The Yankees Still Suck Baseball Salary Cap Poll

[rumpleforeskiin]

I have posted about the blatant lack of overall talent in MLB but have you or Rumples shown any interest in discussing such a topic that impacts on salaries? No, because after all this is not a Red Sox problem.

No, because any attempt at conversation with you is akin to beating one's own head against a brick wall.

 

[korbel]

Expectations.

Your expectations are out of line.

I will give you an example from another field - medicine. If a person sees that a drug that is to be administered to a patient is a poison and warns the nurse, doctor or caregiver of this fact there SHOULD NOT be an expectation that the person knows what medicine will cure the patient. It is sufficient that greater harm was not done.


One of the basics of first aid is "Do not do anymore harm".

My points should be considered within this context.

I have posted about the blatant lack of overall talent in MLB but have you or Rumples shown any interest in discussing such a topic that impacts on salaries? No, because after all this is not a Red Sox problem.

Hello Eastender,

Look, I am not trying to tell anyone what to write or how to write it. But you and Eager seem to rely more on and put more faith in number analysis than me. So it seemed like your area. Do what you wish of course.

As for this stuff about the alleged "lack of overall talent", I can't write with any adequate knowledge about this area. I am not going to pretend to be competent in this area when I am not. So if you want to enlighten us we will be happy to read your thoughts. If you want a "great debate" here, you will have to find someone else. But none of it has anything to do with me being a Red Sox fan. And haven't I backed a salary cap all along.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Backgrounds

Hello Eastender,

Look, I am not trying to tell anyone what to write or how to write it. But you and Eager seem to rely more on and put more faith in number analysis than me. So it seemed like your area. Do what you wish of course.

As for this stuff about the alleged "lack of overall talent", I can't write with any adequate knowledge about this area. I am not going to pretend to be competent in this area when I am not. So if you want to enlighten us we will be happy to read your thoughts. If you want a "great debate" here, you will have to find someone else. But none of it has anything to do with me being a Red Sox fan. And haven't I backed a salary cap all along.

Cheers,

Korbel

EB and myself have backgrounds that rely on precise numerical analysis,disciplined and structured presentations in venues require a certain amount of decorum and formality.

You have certain interesting ideas BUT you make unsupported generalizations. It is not up to others to research or justify your intuative ideas. Doing the work and full disclosure are the norm.

And I haven't backed a salary cap for baseball. Point being that I present data while others do not.

 

[korbel]

EB and myself have backgrounds that rely on precise numerical analysis,disciplined and structured presentations in venues require a certain amount of decorum and formality.

You have certain interesting ideas BUT you make unsupported generalizations. It is not up to others to research or justify your intuative ideas. Doing the work and full disclosure are the norm.

And I haven't backed a salary cap for baseball. Point being that I present data while others do not.

Hello Eastender,

Relying on numerical analysis too much ignores the human element. If anyone relied on strict numerical analysis to predict outcomes all the time they would come up disappointed with the results frequently. In regard to sports just think about what numerical analysis would have told you when the Red Sox were down 0-3 to the Yankees in the 2004 ALCS after they just got pounded 19-8...YIKES! Would your analysis have predicted the final World Series results then. Not in a million billion trillion years. And what about the Chicago White Sox winning the very next year though they had an even longer World Series Champoinship dry steak than the Red Sox. Numerical analysis has it's useful places. But the human element and other factors that can't be easily quantified have their effect too....especially in sports.

Well, we have different ways of looking at things. You have written well, though sometimes in circles a bit in my view. And you have been respectful. Thanks for your thought provoking efforts.

Respectfully,

Korbel

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Point being that I present data while others do not.

If one looks hard and long enough it is possible to find data and a method for reporting same that supports a position.

If only your "data" were occasionally relevant to the discussion at hand, it might be meaningful. "Data" as you present it does little more than to increase the carbon dioxide content of the air we breathe. Think of all the wonderful things we can do with "data." We can ignore it; we can select only the "data" we want; we can manipulate it.

Still waiting for the answer to Cosmo's question.

 

[eastender]

Major Difference

Hello Eastender,

Relying on numerical analysis too much ignores the human element. If anyone relied on strict numerical analysis to predict outcomes all the time they would come up disappointed with the results frequently.

Korbel

Major difference. I never made predictions. Just using data to explain what happened or is happening.

 

[eastender]

Cosmo's Question

Still waiting for the answer to Cosmo's question.

Cosmo seems to be happy with the responses posted by me in posts 67,98 and 106 of this thread. He has not posted follow-up questions nor a rebuttal.

In the interum Cosmo and I have exchanged in English and French in other threads and even though English is not his first language he understood my points while I understood his. While we do not agree on certain points we exchanged positions. He had ample opportunities to raise the aforementionned question but did not so he is content with its status.

Seriously doubt that Cosmo has nominated you to be his spokesperson as he is very independent and not someone who would rely on you.

Since the issue of waiting has been raised again - please produce the data to support your assertions about the NYY drafting record from 1990 on. Even a very basic study like checking www.baseball-reference.com and comparing how many of their picks made the majors compared to others or the MLB norm.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Salary cap or not, team parity can be achieved in different ways. NHL hockey long provided a sad example by making hooking, holding and clutching often go unpunished. As a result, skilled players were levelled down enough to create the desired parity.

In baseball, one way to achieve parity would be to widen the strike zone considerably. By turning mediocre pitchers into Cy Youngs and by levelling down the better batters, the desired parity can be achieved.

 

[eastender]

Very True...............

Salary cap or not, team parity can be achieved in different ways. NHL hockey long provided a sad example by making hooking, holding and clutching often go unpunished. As a result, skilled players were levelled down enough to create the desired parity.

