The official 2008 MLB thread

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Don't get me wrong, I think the Rays are a great story, and I am really glad that they are getting to the world series. On the other hand though, I also am sad because it is just the ammo that people need to argue why there doesn't need to be any kind of Salary cap or such in baseball.. "If the Rays can win it, anyone can!!".

You mention the Expos stadium being horrible, the same is true in Tampa, that stadium is a dump. While Montreal had a language barrier, Tampa has an age barrier.. a large number of people in the area end up moving from other locations and their team loyalties remain from their childhood (childhood Yankees or Red Sox fans have always outnumbered Tampa in their own stadium).

I wouldn't be suprised to see them be able to keep it together for a few years, but in the end if the players remain this good to be able to keep a top talent team out there, they'll eventually want to be paid as such and the Rays won't be able to afford it.

I think you're just underestimating how much wealthier the majority owner of the Rays is, coupled with the financial advantages of the Tampa-St. Pete market versus Montreal.

They're in one of the largest TV markets in the country and while the population is old, they have money and they LOVE baseball.

The market itself is fine for baseball. They'd just be better off playing somewhere that's not remote like where their ballpark currently is. They won't play in that stadium another decade though. If their original plans for Al Lang Park fail, they'll possibly settle for an outdoor stadium in lieu of moving or see if he can't figure out a way to get them to Orlando, where he can probably sell out games just from building a family sized venue that could be a centerpiece project for the Disney Wide World of Sports in a decade.

Who knows. But I think you're mixing apples and oranges here, with the comparisons of Montreal and Tampa Bay. The only parallels are that they're smaller market teams who have young players. And both were awful for a good period of time.

That's it.

A World Series would've saved the Montreal franchise.

[Alan T]

Both of you just repeated what I had said about Montreal. The downfall of Montreal was the timing of the player strike in 94. If that hadn't happened they would have been together longer as well.

[MikeVic]

Montreal.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Montreal.

I am sad too. My sister lives 30 minutes outside of Montreal, I used to plan trips to visit my sister for when the Braves were in town so I could go to the games

Now, the closest place for me to see the Braves play is New york

[RedKingGold]

This Stuart Sternberg guy is the real deal. While his primary concern is profitability, he also has done a good job of getting the right guys to run the baseball end of the Rays and stays out of their way. I'm pretty sure that Sternberg will spend money on the ballclub, once there is money to spend. The Rays will likely never get to spend 1/2 of what the Red Sox/Yankees spend, but so long as they have the scouting and development that they've had, the'll be competitive.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think that I'm rooting for the Rays because exposes the fraudulence of the Jays missteps for the past decade, which is "OMGZ we can't compete with the Red Sox/Yankees juggernauts."

Well Tampa did. End of story.

Go Rays.

I don't think this is the end of story by a long shot. Let's see how it unfolds.

What happens the next two years if the Rays are still this good but they can't beat the Yankees or Red Sox and miss the playoffs? What happens if all this overwhelming abundance of talent, all these high first round picks and plunder from good trades (Kazmir, Garza) amounts to one World Series run and nothing more than a bunch of near misses? How is that good for baseball? How is that fair for the Rays?

As Alan T said, it's another one year fluke run where someone can point to it and say "See, there's no need for fairness in baseball. Each of the little teams gets a turn while the perennial powers are always there".

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Both of you just repeated what I had said about Montreal. The downfall of Montreal was the timing of the player strike in 94. If that hadn't happened they would have been together longer as well.

But, OTOH, I think Tampa/St. Pete is far more baseball mad than Montreal. They haven't come out in numbers because, frankly, the Rays have sucked badly until now. It isn't like the '69 Mets were breaking attendance records either.

After all this is the market that built a stadium just to entire the Giants to move from San Fran.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

After all this is the market that built a stadium just to entire the Giants to move from San Fran.

Actually and hilariously enough, it was built to entice a team and White Sox were the first, in an attempt to get them to move from Chicago before new Comiskey was built.

The Giants almost moved there before Huzienga protested the move with the Marlins getting ready to join the NL (moron, built in rivals..) but it was actually built for the team the Rays beat in the ALDS that got beat in the actual ballpark that would've been theirs.

A Home in Florida That Nobody Seems to Want

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't think this is the end of story by a long shot. Let's see how it unfolds.

What happens the next two years if the Rays are still this good but they can't beat the Yankees or Red Sox and miss the playoffs? What happens if all this overwhelming abundance of talent, all these high first round picks and plunder from good trades (Kazmir, Garza) amounts to one World Series run and nothing more than a bunch of near misses? How is that good for baseball? How is that fair for the Rays?

As Alan T said, it's another one year fluke run where someone can point to it and say "See, there's no need for fairness in baseball. Each of the little teams gets a turn while the perennial powers are always there".

