Official MLB Discussion Thread

[BHK1978]

I thought it was Jarred and you are correct. Jeff was a battler in my opinion his brother has better stuff. But again my opinion. But back to the stats thing. I like simple stats, Batting avg, on base %, W/K ratio. Relievers I watch run scored that dont count on thier ERA. Simple things. Dont buy into the Sabermetrics, Vorps and such. Sometime I go by gut feeling. Got ootpX been tinkering with that. Good game I think, but like anything it has its flaws.

 

Are you going to buy the new one? I have bought it for the last four seasons so I am taking a break from it.

 

And I am with you, I hate the Bill James stats. Where you have to add the stolen bases, to groundball hits, to home runs against right hand pitchers (not a real Bill James stats). It is just something for scouts and stat geeks to get off on.

[Guest cmdrsam]

Are you going to buy the new one? I have bought it for the last four seasons so I am taking a break from it.

 

And I am with you, I hate the Bill James stats. Where you have to add the stolen bases, to groundball hits, to home runs against right hand pitchers (not a real Bill James stats). It is just something for scouts and stat geeks to get off on.

 

This one for now I am going to hold off on. I got 1 -6 then I stopped. But OOTP X caught my eye and bought that but think I'll wait on 11.

[BHK1978]

Okay I am probably going to come across as a jerk, but I am always thrilled when Jonathan Papelbon takes a loss! And to top it all off it happened against the Yankees! That is just great stuff!

 

Let me explain myself, I am a Yankee fan who lives in the heart of "Red Sox Nation" so I always have to listen to all the smack talk that Red Sox fans dish out. I always hear how great Papelbon is, how he is better than Mariano Rivera.

 

So like I said I am just happy anytime Papelbon loses!

[darthsiddus2]

You should tell them how many championships the Yanks have. That'll shut them up

[BHK1978]

You should tell them how many championships the Yanks have. That'll shut them up

 

Nothing and I mean nothing shuts up the Red Sox fans! When the Yankees lost in 2003, all I heard was how the Yankees spent so much money yet they could not beat the Marlins who had one of the lowest payrolls.

 

Now this was before the Red Sox won the World Series in 04 so there was still the 1918 thing looming over them. However, they still managed to talk trash.

[darthsiddus2]

hey, gotta let them have SOMEWHAT of a chance. lol

[Remianen]

I agree. I still try and watch as many games as I can. Even though it dont happen but once in a blue moon. I still love the 1-0 games. Vorps, WTF is that. I'm kidding. Somethings just cant be measured in stats. So Taguchi's last year with the redbirds and watching them let him go drove me nuts. Yes there are better skill players. But the man played intelligent ball. Hit the cut off man when it was neccessary. Stetched out hits when he knew he could make it. Dont think I ever saw him make a bone head play. Those things dont show up in stat box.

 

But they show up with Sabermetrics. All of that does. UZR, for one, is what made Chone Figgins and Torii Hunter very rich men. On paper, they're really not that great a player but when you look deeper and see the situations they thrive in (in the field), his value skyrockets. When a fielder literally subtracts 4-9 runs and/or 80 bases a season from your 'runs allowed' column, that fielder is VERY valuable. When a center fielder can cover the entire stretch of land from the middle of left field to the middle of right field by himself, that gives your manager a lot more flexibility when putting together a lineup. Now, you can put the heavy hitting, subpar fielding guys in left or right and not compromise your defense. The kid in Seattle (Gutierrez) is a good example of that. Ichiro is good in right but Bradley SUCKS in left so having Frankie able to minimize the area Bradley has to cover is HUGE.

 

And I am with you, I hate the Bill James stats. Where you have to add the stolen bases, to groundball hits, to home runs against right hand pitchers (not a real Bill James stats). It is just something for scouts and stat geeks to get off on.

 

By that logic, so is 'total bases' and 'ERA'. Both require math. How 'bout RISP, OBP, ER/9, and so forth? How else do you quantify a player's true value? You have to find out what a player excels at and simple batting average isn't gonna cut it. Is Mark Teixeira's value predicated on his home run totals...or is it more than that?

