-
Posts
31314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
138
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by DrungoHazewood
-
A 30-year-old middle reliever with <100 innings in the majors.
-
Yep, yep. Once again the sign of PEDs is a homer spike. Gordon had half his career round-trippers in 2015.
-
I'm more kindhearted. I think some people aren't cheating but there's no way to tell one way or the other.
-
But his indy league manager said he was healthy and throwing 97!
-
Rights don't apply to people making a lot more than me!
-
I think there need to be limits and a balance of testing vs. intrusiveness. But also get the feeling that popular opinion might side with getting the rich baseball player out of bed at 3am and canceling his family vacation so we can be extra sure he's not taking HGH.
-
If long-term payments concerned 23-year-olds we'd have far fewer sales of $60k monster trucks.
-
Schoop locks in early pay-day for future earnings
DrungoHazewood replied to VTech's topic in Orioles Talk
They had one in the late 80s and early 90s. Earl managed, Dan Boone threw knucklers, and tens of fans showed up. -
I don't know... would that be meaningful to a 20-something guy who might not gross that much in 20 years if he doesn't make the majors? A player's take might be "who cares about a $1M fine, soon I'll be making that every month in the Majors."
-
Schoop locks in early pay-day for future earnings
DrungoHazewood replied to VTech's topic in Orioles Talk
The minimum would have to be quite high. Currently it's about 14 league minimum players to equal one year of a 1-win free agent. Let's guess there are 300 minimum-salaried players in MLB, and total salaries are $3B. That makes minimum-salaried players 5% of total salaries. For a typical team that would make $5M for the lower class, and $95M for arb/free agents. Quadrupling the minimum would still make the split 80/20. -
You mean the indy leagues don't have World Anti-Doping Agency approved PED testing programs? Also, has there ever been a case of someone getting popped for PEDs and just going to the NBP or KBO or Taiwan? Or Mexico? You couldn't come back without serving your suspension, but if you're an Eddie Gamboa level player you don't care.
-
The hardest thing will be marginal major leaguers. You could devise punitive measures that keep established players from using, mostly. Like a three-year ban and voiding of contract for a 2nd offense. But how do you stop guys who're making $10-30k a year in the minors? If the take PEDs and make the majors it's a ~20x increase in pay. Massive raise. Far, far more than they could make outside the game. If they're caught, so what? Barely worse off than making a pittance playing for Canton-Akron. I don't know how you fix that, the incentives are too great.
-
Schoop locks in early pay-day for future earnings
DrungoHazewood replied to VTech's topic in Orioles Talk
Let's say in his three arb years he makes 2, 4, 8 million. That's $14M, plus the maybe $2M he'll earn his first three. So $16M going into free agency. Meaning he'll have to be worth 49-16 or $33M in free agency. That's maybe four or five wins. What percentage of players similar to Schoop are worth at least four wins in free agency? That's almost more art than science since you need to develop a list of comparables from a niche profile; young, powerful, strike-zone challenged middle infielders. Here's a list: Nap Lajoie, Carlos Baerga, Juan Samuel, Robinson Cano, Bill Hall, Rougned Odor, Bret Boone, Schoop, Frank Catalanotto, Jorge Cantu, Alfonso Soriano. I figure most of them were more than worth a $33M deal in free agency. -
Don't paint with such broad strokes. There's some automation in car manufacturing. Ford might use a line that's 90% automated and 10% manual intervention. Morgan probably is 90% manual and 10% automated. We currently have a process with balls and strikes that's 100% manual. A person QA'ing the strike zone boundaries defined by image recognition software in real time is more like the 90% solution. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. A solution doesn't have to be some kind of philosophical ideal to have value.
-
So? Why is that a problem? I'd much rather have someone click a pointer on the guy's letters to define the top of a strike zone than have the ump calling 10% of balls strikes. Defining a batter's zone is far less subjective than guessing balls and strikes. There are different levels of human subjectivity and automation in processes, and with free will we can decide what makes sense.
-
For 130 years nobody could do anything about bad umpiring. Now we can. To me it all comes down to the fact that today everyone knows about a bad call within seconds and you can't just leave that hanging out there. It's an elephant in the room. It will not be long before an ump calls a pitch 8" off the plate strike three with the tying run on third in the 9th in October, and it'll be all anyone talks about for months.
-
I'm all for incentivizing performance. But I'm not sure drawing a line between 88% accuracy and 88.3% accuracy on called ball/strikes and demoting everyone below the line (and taking at least a year long 80% pay cut*) would have the intended effect. I'd guess a substantial fraction of promoted umps would fall below the threshold, and as a group they might be worse than the demoted umps. I'd rather just take the umps out of ball/strike calls for the most part and give them electronic aids. * I'm assuming AAA umps make a small fraction of what MLB umps do, similar to players, but I don't know that for sure.
-
What I'm saying is that threats like firing 1/3rd of your employees each year might work on McDonalds employees or something, but probably have a lot of negative consequences among high-skill jobs. What you might find is that the spread in talent/performance in MLB umps is tight enough that how you implement your measurements becomes more important than performance. It's likely that you already have a very high performing group up umps and that all your system will do is cause bitterness and discontent as an almost random group gets axed every year.