The future of baseball

[mvp 78]

This is not recession based spending. This is colluding with the stat geeks to devalue players. I am a stat geek to some degree, so I get it, but the players have a right to be upset, albeit they can cry in their $10 mil mansions

 

Yup.

[BillyWilliams]

This is not recession based spending. This is colluding with the stat geeks to devalue players. I am a stat geek to some degree, so I get it, but the players have a right to be upset, albeit they can cry in their $10 mil mansions

 

I disagree.

 

I believe the owners and GM's have just seen the light and are refusing to shell out for these big money, long term contracts that typically don't work out.

 

There doesn't need to be collusion for them to come to this realization.

[BillyWilliams]

I agree, but then,,,,

 

There is still spending going on. The Sox will spend the same. The Yanks and Dodgers added salary.

 

Maybe the owners sense the economy is about to collapse. There is a lot of similarities to the late 1920's and many economists are forecasting a recession.

 

Actually, the majority of economists surveyed by the Associated Press believe that the US is resilient enough to defy the global economic slowdown and the recent downturn in the stock market that have fanned fears of a recession.

 

https://apnews.com/31aa637512eb4c53aec954df496955d1

[Bellhorn04]

Haven't we all been saying for years that GMs are dumb for paying big-named FAs basically for their past performance and not future projected output?

 

So, maybe stat geeks have shown them the truth and they finally realized the initial bump you get for these mega signings almost always sours over time, often over a short time.

 

I still think Machado and Harper will get mega deals- maybe not $300M and probably not 9-10 years, but they will do fine.

 

How are you so sure the strong possibility of a recession is not playing a part in teams tightening their budgets?

 

 

I think it's a combination of factors.

 

It's pretty clear that some teams are just withholding spending because of the advantageous of tanking.

 

It's becoming a complete mess.

[dgalehouse]

There is a definite correlation between spending and winning . I know there are exceptions to the rule , but there is a correlation. Some teams are willing to be also rans and save the money . That is an issue for MLB .

[notin]

There is a definite correlation between spending and winning . I know there are exceptions to the rule , but there is a correlation. Some teams are willing to be also rans and save the money . That is an issue for MLB .

 

If there is, it’s probably not nearly as great as you think.

 

We all saw the Red Sox come in last place 3 out of 4 years despite spending heavily. Every years, teams near the top in spending finish at the bottom in wins.

 

In fact, if you look at the ranges of payroll and the advantage in winning spending more gives, many would come to te conclusion it just isn’t worth it...

[Bellhorn04]

If there is, it’s probably not nearly as great as you think.

 

We all saw the Red Sox come in last place 3 out of 4 years despite spending heavily. Every years, teams near the top in spending finish at the bottom in wins.

 

In fact, if you look at the ranges of payroll and the advantage in winning spending more gives, many would come to te conclusion it just isn’t worth it...

 

I think dgalehouse is correct that there is correlation. How strong the correlation is I would like to see as well.

[notin]

I think dgalehouse is correct that there is correlation. How strong the correlation is I would like to see as well.

 

 

Considering the largest payrolls are 150-200% larger than the smallest, but the best team only wins about 20-25% more often than the worst team, I’d say trying to win by outspending is not as easy as people think...

[notin]

The Last season, using payroll numbers from Sportrac, the top ten payrolls produced 4 playoff teams (Boston, Chicago, Houston, New York). The bottom 10 payrolls produced 3 (Oakland, Atlanta, Milwaukee). And the middle ten produced 3 (Cleveland, Los Angeles, Colorado).

 

Not the most exact method, but it certainly raises questions about how important spending is...

[Bellhorn04]

Considering the largest payrolls are 150-200% larger than the smallest, but the best team only wins about 20-25% more often than the worst team, I’d say trying to win by outspending is not as easy as people think...

 

The law of diminishing returns would certainly appear to be in effect.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't think anyone can deny that the competitive advantage held by the Red Sox and the Yankees over the Rays over the years has had a lot to do with our ability to outspend them by multiples.

[dgalehouse]

I think the lower spenders have a better chance of making the playoffs in this wild card era . As we know , if you get in the playoffs anything can happen. But looking at the championship teams over the years , it is pretty hard to deny the connection between payroll and parades . And it is pretty hard to miss the fact that some teams are content to take the money and be satisfied with mediocrity. I think the players are certainly not missing it . Things should get interesting.

[Kimmi]

I think dgalehouse is correct that there is correlation. How strong the correlation is I would like to see as well.

 

Any single season correlation between payroll and winning is not very strong. The correlation coefficient is somewhere in the neighborhood of .25. In some years, alphabetical order has a stronger correlation to winning than payroll does.

 

That said, there is a much stronger correlation between sustained spending, or lack thereof, and winning. If you look at 3 year cycles, the correlation between payroll and winning is closer to .6, which is pretty strong.

 

It makes sense that this would be the case.

[Slasher9]

Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association engaged in a back-and-forth regarding potential rules changes to improve pace of play and discussed other measures, including a universal designated hitter and requiring pitchers to face at least three batters before being removed from a game.

Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reported the news, noting MLB made a proposal to the players' union Jan. 14 that included the three-batter minimum rule. The union responded Friday with a proposal that included a plan for the National League to adopt the designated hitter as soon as the 2019 season.

T

[moonslav59]

3 batter minimum would sure speed up the game, but it could be a nightmare for managers. Teams might no longer have slots for a LOOGY.