 

For years, they've had a metric to judge a pitcher's basic value ("Quality Starts") and it's only been fairly recently that "the stat geeks" came up with a similar way to measure hitters. Whether a hitter makes an out or hits a home run, going deep into counts helps teams win (since pitch counts are such a heavy focus). Four hitters in a lineup who take 6-15 (fouled off pitches count) pitches per at-bat, chases even a great pitcher from the game by the 6th inning. Since most teams' soft underbelly is their bullpen, that's a GOOD thing.

 

In short, don't dismiss the stats because they SOUND complicated. They all make sense, to varying degrees.

[BHK1978]

But they show up with Sabermetrics. All of that does. UZR, for one, is what made Chone Figgins and Torii Hunter very rich men. On paper, they're really not that great a player but when you look deeper and see the situations they thrive in (in the field), his value skyrockets. When a fielder literally subtracts 4-9 runs and/or 80 bases a season from your 'runs allowed' column, that fielder is VERY valuable. When a center fielder can cover the entire stretch of land from the middle of left field to the middle of right field by himself, that gives your manager a lot more flexibility when putting together a lineup. Now, you can put the heavy hitting, subpar fielding guys in left or right and not compromise your defense. The kid in Seattle (Gutierrez) is a good example of that. Ichiro is good in right but Bradley SUCKS in left so having Frankie able to minimize the area Bradley has to cover is HUGE.

 

 

 

By that logic, so is 'total bases' and 'ERA'. Both require math. How 'bout RISP, OBP, ER/9, and so forth? How else do you quantify a player's true value? You have to find out what a player excels at and simple batting average isn't gonna cut it. Is Mark Teixeira's value predicated on his home run totals...or is it more than that?

 

For years, they've had a metric to judge a pitcher's basic value ("Quality Starts") and it's only been fairly recently that "the stat geeks" came up with a similar way to measure hitters. Whether a hitter makes an out or hits a home run, going deep into counts helps teams win (since pitch counts are such a heavy focus). Four hitters in a lineup who take 6-15 (fouled off pitches count) pitches per at-bat, chases even a great pitcher from the game by the 6th inning. Since most teams' soft underbelly is their bullpen, that's a GOOD thing.

 

In short, don't dismiss the stats because they SOUND complicated. They all make sense, to varying degrees.

 

I understand the value of these Bill James stats, I just think that they are overly complicated. This new way is the Buck Showalter school of thought, where you plug in stats into a computer to get the best match ups on paper. However, that might be just what it is on paper.

 

Did Showalter win with that method? No. However, his replacement went on to guide his team to four World Series wins. And he did so the by using common sense and the old stats. Moneyball made the A's contenders but they never advanced into the World Series.

 

Now I know the arguement could be made that the reason why the Red Sox won their last two World Series was because of Theo Epstein and Bill James relying on Sabermetrics. However, one could make the arguement that it had just as much to do with the ownership change as well. When Tom Yawkey owned the team, he was a cheap guy. So players that went looking for more money never got it (Fred Lynn and Fisk). However, the new ownership has been willing to open up the war chest.

 

Now I am not saying that what you are saying is not valid. I am just saying why complicate things when there really is no need to do so. The old stats have worked for the last 150+ years.

[GatorBait19]

That's one thing that pisses me off about Rays Manger Joe Maddon

 

he tries to use all these matchups and most of the times it fails on him

 

tonight Andy Sonnanstine went 3.1 inning, and he gave up a HR to his last batter he faced up 2 to 1 and with you onlying long reliever on the mound (Neiman was hit by a liner) so at 4.2 innings he goes to his bullpen up 2 to 1 and now the score it 5 to 2 O's.

 

He always takes a hotter hitter and will sit him just because he doesn't match up well against the next two pitchers, personally I say start him and if he falls off then you learn, if not you look good

[BHK1978]

That's one thing that pisses me off about Rays Manger Joe Maddon

 

he tries to use all these matchups and most of the times it fails on him

 

tonight Andy Sonnanstine went 3.1 inning, and he gave up a HR to his last batter he faced up 2 to 1 and with you onlying long reliever on the mound (Neiman was hit by a liner) so at 4.2 innings he goes to his bullpen up 2 to 1 and now the score it 5 to 2 O's.

 

He always takes a hotter hitter and will sit him just because he doesn't match up well against the next two pitchers, personally I say start him and if he falls off then you learn, if not you look good

 

I agree, to me managing should be more of a gut thing than a match-up beyond all costs thing.

