Oh god, here we go again with the competitive imbalance thread. Do you lot realize baseball has had 7 different WS winners over the last 7 years? Seriously? Coming into this season, 24 of 30 teams could consider the playoffs a reasonable goal (more than say, the NFL).

And those winners are

Yankees- big market
Diamondbacks- broke up the team
Angels- big market
Marlins- split the team up ( same as 1997)
Red Sox- big market
White Sox- big market
Cards- big market

We have repeatedly seen teams sell of or trade good young players because they can not afford them. You can't really say there isn't an imbalance.

The Marlins are the most profitable franchise in baseball - their desire to break up the team has nothing to do with their need to do so, and everything to do with a slimeball as an owner. Pittsburgh sits on the revenue sharing money they make each year, as do other "small market" teams.

Of course there's some imbalance - there always will be. But goddamnit, I don't want an NFL-like league where teams cut perfectly good players because their salary cap numbers are too high, or the season is decided by rigging schedules each year to create crapshoots. baseball is far more competitive than most people like to believe - just because the PR operation is out of the 19th century (as opposed to the NFL, which does "slick" better than anyone), doesn't mean we ought to penalize the sport for it.

And here's the world series winners arguement. Its a very poor and flawed way of saying there is competitive balance. All it shows is how much luck is involved once the playoffs start.

24 teams with a shot at the playoffs is an incredible stretch. You're still going to see the same old teams in the end with maybe a new team or 2 coming from a weak division (NL central).

This isn't a comptetive balance issue in the sense of having a payroll of $200 million. Its actually much worse. Small-mid market teams best chance of competing had always been finding players on the foriegn market and drafting well. Now that the large market teams are using their financial advantages (which is a competitive imbalance that can't be argued) to work the draft and sign the top foreign talent, it takes one more thing away from the smaller market clubs.

this means nothing to a fan. They want to win and have a chance to win every year.

Well, not all of us fans are like that. There are some who recognize that you have you windows you build towards - 65 win teams should not be signing Jeremy Burnitz and Reggie Sanders, to take one example. Personally, I want the Giants to rebuild, to take one example.

And in the Marlins case, its a function of cheap owners which is hardly a baseball phenomenon (see the Bidwells to take one example, or the Clippers for most of the Stirling era, the last 4 years notwithstanding).

Look, I think there should be incentives for a team to compete, instead of getting free revenue sharing dollars to do nothing (see the Pirates as Example A, and the Royals for the longest time) - but baseball, despite all the naysayers, is in damn good shape. The Yankees paid $63 million in revenue sharing last year - how much more should they pay to subsidize the Loria's of the world?

http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0507/040.html

here's a great explanation, fyi.

I've argued quite a bit about the need for baseball to do a better job of revenue-sharing in order to provide some balance to the wide disparity between a market like New York vs. a market like Kansas City or Milwaukee. It will be tough to do given that TV and radio deal in baseball are done on a local level and often those contracts are given to stations that are sister companies of the team itself, thus providing an opportunity for owners to cook the books on the true value of those deals.

All that said, what gets glossed over in these debates about "small-market" and "big market" is a reasonable definition of what really constitutes each. How exactly is Miami and the Miami region classified as "small-market"? The Miami/Ft. Lauderdale market is the #16 media market in the country (and ahead of St. Louis BTW), and it's the 5th largest urban area in the country by population. Just because the residents of the Miami region haven't capitulated to public extortion attempts to finance a new stadium for the Marlins doesn't mean this isn't a major market. If the owners of the Marlins, both Loria and Huizenga before him, were willing to swallow some yearly losses from time to time, they could've kept both World Series winning teams largely intact.

I don't think the actual financial system needs much of an overhaul. Like crapshoot, I like some sort of imabalance. Dominate teams are fun to root against.

The way teams acquire amateur talent needs to be, at the very least, looked at. Teams aren't allowed to trade draft picks because of an archaic rule based on the fear of teams trading away all of their draft picks and not being able to field farm teams. Putting a cap on ameteur talent signed in a calandar year and allowing teams to trade draft picks would be a good start. There's no reason a team sitting at the top spot of the draft shouldn't be able to trade down and sign a guy they can afford rather than drafting a player higher than he should be.



Interesting note: I remember Peter Gammons reporting a couple years ago when San Diego was sitting in the #1 spot and took Matt Bush because they could sign him that the year Jeter was drafted the Expos were sitting 3rd and had Derek Jeter as the top player on their board (ahead of Phil Nevin). However, they had no shot of signing him and he fell to the Yankees with the 6th pick.

