Master Index of Archived Threads


Say it ain't so, Joe.

Rockin' Doc Jan 18 2016 01:41 AM

According to Buster Olney, St. Louis Cardinals general manager John Mozeliak feels there is growing momentum for bringing the DH rule to the National League in the future. See who else feels the NL may eventually ruin baseball. [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=12105

seawolf17 Jan 18 2016 02:12 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Well, I guess once Bartolo retires... Just kidding. The DH is stupid.

Centerfield Jan 18 2016 02:44 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Look at what Syndegaard and Matz did with the bat this year. Why would anyone want to take that joy away. The DH is stupid.

RealityChuck Jan 18 2016 02:57 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I don't care for the DH, but since most pitchers never get a chance to bat in college and the minors (Matt Harve had 25 PAs, Degrom 34, and Syndergaard, 47), it's unfair to have their first experience in the batter's box against major league pitching.

Fman99 Jan 18 2016 03:26 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I hate the DH.

Lefty Specialist Jan 18 2016 01:26 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

RealityChuck wrote: I don't care for the DH, but since most pitchers never get a chance to bat in college and the minors (Matt Harve had 25 PAs, Degrom 34, and Syndergaard, 47), it's unfair to have their first experience in the batter's box against major league pitching. Well, eliminate the DH in the minors, too. Problem solved.

RealityChuck Jan 18 2016 01:57 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Lefty Specialist wrote: RealityChuck wrote: I don't care for the DH, but since most pitchers never get a chance to bat in college and the minors (Matt Harve had 25 PAs, Degrom 34, and Syndergaard, 47), it's unfair to have their first experience in the batter's box against major league pitching. Well, eliminate the DH in the minors, too. Problem solved. Won't happen unless the AL and college and HS programs drop it.

Centerfield Jan 18 2016 04:01 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I feel like I ready that Noah Syndergaard hit a HR in Las Vegas. How is that possible if they have the DH?

Centerfield Jan 18 2016 04:03 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Here it is: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... -1.2214621 Noah Syndergaard: "Tell the DH rule to come see me 60 ft, 6 inches away."

dgwphotography Jan 18 2016 04:16 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I believe the minors are set up like the majors - The DH is used if the home team is an AL-affiliated team, and the pitchers bat if the home team is NL-affiliated.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 18 2016 04:21 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

That seems to be true in AAA. In the lower levels, pitchers don't seem to bat at all. (I base this on looking at minor league hitting stats. We see pitchers listed at the upper level but not at the lower levels.)

batmagadanleadoff Jan 18 2016 04:22 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

RealityChuck wrote: I don't care for the DH, but since most pitchers never get a chance to bat in college and the minors (Matt Harve had 25 PAs, Degrom 34, and Syndergaard, 47), it's unfair to have their first experience in the batter's box against major league pitching. I don't see what's unfair about the DH insofar as the rules are the same for all NL pitchers. Frankly, I'm surprised that this "DH in the NL" has momentum. DH's cost money. Lots of it. Typically, DH's are not fringe players, but everyday players who often command larger salaries. They're free agents and sluggers and former position players now slowing down in the middle of huge contracts that are paying them a shitload of money for their 35+ year old seasons. AL team payrolls are higher, on average, than NL payrolls, especially at the top end. And it's totally because of the DH. I'm surprised that NL owners would go for the DH, in light of the financial consideration alone. I can't see Fred wanting this.

Ceetar Jan 18 2016 04:27 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

eh, there aren't that many full-DH and a lot of them would just play poor defense otherwise. But sure, the salaries would increase somewhat. The players are underpaid right now, so it wouldn't be surprising something this easy and simple could be pushed for in the CBA. (though I still say the rules permit it whenever the commissioner feels like it) I suspect most pitchers would prefer not to have to spend time thinking about this other facet of the game that they aren't really expected to do well anyway.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 18 2016 04:29 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Ceetar wrote: and a lot of them would just play poor defense otherwise. This is about the weakest, lamest reason for a DH. You know who else plays poor defense? My mother.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 18 2016 04:32 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Ceetar wrote: The players are underpaid right now. Players are always underpaid, on average. The way to fix that is to pay them more money. The fix isn't to expand the DH. How would that help Jacob deGrom or Matt Harvey, who are grossly underpaid?

