Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 01-20-2019, 04:35 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
3. The players, obscenely rich though they may be, have at least always been clear and upfront; they want to be paid market value. Bitching about making millions instead of more millions may seem vulgar, and IS vulgar, but they're honest about it.
This is why I couldn't be mad at Zach Greinke for bailing on the Dodgers to play for Arizona. He was totally upfront about the cash.

I will still allow myself a little smile about his performance since leaving LA.
  #302  
Old 01-20-2019, 05:33 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The players, obscenely rich though they may be, have at least always been clear and upfront; they want to be paid market value.
Naive sorts may wonder how "market value" came to be defined as "what I think I should be paid" instead of "what the market is willing to pay me".
  #303  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:31 PM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
I'm not sure I understand the point. Of course the player will attempt to find a suitor willing to pay an exorbitant amount. Often, they are successful.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #304  
Old 01-21-2019, 12:02 AM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 5,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Naive sorts may wonder how "market value" came to be defined as "what I think I should be paid" instead of "what the market is willing to pay me".
Well, that gets in to somewhat tricky areas like "how much is an employee worth to an organization"? The pure capitalistic answer is "what the market will bear" - but that doesn't really apply to MLB where a CBA determines and tremendously limits what players make in the early part of their career. In a truly free market Kris Bryant (to name just one example) would not have played for the Cubs in 2017 for like $1M.

Another way to go about it is to define a percentage of revenue that goes to the players, and then divide that money between the players in whatever way the owners/GMs see fit. Of course then the question becomes "what percentage of revenue is appropriate?". I think NFL players are guaranteed 47%. NBA is over 50% I think, and NHL right at 50%. Of course all of those leagues have salary caps (and floors?) as well as sometimes maximum individual salaries.

The MLB system punishes the young players which has in the past allowed teams to lavish riches on the older players. Now that teams aren't giving those riches to older players, they (the older players - typically the ones filling union representative roles) are started to gripe.
  #305  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:09 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
Well, that gets in to somewhat tricky areas like "how much is an employee worth to an organization"? The pure capitalistic answer is "what the market will bear" - but that doesn't really apply to MLB where a CBA determines and tremendously limits what players make in the early part of their career.
Which could be said for lots of union contracts (teachers, for example).
Quote:
The MLB system punishes the young players
If they feel they're being "punished" (remember Kris Bryant's $10.9 mil in 2018), they can certainly push for changes in the CBA. I'm just not sure why sports reports/commentators in general take up the cry of "unfair!" automatically.

Part of it may be the desire to suck up to players in order to get interviews and juicy tidbits, and another factor (in common with fans) may be wanting their favorite teams to sign top talent, whatever the cost (which they of course are not paying, but have an excellent idea how the money should be spent).
  #306  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:56 AM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,360
Woe...the poor players!!! Those same MLB players who don't give a rats ass about their hamstrung brothers they left behind in the minors.
  #307  
Old 01-21-2019, 09:27 AM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas09 View Post
Well, that gets in to somewhat tricky areas like "how much is an employee worth to an organization"? The pure capitalistic answer is "what the market will bear" - but that doesn't really apply to MLB where a CBA determines and tremendously limits what players make in the early part of their career. In a truly free market Kris Bryant (to name just one example) would not have played for the Cubs in 2017 for like $1M.
And, of course, it's equally weird at the other end, where top players is subject to winner's curse, whereby the team that gets the player has usually paid more than the market felt the player was worth.

I really don't think the current system - which, for all that they make small changes to the CBA, has been fundamentally the same for decades - is going to be sustainable. Pro sports interest is flattening and revenues will flatten soon. The expectations of the players in terms of the upper limits on their salaries is, based on history, heavily in the direction of assuming that

1. The salaries will keep going up, and
2. It'll largely keep going up the way it always has - rewarding veterans with exorbitant deals.

Not only will flattening revenues end this, but simple analytics is biting into the willingness of teams to hand out giant deals, as they're looking at the facts and seeing they're probably going to get bit in the ass.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #308  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:41 PM
Zakalwe's Avatar
Zakalwe Zakalwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Not only will flattening revenues end this, but simple analytics is biting into the willingness of teams to hand out giant deals, as they're looking at the facts and seeing they're probably going to get bit in the ass.
I do agree with this, but given that the owners ARE making tons of money, the obvious solution is for early-career salaries to go up (and probably way up) or for the lock-in period to be 2 MLB years, then free agency.