[GatorBait19]

yeah, I like Joe at times but like many other rays fans I believe he looks to much into the numbers. I remember one time he sat Longo against a pitcher (can't remember the name) because he ad a .000 avg against him, but that was in his rookie year that happened and he went 0-3 with a walk, you don't think things have changed lmao

[GatorBait19]

Also why is it that the pitchers of today scare me more then the pitcher of yester year

 

Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, Pedro, R Johnson vs Greinke, Lincecum, Clayton Kershaw, King Felix, Jon Lester

 

Not saying the first 5 were crap, I am just amazed by how fast the 2nd 5 have picked up the game

[CQI13]

Maddux, Pedro, and Glavine were not hard hitters (especially Maddux). But Clemens and Johnson were (Johnson especially with that sick slider).

 

Also on Maddux, he was consistently great.

 

The other five are fairly young, so we'll have to wait and see if they can sustain this. Being out east, the only one I sort of know is Lester. Is Felix that good, or is it that he's on a crappy team? I hear him mentioned in spurts. Greinke had a good year last year. Lincecum I will grant you looks like the real deal.

 

But what do you mean exactly by "scare you"? Lincecum (the best of the second 5) isn't exactly overpowering either.

[GatorBait19]

Maddux, Pedro, and Glavine were not hard hitters (especially Maddux). But Clemens and Johnson were (Johnson especially with that sick slider).

 

Also on Maddux, he was consistently great.

 

The other five are fairly young, so we'll have to wait and see if they can sustain this. Being out east, the only one I sort of know is Lester. Is Felix that good, or is it that he's on a crappy team? I hear him mentioned in spurts. Greinke had a good year last year. Lincecum I will grant you looks like the real deal.

 

But what do you mean exactly by "scare you"? Lincecum (the best of the second 5) isn't exactly overpowering either.

 

Stuff wise, and the term overpowering should be fixed, just because a guy doesn't throw upper 90's doesn't mean he isn't over powering

 

also Lins career SO is 683, his career innings is 605 which is an avg of 10Ks a 9innings so I would say that is over powering, I believe Randy J was like 10.6, plus already has 2 Cy youngs

 

Felix is pretty good, won 19 last year

[Remianen]

Now I am not saying that what you are saying is not valid. I am just saying why complicate things when there really is no need to do so. The old stats have worked for the last 150+ years.

 

Ah, I'm not talking about managing. I'm more referring to personnel. Those stats have led to the game moving away from relying on the big numbers (HR, batting average, RBI, Ks, etc) to really delving into the numbers that are important. Before last season, Alex Rodriguez was one of the best hitters in the game....until the games really counted. Now, would you want A-Rod on your team? Sure! But a guy like, oh I dunno, Scott Brosius, might have a high value as well, because of WHEN his best performances took place.

 

Also, it's those new stats that are leading teams to move away from the traditional "get as many home run hitters as you can" method and emphasizing defense to win games. Remember, if you're Milwaukee or Seattle or anywhere that isn't New York, you can't compete chasing the big hitters and strong pitchers. Those players will (almost) always go for the top dollar and you can't hang with that. But, if you can neutralize the other team's strengths, you can still beat the 'Murderer's Row' types. Relying on the stats that have "worked" for 150+ years is folly because this isn't the 19th century. The immense gulf between the 'haves' and 'have nots' didn't exist back then. It has gotten to the point where a team like Kansas City cannot compete (CANNOT. Not 'will not', CANnot) because they just don't have the money to do so. They've become the major league equivalent of a farm team. Of course everyone holds up the Twins as an example of a successful small market team. Look at how they've done that. The Twins spend heavily on their farm system. For the most part, they develop their own stars (and still often lose them to bigger market teams - hello Torii Hunter). They're also quick to trade a possibly departing star for prospects. But they value secondary attributes like batting average, OBP, speed, and defensive metrics rather than pure power. Besides, the Marlins won TWO titles using that basic strategy, so it obviously can work.

 

I hear the laments a lot (I go to 'The Cathedral of Baseball' a couple dozen times a season) and I think it's shortsighted. "Traditional" fans often think these stats are useless because they don't see the wider benefits. Small market teams are going back to "small ball", emphasizing baserunning and defense, because it's the only way they can have a chance at being successful. Also, if you're the only team focusing on one particular obscure stat, you don't have to worry about competing with "the big dogs". The Yankees don't really care about UZR. They don't have to. Can Seattle say the same thing? Can Kansas City? Can Milwaukee?