Ceetar Jan 18 2016 04:35 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: and a lot of them would just play poor defense otherwise. This is about the weakest, lamest reason for a DH. You know who else plays poor defense? My mother. no, it's a reason for a non-DH. my point was it's not like the Yankees would cut A-Rod if the DH vanished. or the Red Sox would cut Ortiz. Maybe they'd pay them a little less, but Ortiz would just statue it up at first and not much would change. The AL has higher salaries/offense because they pay an additional hitter, but not specifically because of full-time DHs. batmagadanleadoff wrote: The players are underpaid right now. Players are always underpaid, on average. The way to fix that is to pay them more money. The fix isn't to expand the DH. How would that help Jacob deGrom or Matt Harvey, who are grossly underpaid? It wouldn't, but it's so so so so easy to just say 'DH' here, players will get more money as a result than it is to negotiate the complicated system that is free agency and drafts and arb time and all that. if a higher portion of the pie is one of the union's arguments next winter, tossing them this bone is an easy concession.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 18 2016 04:43 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: and a lot of them would just play poor defense otherwise. This is about the weakest, lamest reason for a DH. You know who else plays poor defense? My mother. no, it's a reason for a non-DH. my point was it's not like the Yankees would cut A-Rod if the DH vanished. or the Red Sox would cut Ortiz. Maybe they'd pay them a little less, but Ortiz would just statue it up at first and not much would change. The AL has higher salaries/offense because they pay an additional hitter, but not specifically because of full-time DHs. Well, now you're shifting the discussion from whether the NL should adopt the DH to whether the AL should eliminate it. The Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't have to worry about what to do with A-Rod and Ortiz in the unlikely event that the AL drops the DH because if that were to ever happen, MLB would schedule that event years in the future so that the AL teams could plan for a smooth transition without abruptly being stuck with expensive players signed exclusively for their bats that are all of a sudden huge liabilities because they can't play defense.

Edgy MD Jan 18 2016 04:49 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I have no problem if they play poor defense. Trading a skill in one area for a paucity in another is part of sports. It makes for better fundamental strategy, and it humanizes players and makes them relatable. It makes the rarity of five tool player that much more remarkable. But such beasts as young A-Rod or the like become less special when the Manny Ramirezes are artificially protected from having to employ their most lacking tools. And what brings more joy than Bartolo Colon briefly breaking free from what is presumed to be his limitations and slugging an RBI double? Or skedaddling off the mound and flipping an assist behind his back? Or Rusty Staub playing the outfield for the first time in years and making a game-saving shoestring catch in extra innings? Or a 280-pound tackle finding a tasty pastry of a football suddenly bouncing into his arms and pumping his bloated form down the field with all the joy of a third-grader? Even when they fail — even when their weaknesses are exposed and they utterly, utterly fail (think Todd Hundley, 1998, playing the outfield), that's real human drama. Truth and beauty and nobility and courage are bursting out all over. Generalization is good. Specialization is bad. In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 18 2016 04:57 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified. Hey, that's how we did it when we were adolescents! And when we were done, we'd trek on over to the candy store for Yoo-Hoos and baseball cards.

Ceetar Jan 18 2016 04:59 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

yes, but the result of that is otherwise crappy play in other situations. Sure, Colon drive in an RBI double that one time and it was really neat. But 9/10 times he flailed wildly, or didn't bother to swing, and the Mets would've been just as well off telling the opposition "We're just gonna let Colon pitch and you only need to get us out 24 times" Lucas Duda hitting dingers routinely is way more exciting than the aggregate of one Colon wild ride around the basepaths and 9 two minute breaks to get a snack.

Edgy MD Jan 18 2016 05:01 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Frankly, I'm surprised that this "DH in the NL" has momentum. DH's cost money. Lots of it. The union deeply desires this. And I imagine the owners considering dangling it as a tradeoff for something the owners deeply desire. batmagadanleadoff wrote: AL team payrolls are higher, on average, than NL payrolls, especially at the top end. I'd like to see if this is indeed true, year-in and year-out, or just assumed to be so.