This is something the owners will fight tooth and nail and unfortunately, I'm afraid the MLBPA is not structured to properly resist the owners on this. The owners will throw a bone to the +6 players and keep the "bad" early deals in place.

Unfortunately, I don't really see any way to get the Association to look at the dynamics top-to-bottom (including MiLB players, Dale) and cut the best deal for the most people.

Last edited by Zakalwe; 01-21-2019 at 06:45 PM.
  #309  
Old 01-25-2019, 11:13 AM
Club 33 Club 33 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 725
ESPN reported yesterday that the Dodgers are signing AJ Pollock. I think that puts the Harper rumors to rest, thankfully.

Last edited by Club 33; 01-25-2019 at 11:15 AM.
  #310  
Old 01-25-2019, 01:42 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,360
Dombrowski said the other day that the largest salary ever given to a player in terms of fraction of the teams payroll is 1/6th. So when considering whether players will get 30 or 40 million a year...well multiply that by six and see how many teams can afford that. NO team right now seems to have a $240 million payroll. 5 have 180 million.
  #311  
Old 01-25-2019, 05:19 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,864
Overall the salaries in baseball continue to rise. This failure of teams to pony up stupidly large contracts to a few elite players is mostly a red herring coming from the likes of Boris.
  #312  
Old 01-26-2019, 01:10 PM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Dombrowski said the other day that the largest salary ever given to a player in terms of fraction of the teams payroll is 1/6th.
That is just false, and a really odd thing for him to say. You'd think he'd know better.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #313  
Old 01-26-2019, 03:17 PM
Hawkeyeop Hawkeyeop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somerville, MA
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakalwe View Post
I do agree with this, but given that the owners ARE making tons of money, the obvious solution is for early-career salaries to go up (and probably way up) or for the lock-in period to be 2 MLB years, then free agency.

This is something the owners will fight tooth and nail and unfortunately, I'm afraid the MLBPA is not structured to properly resist the owners on this. The owners will throw a bone to the +6 players and keep the "bad" early deals in place.

Unfortunately, I don't really see any way to get the Association to look at the dynamics top-to-bottom (including MiLB players, Dale) and cut the best deal for the most people.
I tend to agree with this though the problems run deeper. For various reasons, (better depth, younger peaks, smarter teams) players are no longer getting overpaid in free agency to make up for being underpaid after. So as part of any agreement, free agency likely will have to be moved up.

That isn't Harper and Machado's problem though. Those are players on hall of fame trajectory's in the prime of their career. The fact that they aren't getting offers anywhere near where you would expect them to is a major problem for the players and wouldn't be fixed by an extra year of free agency. Now we don't know exactly what they will get paid, but you would expect a lot more teams to be in on them.

The problem is that large market teams are treating to luxury tax as a hard cap, small market teams are content to take revenue sharing as guaranteed profit, and bad teams are not even trying to win. If teams aren't spending money, it doesn't matter if everyone is a free agent. To fix this you will need giant changes (salary floor, change/eliminate draft, expansion..) that I'm not sure either side is willing to make.

By the way, if you take Arod's first contract, which he did earn his money (it was the extension that the yankees gave him that was awful) it would be worth over $700 million with today's revenue. Now Machado/Harper aren't quite Arod, they are perhaps the best free agents since then. $175 million is a lot of money, it is also way below what players of that caliper and youth would expect to receive. Long term contracts are risky, but hitting stars in their prime don't tend to lose their value quickly. Salaries have historically trickled down, so if stars aren't getting paid, everyone else is taking a cut too.
  #314  
Old 01-26-2019, 04:17 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,761
Anyone have any thoughts on the Reds signing Sonny Gray?
  #315  
Old 01-26-2019, 08:18 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
Anyone have any thoughts on the Reds signing Sonny Gray?
It is probably a good trade for the Reds, they really didn't give up much and Gray will probably be much better out of the AL East.
  #316  
Old 01-26-2019, 11:31 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
That is just false, and a really odd thing for him to say. You'd think he'd know better.
Who was higher?

(Little research) ARod was 23% of the Rangers. 1/6 is 16%

Hmmm...and not such an odd thing to say if he's giving excuses or trying to keep league-wide salaries down

Edit: Maybe i missed him say a time frame.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 01-26-2019 at 11:35 PM.
  #317  
Old 01-27-2019, 01:58 AM
OldGuy OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Who was higher?