[GatorBait19]

Ah, I'm not talking about managing. I'm more referring to personnel. Those stats have led to the game moving away from relying on the big numbers (HR, batting average, RBI, Ks, etc) to really delving into the numbers that are important. Before last season, Alex Rodriguez was one of the best hitters in the game....until the games really counted. Now, would you want A-Rod on your team? Sure! But a guy like, oh I dunno, Scott Brosius, might have a high value as well, because of WHEN his best performances took place.

 

Also, it's those new stats that are leading teams to move away from the traditional "get as many home run hitters as you can" method and emphasizing defense to win games. Remember, if you're Milwaukee or Seattle or anywhere that isn't New York, you can't compete chasing the big hitters and strong pitchers. Those players will (almost) always go for the top dollar and you can't hang with that. But, if you can neutralize the other team's strengths, you can still beat the 'Murderer's Row' types. Relying on the stats that have "worked" for 150+ years is folly because this isn't the 19th century. The immense gulf between the 'haves' and 'have nots' didn't exist back then. It has gotten to the point where a team like Kansas City cannot compete (CANNOT. Not 'will not', CANnot) because they just don't have the money to do so. They've become the major league equivalent of a farm team. Of course everyone holds up the Twins as an example of a successful small market team. Look at how they've done that. The Twins spend heavily on their farm system. For the most part, they develop their own stars (and still often lose them to bigger market teams - hello Torii Hunter). They're also quick to trade a possibly departing star for prospects. But they value secondary attributes like batting average, OBP, speed, and defensive metrics rather than pure power. Besides, the Marlins won TWO titles using that basic strategy, so it obviously can work.

 

I hear the laments a lot (I go to 'The Cathedral of Baseball' a couple dozen times a season) and I think it's shortsighted. "Traditional" fans often think these stats are useless because they don't see the wider benefits. Small market teams are going back to "small ball", emphasizing baserunning and defense, because it's the only way they can have a chance at being successful. Also, if you're the only team focusing on one particular obscure stat, you don't have to worry about competing with "the big dogs". The Yankees don't really care about UZR. They don't have to. Can Seattle say the same thing? Can Kansas City? Can Milwaukee?

 

Marlins two world seires title weren't solely them drafting, they did add a lot of big names through trades and signings for the 97 one, and their recent one were largely credit to the deal for Pudge and Juan Pierre but was a lot more them

 

Twins aren't really a small market team anymore, more of a middle market team, new stadium and a payroll over 100 mil have done that

 

KC is a great point, they draft well, but wont commit the money to see that talent with other talent, they aren't the Yanks or Soxs to where they can rely on the free agent market if need be

 

Also are you trying to say you'd take Brosius or A-rod

 

Cuz to me a guy whose lifetime BA is .257 (with 2 year at .300 and one at .287 but that's it past .270) with a low OBP and OPS dosen't do it for me, did he play good Defense, sure, and if you're talking about as a vet leader then sure

 

But A-Rod has defense and can hit as well. I am just trying to understand what you were saying with that

[BHK1978]

My question is, why did the Royals end up where they are?

 

They were a powerhouse team from the mid 1970's until the late 1990's. How come they were so good for all of those years but now have become a second rate team.

 

Just wanted to see other people's take on this.

[Guest cmdrsam]

My question is, why did the Royals end up where they are?

 

They were a powerhouse team from the mid 1970's until the late 1990's. How come they were so good for all of those years but now have become a second rate team.

 

Just wanted to see other people's take on this.

 

 

 

 

Take this with what it worth. They failed to put money into their own product. The way the revenue is shared thanks to the big payrolls of Yankees, Red sox among others the Royals get a certain percentage. Not to mention Merchanidsing and TV rights. They should have put that money into their team.

 

I use to believe in the small market theory untill last year and I started to do the math behind it. Now it dont add up for me on the A's, Brewers, Royals, Twins, Pittsburgh, who ever.

 

That and it helps not signing crap players like, mm,,I dont know, Ankiel .

