Pujols to the Angels

[Valen]

[quote:4c7d382daa]but I do wish baseball had the relatively level playing field that the National Football League has achieved[/quote:4c7d382daa]
Have you actually looked at the numbers or just going with your gut?
Go do some research and answer this question.
Over the last 25 years which sport has had the most DIFFERENT champions?

Once you get past the jealousy you find that the MLB model has made it possible for more teams to win championships than either of the other 2 major American sports.

Baseball players make more money than basketball and football because there is more revenue available due to the popularity and the larger number of games played.

[Valen]

$100,000 indeed once was a good salary. That was in the days of the reserve clause. And ownership frequently talked about how they could barely afford to pay that. They could get by with it because of the reserve clause which gave you rights to a player for life and a player unhappy with their situation only had the choice to tolerate or quit.

I guarantee not one of those whining about free agency would tolerate for one minute being in a situation where their current employer had them for life and they could not go work for someone else.

It was illegal and was eventually exposed as such. It was amazing to me how overnight teams that could barely afford to pay thousands to superstars suddenly found millions laying around when players like Catfish Hunter had the right to play wherever they wanted. What was happening to that money before the reserve clause was struck down? In to the owner's pockets.

Would I like to make what baseball players make? Yes. But nobody is going to pay to watch me play.

Would I like to make what singers, actors and rappers make? Yes. But nobody is going to pay to listen to me sing. Ted Danson made a million dollars per episode for Cheers.

All entertainers make big money. You can let it make you miserable, jealous, etc. or you can just enjoy life for what it is and enjoy the fact you get to watch the best in the world play. The first step is to care more about what happens on the field/stage than on the entertainers income.

[PotKettleBlack]

http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=7346376&i=FB&w=1baeb

"When it all came down, I was mad. I was mad at God because I felt like all the signs that had been played out through the baseball field, our foundation, our restaurant, the Down Syndrome Center, my relationships, my home, my family close," Deidre Pujols told the station. "I mean, we had no reason, not one reason, to want to leave. People were deceived by the numbers."
...
"It's just like God," (Deidre Pujols) said at the end of the interview, "to put us on a team called the Angels."

[coyote303]

[quote:2d5e336fb6="Valen"]$100,000 indeed once was a good salary. That was in the days of the reserve clause. And ownership frequently talked about how they could barely afford to pay that. They could get by with it because of the reserve clause which gave you rights to a player for life and a player unhappy with their situation only had the choice to tolerate or quit.

I guarantee not one of those whining about free agency would tolerate for one minute being in a situation where their current employer had them for life and they could not go work for someone else.

It was illegal and was eventually exposed as such. It was amazing to me how overnight teams that could barely afford to pay thousands to superstars suddenly found millions laying around when players like Catfish Hunter had the right to play wherever they wanted. What was happening to that money before the reserve clause was struck down? In to the owner's pockets.

Would I like to make what baseball players make? Yes. But nobody is going to pay to watch me play.

Would I like to make what singers, actors and rappers make? Yes. But nobody is going to pay to listen to me sing. Ted Danson made a million dollars per episode for Cheers.

All entertainers make big money. You can let it make you miserable, jealous, etc. or you can just enjoy life for what it is and enjoy the fact you get to watch the best in the world play. The first step is to care more about what happens on the field/stage than on the entertainers income.[/quote:2d5e336fb6]

As I stated in my original post, I am not saying players should not make big money. I'm not jealous of what they make. I am jealous that my local team doesn't have a chance in hell of [i:2d5e336fb6]ever[/i:2d5e336fb6] signing an established superstar like Pujols.

In football, I don't particularly care what the players make. However, in baseball what they make does affect my enjoyment because my team is playing with the handicap of being a smaller market team.

[Valen]

Very interesting interview potkettleblack. Thanks for sharing. This line stood out to me.

[quote:4062b9efca]and felt like Albert had given so much of himself to baseball and into the community ... we didn't want to go through this again."[/quote:4062b9efca]
A 5 year deal means after 5 years Cardinals might decide to move on and Pujols left with quitting so he can be a lifelong Cardinal or playing elsewhwere anyway. At that point likely he has little leverage and having to locate a team looking for a DH.

If you are going to switch teams why not go ahead now while you are on top and can control your fate. With a 10 year deal he knows where he will finish his career. No concerns about having to uproot the family again. If indeed the Cardinals were offering 5 years 130 mil that is 26 mil a year which would indicate it was not the amount of money as much as length of contract that mattered. I cannot blame Albert at all for wanting that security.

[Valen]

Small market teams can compete if they are well run. Since 2000 the following teams have won baseball championships.

SF Giants
Philadelphia Phillies
Boston Red Sox
St. Louis Cardinals
Chicago White Sox
Boston Red Sox
Florida Marlins
Anaheim Angels
New York Yankees

That is 9 different teams. How can anyone look at that and not realize MLB has as much variety in who wins it all as any other sport is beyond my comprehension. I mean how many different teams do you need to have winning to recognize that any team properly run has a shot.

If market size and money spent were the only things that determined winners the Cubs would not be in a 100 year drought. The Marlins would never have won anything. The Rangers would not be back to back AL champs.

[coyote303]

[quote:3df74df365="Valen"]Small market teams can compete if they are well run. Since 2000 the following teams have won baseball championships.