OK, 7 starts into the season it may be time to start giving credit where credit is due - Meche appears to made some real improvements so far this season. His walk rate is significantly better - 1.86 per 9 innings so far this year vs. his previous career best of 3.04 in 2003. His groundball ratio is 2.17, almost twice as good as his previous career best last year of 1.11. Despite the much improved walk and groundball rates, his strikeout rate hasn't suffered much - down to 6.51 per 9 innings from his career high last year of 7.52, but it's still his 2nd best rate in his career.

If he can keep this up, he'll make that deal look good...

I'd give him a few more starts before we judge the first year of the deal as good, let alone a 5 year deal. But he's certainly off to the kind of start his GM was praying for!

Lincecum is likely to start on Sunday for the Giants on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball.

Freaking Rangers. Just what the Yankees needed to get rolling.

Sure, he needs to keep this up for another 3 seasons at least for the Royals to really get their money's worth. It's just somewhat startling to see how much improvement he's shown so far. Yeah, he's had some hot streaks for the M's in the past, but I don't think he's ever been quite this hot for this long. My skepticism of him is beginning to fade a bit.

Nice - should be fun to watch.

Luke Scott roolz, d00d!

Damien Easly is my hero!!!

Jayson Stark:


• The Giants are pitching well enough that they have no plans to call up phenom Tim Lincecum in the next week or two. But one scout who has seen Lincecum (31 innings, 12 hits, 46 strikeouts in Triple-A) asks: Why the heck not? "He should be the Giants' eighth-inning guy right now, and then close if [Armando] Benitez breaks down again," the scout said. "He's lightning." Lincecum zips through innings so fast, the scout joked, he has a chance to set a record -- "longest career with the least time on the mound."


Ortiz is still officially the SP for Sunday night's game.

This is good stuff:

Designated Hitter

May 03, 2007

Was the 1990s Home Run Production Out of Line?
By David Vincent

In the last five years, baseball fans have read and heard a lot of commentary from politicians and the media about what a travesty the home run totals have been since the mid-1990s. The average fan, having heard this mantra so much, has come to believe it is true. But is it?

In order to examine this question, we need a way to compare eras. Raw counting totals will not suffice. The method employed here is a "home run production rate." It is calculated not by dividing homers by at bats, similar to batting average, but by calculating how many circuit drives were hit per 500 plate appearances. The 500 plate appearance standard was chosen because the official minimum performance standard for individual batting championships as listed in rule 10.22(a) [in the 2007 edition of the rules] is 3.1 plate appearances times the number of games scheduled for each team. Thus, in the 162-game schedule, 502 plate appearances is the minimum, but that was rounded here to 500 for simplicity. The home run production rate will generate numbers that can be compared to other numbers that have some context for the reader, such as a 30-homer season by a batter.

Figure 1 shows a graph of the home run production rate for all major league players each year since 1919. One can easily see a gradual increase from 1919 to the present. The numbers in the charts do not represent the total homers hit in the major leagues for any one season but rather the home run production rate (homers per 500 plate appearances).


Figure 1 - Home Run Production Rate (1919-2006)

The fact that the home run production rate in the major leagues has increased steadily from 1919 to the present should not come as a surprise to many people. Many factors have affected the production rate, including rules changes, equipment changes and even some events outside of baseball. For a complete discussion of Figure 1, please read Home Run: The Definitive History of Baseball's Ultimate Weapon, from which the figure is taken.

Figure 2 adds a trend line to Figure 1 and this trend line shows the steady increase in home run production from 1919 through 2006. The movement of the rate line around the trend line documents the pendulum effect of the production through the years. The home run rate topped 10 for the first time in 1950 when it reached 10.7 homers per 500 plate appearances. It dipped below 10 in the next two seasons, but from 1953 through 1966 the production rate was above 10 each season. This time period is the bubble above the trend line about half way through the chart from left to right.


Figure 2 - Home Run Production Rate with Trend Line (1919-2006)

In 1994, the production rate reached 13.8 homers per 500 plate appearances, only the second time in history that the rate climbed above 13.0. From 1994 through the present, the production rate has been above the trend line with the exception of 2005. The highest point in the chart is 2000 when the production rate reached 15.0. However, it is evident from looking at Figure 2 that the period from 1950 through 1966 is further above the trend than is the period starting in 1994. Both periods follow time frames when the home run production rate was well below the trend line, further accentuating the explosion of homers in the following era.

As a side note about the last 13 years, Figure 3 shows the home run production rate from 1994 through 2006. The rate has held fairly steady through the period and, contrary to pronouncements by the commissioner, the production rate has not dropped in the years since Major League Baseball instituted its drug testing policy.

This is clearly shown by Figure 3 as the rate has held steady since 2001, slowly undulating around the 14.0 per 500 plate appearance line.