[Guest cmdrsam]

Ah, I'm not talking about managing. I'm more referring to personnel. Those stats have led to the game moving away from relying on the big numbers (HR, batting average, RBI, Ks, etc) to really delving into the numbers that are important. Before last season, Alex Rodriguez was one of the best hitters in the game....until the games really counted. Now, would you want A-Rod on your team? Sure! But a guy like, oh I dunno, Scott Brosius, might have a high value as well, because of WHEN his best performances took place.

 

Also, it's those new stats that are leading teams to move away from the traditional "get as many home run hitters as you can" method and emphasizing defense to win games. Remember, if you're Milwaukee or Seattle or anywhere that isn't New York, you can't compete chasing the big hitters and strong pitchers. Those players will (almost) always go for the top dollar and you can't hang with that. But, if you can neutralize the other team's strengths, you can still beat the 'Murderer's Row' types. Relying on the stats that have "worked" for 150+ years is folly because this isn't the 19th century. The immense gulf between the 'haves' and 'have nots' didn't exist back then. It has gotten to the point where a team like Kansas City cannot compete (CANNOT. Not 'will not', CANnot) because they just don't have the money to do so. They've become the major league equivalent of a farm team. Of course everyone holds up the Twins as an example of a successful small market team. Look at how they've done that. The Twins spend heavily on their farm system. For the most part, they develop their own stars (and still often lose them to bigger market teams - hello Torii Hunter). They're also quick to trade a possibly departing star for prospects. But they value secondary attributes like batting average, OBP, speed, and defensive metrics rather than pure power. Besides, the Marlins won TWO titles using that basic strategy, so it obviously can work.

 

I hear the laments a lot (I go to 'The Cathedral of Baseball' a couple dozen times a season) and I think it's shortsighted. "Traditional" fans often think these stats are useless because they don't see the wider benefits. Small market teams are going back to "small ball", emphasizing baserunning and defense, because it's the only way they can have a chance at being successful. Also, if you're the only team focusing on one particular obscure stat, you don't have to worry about competing with "the big dogs". The Yankees don't really care about UZR. They don't have to. Can Seattle say the same thing? Can Kansas City? Can Milwaukee?

 

 

 

My only comment to that Remi, and I hope you know I do respect you and your opinion. But I really dont care what Joe Smoo hit on Tuesdays between the hours of 5 and 7. That what alot of these newer stats are in my eyes. To me, every game is important. Not they are "important".

 

 

Money spending doesn't necessary make you an automatic winner. I remember the 80's when the Yanks had the top payroll. And guess what, they stunk. Now they have spent it wisely over the last decade or so.

 

But I'm getting side tracked here. Just want to say that some of the newer stats are not in my eyes that important. But all stats can be twisted in some fashion to make an argument either way.

[jesterx7769]

The owners simply decide to pocket the money instead of invest it into the team, there is little to no backlash/investigating from the league as to what teams due with money. Yes the Yankees get big tv deals but they have to split that money, yes the Pujols jerseys sell alot, but that is split up between teams (same with all major sports) bottom line is everyone can spend the money, they just choose not to. then to justify it for their fans they say its b/c they are in a small market.

 

An NFL example just b/c I know this and don't know MLB's stats, the TV deal revenue they share 100% cover all of the salaries for all teams, but teams (like my Lions) are still WAAAAY under the cap, why? b/c the owners like having a bigger profit because they get that big check and do w/e they want with it, when other owners like the Steinbrenners (back to baseball ) would rather have a lower profit margin (although of course they make money) and have a chance every year at the World Series

[Stennick]

Thats how Ankeil landed a deal. His numbers while hitting as a CF were better than when he played right or left field so Boras marketing him as the best CENTER fielder in the draft playing up just his CF numbers so these things can be twisted in either way.

[Remianen]

Also are you trying to say you'd take Brosius or A-rod

 

Cuz to me a guy whose lifetime BA is .257 (with 2 year at .300 and one at .287 but that's it past .270) with a low OBP and OPS dosen't do it for me, did he play good Defense, sure, and if you're talking about as a vet leader then sure

 

But A-Rod has defense and can hit as well. I am just trying to understand what you were saying with that

 

I'm saying that if you're the Brewers, A-Rod isn't even a possibility. So who's next and why? Scott Brosius was a good player in all phases of the game but he performed well above expectation in the postseason. Thus, his value would be relatively high because he wouldn't demand $25 million a season. It's win/win. The last thing a team wants is a player who performs great during the season and disappears during the postseason.

