|
Sawchik posted:
 Via Sawchik in fangraphs a few years ago. Sawchik is often guilty of One Weird Trick thinking imo but I believe this post is worth reading / considering
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
bawfuls posted:This is harder to enforce in practice and why the NPB system makes sense. League sets a target game time and maybe pitch time? I think they punish/reward at the team level, so guys have incentive to not take forever and get their teammates angry about a fine. Or maybe this was KBO? I forget, it’s been awhile since I read about it. Not sure about the team level, but there is a monetary (and trophy) award to the pitcher and to the batter who have the lowest average time. (I dont know how they time it.) Found it https://npb.jp/award/2020/speedup.html Google Translate (I don't have time to translate myself) says- As a commissioner's award from the Japan Professional Baseball Organization, the "Speed Up Award" to be given to players and teams who have advanced speedily to make the game comfortable and attractive has been decided as follows. This year as well, with the support of Lawson Entertainment Inc., the official name will be "Lawson Ticket Speedup Award". Lawson Entertainment Inc. has been co-sponsoring for the fifth consecutive year since 2016, when this award was established. * The award ceremony will not be held this year due to the spread of the new coronavirus infection. Individual awards will be given a prize of 500,000 ($5k about ) yen each, and team awards will be given a prize of 1 million yen each. The pitcher with the shortest average pitching interval (when no runner) in the regular season * 1 Athletes who have reached 100 or more pitches in the starting lineup or 40 or more pitches in relief * 2 If the above conditions are not met, pitchers whose total number of pitches exceeds 100 will be included in the selection. The batter with the shortest average pitching interval (when no runner) of the opponent pitcher in the regular season (More than the prescribed seat) and team is just average game time per 9 inning game. ScottyJSno fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Feb 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
Nodoze posted:I don't like the pitch clock, but I feel like it's inevitable. Salary cap no thanks, never not once. Banning the shift is dumb, there is a clear and obvious way to beat it. Service time manipulation needs to go, no more gaming the system by calling someone up at a certain date to get an extra year. Not a fan of moving the mount either back or up/down I think salary cap is fine IF it's accompanied by a salary floor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:
Batters constantly stepping out of the box between every pitch to adjust their helmet, gloves, sunglasses, pads, and junk is definitely a pace issue imo. I'm ambivalent on the pitch clock but if you're going to implement it at the MLB level then it needs to come in tandem with rules that disallow the batter from stepping out of the box unless they're doing it to get out of the way of a pitch or in an attempt to run the bases.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
This is kinda cool: Seven Spray Charts You Need to See to Believe
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 05:25
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:This is kinda cool: Seven Spray Charts You Need to See to Believe Ohtani is real and strong and he's my friend
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
Soto 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 05:53
|
|
|
Gobias Ind. posted:Think that was probably Brett Lawrie 100% was Lawrie El Gallinero Gros posted:Was Arencibia the guy who supposedly said "Trade me, human being" to the Jays GM? This was Hillenbrand in Boston on the radio. It was one of the reasons he got traded from there and was pre"sinking ship".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 06:46
|
|
|
Darude - Adam Sandstorm posted:100% was Lawrie https://web.archive.org/web/20061118132646/http://www.progressiveboink.com/dugout/archive/jon61.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
Dinosaurs! posted:Soto I feel like people still don't fully appreciate how insanely good Soto is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 06:55
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:I feel like people still don't fully appreciate how insanely good Soto is. His splits as a lefty tell a pretty interesting story. Especially since he's only been up for three seasons now. Imagine what he will be like four, five years from now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 09:01
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:I think salary cap is fine IF it's accompanied by a salary floor. Nope
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
Nodoze posted:Nope I've double checked and I do in fact think that
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
why does this feel slightly pissy and also incredibly funny? It's the "left as well" that is just sending me
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:I think salary cap is fine IF it's accompanied by a salary floor. Convinced that getting the kids fully paid earlier is the solution to the complaints about tanking and the flaccid veteran FA market, but I'm skeptical they can convince membership it's worth a stoppage to do away with the arb system that they all suffered through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
salary cap - never. Salary cap without a corresponding salary floor that is hilariously close to the same level? - Go on strike until the heat death of the universe. Shrecknet posted:why does this feel slightly pissy and also incredibly funny? It's the "left as well" that is just sending me Pete Gray got it too for whatever reason. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:II'd be with you except for my strong belief that any floor high enough to make for a fair trade for the cap would be a nonstarter with ownership. Yeah, I would support a salary cap as part of a major overhaul of MLB's economics, starting with making the owners open the books, guaranteeing the players a percentage of revenue (all revenue, including cable, streaming, etc), a salary floor, higher pre-arb salaries, paying minor leaguers a living wage, ending draft slotting and the international draft, getting rid of the qualifying offer... So in other words, I don't support a salary cap 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:II'd be with you except for my strong belief that any floor high enough to make for a fair trade for the cap would be a nonstarter with ownership. well yes obviously but that's the point isn't it