Figure 3 - Home Run Production Rate (1994-2006)

Another series of negative comments made in the last few years concerns the number of players joining the 500 Home Run Club. From August 5, 1999 through June 20, 2004, five players joined the club: Mark McGwire (1999), Barry Bonds (2001), Sammy Sosa (2003), Rafael Palmeiro (2003) and Ken Griffey, Jr. (2004). That is five sluggers in about five years. Let's compare the period from September 13, 1965 through September 13, 1971. In those six years, seven players joined the 500 Home Run Club: Willie Mays (1965), Mickey Mantle (1967), Eddie Mathews (1967), Hank Aaron (1968), Ernie Banks (1970), Harmon Killebrew (1971) and Frank Robinson (1971). Thus, more players (seven) joined the club in six years during the late 1960s than the five who joined in the first part of the 21st century. These 12 sluggers are the players primarily responsible for the surge in the home run rate in the 1950s and the 1990s. Four hitters are poised to join the club in 2007: Frank Thomas, Alex Rodriguez, Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez.

It is clear that the production rate of the late 1990s is closer to the trend line than was the rate during the 1950s. Perhaps the emotional statements at the beginning of the twenty-first century are overblown and misleading, since they are not based on factual evidence but rather on conjecture, and are more inflammatory than informative.

SABR member David Vincent, the "Sultan of Swat Stats," is the recognized authority on the history of the home run. He is the author of Home Run: The Definitive History of Baseball's Ultimate Weapon, published by Potomac Books, Inc.

Wow... a very nicely done study! Basically seems to show that all this bleating about cheapened stats because of steroids is a bit of bunk. The trend line for HRs has consistently gone up and it isn't just some sort of unprecedented shooting up because of the juice.

Eye-opening, isn't it? I'm sure there's a counter-argument to it all, but the comparison to the 1950-1966 period is compelling - both in the jump in HR rate and the number of 500 HR hitters that emerged from that period.

What's interesting is that in both circumstances (1950 and 1994), the HR rate dipped big-time in the few years prior, and that just made the "explosion" seem all that more drastic.

I guess that's about to change, according to Olney:

• The most intriguing minor league phenom in baseball is being summoned to the big leagues. Tim Lincecum's numbers are absurd -- 46 strikeouts in 31 innings, and one run allowed -- and the fact that he hasn't allowed a home run yet, in a hitters' league, is fascinating. You have to wonder if this is a Wally Pipp situation.

Read the rest of the thread, K. :D

I did. And Stark's column came out after kingfc22 posted his news, so I thought maybe it hadn't been made official yet. Now it has.

Someone tell Ozzie Guillen that Darrin Erstad has no business hitting leadoff, even if he did play football at Nebraska. I know he "plays the right way" and "knows how to win", but its nearly as bad as Leyland hitting Neifi Perez leadoff for stretch of games last season.

Angels got Weaver the same way, too, with him falling to 12 on signing problem rumors, despite being acknowledged as likely the best player in the draft (and certainly in the mix with Verlander and Drew, I think it was).

They also signed top prospect Ryan Adenhart to turn down college by throwing a lot of money at him (he was drafted in the 12th round because he was expected to go to USC), and we signed K-Rod, among others, from Venezuela. As an Angels fan, I don't deny we have some financial advantages over most teams, especially with an owner in Moreno who likes to take risks and is aggressive in business.

No business? I don't know about that. He has some speed. He's a good baserunner. He sees the ball well for contact purposes, and makes the right decisions with the bat when he needs to (when it comes to hitting in the ground or air, pulling or pushing, etc.).

All that said, yes, he is a bit too much of a free swinger and not patient enough for the leadoff spot. And it seems silly to have him there when you have Posednik on your team (who for all his hitting woes can certainly create more on the paths than Erstad).

I was always a little disappointed when we settled for Ersty at the leadoff spot, even in his better years. It was a relief in 2003-4 when Figgy finally established himself and we could actually put a true speedster at the top (although he also is too much of a free swinger).

dola, I basically only protest your statement on the grounds of your comparison to Leyland and Neifi Perez. I mean, come on, that's just bad. :)

Well, no one has said that he's definitely worth it. It's just that there are signs that it may not be as crazy as first thought.

SI

Yeah, see this seems to fly in baseball whereas in most other sports, this reasoning sounds, well, insane.


I think one thing that would go a huge way to making things more balanced would be revamping the draft. I've never understood why the union and the owners can't get together on this as the union would get more money to sign players already in said union rather than giving it to unproven schlubs while the owners, it would be much more fair, but that's fallen out of style with the owners in the last 5ish years again.