(Little research) ARod was 23% of the Rangers. 1/6 is 16%

Hmmm...and not such an odd thing to say if he's giving excuses or trying to keep league-wide salaries down

Edit: Maybe i missed him say a time frame.
Is that 23% of the 25 man roster with the 1/6 perhaps referring to the 40 man roster?
  #318  
Old 01-27-2019, 08:36 AM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
Is that 23% of the 25 man roster with the 1/6 perhaps referring to the 40 man roster?
22/95 with $95 million being the listed player payroll for the Rangers 2001 season
  #319  
Old 01-27-2019, 09:48 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,026
It's bonkers that A-Rod averaged $25 million per for the final seventeen years of his career. Even Giancarlo Stanton with his massive contract will probably fall $100 million short in total earnings.
  #320  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:40 AM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Who was higher?

(Little research) ARod was 23% of the Rangers. 1/6 is 16%
Last year Jake Arrieta was well over 25% of team payroll. Zack Grienke, Jason Heyward, Miguel Cabrera, Joey Votto, and Joe Mauer were all over 20% of team payroll; Yoenis Cespedes just missed. A few other players were over one sixth.

I am not sure if this is more or less common now. There have been many examples before (Babe Ruth was around a quarter of Yankee payroll most of his career, but he's an extreme case) but maybe not as many as there are now, I'm not sure.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 01-28-2019 at 09:42 AM.
  #321  
Old 01-28-2019, 11:55 AM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
Anyone have any thoughts on the Reds signing Sonny Gray?
He should be a bit of an upgrade over Homer Bailey, who has since been released by the Dodgers. I'll still be mildly surprised if the Reds can get over .500 in 2019.
  #322  
Old 01-29-2019, 07:14 AM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
Players are bitching that they aren't getting big deals this offseason, claiming it's collusion. Homer Bailey was paid $21 million last year, will be paid $23 million next year and still got released, will make over $100 million in his career, and in a 12-year career he had exactly two seasons one could say were "good." He's 67-77 with a bad ERA.

Maybe they're just wising up.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #323  
Old 02-06-2019, 10:27 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,026
Now that the foosball nonsense is over with, we're barrelling toward spring training with a lot of unsigned free agents, once again. The hot stove is cold, but never fear, the owners and the players association are hell bent on monkeying with the rules of the game.

Universal DH? Three batter minimum?

I really don't enjoy watching pitchers pathetically flail at baseballs, and I really, really didn't enjoy watching Masahiro Tanaka pull both hamstrings tagging up at third, but forcing the DH on the national league is dumb, dumb, dumb. You don't need to take a poll to know that NL fans do not want it. The universal DH wouldn't improve the game and it might actual cause serious harm.

Three batter minimum? They should try it out in the minors, but it seems like forcing bad baseball on everyone. Pitcher wild? Make him stay in for two extra walks. Great.
  #324  
Old 02-06-2019, 10:52 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,198
Monkeying with the rules of the game, indeed. Seems to me that both of those changes would nudge baseball in the direction of being less a game of strategy and more a game of brute force. Which is not what I want.
  #325  
Old 02-06-2019, 10:55 AM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
I fully support the DH but I know there are die-hard NL fans that think it's an abomination. No reason to force it upon them, although I assume the players union wants it.

Three batter minimum is also stupid. There's already a cap on mound visits.
  #326  
Old 02-06-2019, 11:42 AM
Superdude Superdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,257
SNY.tv says the odds are against the universal DH, at least for this year.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #327  
Old 02-06-2019, 11:44 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
I fully support the DH but I know there are die-hard NL fans that think it's an abomination. No reason to force it upon them, although I assume the players union wants it.
Why do you assume this? And does anybody know for sure?

What what little I've seen/heard, I get the impression that individual players' opinions vary: some like it, some dislike it, some are neutral, and many are happy with the way things are now.
  #328  
Old 02-06-2019, 12:38 PM
That Don Guy That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
What good would a three-batter minimum do? I am assuming it wouldn't apply if the pitcher was injured; what stops a pitcher from faking an injury to be replaced? The roster limit already takes care of this situation - if you want to use a spot for a one-batter-and-done specialist, that's your business.