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
I’m sure that these are now selling for absurd amounts on some scalper site https://twitter.com/nikestore/status/1361325645582774273?s=21
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:I think salary cap is fine IF it's accompanied by a salary floor. Salary caps are inherently anti-labor by definition. gently caress that noise. They're nothing more than an artificial construct and limitation upon labor's earnings that owners use as a cudgel to save them from themselves, because somehow it's the players' fault that teams occasionally hand out bad contracts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Timby posted:Salary caps are inherently anti-labor by definition. gently caress that noise. They're nothing more than an artificial construct and limitation upon labor's earnings that owners use as a cudgel to save them from themselves, because somehow it's the players' fault that teams occasionally hand out bad contracts. A $100M salary floor would do more for players than a $200M salary cap would hurt them. Looking at the current MLB payrolls a $100M/$200M Floor/Cap would mean the Dodgers - and only the Dodgers - would be over the cap by ~$26M, and 12 teams would be under the floor, with five of them having to essentially double or even come close to tripling their budget to reach that floor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Sydin posted:A $100M salary floor would do more for players than a $200M salary cap would hurt them. Looking at the current MLB payrolls a $100M/$200M Floor/Cap would mean the Dodgers - and only the Dodgers - would be over the cap by ~$26M, and 12 teams would be under the floor, with five of them having to essentially double or even come close to tripling their budget to reach that floor. Exactly, yeah. Base the cap off of league revenue (not profit, revenue) and then have the floor be a percentage of the cap. I'd personally shoot for 67 or 75% but if 50% is what it needs to be for the owners to accept it then whatever. Like you said, there's 12 teams below it right now. Four teams would have to more than double their payroll to reach it and hell, one of them nearly has to triple it. Also, while a salary cap will probably ultimately reduce the size of the biggest contracts (which is bad), the floor will generally result in middle of the road/filler players getting paid more (which is very good).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Reduce service time before FA as well and start arbitration after two years instead of three One thing that fucks players is having their prime years be cost controlled unless they hit the majors very young
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
I feel that conceding on a cap and floor then puts guaranteed contracts in danger. Ownership won’t stop until they can do the bare minimum and still make money hand over first I do like shortening the time for free agency though, that makes a lot of sense in a floor and cap league
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Sydin posted:A $100M salary floor would do more for players than a $200M salary cap would hurt them. Looking at the current MLB payrolls a $100M/$200M Floor/Cap would mean the Dodgers - and only the Dodgers - would be over the cap by ~$26M, and 12 teams would be under the floor, with five of them having to essentially double or even come close to tripling their budget to reach that floor. A salary floor doesn’t do anything that raising the minimum salary, and disincentivizing tanking doesn’t do without lowering the potential earning power of players. A salary cap is a blunt instrument meant solely to increase owner profits. You could make some form of Revenue sharing formula that guarantees a certain percentage of income goes to players but owners already have a 30 year head start on hiding “non-baseball revenue” from each other- there’s a reason the Ricketts will sign off on a 100% increase on construction costs while gutting payroll after all. Owners have been asking players to save them from themselves since the reserve clause fell, the union has no incentive to help them, they’ve already been taken to the cleaners in the last couple CBAs thanks to Tony Clark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:I feel that conceding on a cap and floor then puts guaranteed contracts in danger. Ownership won’t stop until they can do the bare minimum and still make money hand over first I don't think the players will ever give up guaranteed contracts
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Definitely. They need to get rid of super-two and all that other service time bullshit: if you get called up at any point in a season that season counts as a full year, the end. Likewise service time should be reduced down to four or five years, something like 2 TC/3 ARB would get player paid faster in their prime. IcePhoenix posted:Exactly, yeah. Base the cap off of league revenue (not profit, revenue) and then have the floor be a percentage of the cap. I'd argue one of the biggest fights the players should fight during the CBA is forcing the owners to open the books. The fact that so many teams' finances are completely obfuscated from the public is dogshit and 2020 showed us just how readily owners are willing to weaponized it to their advantage by crying about supposed losses they assure us they actually suffered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
GoatSeeGuy posted:A salary floor doesn’t do anything that raising the minimum salary, and disincentivizing tanking doesn’t do without lowering the potential earning power of players. A salary cap is a blunt instrument meant solely to increase owner profits. How to you propose to disincentivize tanking? That's been a point of contention for pretty much all sports leagues for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Definitely. They need to get rid of super-two and all that other service time bullshit: if you get called up at any point in a season that season counts as a full year, the end. Likewise service time should be reduced down to four or five years, something like 2 TC/3 ARB would get player paid faster in their prime. 100% yeah. I figured by tying the cap to league revenue it would sort of necessitate that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