The draft needs 3 major changes:
1) Slotted salary compensation. No more "signability" crap- the worst team the previous year gets the best player or at least the best player that fits their needs (not that baseball really drafts for need as a ton can happen in the minors). No major league contracts. Nothing. The draft should not be another business mess- it needs to be competitive to help bad teams get better.
2) Trading of draft picks. It's just stupid that this is off the table. As stated previously, it's just archaic reasoning that keeps this from happening.
3) Global draft. No more $50M bonus to negotiate with Dice-K. If he wants in, he can come play with everyone else under the same rules. Everyone has to sign up, produce the same paperwork, and register with the same draft office. If you can't handle this, living in the Dominican, Cuba, Korea, wherever- then you can't play in the MLB or its minors. Simple as that.

SI

I'm not saying there's not value to PECOTA. But it's clearly not perfect and you have to use stat projections for what they are- projections that would be true if all people were animatrons. BP's projections are good, some of the best, but there's more that goes into it (see below).

Also, I think there's a bit of a gulf between using PECOTA projectsion and Allard Baird. There are other options so to say that's a false choice would be blantantly understating things.

To the other points, no matter how great a rookie is expected to be, how often are they the best hitter on the team? There's just a huge adjustment between the minors and the majors and putting the pressure to be the best guy on the team on top of that is probably unfair for anyone. Again, extenuating circumstances are these are people playing games not just statistical models.

SI

My only guess as to why Dayton Moore didn't hold off on Butler and didn't give Gordon some time in AAA is his relative lack of inexperience in the front office. He's was heavily involved in scouting and player development for the vast majority of his time in Atlanta and his first instinct is probably the best/fastest way for a player to develop.

Other than that, I just don't get how the General Manager for a team on such a tight budget could overlook the value of keeping a player for an extra year during his peak seasons.

If you look at the lineup he used there weren't any real leadoff types. Erstad has experience leading off, so he went the easy route. Saying Erstad has no business leading off is wrong, and I don't get the reference to football at Nebraska.

PING Dawgfan

King Felix still set to return vs Detroit next week?

Erstad has been one of the least productive hitters in baseball since '01. Putting your worst hitter first in the lineup is stupid regardless of whether he has leadoff 'experience' or not. Erstad's value has been defensively, he's been one of the best in baseball at two positions throughout his career. Thowing him in center for his defensive value wouldn't be the worst decision since the Sox have the bats to make up for his lack of offense. However, putting him in the leadoff spot over a guy like Iguchi will cost the Sox at least as many runs as he saves defensively.

The football comment is because you can't read an article about the guy that doesn't mention him bringing a football attitude to the game or something along those lines. He was a punter. Give me a break.

Giants were wearing Gigantes uniforms today for Cinco de Mayo. Pretty neat.

True, it was mentioned ever time they talked about him in Anaheim in the paper.

For the curious: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/st...cs/ps_odds.php

Tho, keeping in mind this is a simluation based on 3rd order winning percentage so it has to be taken with a grain of interpretive salt. To illustrate, I don't think we'll have 0 100 game winners or losers but if you look at the numbers below, that's what it shows.




Average wins by NL Wild Card: 92.9

Nope. He threw a bullpen session Friday, and the team decided later to post-pone his return again. He's now slated to return May 15th vs. the Angels.

The supposed reason for pushing things back again is that he's been "inactive too long". I guess that means they want to have him throw a simulated game early next week in Detroit and then some more bullpen sessions, I suppose to try and build up his endurance and arm strength.

I'm worried thought that this is just a cover for his elbow still hurting. I'm not going to feel good about his health until I actually see him out there pitching again for several starts in a row without showing obvious discomfort or relapse.

We'll miss you Carpenter. :(

out for at least 3 months (surgery), although I bet he's done for the year...

Pavano done for this year and next with Tommy John surgery. His contract is expiered after that so my guess is thats the last we will see of him.

Solid $40 million investment.

I think the reason it's not predicting any 100 game winners or losers is that it's actually showing the average number of wins over a million trials. A lot of teams probably won a hundred games in one or more trials - it's difficult to imagine the Red Sox averaging 96.7 wins without winning 100 fairly often - but nobody's quite dominant enough to average a hundred wins.

I definitely agree that you have to take it with a pinch of salt - I'm fairly sure the Yankees will manage a winning record, for instance. I just don't think the particular example you used is really that much of a problem.

Clemens to the Yankees, announced during the game from Steinbrenner's office.

I read that he had "very slight discomfort" in a recent bullpen session so they pushed his start back and will see how he does in a simulated start before activating him.

Fuck Roger Clemens. Money-grubbing SOB. I can't wait till the Yankees fail to win the WS this year and he has to go out without another ring. I'm glad the fucker didn't break Cy's record...he doesn't deserve it.

has anyone done a calculation of how much per inning the yankees will end up paying pavano? it'd make me laugh.

near as I can figure out from mlb.com he's thrown 111.1 innings for the yankees.

that's roughly 360k/IP

or 120k/out

HAHAHAHA

People are crazy if they think he's going to dominate the AL the way he did the NL.

Roughly twice what they will pay Clemens this year.