SI

But I think the point is that smaller market teams (hopefully) will have a harder time sitting on millions of revenue sharing money and crying poverty when they can clearly win. If the Rays win one world World Series and then have a bunch of near misses they'll have been way more successful in the last decade than a lot of big payroll teams. Nobody can spend like the Red Sox and Yankees, but if you look the revenue v. payroll numbers, some teams can spend A LOT more but don't, and identify scapegoats to distract their fans.


But baseball, like life, is never going to be fair. The Rays players are a part of the union that assures that.

[Galaril]

Sox are already looking at an offer for the Padres for Peavy. Looks like Crisp, Bowden, and Buckholtz. Also I will be shocked if the Soxes don't go after Holiday not sure what they would need to give up maybe Ellsbury, Lugo, and a couple of prospects should do it. Holiday in left, Drew in center and Bay in right or we could keep ellsbury and trade Drew to the Rockies instead of Ellsbury.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Sox are already looking at an offer for the Padres for Peavy. Looks like Crisp, Bowden, and Buckholtz. Also I will be shocked if the Soxes don't go after Holiday not sure what they would need to give up maybe Ellsbury, Lugo, and a couple of prospects should do it. Holiday in left, Drew in center and Bay in right or we could keep ellsbury and trade Drew to the Rockies instead of Ellsbury.

I do love trades when everyone forgets that there are two teams involved. "Sure, we don't like Crisp/Lugo but other teams will be beating down our door for him. He's just not good enough for us."

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

A good game, sure. Very tense. I just wish there had been a comeback (preferably by the Rays) or something to make it a great game. Again, I reference the Braves/Pirates from a few posts ago.

Not many plays that are signature or will be remembered in a few years. Just a very good game throughout.

You need a few of those at some point - comeback's like Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS against Rivera/the Yankess was so much better because Rivera was previously 67-67 in postseason save opportunities or something ridiculous. Although obviously I wouldn't have minded having one more comeback, I'm also not sure anything would be remembered over the Game 5 comeback - that seemed to be a Fisk type moment, and I think that will be remembered more than the Rays winning Game 7 in 10 years.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think they're here to stay and the AL East is a 3-team horse race and 4 if the Jays can get their heads out of their asses. After coming back this year with Cito and with the fire under JP to get to the playoffs in the next two years or be fired for sure (And probably never to get a GM gig again, given how terrible he was in Toronto...) I think that I'm rooting for the Rays because exposes the fraudulence of the Jays missteps for the past decade, which is "OMGZ we can't compete with the Red Sox/Yankees juggernauts."

Well Tampa did. End of story.

Toronto had the 3rd best run differential in the Major Leagues last year playing in the AL East. And their biggest difference between them and TB is that they have been competing with Boston and NYY - finishing 2nd a number of years and a close 3rd many others. TB had 9 terrible seasons and 1 good one this decade when all their top 5 picks came of age at the same time - Toronto has been much better managed over the past decade. It's Baltimore who had a revenue stream equal to Boston a decade/15 years ago but has been horribly, horribly managed. (At least they have the best prospect in baseball to build around - Matt Wieters.)

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What happens the next two years if the Rays are still this good but they can't beat the Yankees or Red Sox and miss the playoffs? What happens if all this overwhelming abundance of talent, all these high first round picks and plunder from good trades (Kazmir, Garza) amounts to one World Series run and nothing more than a bunch of near misses? How is that good for baseball? How is that fair for the Rays?

As Alan T said, it's another one year fluke run where someone can point to it and say "See, there's no need for fairness in baseball. Each of the little teams gets a turn while the perennial powers are always there".

Why is Boston considered a perennial power? The Red Sox were 4th in payroll this year with 8 teams within $16m - Det, NYM, CHW, ANA, CHC, LA, SEA - and NYY like $70m above. In the past few years, Baltimore, SF, ATL and St Louis have spent near their level for multiple seasons.

15 years ago, Boston was nowhere near 2nd in revenue. They've just been run very well in that time, particularly marketing-wise in the past 5 years. Yes, we all hate the bandwagon fans, but they, the increased Asian revenue, and good player acquistion/departures (allowing Pedro/Damon/etc to leave and drafting/developing guys like Ellsbury/Buchholz/Lester with those picks is why they're still good - and we haven't had the Top 5 picks TB did) is what's turning the Red Sox into a perennial contender - but even there an example like Atlanta or even a Cleveland shows how a perennial contender can fall back in a short time if they don't consistently renew personnel.

This is the 2nd biggest problem with revenue sharing (after owners like Pohlad pocketing profits) - market sizes aren't static, and why should Boston be punished more than a team in a similar size market that is doing a poor job generating revenue.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Why in the world do you even entertain offers for Peavy? You have the best pitcher in the National League *under contract for 5 years*! It's not like he's going to be a free agent next season. He's got a pretty good club contract and it's for his age 27-32 years.

"Peavy, 27, will make $8 million in 2009, $15 million in 2010, $16 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012, and he has a 2013 option for $22 million, with a $4 million buyout."