In baseball, one way to achieve parity would be to widen the strike zone considerably. By turning mediocre pitchers into Cy Youngs and by levelling down the better batters, the desired parity can be achieved.

ZM point is well taken.Parity is not only a function of salary but other factors as well.

In baseball raising the mound to the same height as it was in 1968 and before would make baseball a pitchers game once more and might reduce some of the pitching related injuries.

The issue of attracting quality athletes - especially inner city youngsters is still a major problem facing baseball,hockey,football and to an extent some of the other sports.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

In baseball, one way to achieve parity would be to widen the strike zone considerably. By turning mediocre pitchers into Cy Youngs and by levelling down the better batters, the desired parity can be achieved.

The problem with this is that it also makes good pitchers superhuman. Carl Yastrzemski led the American League in hitting with a .301 average in 1968. Bob Gibson allowed 1.12 earned runs per game.

The notion that raising the pitcher's mound to 1968 levels would reduce pitching injuries seems nothing short of preposterous to me. I dare not ask for the rationale.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

The problem with this is that it also makes good pitchers superhuman. Carl Yastrzemski led the American League in hitting with a .301 average in 1968. Bob Gibson allowed 1.12 earned runs per game.

The notion that raising the pitcher's mound to 1968 levels would reduce pitching injuries seems nothing short of preposterous to me. I dare not ask for the rationale.

I guess raising the mound made it easier for pitchers to get the ball to the plate, hence reducing the need for throwing fast balls, but what do I know?

Widening the strike zone turning good pitchers into even better pitchers, that depends on how wide the strike zone is being stretched. There is a point where making things easier for pitchers only helps the mediocre ones. If umpires start calling wild pitches strikes, I'm starting my career.

 

[eastender]

Pitching Stats

The problem with this is that it also makes good pitchers superhuman. Carl Yastrzemski led the American League in hitting with a .301 average in 1968. Bob Gibson allowed 1.12 earned runs per game.

The notion that raising the pitcher's mound to 1968 levels would reduce pitching injuries seems nothing short of preposterous to me. I dare not ask for the rationale.

Looking at the 1968 AL pitching stats one sees 10 teams using primarily 4 man starting rotations with starters ranging between 30 and 41 starts, and 25 AL starters throwing 200 or more innings topped by Denny McLain with 331 from 41 starts. www.baseball-reference.com. McLain's numbers show over 8 innings per start or almost a complete game per outing.

Injury list time is not accounted for but does not seem to be a factor given the workhorse like numbers of the pitchers in question.

Would say that the idea is worth exploring especially given the number of injuries to young pitching arms before they reach the majors.

Edited for typo.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Would say that the idea is worth exploring especially given the number of injuries to young pitching arms before they reach the majors.

I'd say that injuries to pitchers are no less frequent than they were 40-50 years ago, but that they're treated differently. Shoulder tendonitis, frayed labrum, torn rotator cuff, and on and on. Perform the surgery, rehab the pitcher and bring him back next year. Fifty years ago, there was only one injury to pitchers and it usually meant the end of his career and you never heard of him again: sore arm.

Oh, what could have been. http://tinyurl.com/2dl6wc Note the reference to the injury that ended Spooner's career. Spooner was one of many.

Pitching is also much more difficult today than 50 years ago. Ballplayers today, making millions of dollars, have workout rooms in their homes and work year round to stay in shape, continuing the process in the state of the art facilities that modern ballparks feature. Back in the day, ballplayers worked second jobs in the winter, drank beer, and showed up fat and out of shape for spring training, which nowadays is somewhat of an anachronism in its length. Pitchers, therefore, work much harder from pitch 1 to pitch 100 than pitchers in the olden days.

(All of the above, of course, is wrong. Eastender will be pleased to state that it so, followed by an arcane explanation of something having nothing whatsoever to do with what I just wrote. Sigh.)

 

[eastender]

I'd say that injuries to pitchers are no less frequent than they were 40-50 years ago, but that they're treated differently. Shoulder tendonitis, frayed labrum, torn rotator cuff, and on and on. Perform the surgery, rehab the pitcher and bring him back next year. Fifty years ago, there was only one injury to pitchers and it usually meant the end of his career and you never heard of him again: sore arm.

Oh, what could have been. http://tinyurl.com/2dl6wc Note the reference to the injury that ended Spooner's career. Spooner was one of many.

Pitching is also much more difficult today than 50 years ago. Ballplayers today, making millions of dollars, have workout rooms in their homes and work year round to stay in shape, continuing the process in the state of the art facilities that modern ballparks feature. Back in the day, ballplayers worked second jobs in the winter, drank beer, and showed up fat and out of shape for spring training, which nowadays is somewhat of an anachronism in its length. Pitchers, therefore, work much harder from pitch 1 to pitch 100 than pitchers in the olden days.

(All of the above, of course, is wrong. Eastender will be pleased to state that it so, followed by an arcane explanation of something having nothing whatsoever to do with what I just wrote. Sigh.)

Medical technology and surgical techniques are significantly better than they were in the era in question. Evidenced not only by re-constructive arm surgery but by re-constructive knee surgery that allows players in all major sports to continue after injuries that prior to the mid 1970's would have ended their careers.

Your anecdotal evidence may be extended to other eras - Lefty O'Doul who came back as a position player just as your position about training in 2007 maybe countered with anecdotal evidence in the form of David Wells, Bartolo Colon, and others who are not exactly into the physical fitness end of pitching. The Karl Spooner story may be countered by Jim Palmer who came back from serious arm problems to have a HOF career.

Most of the pitchers today are throwers not pitchers as was the case well into the 1970's.So chances are that they work harder as opposed to smarter.

The dollars involved in MLB require caution. Earning $10,000 a year, a pitcher would try to pitch thru a minor injury. Today with millions on the line it is prudent to seek medical care immediately.