OFF: WAY OFF (Baseball)

[Chip Hart]

        My final message on a way-off topic.  I'll go privately if
        people are interested.

Andrew Apold spoke:
> >        Second, SPENDING LOTS OF MONEY is not the answer.  That's been
> I never said it was...

        You said it was the problem, though.  It's not.

> many teams as you say spend tons and don't.
> But it is a prerequisite.

        Spending tons of money isn't a big deal - the teams MAKE tons of
        money.  It's a *$6 BILLION DOLLAR* a year business.  Teams who
        don't want to spend money should a) sell the team or b) stop
        whining.

        Who is the highest paid employee of the Yankees?  Jeter?
        Clemens?

        STEINBRENNER.

> I admit, I'm a twins fan.  And I guarantee 100% rock solid, they will
> not even come close to .500 ball.  This year, or the next five years.

        They have little true motivation to do so, which is part of the
        problem.

> Neither will the Royals, and several other teams out there....  maybe
> if they'd been successful in getting a stadium after '91... but they
> weren't.

        Stadiums have little to do with it.  In fact, stadiums benefit
        only one group of people: the owners.  Study after study shows
        that the local tax paying public gets ripped off.

> And it seems that many of the teams rejuvenated with new
> stadiums haven't held up in the long haul.  Cleveland applied just
> about the right strategy to make last, and has been successful,
> though.

        ...and Baltimore would have, if they learned how to spend money
        properly.

> The Marlins... I live in South Florida... if they had only kept that
> team together, they would be mentioned in the same breath with
> all those other teams...

        What Wayne realized, though, is that you don't have to try so
        hard to bring in the big bucks.  He could cut all those guys and
        STILL end up in the black.  And, watching his team appreciate at
        a rate far faster than the stock market, he must be quite happy.

> There are more slots, yes, but I'm talking about teams that have won it,
> not been close.  We get Blue Jays, Braves, Marlins and Yankees.
> The 80's saw Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Twins, A's, Reds, Royals.  Even
> accounting for the strike year.

        ???  Here's a list of the unique teams in the final playoffs
        (i.e., the last 4...so we don't have to worry much about the
        extra slots) over the last two decades:

90s: Yankees, Mets, Braves, Red Sox, Padres, Indians, Marlins,
     Orioles, Cardinals, Mariners, Reds, Jays, White Sox, Phillies
     Pirates, Twins, A's, Marlins (18)

80s: A's, Giants, Blue Jays, Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox, Mets, Cardinals,
     Twins, Tigers, Angels, Astros, Royals, Brewers, Montreal,
     Brewers, Phillies (17)

        Geeze, in each decade at least 17 teams make it to the final
        round of the playoffs.

        Let's adjust for just WORLD SERIES teams, though.  The numbers?

90s - 10 (with only 9 years, no 94)
80s - 15?

        Let's skip to pre-free agents.

60s - 10
50s - 7
40s - 8
30s - 10

        etc.

        Since free agency, we've had MORE parity.

> I just think some kind of revenue sharing has got to happen... the NFL
> has got it right on this score.  The Rams were the losingest team in
> the 90's going into 1999...and won the Superbowl.  Every year, there
> is hope for just about every team (except the Bengals).

        I agree with this.  It is, in a non-capitalist way, unfair that
        some teams can generate so much more TV revenue than others.

        HOWEVER, the problem is that revenue sharing would require the
        teams to open their books a little, and they don't want to do
        that.

Now, Ted:

>Maybe not, but if the Babe had been able to rest his body a few days
>each week not playing the outfield?

        First, he's an AWFUL example, as we know that he wouldn't have
        "rested" his body no matter what he did.

        Second, there's no indication that playing right field takes any
        kind of toll on a player.  In fact, by keeping warmed up and
        alert during the game, he may have hit better.

        Playing in the OF didn't hurt Ruth's career.  Had he had a
        chance to DH - I don't know.  He didn't quit because he couldn't
        field any more.  He quit because he was batting .181.

Here's the kicker, though:

>Yeah but that overlooks the fact that pitching in general has been in a
>long decline.

        There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support this fact whatsoever.
        In fact, one could argue the OPPOSITE.  20 years ago, a pitcher
        who threw 90 was the ace.  Now, each team has 1/2 a dozen guys
        who do it.  The strike zone is almost completely negated
        (imagine Pedro, Randy Johnson, or even some 1/2 feeb like Jose
        Lima with Koufax's strike zone!).

>Witness the huge himerun numbers lately.  Sosa used
>to be a 35 HR/yr kind of guy--back when our president-elect traded
>him...

        ...and you think that the population sample for pitchers
        changed?

        No, this is what happened.

        Owners starting paying for home runs and rbis.  Players got
        bigger as a result.  A LOT BIGGER.

        Let me give you some examples:

        Willie Mays: 5' 11", 180lb
        ARod:        6' 3", 190lb

        Mickey Mantle: 5' 11", 198lb
        Cal Ripken:    6' 4", 225lb

        Hank Aaron:    6'   , 180lb
        Derek Jeter:   6' 3",  180lb

        Notice that I've got a "big" centerfielder from the 50s compared
        to SHORTSTOP from today.

        You see, the biggest guy on the team from even 20 years ago
        would be average, at best, now.  The fences, bats, and balls
        have stayed the same.  The strike zone has shrunk.  THAT'S why
        pitchers "seem worse."  They're not.  They've improved
        significantly...but not as much as hitters.

--
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