In addition to what Bucc says, because he's not *that* good a pitcher? SD is the best pitchers park in the majors and his Home/Road splits show it. 2.77 ERA at home/3.80 away for his career; 1.74/4.28 split last year. He's not a bad pitcher, but the deal is about average for what you can sign a free agent - why not trade Peavy if some team wants to trade 2-3 good young players while you cut payroll? (And TB actually fits nicely there since they have a solid amount of talent being blocked next year near the majors.)

Originally Posted by Galaril

Sox are already looking at an offer for the Padres for Peavy. Looks like Crisp, Bowden, and Buckholtz. Also I will be shocked if the Soxes don't go after Holiday not sure what they would need to give up maybe Ellsbury, Lugo, and a couple of prospects should do it. Holiday in left, Drew in center and Bay in right or we could keep ellsbury and trade Drew to the Rockies instead of Ellsbury.

God, please no. I wouldn't trade Buchholz straight up for Peavy, let alone include Bowden. If the Sox feel they need another veteran pitcher, fine, go get Derek Lowe if he wants to take a discount, try for Burnett/Sheets if they take a big enough discount from injury issues, or choose the best option and pay for the greatness that is CC Sabathia (as long as you don't think this fall will lead to long-term issues on his arm - most pitchers I would say yes, but Sabathia has no history of arm trouble and the big body).

I'd throw Matt Holliday into the same category of very good, borderline all-star whose stats and perceived talent are inflated by the home stadium.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I do love trades when everyone forgets that there are two teams involved. "Sure, we don't like Crisp/Lugo but other teams will be beating down our door for him. He's just not good enough for us."

I don't look to MLBTradeRumours or most fans in general for trade proposals, but you should go back and read the reaction of people in the Lester/Crisp/Masterson/Lowrie for Johan Santana trade thread(s) we had here last winter. A year later, that was 3 legitimate MLB starters and an all-star, 3 cost-controlled for 4+ years before arbitration. If we trade any more than one of Bowden, Buchholz or Lars for Peavy, the trade will look twice as bad before Peavy's contract is over. I might even include Almanzar, Middlebrooks, Reddick, Kalish and Argenis Diaz on that list.

For additional references, also look at Gabbard, Murphy and Engel Beltre for Gagne and Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett. We've been giving as good as we get in trades (the guys we gave Pitt weren't good, but we gave up Manny and paid his salary - blame LA if they got shafted there, which I still think depends on if Laroche ever hits the way he should in the majors.)

Crisp would have a lot of value for an NL team in a spacious park like SD. I will agree that no one is taking Lugo unless we pay about $15 of the $18 million left on that contract, which I do think and hope we do.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Why is Boston considered a perennial power? The Red Sox were 4th in payroll this year with 8 teams within $16m - Det, NYM, CHW, ANA, CHC, LA, SEA - and NYY like $70m above. In the past few years, Baltimore, SF, ATL and St Louis have spent near their level for multiple seasons.

15 years ago, Boston was nowhere near 2nd in revenue. They've just been run very well in that time, particularly marketing-wise in the past 5 years. Yes, we all hate the bandwagon fans, but they, the increased Asian revenue, and good player acquistion/departures (allowing Pedro/Damon/etc to leave and drafting/developing guys like Ellsbury/Buchholz/Lester with those picks is why they're still good - and we haven't had the Top 5 picks TB did) is what's turning the Red Sox into a perennial contender - but even there an example like Atlanta or even a Cleveland shows how a perennial contender can fall back in a short time if they don't consistently renew personnel.

This is the 2nd biggest problem with revenue sharing (after owners like Pohlad pocketing profits) - market sizes aren't static, and why should Boston be punished more than a team in a similar size market that is doing a poor job generating revenue.In addition to what Bucc says, because he's not *that* good a pitcher? SD is the best pitchers park in the majors and his Home/Road splits show it. 2.77 ERA at home/3.80 away for his career; 1.74/4.28 split last year. He's not a bad pitcher, but the deal is about average for what you can sign a free agent - why not trade Peavy if some team wants to trade 2-3 good young players while you cut payroll? (And TB actually fits nicely there since they have a solid amount of talent being blocked next year near the majors.)
God, please no. I wouldn't trade Buchholz straight up for Peavy, let alone include Bowden. If the Sox feel they need another veteran pitcher, fine, go get Derek Lowe if he wants to take a discount, try for Burnett/Sheets if they take a big enough discount from injury issues, or choose the best option and pay for the greatness that is CC Sabathia (as long as you don't think this fall will lead to long-term issues on his arm - most pitchers I would say yes, but Sabathia has no history of arm trouble and the big body).

I'd throw Matt Holliday into the same category of very good, borderline all-star whose stats and perceived talent are inflated by the home stadium.I don't look to MLBTradeRumours or most fans in general for trade proposals, but you should go back and read the reaction of people in the Lester/Crisp/Masterson/Lowrie for Johan Santana trade thread(s) we had here last winter. A year later, that was 3 legitimate MLB starters and an all-star, 3 cost-controlled for 4+ years before arbitration. If we trade any more than one of Bowden, Buchholz or Lars for Peavy, the trade will look twice as bad before Peavy's contract is over. I might even include Almanzar, Middlebrooks, Reddick, Kalish and Argenis Diaz on that list.