Centerfield Jan 18 2016 05:25 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: I have no problem if they play poor defense. Trading a skill in one area for a paucity in another is part of sports. It makes for better fundamental strategy, and it humanizes players and makes them relatable. It makes the rarity of five tool player that much more remarkable. But such beasts as young A-Rod or the like become less special when the Manny Ramirezes are artificially protected from having to employ their most lacking tools. And what brings more joy than Bartolo Colon briefly breaking free from what is presumed to be his limitations and slugging an RBI double? Or skedaddling off the mound and flipping an assist behind his back? Or Rusty Staub playing the outfield for the first time in years and making a game-saving shoestring catch in extra innings? Or a 280-pound tackle finding a tasty pastry of a football suddenly bouncing into his arms and pumping his bloated form down the field with all the joy of a third-grader? Even when they fail — even when their weaknesses are exposed and they utterly, utterly fail (think Todd Hundley, 1998, playing the outfield), that's real human drama. Truth and beauty and nobility and courage are bursting out all over. Generalization is good. Specialization is bad. In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified. Yup. It also hurts the Syndegaards of the world who can go out there and be a real threat. His counterpart may not even know which end of the bat to hold. Also DH's get to (in theory) devote all time and energy into hitting, where the Beltrans and A-Rods have to shag fly balls, practice grounders, etc. Hate the DH. Hate it hate it hate it.

Edgy MD Jan 18 2016 05:39 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified. Hey, that's how we did it when we were adolescents! And when we were done, we'd trek on over to the candy store for Yoo-Hoos and baseball cards. Relatable! yes, but the result of that is otherwise crappy play in other situations. Yes, I tried to thoughtfully address this as well as I could. Frankly, I'm surprised that this "DH in the NL" has momentum. DH's cost money. Lots of it. The union deeply desires this. And I imagine the owners considering dangling it as a tradeoff for something the owners deeply desire. AL team payrolls are higher, on average, than NL payrolls, especially at the top end. I'd like to see if this is indeed true, year-in and year-out, or just assumed to be so. For instance, here are the projected payrolls for the start of 2015. (Try as I might, I cannot find semi-official final payrolls from last year, but this is just an experiment.) NL Team Projected 2015 Payroll AL Team Projected 2015 Payroll Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 New York Yankees $219,282,196 San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 Washington Nationals $164,920,505 Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 Texas Rangers $142,140,873 Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 New York Mets $101,409,244 Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 San Diego Padres $100,675,896 Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 Oakland A's $86,086,667 Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 Miami Marlins $68,479,000 Houston Astros $70,910,100 Sum: $1,858,231,275 Sum: $1,882,979,838 Mean: $123,882,085 Mean: $125,531,989 There we have National League payrolls 1.31% lower per team than those of their American League counterparts. I suppose if that's the average outcome every season, it could be meaningful to management and unions fighting for ever dollar, but it strikes me as, if not inconsequential, certainly within the realm of one-year fluctuations. Obviously more (and more reliable) data is needed, but I don't think it's crazy that the one more big payday that the DH gets is (largely or completely) made up for piecemeal by the National League teams needing deeper bullpens and deeper benches. The union may still prefer the DH and the one big contract/satisfied member per team, but that strikes me as not particularly loyal to the rank-and-file members who may be doing better in the National League.

Ashie62 Jan 18 2016 05:55 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Maybe adding the DH will eliminate some bunting.

Edgy MD Jan 18 2016 06:04 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Isn't bunting already down to something like record lows?

Frayed Knot Jan 18 2016 06:39 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Frankly, I'm surprised that this "DH in the NL" has momentum. Part of the quote from Mozeliak mentions the low run-scoring era as part of the reason for considering it - which is the same sort of short-sighted thinking that brought about the rule in the first place. Although it was mostly the fact that the AL was the lower attendance league [they had the lower-drawing NY team, the lower LA team, the lower Missouri team, etc.] that led them to adopt the DH, they were also the lower offensive league in that era so they figured that the combo of an extra 'name' slugger on the roster would help with both problems. That the rule itself was supposed to be temporary and the AL outlived both the run-scoring and attendance problems didn't stop the rule from becoming entrenched.

