Jump to content

International Draft


weams

Recommended Posts

Every owner has the ability to spend money. Some choose not to, 10 years ago it was the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets. Who could spend the most money. Then the Dodgers. Now it's the Cubs. The Cubs and Dodgers have won how many rings in the past 20 years. Oh that's right the small market Giants and Royals have more. Oh by the way since George Steinbrenner died, what big signing have the Yankees had...Tanaka that's it. So i don't wan't to hear the nonsense of the Yankees spend all this money, when they have not in the past 6 years. In 5 years it will be a couple other teams, people just whine and cry. If you have a good scouting department and good coaching you can win no matter what. Look at the Rays the past 10 years, the spend next to nothing and every year they seem to be running out good pitchers. The Royals have built something threw scouting and drafting. The oakland a's have been competing for most of the past decade. And they are in the smallest market, yet the Giants have been winning world series year in and year out and are a stones throw from Oakland.

I stopped reading at "small market Giants".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I stopped reading at "small market Giants".

So your definition of a major mart is teams that win. There are three major markets in the U.S. Los Angelas New York and Chicago maybe Philadelphia. But they are a distant 4th. San Fran is the 13th largest city in the US. 40% smaller then Phoenix and San Diego. Now is San Diego in a major market. Why not because in your opinion only teams that spend money are in major markets. Get a clue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every owner has the ability to spend money. Some choose not to, 10 years ago it was the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets. Who could spend the most money. Then the Dodgers. Now it's the Cubs. The Cubs and Dodgers have won how many rings in the past 20 years. Oh that's right the small market Giants and Royals have more. Oh by the way since George Steinbrenner died, what big signing have the Yankees had...Tanaka that's it. So i don't wan't to hear the nonsense of the Yankees spend all this money, when they have not in the past 6 years. In 5 years it will be a couple other teams, people just whine and cry. If you have a good scouting department and good coaching you can win no matter what. Look at the Rays the past 10 years, the spend next to nothing and every year they seem to be running out good pitchers. The Royals have built something threw scouting and drafting. The oakland a's have been competing for most of the past decade. And they are in the smallest market, yet the Giants have been winning world series year in and year out and are a stones throw from Oakland.

Not to interrupt your little rant there, but Orioles opening day payroll 147M, Cubs opening day payroll 171M, not exactly this huge margin you're making it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your definition of a major mart is teams that win.

WTF? No idea where you got that from my post.

There are three major markets in the U.S. Los Angelas New York and Chicago maybe Philadelphia. But they are a distant 4th. San Fran is the 13th largest city in the US. 40% smaller then Phoenix and San Diego. Now is San Diego in a major market. Why not because in your opinion only teams that spend money are in major markets. Get a clue

San Francisco - San Jose - Oakland is the 6th largest media market. Ahead of DC and Boston. Are those small markets?

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/09/top_us_tv_markets_cleveland-ak.html

The Giants are the 4th most valuable franchise in baseball.

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/

Get a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF? No idea where you got that from my post.

San Francisco - San Jose - Oakland is the 6th largest media market. Ahead of DC and Boston. Are those small markets?

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/09/top_us_tv_markets_cleveland-ak.html

The Giants are the 4th most valuable franchise in baseball.

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/

Get a clue.

You have proved my point. Oakland is labeled a small market by you and everyone else. Yet they are in the 6th largest market. It's OWNERSHIP, markets don't matter. If George Steinbrenner would have bought the Indians instead of the Yankees in the 70's. Everyone would be bellyaching how Cleveland is a major market. GHeorge would have spent the same amount of money. Boston isn't in a major market and they outspend almost all the teams. Having good and savvy ownership out weighs markets every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every owner has the ability to spend money. Some choose not to, 10 years ago it was the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets. Who could spend the most money. Then the Dodgers. Now it's the Cubs. The Cubs and Dodgers have won how many rings in the past 20 years. Oh that's right the small market Giants and Royals have more. Oh by the way since George Steinbrenner died, what big signing have the Yankees had...Tanaka that's it. So i don't wan't to hear the nonsense of the Yankees spend all this money, when they have not in the past 6 years. In 5 years it will be a couple other teams, people just whine and cry. If you have a good scouting department and good coaching you can win no matter what. Look at the Rays the past 10 years, the spend next to nothing and every year they seem to be running out good pitchers. The Royals have built something threw scouting and drafting. The oakland a's have been competing for most of the past decade. And they are in the smallest market, yet the Giants have been winning world series year in and year out and are a stones throw from Oakland.

You don't think McCann and Ellsbury are big contracts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every owner has the ability to spend money. Some choose not to, 10 years ago it was the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets. Who could spend the most money. Then the Dodgers. Now it's the Cubs. The Cubs and Dodgers have won how many rings in the past 20 years. Oh that's right the small market Giants and Royals have more. Oh by the way since George Steinbrenner died, what big signing have the Yankees had...Tanaka that's it. So i don't wan't to hear the nonsense of the Yankees spend all this money, when they have not in the past 6 years. In 5 years it will be a couple other teams, people just whine and cry. If you have a good scouting department and good coaching you can win no matter what. Look at the Rays the past 10 years, the spend next to nothing and every year they seem to be running out good pitchers. The Royals have built something threw scouting and drafting. The oakland a's have been competing for most of the past decade. And they are in the smallest market, yet the Giants have been winning world series year in and year out and are a stones throw from Oakland.

You may not want to hear that nonsense, but you will anyway. The As have been a poor team. As have the Rays. And the Red Sox, Cubs and Dodgers have been the huge money spenders. As well as the Yankee and Angels. Because California, the Second city and the First city are where the money is. So go live with that fact and lose your falsehood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have proved my point. Oakland is labeled a small market by you and everyone else. Yet they are in the 6th largest market. It's OWNERSHIP, markets don't matter. If George Steinbrenner would have bought the Indians instead of the Yankees in the 70's. Everyone would be bellyaching how Cleveland is a major market. GHeorge would have spent the same amount of money. Boston isn't in a major market and they outspend almost all the teams. Having good and savvy ownership out weighs markets every time.

Just saying things loud and proud does not make them so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to interrupt your little rant there, but Orioles opening day payroll 147M, Cubs opening day payroll 171M, not exactly this huge margin you're making it out to be.

I guess he is talking about international spending. Like the thread implies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the Orioles allowed to sign international players[emoji849]

Swing hard,just in case you hit something

I assume that over the year they will spend over 2 million on them. The money has to last until next July 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...