For additional references, also look at Gabbard, Murphy and Engel Beltre for Gagne and Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett. We've been giving as good as we get in trades (the guys we gave Pitt weren't good, but we gave up Manny and paid his salary - blame LA if they got shafted there, which I still think depends on if Laroche ever hits the way he should in the majors.)

Crisp would have a lot of value for an NL team in a spacious park like SD. I will agree that no one is taking Lugo unless we pay about $15 of the $18 million left on that contract, which I do think and hope we do.

Really? Boston shouldn't be considered a perennial power? You're like the couple with the combined income of 200K that calls themselves "middle-class".

There's no reason Boston shouldn't be a perennial power. You cite the infusion of...Asian money? How many Asians were on the team before they dropped how-many-mill on just the rights to talk to Matsuzaka. They weren't even paying him. They paid more for the chance to negotiate than what half of MLB teams spend on payroll in a given year.

Don't pretend your Sox are a middle-of-the-road market that got to the top purely through good decision making. Yeah, if you have deeper pockets than anyone else, it's easier to make good decisions. Yeah, I know Lester, I know Ellsbury, I know Pedroia. So what? The Yankees grew most of their dynasty-era talent through their farm system. That doesn't make them the Kansas City Royals.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

There's no reason Boston shouldn't be a perennial power.

They weren't for 80 years. In the past dozen, they've started increasing from a middle of the pack team to a top one. Why them and not any of the other dozen candidates (and yes I say dozen or so because KC, Florida and a couple more markets don't have thye support - although Florida has won 2 WS titles the past 11 years, just as many as Boston.) Why shouldn't Los Angeles, the New York Mets, Philadelphia be a contender every year? Why not both Chicagos, Atlanta, Houston, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit? And that doesn't include the 4 expansion teams, all of which have made the WS in the past 8 years.

You cite the infusion of...Asian money? How many Asians were on the team before they dropped how-many-mill on just the rights to talk to Matsuzaka. They weren't even paying him. They paid more for the chance to negotiate than what half of MLB teams spend on payroll in a given year.

Thanks for proving the point. (Even if they actually paid $0 to negotiate, and $51m as a transfer fee once he agreed to a contract, and only about 3 teams have payrolls lower than that.) It was $103m for 6 years, yet the estimates have them making money on the deal. Mainly from increased merchandising revenue and broadcast contracts in Japan. That's before you even consider the on-field value of having a good #3 pitcher.

Yes, it was a risk to take, but any team that did the same would have turned a profit on that transaction.

Don't pretend your Sox are a middle-of-the-road market that got to the top purely through good decision making. Yeah, if you have deeper pockets than anyone else, it's easier to make good decisions. Yeah, I know Lester, I know Ellsbury, I know Pedroia. So what? The Yankees grew most of their dynasty-era talent through their farm system. That doesn't make them the Kansas City Royals.

The Braves had a run when they grew a group of all-stars and Hall of Famers through their farm system, then signed and traded for a few players around them. Then the Indians did, and the Yankees, and the Angels, and now the Red Sox*. When the Yankees, even with their enormous advantage over every team, didn't have good young players coming up they stopped winning. They haven't been to a WS in 5 years, won one in 8, and were the 4th best team in their division. And "small-market" teams like Oakland, Minnesota had strong runs with young cores during this time. Now we have Philadelphia and Tampa Bay playing in the WS on the backs of homegrown/drafted players.

If you have very good young players come up, you'll do well for a few years, regardless of financial situation. The Royals and the Pirates have become the punchline of these jokes, because unlike the numerous other "poor, uncompetitive" teams, they've been incredibly poorly run, had some bad luck and blown the high draft picks they've gotten. The Red Sox become reviled for being successful when there are 10-12 other teams in the same sized or bigger markets spending the same amount of money. Unlike you claim, we don't have deeper pockets than a number of less successful teams, and we certainly didn't when our success began.

*The Red Sox had a bit more of trading involved, but it was still often good prospects for established pitchers - Pedro/Beckett.

[ISiddiqui]

In addition to what Bucc says, because he's not *that* good a pitcher? SD is the best pitchers park in the majors and his Home/Road splits show it. 2.77 ERA at home/3.80 away for his career; 1.74/4.28 split last year.

It is better to look at his ERA+ the last two seasons. In 2007, he had an ERA+ of 157 and 137 this year.

He may have a good pitchers' park, but obvious he's a very, very good pitcher regardless of that fact.

I'd throw Matt Holliday into the same category of very good, borderline all-star whose stats and perceived talent are inflated by the home stadium.

Same thing for Holliday. His OPS+ the last 3 seasons: 137, 150, 139. That's 8th, 6th, and 7th in the NL in OPS+. A bit more than just "borderline all-star".