 

My question is, why did the Royals end up where they are?

 

They were a powerhouse team from the mid 1970's until the late 1990's. How come they were so good for all of those years but now have become a second rate team.

 

Just wanted to see other people's take on this.

 

The game changed. You went from talking millions of dollars to BILLIONS of dollars. I'll give you an example of when the game was changed forever: April 6, 1992. Why is that date significant? It's the day Camden Yards opened. A ballpark as an entertainment destination had not been done prior to that. Since that park opened, every team in the majors has tried to find a way to duplicate it. There used to be firms that existed specifically for designing ballparks (like golf courses). Take a guess who designs ballparks now? Architectural firms! The same people who design skyscrapers, design ballparks. That hadn't happened previously. So now, ballparks are considered to be profit centers, not simply places to house baseball teams. Camden Yards started the trend and it only accelerated from there. Camden Yards cost about $100 million to make. The latest entrant into the 'new, retro-style baseball stadium as entertainment destination' cost fifteen times that.

 

It was money, plain and simple. Look at the revenues MLB had when KC was a "powerhouse" and compare it to the revenues today. Adjust it for inflation and you'll see the big difference.

 

Take this with what it worth. They failed to put money into their own product. The way the revenue is shared thanks to the big payrolls of Yankees, Red sox among others the Royals get a certain percentage. Not to mention Merchanidsing and TV rights. They should have put that money into their team.

 

I use to believe in the small market theory untill last year and I started to do the math behind it. Now it dont add up for me on the A's, Brewers, Royals, Twins, Pittsburgh, who ever.

 

That and it helps not signing crap players like, mm,,I dont know, Ankiel .

 

So lemme get this straight. You think people who own major league baseball franchises do it out of the kindness of their heart? A baseball team is a company like any other. Its ownership expects the entity to create profit. They want their seeds to bear fruit. Granted, some teams are better than others when it comes to reinvestment, but that's not the core reason for the small market morass. Profit sharing in baseball is NOT a sufficient balancing measure. You think profit sharing is going to put the Brewers on equal footing with the Red Sox? It doesn't even come close! Luxury tax is petty cash to the Yankees. They don't care! It's like someone taxing you a nickel because you bought a $100 pair of sneakers. How much is that going to hurt you? Chances are good that if you can afford to spend $100 on shoes you won't even wear every day, 5 cents isn't going to give you sticker shock.

 

Mind you, I don't even LIKE profit sharing. I think teams who can't find a way to make a profit need to die. Yeah, I said it. If cities can't support their major franchises, then they need to LOSE those franchises. Baseball's revenue sharing plan is too much like welfare for my liking. That's why I see the necessity and the validity of these smaller teams doing what they can to be competitive. Snatching gems from under the noses of the big dogs can be a very valid way of doing business when you can't successfully go head to head with them.

 

My only comment to that Remi, and I hope you know I do respect you and your opinion. But I really dont care what Joe Smoo hit on Tuesdays between the hours of 5 and 7. That what alot of these newer stats are in my eyes. To me, every game is important. Not they are "important".

 

Again, the same thing can be said for all the "traditional" stats. If a kid carries a .260 batting average overall but hits .413 with runners in scoring position, that kid has value in my eyes. It says to me that he's more likely to be "on" when the pressure is. You fixate on the .260 and dismiss the kid offhand and you miss an area of strength. Then when your .343 hitter is at the plate with two outs in the 8th inning down by a run in the LCS, with runners on second and third and his .177 RISP average rears its ugly head as he whiffs on a circle-change, you then wonder if there was someone who might've been as good or better in that situation, and at a cheaper price.

 

Money spending doesn't necessary make you an automatic winner. I remember the 80's when the Yanks had the top payroll. And guess what, they stunk. Now they have spent it wisely over the last decade or so.

 

Again, stop referring to an entire generation in the past. It's folly. Do you realize how long ago the 80s were? Do you realize what has occurred in sports since then? Consider how the numbers have changed, how the society has changed. Did you know what 'the internet' was in the 80s? The world, in and of itself, has changed since that time period. Cold War? What the heck was that? Globalization was a pipe dream in the 80s. It's LIFE now.

