OFF: WAY OFF (Baseball)

[Chip Hart]

DASLUD at AOL.COM spoke:
> <<  There isn't any indication that shows
>         that guys who don't play the field hit better.  In fact, if
>         anything, there's a negative correlation.
> excuse me?
> are you saying the dh doesnt extend careers? and add at-bats?

        No, not at all.  I was responding to the suggestion that the DHs
        hit better than people who field.  They don't.  Never have.
        People who switch back and forth - Frank Thomas, for example -
        often hit better when they play.

        I don't think a DH has ever been among the top 10 most effective
        hitters in the league during any year it has been in place.

        Meanwhile:
> hank aaron > tommy harper > tommy davis > harmon killebrew
> orlando cepeda > willie horton > harold baines

        ...and how many of these guys got into the HOF because of the
        extra years they got as DHs?  *NONE*.  Killebrew hit well enough
        they would have started him at first anyway (it's not like he
        was a good fielder to start).  The others?

        I'm not great DH fan, but on a yearly basis, it affects hitting
        by only about 3-5%...not much.

        However, a more important comment:

> name some of these players, plz.

        Do yourself a favor and pick up "Whatever Happened to the Hall
        of Fame" by Bill James.  It's a great read and is quite
        shocking in parts.  For example, you'll learn how having a
        number of former Cardinals on the VC led to...a bunch of former
        Cardinals getting in.  Rather than provide you with a list,
        check out totalbaseball.com, baseball1.com, or
        baseball-reference.com and look at some of the VC picks over the
        years.  Although they've been better - George Davis was long
        overdue - they've been really bad in the past.  If you really
        want some names, I can reference some articles I co-wrote about
        the most over- and under-rated players from each decade of the
        century :-) [To be published this winter, I think.]

        In the meantime, let's clear something else up:

From: Andrew Apold <mordru at FLITE.NET>
>The demise of baseball occurred in the offseason after 1991.  The Twins
>were the last small market, small money team to win a series without
>megabucks, on the strength of their farm system and a bit of luck.

        First, let's consider what a "small market" team is.  Up through
        the 80s and part of the 90s, small market teams
        included...Atlanta and Cleveland.  Baltimore, too, but they
        spent a lot of money and actually LOST, which goes against the
        idea that you can "buy" a victory.  If you measure
        based on "fan range," that also includes teams like Colorado,
        Houston, etc. - teams who make TONS of money.  The notion of a
        "small market" team is a fallacy created by the owners who don't
        live in NYC, LA, or Chicago.

        Second, the Yankees actually have as many or more FARM TEAM
        players as anyone who has made it close in the last few
        decades.  They're well run.  I'm not a Yankee fan, but it's
        nice to see generally wise spending (unlike, say, Arizona,
        Colorado, Pittsburgh, etc.) and farm management succeed.

        Third, the "demise of baseball" has been predicted every year
        since its inception.  It's not going anywhere.

> Every year one smaller cash team makes some noises
> (A's, Reds, etc)

        First, watch the As.  Closely.  They have something going.  Just
        like Cleveland and Atlanta did.

        Second, SPENDING LOTS OF MONEY is not the answer.  That's been
        proven since well before free agency.  It's HOW you spend it.
        Young players, long (cheap) contracts.  The teams that spend a
        lot of money on older players - TB, Pittsburgh, Cubs, etc. -
        will always fail.  The Pirates offer a long contract to Andy Van
        Slyke and let Bonds go...and look what happens.

        Third - AND DON'T FORGET THIS - you don't have to win to make
        money in baseball.  This is the PRIMARY LESSON of the Chicago
        Cubs and the Florida Marlins.  They will ALWAYS sell their
        tickets and tshirts whether the team wins 60 or 90 games.
        Wrigley figured that our years ago - that's why they only make a
        little noise from year to year...just enough to keep selling
        beer.

>I'll be shocked if its
>anyone other than a handful of teams (Yankees, Mets, Braves, etc) next
>year and probably the next...  I haven't watched a game since '97.

        Sigh.  Here's a quiz for you:

        Count the number of unique teams who have made the playoffs
        over, say, the last 10 years.

        Count the number of teams who made the playoffs during any
        decade BEFORE free agency (adjust for the extra slots).  It's
        not even close.

        Cripes, free agency has done MORE for league equality than
        anything else!  The Yankees used to win ALL THE TIME.  The
        Cardinals in the 40s.  The Dodgers in the 50s.  Talk about
        forgone conclusions!  Free agency means that EVERYONE who wants
        a shot, can.

        Sorry for taking your time.

--
Chip Hart                           *                        chip @ pcc.com
Physician's Computer Company        *              http://www.pcc.com/~chip
1 Main Street                       *                     Work:800-722-7708
Winooski, VT 05404                  *                     Fax: 802-846-8178