[sterlingice]

It makes me wonder what passes for All-Star if Peavy is just very good and Holliday is a borderline guy.

I'll just take Peavy. First off, Peavy's stats are skewed a little by an injured 2006 where he still threw 200 innings but it turned out he was pitching hurt all year. Still turned in a league average performance. His ERA+ over those 5 years: 171, 134, 99, 159, 137. That said, how many more pitchers would you rather have and how many would you put on par with him?

Santana- best pitcher in baseball, hands down; definitely better than Peavy
Sabathia- he's pitched well and consistent for the last 4 years and showed a lot in Milwaukee this year; slightly better than Peavy
Halladay - good and great years, but injury tainted; if not for injuries, better than Peavy
Webb - hasn't been as dominant as Peavy's best years but more consistent; on par with Peavy
Oswalt - hasn't been as dominant as Peavy's best years but more consistent, slightly worse than Webb; slightly below Peavy
Zambrano - had a really good 4 year stretch but innings have taken toll the last 2; below Peavy
Hamels- 2 good years, still hasn't matched Peavy's 2 best years; no
(I need to go dig up my ace thread from a few months ago- I had some good data there)

There are many guys who have shown 1 great year (Matsuzaka) or are way too early to tell (Lincecum, Lester). But, c'mon- "not *that* good of a pitcher"? How many guys would you take right now that are better? We're not talking about TNSTAAPPs. Real, live pitchers who we have actual data on.

SI

[sterlingice]

ESPN - Five reasons to embrace Phillies-Rays matchup - MLB

A little over the top cheerleading, but I'm happy with our World Series matchup. I thought that going into the playoffs that the Rays were the most sexy team without a hundred year curse on them.

We could open up the line of reasoning about how MLB only promotes the large market teams during the regular season so it's any wonder why no one knows/cares about other teams but I suppose that's another argument for another day.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

We could open up the line of reasoning about how MLB only promotes the large market teams during the regular season so it's any wonder why no one knows/cares about other teams but I suppose that's another argument for another day.

Hell, it's a good argument for today . Back in the 80s, plenty of players on smaller market teams were promoted and well known (Brett, Yount, etc). It seems the focus on players like A-Rod, Jeter, Beckett, Ortiz, Manny has hurt when you have two teams filled with great players, INCLUDING one of them that probably will have 3 straight NL MVPs. The fact that Howard and Utley (I realize Rollins was the other MVP, but he's not as impressive, IMO, as Howard and Utley) aren't household names is a failing of MLB. I can understand why say Kazmir, Shields, Longoria, Upton, Pena weren't as hyped since they are relatively young (though Pena hit a ton of Homers last year which barely anyone noticed).

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hamels- 2 good years, still hasn't matched Peavy's 2 best years; no

I'll take Hamels over Peavy any day. A lefty pitching in CBP and putting up the numbers that he does, I'll take that any day over a right hander throwing in a pitcher friendly park.


Peavy's 1st 3 seasons:
33-24, 3.53 ERA, 458.1 IP, 425 H, 197 R, 180 ER, 419 K, 168 BB

Hamels:
38-23, 3.43 ERA, 543.0 IP, 473 H, 227 R, 207 ER, 518 K, 144 BB



Post season for career:
Peavy:
0-2, 12.10 ERA, 9.2 IP, 19 H, 13 R, 13 ER, 5 K, 4 BB

Hamels:
3-1, 1.86 ERA, 28.2 IP, 16 H, 6 R, 6 ER, 29 K, 10 BB

[RedKingGold]

One more day to enjoy my dreams of a World Series title.....until dashed by reality.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I'll take Hamels over Peavy any day. A lefty pitching in CBP and putting up the numbers that he does, I'll take that any day over a right hander throwing in a pitcher friendly park.


Peavy's 1st 3 seasons:
33-24, 3.53 ERA, 458.1 IP, 425 H, 197 R, 180 ER, 419 K, 168 BB

Hamels:
38-23, 3.43 ERA, 543.0 IP, 473 H, 227 R, 207 ER, 518 K, 144 BB



Post season for career:
Peavy:
0-2, 12.10 ERA, 9.2 IP, 19 H, 13 R, 13 ER, 5 K, 4 BB

Hamels:
3-1, 1.86 ERA, 28.2 IP, 16 H, 6 R, 6 ER, 29 K, 10 BB

2004 23 SDP NL 15 6 27 27 0 0 0 0 166.3 146 49 42 13 53 173 11 1 694 4 1 2.27 3.88 171 1.196
2005 24 SDP NL 13 7 30 30 3 3 0 0 203.0 162 70 65 18 50 216 7 3 812 3 1 2.88 3.85 134 1.044 AS
2007 26 SDP NL 19 6 34 34 0 0 0 0 223.3 169 67 63 13 68 240 6 4 898 5 0 2.54 4.04 159 1.061 MVP-7,CYA-1,AS

2007 23 PHI NL 15 5 28 28 2 0 0 0 183.3 163 72 69 25 43 177 3 5 743 4 0 3.39 4.61 136 1.124 CYA-6,AS
2008 24 PHI NL 14 10 33 33 2 2 0 0 227.3 193 89 78 28 53 196 1 0 914 7 0 3.09 4.47 145 1.082

Peavy strikes out more batters per inning, walks about the same, has a higher ERA+, and lower ERA. And those were age 23 and 24 seasons. But Peavy has already thrown together another great year and an injury-based mediocre one. Talking strictly track record, Peavy's is better but we won't know if Hamels will eventually be.