The NCAA baseball rules committee wanted to impose a pitch clock this year, but the "playing rules oversight panel" overruled them; among other things, there was no provision for what to do if a game was played at a neutral site that did not have the clock installed and would not allow one. Besides, you would almost certainly need a special rule to handle pickoff attempts.
  #329  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:02 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,713
The DH in the NL is inevitable, just do it. I like the 3 batter minimum as well. I’m so tired of endless pitching changes.
  #330  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:26 PM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Why do you assume this? And does anybody know for sure?

What what little I've seen/heard, I get the impression that individual players' opinions vary: some like it, some dislike it, some are neutral, and many are happy with the way things are now.
Well, in theory NL teams would be replacing a utility guy with an everyday player. I assume the everyday DH would make a higher salary on average. Maybe I'm wrong and it would basically wash out.
  #331  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:28 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,610
The DH is not inevitable. Kill it dead everywhere. Salt the earth afterwards. I agree with That Don Guy that roster limits take care of the pitching problem. That's why I would oppose the expansion of the roster. The idea of punishing sub-.500 teams by nicking their draft picks seems counter-productive to me.
  #332  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:32 PM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,295
Some of the other rule change proposals:

A 20-second pitch clock - Hate it

A single trade deadline before the all-star break, to replace the traditional July 31 deadline and the Aug. 31 waiver-trade deadline. - I actually kind of like this.

A rule, which would be tested in spring training and the All-Star Game, in which each half-inning in extra innings would begin with a runner on second base. - Oh my god please no. Why? Why is this necessary?

A reduction in mound visits from six to five. - Whatever. Also seems unnecessary.
  #333  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:11 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,761
So is Corey Kluber off the table now? I knew the Reds were still chasing him, but the asking price is steep...as it should be for a player of his caliber.
  #334  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:16 PM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
The increase in pitching changes extends the length of the game but not by as much as you'd think. Today there are about 3 relief pitchers used per game. 25 years ago, it was two and a half. If the 3-batter minimum is meant to get rid mof one pitching change every two games, I say that's hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.

Farting around with this stuff is simply ignoring the REAL problems:

1. The entire pace of play issue can be attributed to commercial breaks and delays between pitches, which are caused more by batters delaying than pitchers. The only way to fix this problem is to reduce commercials between innings and enforce pace of play on hitters. That's it.

2. There are too many strikeouts.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #335  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:27 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,610
The way to take care of extra inning games is to just start counting ties after 12 innings.

Otherwise I have little problem with pace of play. I like long games.
  #336  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:24 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
A 20-second pitch clock - Hate it
Yes, but only because of the clock. Pitchers work too slowly; it isn't just the batters stepping out to tug on their gloves.

Quote:
A single trade deadline before the all-star break, to replace the traditional July 31 deadline and the Aug. 31 waiver-trade deadline. - I actually kind of like this.
Yes - another change would limit rosters to 28 men in September (26 the rest of the year), so no more disrupting pennant races with a bunch of cup-of-coffee guys.

Quote:
A rule, which would be tested in spring training and the All-Star Game, in which each half-inning in extra innings would begin with a runner on second base. - Oh my god please no. Why? Why is this necessary?
It's just under consideration, as one of many possible ways to reduce all-nighter games. I agree it would not be a grave offense against the Gods of Sport for baseball to have ties, so yes, I would prefer the 12-inning-max rule.

Resistance to the DH among the fans of the only league in all of baseball that doesn't use it is, honestly, tribal ritualism far more than appreciation of the game. That's been indulged for far too long, and yes, if interleague play is going to stay (which it is), then interleague rules are needed too.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 02-06-2019 at 04:26 PM.
  #337  
Old 02-06-2019, 07:20 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, but only because of the clock. Pitchers work too slowly; it isn't just the batters stepping out to tug on their gloves.

Yes - another change would limit rosters to 28 men in September (26 the rest of the year), so no more disrupting pennant races with a bunch of cup-of-coffee guys.
Maybe they should ban batting gloves. The damned things don't ever fit right.

I'd rather have an announced 25-man roster for each game, but still allow the September call ups. That way you could still show off a bunch of prospects (which is especially good for non-playoff teams) without having a combined 20 pitcher in a nine inning game.

Also, apropos of nothing, I wonder what MLB would be like without fences. Just massive fields.
  #338  
Old 02-06-2019, 09:16 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Resistance to the DH among the fans of the only league in all of baseball that doesn't use it is, honestly, tribal ritualism far more than appreciation of the game.
I'm a fan of the DH, but to be fair, the N is not the only non-adopter. One of the two leagues in Japan doesn't use it as well.
  #339  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:12 AM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
The way to take care of extra inning games is to just start counting ties after 12 innings.
I again have to point out what a miniscule problem this is. How often do MLB games actually go past twelve innings?