 

All I'm saying is that things have changed immensely. While it's not a guarantee of success to have the highest paid player at every position, typically the highest paid player also happens to be the best (in whatever way people think of that) at that position. Sure, there are always missteps (hello Carl Pavano) but by and large, that's true. Many of the exceptions come about due to development (Evan Longoria, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Dan Uggla) which can never be predicted. If every rookie turned in a performance like a Tim Lincecum or Ryan Howard did, the major leagues would be full of rookie starters at every position. But when a CC Sabathia or Alex Rodriguez or Mark Teixeira becomes available (people with a track record of high performance), if you can get them, you get them.

 

But I'm getting side tracked here. Just want to say that some of the newer stats are not in my eyes that important. But all stats can be twisted in some fashion to make an argument either way.

 

I'm not trying to say they're all important. But different teams will value different stats and most of them can be meaningful. As I said, the New Yorks and Bostons don't have to care about them because they can just pluck the best free agent (or soon to be free agent) on the market with no problems. But most teams can't do that so they have to dig a little deeper to find the hidden gems. Those extra stats help to uncover those gems.

 

The owners simply decide to pocket the money instead of invest it into the team, there is little to no backlash/investigating from the league as to what teams due with money. Yes the Yankees get big tv deals but they have to split that money, yes the Pujols jerseys sell alot, but that is split up between teams (same with all major sports) bottom line is everyone can spend the money, they just choose not to. then to justify it for their fans they say its b/c they are in a small market.

 

This isn't exactly true. Remember when the YES Network was first proposed? Oh boy, I sure do. Last I heard, the Yankees receive revenue from YES that isn't subject to MLB governance.

 

I also think folks are losing sight of the scale of the revenues. Do you honestly believe the Kansas City Royals generate as much revenue as the Boston Red Sox? REALLY? It's easy to say the Royals owners are skimming (or just not reinvesting into the team) without considering the numbers themselves. If the Yankees produce $2 billion in revenue, what the heck is KC supposed to do with its $250 million (oh and awesome addition of $70 million in revenue sharing)? Those teams aren't even in the same solar system, revenue wise. The Cathedral cost one and a half billion to build and will pay for itself inside of 10 years. That's $150 million a year in revenue JUST to offset the cost of construction. How are small market teams supposed to compete with that? When your STADIUM (just the stadium, not the team itself) is generating more than $150 mil (chalk it up to the affluence and size of your local community), the team doesn't have to do much of anything to blow the doors off of competitive balance.

 

An NFL example just b/c I know this and don't know MLB's stats, the TV deal revenue they share 100% cover all of the salaries for all teams, but teams (like my Lions) are still WAAAAY under the cap, why? b/c the owners like having a bigger profit because they get that big check and do w/e they want with it, when other owners like the Steinbrenners (back to baseball ) would rather have a lower profit margin (although of course they make money) and have a chance every year at the World Series

 

Um, flawed example. Your Lions don't have a single star player they have to pay top dollar right now. They also tend to have "Royals-itis" (trading Dre Bly, trading Roy Williams (granted, Pettigrew is a HUGE plus in hindsight)) so it's not likely to ever be a problem (if they pay Calvin Johnson when his time comes). Remember Mike Furrey? They had to throw money at a rookie to account for that utter lack of starpower. The Colts would be a better example, since they typically press right up against the cap year in and year out. Jim Irsay wants a winner and despite not having much in the way of revenue generation (prior to the opening of Lucas Oil), he paid the cost to get that winner. However, it sure helps a lot when you have the best QB in the league (as well as arguably the best DE, arguably the second best WR, one of the best safeties (despite his injury history), etc). Winning has a significant cost and while you're right in that many owners aren't willing to pay that cost, there's also a reason for that. When you win, everyone on your team looks to cash in and that can be expensive (whether you keep them or have to replace people).

 

My whole point is that smaller revenue teams have to find any way they possibly can to acquire talent that allows them to compete at the highest level they can afford to. Sure some teams do that better than others, for a variety of reasons, but that's always the goal. That's why you get all these "new" stats that come about. Teams are trying to find value where none existed before. That's why a light hitting infielder who is awesome defensively can make $3 million dollars a year. Teams value his fielding very highly. People are starting to see now that defense is important. The days of the immobile guy in right who's only in the game for the thump of his bat, can cost you dearly when games are tight. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that an Ichiro wouldn't be considered a valuable player. Remember when 'right fielder' stood for 'home run hitter'? Times are changing, and changing fast. If anyone remembers when the Yankees went after Mark Teixeira, why did they want him so badly? Wasn't for his bat.