SI

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

One more day to enjoy my dreams of a World Series title.....until dashed by reality.

It's funny because I think the same way. After being kicked in the nuts so many times as a Philly fan, you just expect the worst.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Hell, it's a good argument for today . Back in the 80s, plenty of players on smaller market teams were promoted and well known (Brett, Yount, etc).

Might not want to point to the 80's too much, as that's when the sharp decline for WS ratings really got into gear.

World Series Television Ratings Breakdown
World Series television ratings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After a well watched 1980 (KC-PHL), TV share dropped below 50% in 1981 for only the third time since 1968 and has never returned to that point. The decline was sudden and steep, with nearly 1/3rd of the audience gone by the mid-80's. By 1985 (KC-STL) ratings were up a bit but the share dropped to 30% for the first time. Braves & Twins pushed it back to 39% in 1991 but by 1996 the Yankees-Braves plumbed new depths with a 29 share.

From there it's been a fairly steady decline, with occasional bumps upward in years when the Red Sox or the Yankees were involved, and not even that is a guarantee as 2000 showed with an all-time low (at that time) rating. Thought at the time to be the floor for ratings, 4 of the next 7 WS have been even worse.

There's a reasonable argument to be made that it isn't the teams that caused the decline, that it's baseball itself (and perhaps even moreso the changes in the U.S. viewing public). Having 4 straight Series end in 5 games or less hasn't helped either.

But it's also hard to deny that matchups like White Sox-Astros or Cardinals-Tigers don't even draw as many viewers as this a mid-season episode of Dancing With the Stars Results Special and Series featuring the Red Sox or the Yankees have still managed to at least meet that threshold.

edit to add: Also worth nothing here re: players on smaller market teams were promoted and well known (Brett, Yount, etc) that both Brett & Yount got their respective teams to a World Series along with MVP seasons while Howard & Rollins have combined for a one three-game at the hands of the Rockies in their MVP seasons to date. Pretty big difference in those two situations.

[stevew]

Yeah, this is going to be as bad as the Cavs Spurs series a year ago. I was all stoked, and then my fave team got swept.

[gstelmack]

I wish that Wikipedia had the broadcast times. I wonder how much of this is due to baseball transitioning to a night game, and games stretching WAY into the late night hours on the east coast (I don't think I caught the end of a single Sox/Rays game due to a need for sleep...)

If you aren't going to get to see the end, why bother watching more than bits here or there? MNF has been battling ratings issues as well, so it's not just a baseball problem.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I wish that Wikipedia had the broadcast times. I wonder how much of this is due to baseball transitioning to a night game, and games stretching WAY into the late night hours on the east coast (I don't think I caught the end of a single Sox/Rays game due to a need for sleep...)

It's an interesting theory, not sure how much (or how little) impact it had.

Best I can find with some Googling is that it looks like the WS went from virtually all days (first night game was 1971) to weeknights & weekend days from '73-'84, then all night from '85 forward (with the exception of Game 6 in 1987, the second lowest rated game of the seven game series).

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I wish that Wikipedia had the broadcast times. I wonder how much of this is due to baseball transitioning to a night game, and games stretching WAY into the late night hours on the east coast (I don't think I caught the end of a single Sox/Rays game due to a need for sleep...)

If you aren't going to get to see the end, why bother watching more than bits here or there? MNF has been battling ratings issues as well, so it's not just a baseball problem.

This setup gives them more prime-time hours nationally than starting the games earlier. If they'd get more viewers a diffferent way, they'd do it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I think that the great expansion of entertainment choices has more to do with it than anything else. Why would someone uninterested in baseball watch the World Series today, when then could just watch Ace of Cakes? Didn't used to be that way.

I think this has as much to do with it as anything. 200 channels provides a lot more viewing options than 4 channels. And the saturation of baseball on TV now versus the 70's (remember when Joe & Tony on Saturday afternoon was a big deal?) almost certainly robs the post-season of some luster.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

This setup gives them more prime-time hours nationally than starting the games earlier. If they'd get more viewers a diffferent way, they'd do it.

Which takes us to something I mentioned earlier, the changes in U.S. habits over the past 30 years. Later starts are more important now than ever, as a larger percentage of the workforce simply doesn't get home as early as they used to.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think this has as much to do with it as anything. 200 channels provides a lot more viewing options than 4 channels. And the saturation of baseball on TV now versus the 70's (remember when Joe & Tony on Saturday afternoon was a big deal?) almost certainly robs the post-season of some luster.