Sydin posted:How to you propose to disincentivize tanking? That's been a point of contention for pretty much all sports leagues for a while now. Hopefully this becomes more of a talking point, but since owners are already publicly using the CBT as a defacto salary cap players might as well push it publicly- how about best team that misses the playoffs gets the first pick in the draft? Throw in some supplemental picks? Even go with a lottery system (new programming for MLB Network!) if you still want to reward the worst teams. Minimum winning percentage to receive tax payouts? That’s two minutes of me sitting here, I’m sure the professional litigators for the players union can come up with even better ideas. The Tampa Bay system, formerly known as the Montreal Expos system may not be ideal but it’s still better than whatever the gently caress Pittsburgh and Colorado have been doing for decades. Owners will of course hate this, but looking past the Cubs and Astros when has tanking really worked?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
drat you double posting. Workers of the world unite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:I don't think the players will ever give up guaranteed contracts Players won’t but the owners won’t just stop at a salary cap is my point Striking over opening the books is probably worth it
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Sydin posted:How to you propose to disincentivize tanking? That's been a point of contention for pretty much all sports leagues for a while now. I like the idea mentioned here of requiring an owner to sell if their team finishes last four years in a row.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
$200/$100m would be an abysmal trade for players and in line with the sort of nonsense that the PA agreed to last round. PA doesn't believe they're receiving an accurate accounting of league revenues (and even though owners would term that paranoia they've steadfastly refused to build any credibility with the PA so the skepticism is on them), so tying the floor to that metric starts from a bad place. Add in that the league's revenue model is quite tenuous on both sides (attendance post-covid, local RSNs), and the idea only gets worse. If the latter bubble pops during the CBA, or MLB decides to rip off the bandaid and go OTT itself, it'll take a decade+ for revenues to stablize into something akin to where they were in 2019. Last thing the players ought to be doing is locking themselves in to share that pain as a win. If owners are farsighted enough to want to bargain for protection for revenue cliff they're rushing towards, players ought to extract their pound of flesh. Don't just hand it to them.Sydin posted:How to you propose to disincentivize tanking? That's been a point of contention for pretty much all sports leagues for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
'Lose the team if youre last too often' was my idea, but obviously a non starter in the real world. The idea of #1 pick goes to best team to miss the playoffs is interesting, gently caress if i want more great players to languish with the Nuttings of the world before fleeing to the Yankees after wasting 4 years
Shrecknet fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Feb 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
GoatSeeGuy posted:how about best team that misses the playoffs gets the first pick in the draft? Eh, it's a lot easier to just slash your salary and tank for the #2 or #3 picks than it is to go all in trying to be the best non-playoff team to get the #1. I don't think this would solve the problems of say, the Pirates or Indians operating at the lowest possible cost and pocketing revenue sharing. Chamale posted:I like the idea mentioned here of requiring an owner to sell if their team finishes last four years in a row. Ah yes, nothing like "punishing" the owners by forcing them to cash out at an almost guaranteed profit. Paracaidas posted:$200/$100m would be an abysmal trade for players and in line with the sort of nonsense that the PA agreed to last round. PA doesn't believe they're receiving an accurate accounting of league revenues (and even though owners would term that paranoia they've steadfastly refused to build any credibility with the PA so the skepticism is on them), so tying the floor to that metric starts from a bad place. Add in that the league's revenue model is quite tenuous on both sides (attendance post-covid, local RSNs), and the idea only gets worse. If the latter bubble pops during the CBA, or MLB decides to rip off the bandaid and go OTT itself, it'll take a decade+ for revenues to stablize into something akin to where they were in 2019. Last thing the players ought to be doing is locking themselves in to share that pain as a win. If owners are farsighted enough to want to bargain for protection for revenue cliff they're rushing towards, players ought to extract their pound of flesh. Don't just hand it to them. Restricted free agency is dogshit and terrible for labor. I'm not sure how you can argue against a salary cap/floor while also arguing for even more ways owners can artificially reduce player compensation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
GoatSeeGuy posted:they’ve already been taken to the cleaners in the last couple CBAs thanks to Tony Clark. Don't forget Michael Weiner, he did a lot of damage, too (and he was Clark's teacher / mentor, which explains why Clark sucks poo poo at bargaining). Weiner, for example, was completely in the pocket of the superstar bloc of the union, which is why he eagerly rolled over to accept the qualifying offer as part of the CBA like ten years ago, because he was too blind to see that it completely turbofucked players who weren't megastars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Eh, it's a lot easier to just slash your salary and tank for the #2 or #3 picks than it is to go all in trying to be the best non-playoff team to get the #1. I don't think this would solve the problems of say, the Pirates or Indians operating at the lowest possible cost and pocketing revenue sharing. Easy enough, slot your playoff teams in back and your worst teams right in front of them. Second best team not to make the playoffs goes 2, and so on. Maybe get creative and use the owners argument against them, if the competitive balance tax isn’t a salary cap, then setting a minimum payroll to be eligible for tax payouts and draft picks isn’t a salary floor. It’s either that, or we deal with this until owners finally kill the golden goose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CraigMish/status/1361381293049675779?s=19 So, a normal season for them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Sydin posted:How to you propose to disincentivize tanking? That's been a point of contention for pretty much all sports leagues for a while now. Relegation!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2021 20:55
|
|