[Guest cmdrsam]

I understand what you are saying Remi. Sorry I am a product of the 80's so I cant help myself. Dont hold it against me either.

 

Luxury Tax is a good thing to me. Reason how can you have a league if all of a sudden 1/4 of the teams fold. And no the owners do not do it for the kindness of thier hearts. Its a business and they expect to make money. And I am for that as well. As far as the dieing part. Eck, maybe its the traditionist in me. And no it does not put them on equal footing as NY/LA/ Boston. But it is still a source of income and it should be reinvested into their prospective clubs.

 

Stats: The example that you give rarely happens. But I can see what you are saying.

 

 

As I said before Remi. I have always respected you and do so now. I will have to agree to disagree sir. But it is still a fun debate.

[Remianen]

I understand what you are saying Remi. Sorry I am a product of the 80's so I cant help myself. Dont hold it against me either.

 

Luxury Tax is a good thing to me. Reason how can you have a league if all of a sudden 1/4 of the teams fold. And no the owners do not do it for the kindness of thier hearts. Its a business and they expect to make money. And I am for that as well. As far as the dieing part. Eck, maybe its the traditionist in me. And no it does not put them on equal footing as NY/LA/ Boston. But it is still a source of income and it should be reinvested into their prospective clubs.

 

There has to be an example made of someone. If people want to continue using their franchises as an ATM and then holding local taxpayers at ransom for things they didn't earn (stadiums), somebody needs to die to teach these types of owners a lesson. George Steinbrenner bought his team in 1973 for like $9 million dollars. How much is the team worth now? Why? There are owners who have owned their teams as long or longer, who can't approach that amount of 'capital gain'. If a franchise dies as a result of its ownership's decision not to reinvest in the team, it would teach all the rest of 'em a lesson. It would also make owning a baseball franchise less attractive to those owners who NEED the revenue their teams would generate.

 

Stats: The example that you give rarely happens. But I can see what you are saying.

 

It happens half a dozen times every season. The relative success of the Oakland A's is testament to the approach and the Seattle Mariners didn't do too bad last year using the same approach. This year, they got Chone Figgins specifically for his defensive prowess and moved him to their most vulnerable and key defensive position.

 

One metric that's gaining in popularity (to the point where the Yankees and Red Sox are even using it) is baserunning logic. It doesn't seem that great to most fans but tell me, if you have a guy who isn't particularly fast, but due to his 'baseball IQ' can go from first to third on a single because he recognizes fielder position and ability, does that player not have more value than the typical player at his position? This year, Chone Figgins was the poster boy for that approach. He's an exceptionally smart baserunner and, unlike Carl Crawford (who also rates highly in that category), he doesn't have blazing speed. These are some of the things the "new stats" are bringing about.

 

As I said before Remi. I have always respected you and do so now. I will have to agree to disagree sir. But it is still a fun debate.

 

Likewise, and it's a very good discussion/debate to have. Most fans don't pay much attention to what people term as the 'meta-game' but it's interesting to look at. I'm a large market proponent to the bone but I can appreciate when small market franchises try to find cost effective ways to compete. When you can't fight straight up, you often resort to "scrapping" and this is what small market teams have to do.

[moon_lit_tears]

I understand what you are saying Remi. Sorry I am a product of the 80's so I cant help myself. Dont hold it against me either.

 

Luxury Tax is a good thing to me. Reason how can you have a league if all of a sudden 1/4 of the teams fold. And no the owners do not do it for the kindness of thier hearts. Its a business and they expect to make money. And I am for that as well. As far as the dieing part. Eck, maybe its the traditionist in me. And no it does not put them on equal footing as NY/LA/ Boston. But it is still a source of income and it should be reinvested into their prospective clubs.

 

Stats: The example that you give rarely happens. But I can see what you are saying.

 

 

As I said before Remi. I have always respected you and do so now. I will have to agree to disagree sir. But it is still a fun debate.

 

I seldom follow baseball anymore. I am an O's fan though ( don't hold it against me). I have to agree with you on this one. Being VERY young in the 80's but old enough to understand the deal.