Lefty Specialist Jan 18 2016 07:49 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I despise the DH. It's artificial baseball. You may as well play with two outfielders if you want more offense. The players union wants more jobs, not necessarily more DH's, Eliminate the DH and expand rosters to 26 or 27 players.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 18 2016 08:23 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Eliminate the DH and expand rosters to 26 or 27 players. That's what I'm hoping to see happen.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 04:21 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified. Hey, that's how we did it when we were adolescents! And when we were done, we'd trek on over to the candy store for Yoo-Hoos and baseball cards. Relatable! yes, but the result of that is otherwise crappy play in other situations. Yes, I tried to thoughtfully address this as well as I could. Frankly, I'm surprised that this "DH in the NL" has momentum. DH's cost money. Lots of it. The union deeply desires this. And I imagine the owners considering dangling it as a tradeoff for something the owners deeply desire. AL team payrolls are higher, on average, than NL payrolls, especially at the top end. I'd like to see if this is indeed true, year-in and year-out, or just assumed to be so. For instance, here are the projected payrolls for the start of 2015. (Try as I might, I cannot find semi-official final payrolls from last year, but this is just an experiment.) NL Team Projected 2015 Payroll AL Team Projected 2015 Payroll Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 New York Yankees $219,282,196 San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 Washington Nationals $164,920,505 Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 Texas Rangers $142,140,873 Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 New York Mets $101,409,244 Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 San Diego Padres $100,675,896 Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 Oakland A's $86,086,667 Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 Miami Marlins $68,479,000 Houston Astros $70,910,100 Sum: $1,858,231,275 Sum: $1,882,979,838 Mean: $123,882,085 Mean: $125,531,989 There we have National League payrolls 1.31% lower per team than those of their American League counterparts. I suppose if that's the average outcome every season, it could be meaningful to management and unions fighting for ever dollar, but it strikes me as, if not inconsequential, certainly within the realm of one-year fluctuations. Obviously more (and more reliable) data is needed, but I don't think it's crazy that the one more big payday that the DH gets is (largely or completely) made up for piecemeal by the National League teams needing deeper bullpens and deeper benches. The union may still prefer the DH and the one big contract/satisfied member per team, but that strikes me as not particularly loyal to the rank-and-file members who may be doing better in the National League. Looks like the suddenly obscenely-rich Dodgers singlehandedly skewing the data.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 04:58 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

That's certainly worthwhile speculation, but it's not like the Dodgers haven't been on top for a few years now. The same perspective could say any of a number of teams (the Mets?) is skewing the data. The only answer is a linear study. The Dodgers, after loading up down the stretch with the likes of Jimmy Rollins, were actually closer to $300 million.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 05:16 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Here's the same data for 2014, with the National League topping the American League by 2.08%. NL Team Projected 2014 Payroll AL Team Projected 2014 Payroll LA Dodgers $235,295,219 NY Yankees $203,812,506 Philadelphia Phillies $180,052,723 Boston Red Sox $162,817,411 San Francisco Giants $154,185,878 Detroit Tigers $162,228,527 Washington Nationals $134,704,437 LA Angels $155,692,000 Arizona Diamondbacks $112,688,666 Texas Rangers $136,036,172 Cincinnati Reds $112,390,772 Toronto Blue Jays $132,628,700 St. Louis Cardinals $111,020,360 Baltimore Orioles $107,406,623 Atlanta Braves $110,897,341 Seattle Mariners $92,081,943 Milwaukee Brewers $103,844,806 Kansas City Royals $92,034,345 Colorado Rockies $95,832,071 Chicago White Sox $91,159,254 San Diego Padres $90,094,196 Minnesota Twins $85,776,500 NY Mets $89,051,758 Oakland A's $83,401,400 Chicago Cubs $89,007,857 Cleveland Indians $82,534,800 Pittsburgh Pirates $78,111,667 Tampa Bay Rays $77,062,891 Miami Marlins $47,565,400 Houston Astros $44,544,174 Sum: $1,744,743,151 Sum: $1,709,217,246 Mean: $116,316,210 Mean: $113,947,816

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 05:20 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