 

There would have to be a provision for a pitcher injury, and some way to keep faked injuries from occurring.

 

I'm glad they are looking at ways to speed up the game. Robo umps would help.

 

[notin]

Baseball shouldn’t mess with on-game strategies like specialized relievers or employing the shift.

 

Just enforce the existing pace of play rules. These were built into the game but are too often ignored. If you do anything, limit the number of times a player can step out of the box during an at bat.

 

Also, stop the stupid “expanded roster” thing in September. Or at the very least, stop allowing (up to) all 40 players to dress and be available. Teams play for 5 months with 25 players and maybe 7 or 8 relievers, but for one month they are allowed a 12 man bullpen and 10 available bench players? Nothing drags a game along worse than 7 pitching changes in the last 3 innings. Stop that nonsense now. And if eliminated teams want to see their younger players perform, get them on the 25-man active roster somehow. Phantom DL trips? Flat out release certain non-QO pending free agents? There are options here.

 

And yes, Yes, YES to bringing the DH to the NL. Seriously that league needs to quit pretending it’s still 1968...

Edited February 6, 2019 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

Also, stop the stupid “expanded roster” thing in September. Or at the very least, stop allowing (up to) all 40 players to dress and be available. Teams play for 5 months with 25 players and maybe 7 or 8 relievers, but for one month they are allowed a 12 man bullpen and 10 available bench players? Nothing drags a game along worse than 7 pitching changes in the last 3 innings. Stop that nonsense now. And if eliminated teams want to see their younger players perform, get them on the 25-man active roster somehow. Phantom DL trips? Flat out release certain non-QO pending free agents? There are options here.

 

The expanded roster seems like kind of a minor issue to me. Eliminated teams are sort of boring by definition already.

[notin]

The expanded roster seems like kind of a minor issue to me. Eliminated teams are sort of boring by definition already.

 

 

Until you’re watching the Red Sox play the Orioles and the seventh inning is 90 minutes long because Brandon Hyde decides he needs to make 6 pitching changes, which he can do because he has 13 pitchers in his bullpen...

[notin]

Two of the issues being discussed seem contradictory to me. If MLB is going to require a pitcher to face 3 hitters, do we need an expanded roster of 26?

 

Expanding rosters will lead to more specialization, but by requiring pitchers to face 3 hitters, MLB is reducing the opportunities for that specialization...

[Slasher9]

Until you’re watching the Red Sox play the Orioles and the seventh inning is 90 minutes long because Brandon Hyde decides he needs to make 6 pitching changes, which he can do because he has 13 pitchers in his bullpen...

 

this is solved by the 3 batter rule. you can have 173 players in the pen.....

[notin]

this is solved by the 3 batter rule. you can have 173 players in the pen.....

 

 

But the 3 batter rule is stupid...

[Bellhorn04]

But the 3 batter rule is stupid...

 

It is a little. If the guy gives up bombs to the first 2 hitters he faces, he still has to face another one?

[notin]

It is a little. If the guy gives up bombs to the first 2 hitters he faces, he still has to face another one?

 

 

Or fake an injury. That’s always fun and not time-consuming...

[Slasher9]

It is a little. If the guy gives up bombs to the first 2 hitters he faces, he still has to face another one?

 

Or fake an injury. That’s always fun and not time-consuming...

 

I'm not saying i am for 3 batter rule (my post from month ago proposed 2 batter minimum if 1st batter did not end current inning).

but let me play devils advocate on the 3 batter rule.

 

pitcher gives up 2 bombs? must face 3rd batter. manager has option to put up 4 fingers if he is worried about 3 dongs in a row.

 

fake injury? (or real injury) - before any AB is complete - next 3 batters get IBB. after 1 AB - next 2 batters get IBB. after 2 AB - next batter gets IBB.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not saying i am for 3 batter rule (my post from month ago proposed 2 batter minimum if 1st batter did not end current inning).

but let me play devils advocate on the 3 batter rule.

 

pitcher gives up 2 bombs? must face 3rd batter. manager has option to put up 4 fingers if he is worried about 3 dongs in a row.

 

fake injury? (or real injury) - before any AB is complete - next 3 batters get IBB. after 1 AB - next 2 batters get IBB. after 2 AB - next batter gets IBB.

 

A little too close to making the game a 3 ring circus...IMHO

[Slasher9]

A little too close to making the game a 3 ring circus...IMHO

 

agreed. but i am 100% for the Slasher 2 batter rule.

[notin]

fake injury? (or real injury) - before any AB is complete - next 3 batters get IBB. after 1 AB - next 2 batters get IBB. after 2 AB - next batter gets IBB.

 

Unless you are a joint taxpayer filing singly or the moon is in alignment with Venus but not after the 15th of the month, in which case alternate batters are issued the IBB and academic probation until either team scores a touchdown or before 10pm on alternate Wednesdays. Eastern Standard Time. But not in Tennessee. Sorry...

[notin]

agreed. but i am 100% for the Slasher 2 batter rule.

 

Just don’t expand the rosters and enforce existing pitch time rules...

[dgalehouse]

Anything that gets people talking about baseball is probably good . When the hot stove league talk is dominated by the business / financial side of the game it does little or nothing to promote interest in the sport. ( Granted , some fans do enjoy discussing and analyzing the finances . ).

[mvp 78]

1. pitching clock

2. robot umps

 

Games would speed right up.