Only about one in twelve games goes to extra innings at all. Of those, eighty percent or so are already over by the 12th inning. Every year, there might be 30, 35 games in all of MLB that go longer than 12 innings, and as you might expect, about half are over in the 13th (about half the remainder are over in the 14th.)

Super long games just aren't a problem.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #340  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:24 AM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,713
How did they handle things back in the train travel and no lights era? Surely there were extra inning games that couldn’t be finished due to darkness or needing to catch a train. I assume they’d just suspend the game and resume it on the next visit, but that might not always be practical if it’s late in the season and both teams are way out of the pennant race.
  #341  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:41 AM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Super long games just aren't a problem.
Oh, I totally agree. The only way to solve the long game "problem" is one MLB will never take, so why are they bothering at all?
  #342  
Old 02-07-2019, 11:04 AM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
For one thing, the umps enforced pace of play. They told batters to get back into the box, told pitchers to get it going. Players worked faster anyway, because they were used to it. The sun was an effective game clock.

Schedules were very attuned to the demands of train travel. The season started two weeks later and ended a bit earlier, and the World Series was over by the second week of October. The schedules would look odd to us today; teams skipped some Fridays, played different opponents on Saturday and Sunday, stuff like that. More doubleheaders, obviously. Rainouts and suspended games might be made up the next day, the next week, who knows. Of course, making games up was much easier in one really important way; teams played far more games against fewer opponents. Today, a team will play no fewer than 19 different other teams during the season, and most of them are faced in only one or two series. From 1901 to 1960/1961 they played just seven different opposing teams, 22 games a year across six or seven series, so unless the rainout/called for darkness game was late in the year it was very likely you could make it up. Few games were called for darkness in midseason anyway, the sun doesn't go down until pretty late in North America from May to September.

Pitching was really different too. Starting rotations were not as set as they are now; they were much more fluid after the lively ball revolution. We tend to think of the past as being a day when starters all made 40 starts and went the distance but that's something that was only possible with night baseball and air travel and the stability that provided. In the train era, it was common for an ace to only start 28-32 games but pitch relief in a dozen others. In 1927, which I picked at random, NO pitcher in the major leagues made 40 starts, and only 23 pitchers - one and a half men per team - made 30 starts. Of the 96 major leaguers who started at least ten games, 95 made at least one relief appearance, and for many it was a LOT of relief appearances. Lefty Grove, one of the greatest starting pitchers who ever lived, started 28 games and relieved in 23. When you might have two games rained out on Monday and Wednesday and have to make them up Thursday and Friday - teams absolutely would play doubleheaders two days in a row - you couldn't just assume everyone was starting in order.

and they were gonna make those games up. In 1927 the entire major leagues had just five games that failed to be made up, and that was a typical year. Baseball was a tough business, and the teams were very, very determined to make every buck they could.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 02-07-2019 at 11:09 AM.
  #343  
Old 02-07-2019, 11:32 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,026
Very informative post, Rickjay. I'll admit to having that misperception about starting pitchers and workloads. Just for fun I took a look at Wilbur Wood who, in a five year stretch during the 70s, racked up 224 starts and 1682 innings. That's Dead Ball Era stuff. I don't think those days are ever coming back.
  #344  
Old 02-07-2019, 11:46 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
The thing is, sportswriters didn't used to identify with the players. Players once upon a time were almost always cast as greedy jerks.

I don't think there's any one reason this changed, but would suggest it may be a combination of:

1. Owners used to be legitimately more of a breed of struggling businessmen than they are now. Back in the day, running a profitable MLB team wasn't easy. Now, most teams are insanely rich, often owned by corporate ownership that is richer still. It's hard to sympathize - or hell, identify in any way at all - with Crane Capital, Rogers Communications, or Incapital LLC, and MLB is way, way richer than it once was.

2. The notion that higher salaries results in higher ticket prices, which is economically illiterate and totally backward of the truth, used to prevail, but sportswriters are wise to that nonsense now.