More of the obscenely rich Dodgers. You can explain the same numbers in a multituide of ways. Here's one point of view I found that's on point. It's from the Frank McCourt era, from before when the Dodgers could outspend the next closest team by almost $100M. [fimg=222]https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/espn-grantland/img/grantland-logo@2x.png[/fimg] Designated Hitters and the Economics of Baseball July 12, 2011 by Dan McLaughlin Baseball is a game of traditions. It comes as no surprise, then, that nearly four decades after it was adopted, the game and its fans still have not fully embraced the Designated Hitter rule. Most of us can recite in our sleep the traditionalist arguments against the DH — it creates halfway players, it reduces strategy, it’s not The Way Things Have Always Been. But those arguments are matters of taste. Other arguments against the DH — the havoc it creates with postseason and interleague play, especially in the age of the unbalanced schedule — are more a function of the rule existing in only one league. Still others, such as whether the DH rule contributes to the ever-diminishing workloads carried by frontline pitchers, remain open to debate; it’s hard to separate the evidence from other long-term trends in the game. But let’s instead focus on another aspect of the DH rule: the practical effect of the rule on the game’s economic structure, and why the economic effects of the DH rule are precisely why we can neither get rid of it nor extend it to the National League. A major league roster has 25 players, but the cost of those players is not evenly distributed, and neither is their impact on the team’s success. Most teams carry 11 or 12 pitchers, of whom five starters and perhaps three relievers will play critical roles. A National League roster has eight everyday players and a four- to six-man bench; in the American League, the DH means there’s one extra everyday player, generally at the expense of one bench job. Due in part to the expansion of bullpens, platooning is far rarer today than it was two decades ago, so there’s a wide gap in pay and playing time between true regulars and bench players. So, an NL team has about 16 crucial jobs, an AL team 17. But wait: A typical team will be able to fill about seven of those jobs with players who don’t have enough service time to demand high salaries. The reality is that adding another regular can take a team from nine to 10 jobs that truly require a major outlay of cash. The numbers bear this out. The average AL payroll was $92.8 million from 2006 to 2010, while the average NL payroll was $80.1 million. If you look only at teams with winning records — working under the theory that those are the teams actually trying to spend enough money to compete and succeed — the disparity is even larger: The average winning AL team had a payroll of $108.4 million compared to $88.7 million in the NL. That’s a $20 million-a-year difference. Is the DH rule to blame for this? It’s obviously not the only reason, but certainly it’s a contributing factor. Over the same five-year period, the 14 American League teams employed something like a full-time DH in 57 out of 70 possible seasons. (“Full time” is defined here as 300 or more plate appearances with at least half the player’s games at DH.) The average salary of those players? $6.8 million. And that doesn’t include the cost of DHs who break down due to age or injury. Travis Hafner made more than $8 million in 2008, Ken Griffey $2.3 million in 2010, and neither made it to 300 plate appearances. Frank Thomas had a $12.5 million salary when he was with the Blue Jays in 2008, Pat Burrell was making $9 million from the Rays in 2010, Shea Hillenbrand $6 million from the Angels in 2007. All three were cut early in the year and were signed for a song by other teams. The financial impact of the Designated Hitter rule also widens the gap between big- and small-market teams. Just compare the haves and have-nots: Over the same five seasons, the average AL team that finished .500 or worse had a payroll of $71.1 million, indistinguishable from the $72.0 million average in the NL but $37.3 million behind the winning teams, while the NL teams trailed the winners in their league by $17.6 million. Some of those American League teams kept their costs down by just giving up. Sure, a well-run small-market team can compete by filling roster spots with players who haven’t reached free agency yet and thus are paid below their market value. But the more roster spots there are to fill, the harder it is to use the farm system to keep up with the teams that are buying high-end veterans on the open market, especially the big sluggers who generally fill the ranks of DHs. The average age of the starting DHs in the AL over that period? 32.7 years old. Aside from Billy Butler on the 2007-08 Royals, no American League team employed a DH under the age of 25, and the only AL franchises to use a regular DH under age 29 were the Royals, Twins, Rays, and Blue Jays. And the DH gives roster flexibility to the biggest players in the free-agent market. The Yankees, for example, could move guys like Jason Giambi and Hideki Matsui there near the end of big contracts to make room for still more high-priced acquisitions. The disparity in labor costs makes the National League more attractive to owners in the free-agency era. Two teams were added to the National League when Major League Baseball expanded in 1993, matching it with the American League. Then came the 1998 expansion and realignment. Tampa Bay and Arizona were added, and Commissioner Bud Selig managed to move the Brewers from the American League to the National League. The Rays and the Diamondbacks agreed that they could be shifted to another league without their consent, but when Selig floated a plan to realign them in 2001, the Rays expressed interest in going to the NL; the D-Backs, facing transfer to the AL, fought the plan. With another realignment scheme in the air this year, Astros owner Drayton McLane is singing the same tune. Yet the same payroll considerations are why we are stuck with the DH. The MLB Players Association will fight tooth and nail to avoid losing those high-paying jobs, and, as was the case with steroid testing, owners seem to have higher priorities in the zero-sum negotiations with the union than fixing structural problems for the greater good of the game. In the case of the DH, the big-market AL teams have no financial incentive to reduce their competitive advantage, and the NL owners have no real stake in reducing the AL owners’ cost of doing business. Unless and until all the owners are willing to make financial concessions in other areas to bring an end to the DH rule in the AL, we’re stuck with it as is. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/desig ... -baseball/

