Jump to content
Maverick Hiker

MLB Strike Is Near?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

PEDs have some role because they did enable some players to extend their careers.  But the primary reason that older players aren't getting as much money is that the new generation of front offices are well versed in analytics, and are putting into practice things we've known for 20 or 30 years.  Mainly that players peak at 27 and even most stars are borderline players by their mid 30s. 

We knew this a few years ago, but there were still enough front offices that didn't know or didn't care that players still got silly contracts that appeared to assume that there was no such thing as age-related decline.  Literally, I have an Excel sheet that calculates contract values and in 2013 or 2016 it did a really good job estimating contracts without any input for age.  This past offseason it broke, it didn't work any more unless I added a fudge factor for steep decline in a player's 30s.

I don't disagree with anything you said here really. Yes, when these guys could use PEDs, they could perform as if they were in their prime when they were in their mid-late 30's. So, those contracts were worth it. Now, they're not and that's a big reason why it broke under it's own weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sessh said:

I don't disagree with anything you said here really. Yes, when these guys could use PEDs, they could perform as if they were in their prime when they were in their mid-late 30's. So, those contracts were worth it. Now, they're not and that's a big reason why it broke under it's own weight.

But limiting the performance of 30+ year olds actually helps smaller payroll teams. Now having the ability to overpay for a 32 year old slugger has no value. If we hold peak performance to 27, then most of the players value is when teams have control before free agency. I don't want to go back to a time when the Yanks and Sox can buy every 32 year old All Star, and those players perform at peak level until they are 37. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

The players will forever be tone deaf to how their complaints sound to the fans that pay their salaries. 

Major League players are getting a smaller percentage of revenues than their peers in other major US sports.  I think they (legitimately) wonder why that is and if it should be so.  The issue is that the general public doesn't want to hear anything about people who average $2M a year and how they're only getting 40% of league revenues.  The public doesn't give a crap if The Angelos Boys are pulling in $100M a year, but they'll boo a player until they pass out if they think he's ungrateful for whatever salary he's making.

I think a strike or lockout over compensation could be very ugly.  The players would be beaten mercilessly in the media.  MLS would probably love it.    Soccer would be the only major sport on TV in North America from the end of the hockey/basketball playoffs until September.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sessh said:

I don't disagree with anything you said here really. Yes, when these guys could use PEDs, they could perform as if they were in their prime when they were in their mid-late 30's. So, those contracts were worth it. Now, they're not and that's a big reason why it broke under it's own weight.

I don't think most of those contracts were worth it even when PEDs were totally unregulated.  The average age only went up about a year at the height of the PED craze.  There were 12 good 35+ year old regulars instead of five.

PEDs were a contributing factor, analytics is now driving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, osfan83 said:

But limiting the performance of 30+ year olds actually helps smaller payroll teams. Now having the ability to overpay for a 32 year old slugger has no value. If we hold peak performance to 27, then most of the players value is when teams have control before free agency. I don't want to go back to a time when the Yanks and Sox can buy every 32 year old All Star, and those players perform at peak level until they are 37. 

The perception that 8-year contracts for 30 year old free agents were a good value created opportunities for big market teams to set fire to huge piles of cash.  Now that almost every team is run by a guy like Mike Elias the Yanks and Sox aren't signing those deals any more.  So all that money can go somewhere else, like building up the minors and amateur scouting.  

If the Yanks aren't signing 33-year-old Giambis to $100M contracts it makes the Orioles' job that much harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think a strike or lockout over compensation could be very ugly.  The players would be beaten mercilessly in the media.  MLS would probably love it.    Soccer would be the only major sport on TV in North America from the end of the hockey/basketball playoffs until September.

I think you are one of the few people who are into both baseball and soccer.    The patterns of activity in the two sports are so glaringly different that if you are attracted to one, you’re likely to be bored by the other.     Or maybe I’m just extrapolating my own feelings.   

I have this uncanny knack of watching soccer intently for 15 minutes, then letting my attention lapse for 15 seconds, during which a goal is scored.     I find it maddening.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Unfortunately, I don't believe this would accomplish the urgency we desire, it would just mean the wait for that urgency (e.g., September pennant races and playoffs) is shorter.

I watch enough youth baseball these days to know that the sport can be amazing. I'm sick of the people who want to change it all that much. I can take pitch clocks and even limits to pitching changes and mound visits by catchers, but for the most part I don't believe it's broken. 

I disagree. Only in the MLB are there 162 games. Little League, High School, College, Semi-Pro. MLB games are already longer than any other sport. and there’s 162 of them. Basketball and hockey have what half that? Football the game is the same amount of time and then it’s only played 16 times a season(not very comparable but still.) 

MLB is asking its fans to put an extraordinary amount of time dedicated to watching this sport over the course of a season. It’s not keeping up with the fast moving pace of the Internet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matt Bennett said:

I disagree. Only in the MLB are there 162 games. Little League, High School, College, Semi-Pro. MLB games are already longer than any other sport. and there’s 162 of them. Basketball and hockey have what half that? Football the game is the same amount of time and then it’s only played 16 times a season(not very comparable but still.) 

MLB is asking its fans to put an extraordinary amount of time dedicated to watching this sport over the course of a season. It’s not keeping up with the fast moving pace of the Internet. 

Actually, I was thinking of the NBA and NHL when I made my comment. Their regular seasons have months of relatively boring activity as well. 