3. The players, obscenely rich though they may be, have at least always been clear and upfront; they want to be paid market value. Bitching about making millions instead of more millions may seem vulgar, and IS vulgar, but they're honest about it. The owners have been, by far, the dishonest partner, not only in the old school bullshit about how they were on the fans' side, but they're the ones who engaged in the collusion scandals, threatening to contract teams, and who've held cities for ransom to build them stadiums, and

4. The 1994 cancellation is generally blamed on the owners, and rightly so.
I stopped bitching about player salaries after reading articles like this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/high...-22-million-10

As a fan I used to care about the luxury tax then I realized that this was stupid in today's day and age. I want the best team we can field period, If the Lerners don't like it they can sell. The owners are more replaceable than the bullpen catcher. (with that said, the Lerners aren't horrible owners)

These last 2 years of free agency bidding makes it clear that something is wrong. There is not enough of an incentive to win and be competitive.

There should be a penalty for sucking too much.

Perhaps you can have forced auctions for teams at the bottom of the standings for too long. Or demotion like they have in soccer (not sure how hat would affect minor league affiliates). The Tampa Bay Rays are worth a billion dollars almost

I also agree that 6 years of mandatory service time seems too long. For many of these players that is the the entirety of their productive career.
  #345  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:00 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Monkeying with the rules of the game, indeed. Seems to me that both of those changes would nudge baseball in the direction of being less a game of strategy and more a game of brute force. Which is not what I want.
Pitcher's duels are boring unless you have fantastic seats or are a real baseball guy. The "strategy" of baseball is lost on most fans. Watching 4-6 different pitchers during a single game (sometimes with a pitcher facing a single batter) is less fun for the casual fan. Watching this happen in the middle of an inning is boring as hell.

The universal designated hitter rule might be the first step towards the bifurcation of baseball into an offensive team and a defensive team. Have as many designated hitters for the pitcher, catcher, shortstop, whatever you want if you can fit them on your roster. It would fundamentally change the game but I can think of a few minor leaguers with awesome fielding who are MLB level defensive players but AA level batters. We do this in little league, I don't see why we can't do it in MLB.
  #346  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:41 PM
RickJay RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
These last 2 years of free agency bidding makes it clear that something is wrong. There is not enough of an incentive to win and be competitive.
I see no evidence of that. None at all. Winning brings financial rewards and glory for the people running the team. There is just as much of an incentive as ever, maybe more so.

What, some free agents aren't making as much as they used to? Sorry,m thyat has nothing to do with teams wanting to win. It's because free agents don't help you win enough. Full stop. Most huge contract hitters suck. That's just a fact; if you give a hitter a huge contract it will usually be a total flop.

Of last year's top 25 highest paid hitters, how many do you think were worth it? I'd guess maybe five or six. Mike Trout, J.D. Martinez and Freddie Freeman had MVP type stats, and I will give you Giancarlo Stanton and Joey Votto, who were pretty good, and arguably Bryce Harper, who hit well but fielded like he was blind. Robbie Cano would have had a good year if he wasn't suspended. Most were actually bad players, and some were awful; Yoenis Cespedes, Miguel Cabrera, Isan Desmond, Chris Davis, Jason Heyward, Josh Donaldson, Hanley Ramirez, Adrian Gonzalez, Eric Hosmer, and more - old, injured, or they just sucked. The average wins above replacement by a top 25 paid hitter, if that's a number you care about, was 2.0. That is roughly as good as Kevin Pillar, who you can have for a fraction of that kind of money. 2018 was, by the way, not at all unusual. The numbers are pretty much the same for 2017, 2016, and 2015.

What, the Rays won't spend a lot of money? Oh, that must be why they sucked... no, wait, they don't suck at all, do they? They won 90 games and look damn good. Team want to win just as much as ever, they just know better how to spend their money. Develop them yourself like Trout, Mookie Betts, Jose Altuve. Let some other idiot pick up the $250 million contract after their prime. Big deals to all but the inner circle Hall of Famers are for chumps.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #347  
Old 02-07-2019, 01:46 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
There should be a penalty for sucking too much.
There is, and it's the same for most any sport.

It's called "loss of fan interest", and it translates into lower attendance, smaller audiences for broadcasts and loss of ancillary sales for team apparel and such.

"you can always sell the team for more money" may not work out too well eventually, when prospective owners are less willing to fork over billions for the privilege of sitting in the owner's box and having fans curse them for not opening their wallets to the max.