Ratings for EVERYTHING are down from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, etc (except NASCAR)

Attendence is a better number to look at for interest over time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Ratings for EVERYTHING are down from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, etc (except NASCAR). Attendence is a better number to look at for interest over time.

Can't really use the NASCAR exception any more either, off over 20% from 2005 to 2007. And live attendance is off significantly in quite a few areas. Although that seems to be more related to the changes in the event itself than anything else.

Not sure about live event attendance being a real benchmark either, unless you factor it relative to the total population over the same period (and even then you'd have to try to account for sold out venues/games so as not to penalize the overall numbers for simple population growth when available tickets didn't grow by the same rate).

[ISiddiqui]

Combining two FOFC traditions:

Steal a Base Steal a Taco

[RedKingGold]

Well, it's just that I think the Rays have more talent than the Phils do. I think that if we were to play the series 100 times, the Rays would likely win 80' of em'.

I'm just holding on to that hope that the Phils can strike the dice on one of those other 20 times.

Either way, it's been a great and exciting season for the Phils. As I told my friends after they clinched: "At the very least, the Phils will be relevant up until the final game of the season."

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Well, it's just that I think the Rays have more talent than the Phils do. I think that if we were to play the series 100 times, the Rays would likely win 80' of em'.

I'm just holding on to that hope that the Phils can strike the dice on one of those other 20 times.

Either way, it's been a great and exciting season for the Phils. As I told my friends after they clinched: "At the very least, the Phils will be relevant up until the final game of the season."

You'd be hard pressed to find many people that gave the Phils a chance against the Dodgers too.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Well, it's just that I think the Rays have more talent than the Phils do. I think that if we were to play the series 100 times, the Rays would likely win 80' of em'.

I feel you're underestimating your team here. It'd be something like 55-45 Rays IMO.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

2004 23 SDP NL 15 6 27 27 0 0 0 0 166.3 146 49 42 13 53 173 11 1 694 4 1 2.27 3.88 171 1.196
2005 24 SDP NL 13 7 30 30 3 3 0 0 203.0 162 70 65 18 50 216 7 3 812 3 1 2.88 3.85 134 1.044 AS
2007 26 SDP NL 19 6 34 34 0 0 0 0 223.3 169 67 63 13 68 240 6 4 898 5 0 2.54 4.04 159 1.061 MVP-7,CYA-1,AS

2007 23 PHI NL 15 5 28 28 2 0 0 0 183.3 163 72 69 25 43 177 3 5 743 4 0 3.39 4.61 136 1.124 CYA-6,AS
2008 24 PHI NL 14 10 33 33 2 2 0 0 227.3 193 89 78 28 53 196 1 0 914 7 0 3.09 4.47 145 1.082

Peavy strikes out more batters per inning, walks about the same, has a higher ERA+, and lower ERA. And those were age 23 and 24 seasons. But Peavy has already thrown together another great year and an injury-based mediocre one. Talking strictly track record, Peavy's is better but we won't know if Hamels will eventually be.

SI

Hamels has three seasons, you are trying to pick the best three seasons from Peavy to compare. That is not exactly a fair comparrison. Hamels has gotten better each year and he has been clutch in the post season. Peavy got rocked like a little bitch in the post season and his first three seasons are worse than Hamels'. Add the fact that Hamels is a lefty who pitches in the VERY hitter friendly CBP while Peavy pitches in a very pitcher friendly park and it's not even a close arguement on which pitcher you would rather have.

[EagleFan]

1st 3 seasons:

Peavy 8.22 K/9
Hamels 8.59 K/9

Peavy 3.30 BB/9
Hamels 2.39 BB/9

Peavy 11.64 BR/9
Hamels 10.22 BR/9


Again, he tops Peavy in ALL stats over his first three seasons. Strikes out more, walks fewer and allows fewer base runners. Better ERA, better winning percentage, you name it.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

1st 3 seasons:

Peavy 8.22 K/9
Hamels 8.59 K/9

Peavy 3.30 BB/9
Hamels 2.39 BB/9

Peavy 11.64 BR/9
Hamels 10.22 BR/9


Again, he tops Peavy in ALL stats over his first three seasons. Strikes out more, walks fewer and allows fewer base runners. Better ERA, better winning percentage, you name it.

Yeah but you are a Phillies fan so we discredit everything you say by 20% which makes Peavy better.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Yeah but you are a Phillies fan so we discredit everything you say by 20% which makes Peavy better.

Don't let Dan anywhere near Peavy. He ruined his career in the RWBL by hitting him in the shoulder with a crescent wrench.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Don't let Dan anywhere near Peavy. He ruined his career in the RWBL by hitting him in the shoulder with a crescent wrench.

Oh I need to pull up my Peavy numbers from when he played for me!