SF Giants
Philadelphia Phillies
Boston Red Sox
St. Louis Cardinals
Chicago White Sox
Boston Red Sox
Florida Marlins
Anaheim Angels
New York Yankees

That is 9 different teams. How can anyone look at that and not realize MLB has as much variety in who wins it all as any other sport is beyond my comprehension. I mean how many different teams do you need to have winning to recognize that any team properly run has a shot.

If market size and money spent were the only things that determined winners the Cubs would not be in a 100 year drought. The Marlins would never have won anything. The Rangers would not be back to back AL champs.[/quote:3df74df365]

Yes, they can win and sometimes do win. But they are handicapped.

[i:3df74df365]On average,[/i:3df74df365] there is a correlation between how much a team spends and how much they win. The correlation isn't as large as you would expect and there are exceptions, but it does exist.

It's interesting if you Google this topic because you can find at least one article that says there is no correlation. ESPN seem to have the best article as it used data from 1998-2008. It concluded it takes about $7 million of salary per additional win.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3816824

Thanks to injuries, players not living up to potential, other players having career years, free agent money not always well spent, luck, and other factors have allowed Major League Baseball to "get away with" an unfair system (IMHO).

Let me conclude by saying if I was a Yankee fan, I wouldn't be posting this because I would absolutely love the current system. And, if I was a Pittsburgh Pirate fan, I would not be posting either because I would have already lost all interest in Major League Baseball.

PS. It's interesting that while the Marlins have won the World Series twice, they have never finished first in their division.

[macnole]

[quote:5655fa58e3="Valen"][quote:5655fa58e3]but I do wish baseball had the relatively level playing field that the National Football League has achieved[/quote:5655fa58e3]
Have you actually looked at the numbers or just going with your gut?
Go do some research and answer this question.
Over the last 25 years which sport has had the most DIFFERENT champions?

Once you get past the jealousy you find that the MLB model has made it possible for more teams to win championships than either of the other 2 major American sports.

Baseball players make more money than basketball and football because there is more revenue available due to the popularity and the larger number of games played.[/quote:5655fa58e3]

Exactly! I posted the number of different champions last 25 years for all the pro sports some time ago...well I would search for it, but...
Basketball is atrocious in this department...football not great...hockey better but still baseball had the most different champs.

[macnole]

[quote:bfe29aeab4]"On average, there is a correlation between how much a team spends and how much they win. The correlation isn't as large as you would expect and there are exceptions, but it does exist. "[/quote:bfe29aeab4]

Would need to see the numbers--but note the "average" is not a legitimate metric for a skewed or highly non-Gaussian distribution, i.e., lack of a near-bell curve. And we don't have a gaussian salary distribution among the teams.

Remember that the data/average will be disproportionately influenced by just a few teams.

So it really is a faulty hypothesis. A better one is to maybe bin the teams into large, mid, and small cap and look at how each category compares in wins, playoff appearances, and championships.

The nice thing about baseball--even if my first guess is that wins are directly proportional to money spent--is that you just need to get into the playoffs. The rest is an open book after that. Not so in most other sports--upsets are much more uncommon. Outcomes much more predictable--hence the reason why sports betting is not as prevalent in baseball. Oddsmakers are sophisticated statisticians/actuaries on par with insurers.

On averages--consider this: At location X, for half the year the wind blows out of due east at 50 miles per hour. Other half the year it blows out of due west at 50 mph. So, what is the average wind direction/speed at this location over a year? ZERO. Misleading and inappropriate to use an average on a multimodal distribution.

[coyote303]

[quote:9d50ce1afa="macnole"][quote:9d50ce1afa]"On average, there is a correlation between how much a team spends and how much they win. The correlation isn't as large as you would expect and there are exceptions, but it does exist. "[/quote:9d50ce1afa]

Would need to see the numbers--but note the "average" is not a legitimate metric for a skewed or highly non-Gaussian distribution, i.e., lack of a near-bell curve. And we don't have a gaussian salary distribution among the teams.

Remember that the data/average will be disproportionately influenced by just a few teams.

So it really is a faulty hypothesis. A better one is to maybe bin the teams into large, mid, and small cap and look at how each category compares in wins, playoff appearances, and championships.

The nice thing about baseball--even if my first guess is that wins are directly proportional to money spent--is that you just need to get into the playoffs. The rest is an open book after that. Not so in most other sports--upsets are much more uncommon. Outcomes much more predictable--hence the reason why sports betting is not as prevalent in baseball. Oddsmakers are sophisticated statisticians/actuaries on par with insurers.

On averages--consider this: At location X, for half the year the wind blows out of due east at 50 miles per hour. Other half the year it blows out of due west at 50 mph. So, what is the average wind direction/speed at this location over a year? ZERO. Misleading and inappropriate to use an average on a multimodal distribution.[/quote:9d50ce1afa]

I gave a link to the article in my last post. They show a plot of all teams. There are higher and lower points than the slope, but the slope is upward.

Your point about just making the playoffs and it being an open book after that is one of the reasons this unfair system "works." I noted in my last post how the 2-time champion Marlins have never been best in their own division, much less the entire National League.

And using your wind average example, if east = spend more win more and west = spend more win less, then the average is NOT zero. There would be a gentle breeze from the east.

Don't worry though. There won't ever be a salary cap in baseball. The Yankees are too important to the game. MLB does not want to risk having a long-term mediocre Yankee team. They need to be competitive, even if they don't win it all.