal and he gets it, he will begin his ascent up baseball’s all-time hits list.  If he does not finish his career at the top of this list, there is a strong possibility that he will be very close to it.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com

The stage is set for the 2010 World Series as the San Francisco Giants will host the Texas Rangers on Wednesday night.  This will mark the first time that the National League Champions possess home-field advantage since the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks.  For the Giants, this is not that big of an advantage.

After the 2002 All-Star game ended in a 7-7 tie in Milwaukee, Major League Baseball decided that the following year’s Midsummer Classic winner will be awarded home-field advantage in the World Series.  Before this decision, home-field was alternated between the two leagues each year.

Since the All-Star game began the determinant for home-field advantage in the World Series in 2003, the American League has won all of them up until this year.  In those seven Fall Classics, the home-field American League has a slight 4-3 edge over the National League.  Being at a disadvantage for seven straight years, the NL Champs did pretty good for themselves. 

This brings up the question if home-field advantage is any real advantage at all in the World Series.

The current home-field advantage format of 2-3-2 began to be used regularly in the 1924 World Series.  Since then, this format was followed in every year but three.  The 1943 and 1945 World Series followed a 3-4 format due to World War II travel restrictions and there was no World Series in a strike-shortened 1994 season.

In those 82 World Series, the team with home-field advantage has won 47 of them, which is slightly better than 57 percent.  When something results in success just over half of the time, it is not very advantageous.

For Major League Baseball to grant home-field as a reward to the winning league in the All-Star game, they must believe that it gives a team some sort of edge.  It is very likely that they were analyzing a highly unbalanced recent trend.

In the 28 World Series since 1981, the team with home-field advantage has won 21 times, which is a monstrous 75 percent.  This trend is just that, as the previous 30 World Series from 1951 to 1980 saw the team without home-field advantage win the championship 20 times, or two-thirds of the Fall Classics.

Historical outcomes with fluctuating trends aside, it is important to explore the extra pressure that comes with home-field advantage.   When a team starts the World Series at home, they are practically put in a must-win situation right off the bat. 

While every game is crucial in a short series, it is particularly devastating for a home team to fall behind 0-2 and then go on the road for three games.  In fact, there are only three teams in major league history to win the World Series after losing the first two games at home- The 1985 Kansas City Royals, 1986 New York Mets and 1996 New York Yankees.

For a road team in the first two games of the series, there is significantly less pressure.  Winning both games puts them in the driver’s seat to a world championship.  Winning just one of the first two games actually gives the road team a sort of home-field advantage for the remainder of the series.  They now can look at the rest of the Fall Classic as a five-game series with three home games. 

Even if the road team loses the first two games, they still have a better chance to win the World Series than if they dropped the first two at home. 

Since the 2-3-2 format in 1924, seven teams have won the World Series after losing the first two on the road (as opposed to three who lost the first two at home)—the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers, 1956 New York Yankees, 1958 New York Yankees, 1965 Los Angeles Dodgers, 1971 Pittsburgh Pirates, 1978 New York Yankees and the 1981 Los Angeles Dodgers.

The notion that the ever so important Game 7 is the whole point to home-field advantage is not very accurate.  Historically, even game sevens of the World Series have been split very evenly amongst the home and road teams. 

Since 1924, the home teams have a slight 17-16 edge over the away teams in the 33 game sevens played.  In addition to this, there has not been a Game 7 in the Fall Classic since the All-Star game’s increased importance in 2003.

Although it is a welcome change to start the World Series in a National League park, home-field advantage will not be much of an advantage at all for San Francisco.  While the fact that they are hosting the first two games is not that important, winning at least one if not both certainly is. 

While today is a celebration for the National League Champion San Francisco Giants, come Wednesday, the pressure will most certainly be on.

Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com