I do think they're smarter to limit the regular season and expand the playoffs though. I would like for MLB to do that, but find it very hard to believe it happens anytime soon. They want 162 come hell or high water. I'd rather like 124 with 12-14 playoff teams.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Matt Bennett said:

I disagree. Only in the MLB are there 162 games. Little League, High School, College, Semi-Pro. MLB games are already longer than any other sport. and there’s 162 of them. Basketball and hockey have what half that? Football the game is the same amount of time and then it’s only played 16 times a season(not very comparable but still.) 

MLB is asking its fans to put an extraordinary amount of time dedicated to watching this sport over the course of a season. It’s not keeping up with the fast moving pace of the Internet. 

I disagree.     The length and pace of games may be an issue, but I don’t thing the length of the season really is.    The basketball and hockey seasons are just as long, with an even longer post-season.    And the fact that a baseball team plays about 85% of the days during the season to me is better than the basketball and hockey teams only playing about half the days.     I’d rather have the option to watch my team basically every day, or at least have a game to follow on my phone while I’m doing something else.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think you are one of the few people who are into both baseball and soccer.    The patterns of activity in the two sports are so glaringly different that if you are attracted to one, you’re likely to be bored by the other.     Or maybe I’m just extrapolating my own feelings.   

I have this uncanny knack of watching soccer intently for 15 minutes, then letting my attention lapse for 15 seconds, during which a goal is scored.     I find it maddening.   

I think there are a decent number of people who go to sporting events because it's something to do, not because they are fans or even really understand what's going on.  If there's no O's or Nats game to go to they might just go to see DC United.  You can drink beer and hang out with your buds in either place.  No, I don't really know if that's 50 people or 3000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

Actually, I was thinking of the NBA and NHL when I made my comment. Their regular seasons have months of relatively boring activity as well. 

I do think they're smarter to limit the regular season and expand the playoffs though. I would like for MLB to do that, but find it very hard to believe it happens anytime soon. They want 162 come hell or high water. I'd rather like 124 with 12-14 playoff teams.

To me it's pretty terrible to have half the league in the playoffs, and your team is out.  The hockey playoffs last like three months, but for half the league your team just doesn't play the last three months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

To me it's pretty terrible to have half the league in the playoffs, and your team is out.  The hockey playoffs last like three months, but for half the league your team just doesn't play the last three months.

I can't say I disagree, but at the same time I don't see the value of having a 45-117 team play the last 40 games of their season either. Essentially, I'd be fine with the leagues replacing lost regular season revenue with more playoff revenue, if the math works. I'm also pretty sure it would change the tanking nature of the game that is happening now, at least to some degree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Major League players are getting a smaller percentage of revenues than their peers in other major US sports.  I think they (legitimately) wonder why that is and if it should be so.  The issue is that the general public doesn't want to hear anything about people who average $2M a year and how they're only getting 40% of league revenues.  The public doesn't give a crap if The Angelos Boys are pulling in $100M a year, but they'll boo a player until they pass out if they think he's ungrateful for whatever salary he's making.

I think a strike or lockout over compensation could be very ugly.  The players would be beaten mercilessly in the media.  MLS would probably love it.    Soccer would be the only major sport on TV in North America from the end of the hockey/basketball playoffs until September.

I know you love soccer but just because the MLS has the letter "M" for major and "L" for league in it doesn't make it a major league sport.  I like watching soccer too but if I'm going to tune in, it's going to be some real European stuff.  MLS is like where old European stars are put out to pasture.  

I believe you are half right in your analysis.  The issue is not only that the public doesn't want to hear about people who average $2 million a year and how they're not getting enough revenue vs. the owners who are pulling in way more.  The other half is that the the owners have worked in various businesses to earn their wealth.  I get it, PGA, you came up huge in the asbestos deal, made a ton of money, made a big name for yourself and your law firm, won a lot of cases, bought a baseball team.  Not everyone grows up with those dreams and aspirations.  

It's not just the $2 million a year average that you and I will probably never make in our lifetimes...it's that they're getting it by PLAYING A GAME.  No one's saying it's not hard work but I think we'd all sign up to play and get paid for it if we could.  That's the difference between the players and the owners...a very small fraction of people would want to do what the owners do to get where they are but everyone would want to play the game.  Therefore the players are looked at as more spoiled and entitled.  

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

To me it's pretty terrible to have half the league in the playoffs, and your team is out.  The hockey playoffs last like three months, but for half the league your team just doesn't play the last three months.

NBA playoffs is pretty awful too. I mean what's the point of having the first round? When is the last time one of the lowest seeded teams even made the NBA finals? I know none have ever won. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Matt Bennett said:

I disagree. Only in the MLB are there 162 games. Little League, High School, College, Semi-Pro. MLB games are already longer than any other sport. and there’s 162 of them. Basketball and hockey have what half that? Football the game is the same amount of time and then it’s only played 16 times a season(not very comparable but still.) 

MLB is asking its fans to put an extraordinary amount of time dedicated to watching this sport over the course of a season. It’s not keeping up with the fast moving pace of the Internet. 

It's only an extraordinary amount of time if you're like the 17- or 23-year-old me and think you have to watch every inning of every game.  If you instead come to grips with the idea that there's usually a game today and you always have the option of watching it if you have time, I think you're better off.  

With, say, soccer I often feel like I have to rearrange my schedule to watch a game because there usually isn't another one for a week.  Which sometimes leads to prioritizing soccer over other things I should be doing.  Baseball... it's fine, there's always tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







×
×
  • Create New...