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It is better to look at his ERA+ the last two seasons. In 2007, he had an ERA+ of 157 and 137 this year.

He may have a good pitchers' park, but obvious he's a very, very good pitcher regardless of that fact.
----
Same thing for Holliday. His OPS+ the last 3 seasons: 137, 150, 139. That's 8th, 6th, and 7th in the NL in OPS+. A bit more than just "borderline all-star".

Or you could go closer and look at sOPS+ (opposing batters OPS when looking at splits. 100 is league average, lower is better. Home/Away #'s for Peavy). 2008 - 46/103. 2007 - 57/53. 2006 - 78/96. 2005 - 71/66. 2004 - 69/80. 2003 - 80/107. 2002 - 46/144

Counting 2002 as 1/2 a season gives us 65.2 at home and 88.8 away from home. (For reference, Tim Wakefield averages around a 90-95 for $4m/y.) More strangely/worryingly, his walk rate doubles away from home and his K rate dips. Yes, he's better than average, but not a big enough increase over, say, Derek Lowe to be worth trading multiple prospects, and worse than CC Sabathia if we're going to be spending $15m+/y on a pitcher.

Holliday also has huge sOPS+ splits - 158/145; 195/130; 185/116; 160/98; 158/74. Even with that, I'll admit he's more than a borderline all-star - I didn't realize how bad it had gotten for NL corner outfielders, and I think I was still including Berkman if not Pujols among LF'ers.

Without doing any comprehensive look, I don't think B-R weights park factors correctly when measuring OPS+/ERA+

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'll just take Peavy. First off, Peavy's stats are skewed a little by an injured 2006 where he still threw 200 innings but it turned out he was pitching hurt all year. Still turned in a league average performance. His ERA+ over those 5 years: 171, 134, 99, 159, 137. That said, how many more pitchers would you rather have and how many would you put on par with him?

Santana- best pitcher in baseball, hands down; definitely better than Peavy
Sabathia- he's pitched well and consistent for the last 4 years and showed a lot in Milwaukee this year; slightly better than Peavy
Halladay - good and great years, but injury tainted; if not for injuries, better than Peavy
Webb - hasn't been as dominant as Peavy's best years but more consistent; on par with Peavy
Oswalt - hasn't been as dominant as Peavy's best years but more consistent, slightly worse than Webb; slightly below Peavy
Zambrano - had a really good 4 year stretch but innings have taken toll the last 2; below Peavy
Hamels- 2 good years, still hasn't matched Peavy's 2 best years; no
(I need to go dig up my ace thread from a few months ago- I had some good data there)

There are many guys who have shown 1 great year (Matsuzaka) or are way too early to tell (Lincecum, Lester). But, c'mon- "not *that* good of a pitcher"? How many guys would you take right now that are better?

That comment was in response to you posting the Padres had "the best" pitcher in the NL locked up for 5 years. Santana, Sabathia, Webb, Oswalt, Hamels, Lincecum (who I do believe we have enough data on) are as good or better, with Haren and Billingsley not far off from the NL.

We're not talking about TNSTAAPPs. Real, live pitchers who we have actual data on.

This is the second part of the argument - guys like Lester/Lincecum do it for a pittance, while Peavy is basically at market value. I would have included Sheets too on that list (and Burnett if we're expanding to the AL) if it weren't for their injury history (and oh, wait, Peavy had numerous injuries in 2006 and missed a month this year with swelling and a sore muscle in his pitching elbow.) and they're both free agents we can sign for equal contracts without trading players away. So if I wanted to pay the $15m/y for an injury risk, why wouldn't I sign one of them instead of trading multiple pieces for Peavy when he has a huge warning sign right there? From that same perspective, it makes perfect sense to trade Peavy to a team willing to part with 2-3 good, cost-controlled players and sign a free agent pitcher with the money saved, especially if the perception in many baseball circles is yours - that Peavy is the best pitcher in the NL. (I realize if the owner has said he's trying to reduce the franchise value that throws a monkey wrench into things, but let's ignore that for now.)

[Dr. Sak]

LET'S GO PHILLIES!!!!

[Dr. Sak]

Could they have picked anyone gayer to do the anthem?

Also did anyone see the one Simpson's episode where they are at an Isotopes game and the anthem takes 20 minutes? Thats what that felt like.

[Galaril]

Is anyone watching the series other than people in TB or Philly? Fox was predicting that they would be breaking the rating s record for WS viewinng in the is series?

[terpkristin]

I'm watching, Game 1 anyway. Nothing else is on...

/tk

[Lathum]

I'm watchin\

[Lathum]

dola- I'm watching because my wife isn't home. If she was we would most likely be watching something else and I would be following along online

[EagleFan]

I'm watching but wanting to mute these first two games because of the bandwagon idiots and their cow bells.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Fox was predicting that they would be breaking the rating s record for WS viewinng in the is series?

Presumably you mean the all-time record low for viewing.

[Lathum]

been a fun game to watch so far