If the "problem" with free agency is that players have to settle for gigantic salaries over a shorter term instead of stratospherically enormous ones that'll pay them $35 million annually when they're 40 and batting .203, then I can't be bothered to worry about it too much.

It's ironic that with players yelping about lack of big free agent deals, Derek Jeter who co-owns the Marlins) not only has been dedicated to shedding stars to make the team more financially viable, he's due to make millions in bonuses if the team becomes profitable.

So much for solidarity with his fellow (former) wage slaves.
  #348  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:55 PM
Hawkeyeop Hawkeyeop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somerville, MA
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post

I also agree that 6 years of mandatory service time seems too long. For many of these players that is the the entirety of their productive career.
It isn't 6 years. It is often over a decade and can be up to 12 years under a team control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Most were actually bad players, and some were awful; Yoenis Cespedes, Miguel Cabrera, Isan Desmond, Chris Davis, Jason Heyward, Josh Donaldson, Hanley Ramirez, Adrian Gonzalez, Eric Hosmer, and more - old, injured, or they just sucked. The average wins above replacement by a top 25 paid hitter, if that's a number you care about, was 2.0. That is roughly as good as Kevin Pillar, who you can have for a fraction of that kind of money. 2018 was, by the way, not at all unusual. The
Desmond, Davis, and Hosmer were all considered terrible contracts from the moment they were given while Heyward and Ramirez were questionable was. The rest are older players who perhaps got a little older than expected, but did provide a fair bit of value in earleir years. So yeah we are perhaps past the days that Mike Moustakis is going to get a monster deal and that is okay. But Harper and Machado are stars in their prime. Thye are no bad or even particulary risky investments on a long term deal. The fact that Hosmer sucks is absolutely irrevelent. Nearly every team should want them and only a handful are showing even casual interest. Teams aren't redirecting mispent funds, they are keeping it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
There is, and it's the same for most any sport.

It's called "loss of fan interest", and it translates into lower attendance, smaller audiences for broadcasts and loss of ancillary sales for team apparel and such.

"you can always sell the team for more money" may not work out too well eventually, when prospective owners are less willing to fork over billions for the privilege of sitting in the owner's box and having fans curse them for not opening their wallets to the max.

If the "problem" with free agency is that players have to settle for gigantic salaries over a shorter term instead of stratospherically enormous ones that'll pay them $35 million annually when they're 40 and batting .203, then I can't be bothered to worry about it too much.

It's ironic that with players yelping about lack of big free agent deals, Derek Jeter who co-owns the Marlins) not only has been dedicated to shedding stars to make the team more financially viable, he's due to make millions in bonuses if the team becomes profitable.

So much for solidarity with his fellow (former) wage slaves.
The problem is "loss in fan interest" doesn't really matter that much more. If you get enough revenue from revenue sharing and split league revenue (like MLB TV) what do you care if fans show up the game. The marginal gain of being a decent team over a bad one is not worth the increased risk or bottom line. The marlins of course being a prime example if this, though I doubt they let Jeter anywhere near actual decisions. They are not trying to win, and they don't need to. They will still make gobbles of money every year and sell for an enormous profit. When it was just a couple teams it wasn't that big a problem, but when its half the leave the system breaks.

How are the Indians, a championship contender with a minor league outfield not trying to get better? Why are the pirates not trying to win a winnable division? Why are the Twins, a team with a lot of young talent and no long term commments in on Harper and Machado? Why don't the Orioles, Tigers and Royals try to built respectable teams. They just don't have incentive too. This is fixable, you reward teams for doing better instead of tanking, use market sharing instead of revenue sharing, salary floors etc. but it is a problem and it requires major change.
  #349  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:17 AM
Zakalwe's Avatar
Zakalwe Zakalwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
After last year's Marlins fire sale of maybe the best outfield in baseball in 2017, can you blame the Dodgers for holding out? Eventually Team Jeter will sell Realmuto for a bag of baseballs.
Realmuto goes to the Phillies, but for a bit more than a bag of balls.

Phillies - J.T. Realmuto (C)
Marlins - Jorge Alfaro (C), Sixto Sanchez* (RHP), Will Stewart (LHP), and an international bonus slot.

*Sanchez is considered a top prospect although limited by injury last year.

Last edited by Zakalwe; 02-08-2019 at 07:18 AM.
  #350  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:33 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,809
No more Disabled List, starting this year - it's now the Injured List. PC, dontchaknow.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017