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 05:23 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You can explain the same numbers in a multituide of ways. McLaughlin seems to be measuring them the same way.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 05:26 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: You can explain the same numbers in a multituide of ways. McLaughlin seems to be measuring them the same way. Mclaughlin is saying that the DH increases payroll costs, especially at the high end of the team payroll spectrum. It's precisely what I wrote when I first posted in this thread.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 05:29 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

And I thought I was presenting data that suggested that may not be true. I certainly disagree that the McCourt-era Dodgers somehow represent a more authentic version of what the Dodgers truly are. Dodgers Shmodgers. A mean is a mean. If the players are getting the money, they are.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 05:47 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: And I thought I was presenting data that suggested that may not be true. I certainly disagree that the McCourt-era Dodgers somehow represent a more authentic version of what the Dodgers truly are. Dodgers Shmodgers. A mean is a mean. If the players are getting the money, they are. It's not a question of the Dodgers authenticity, whatever that even means. The Dodgers are skewing the recent data. They're outspending the Yankees by about 30%. They're not a normal team payroll-wise, by any measure. They're an outlier.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 12:45 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

It's not a question of the Dodgers authenticity, whatever that even means. It means to respond to your implication that their status as an outlier somehow invalidates this data. To which I'd ask why? If the players in the National League are getting paid, they're getting paid. If the advantage of the designated hitter has been offset, it has. If it helps iron out the Dodgers' supremacy to use a median instead of a mean, the National League had the higher median payroll in 2014. The American League in 2015.

Centerfield Jan 19 2016 02:54 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

NL Team Projected 2015 Payroll AL Team Projected 2015 Payroll Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 New York Yankees $219,282,196 San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 Washington Nationals $164,920,505 Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 Texas Rangers $142,140,873 Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 New York Mets $101,409,244 Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 San Diego Padres $100,675,896 Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 Oakland A's $86,086,667 Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 Miami Marlins $68,479,000 Houston Astros $70,910,100 Sum: $1,858,231,275 Sum: $1,882,979,838 Mean: $123,882,085 Mean: $125,531,989 I think what batmags is saying is that the trend he's citing doesn't affect the outliers as much. If you look at the side by side comparisons, if you exclude the top 2 teams and the bottom 2 teams, 9 of 11 AL clubs outspend their counterpart. I kinda lost the point of what you guys were arguing, and I have no idea if it makes sense to artificially exclude the teams on both ends.

Centerfield Jan 19 2016 02:58 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Here's the same data for 2014, with the National League topping the American League by 2.08%. NL Team Projected 2014 Payroll AL Team Projected 2014 Payroll LA Dodgers $235,295,219 NY Yankees $203,812,506 Philadelphia Phillies $180,052,723 Boston Red Sox $162,817,411 San Francisco Giants $154,185,878 Detroit Tigers $162,228,527 Washington Nationals $134,704,437 LA Angels $155,692,000 Arizona Diamondbacks $112,688,666 Texas Rangers $136,036,172 Cincinnati Reds $112,390,772 Toronto Blue Jays $132,628,700 St. Louis Cardinals $111,020,360 Baltimore Orioles $107,406,623 Atlanta Braves $110,897,341 Seattle Mariners $92,081,943 Milwaukee Brewers $103,844,806 Kansas City Royals $92,034,345 Colorado Rockies $95,832,071 Chicago White Sox $91,159,254 San Diego Padres $90,094,196 Minnesota Twins $85,776,500 NY Mets $89,051,758 Oakland A's $83,401,400 Chicago Cubs $89,007,857 Cleveland Indians $82,534,800 Pittsburgh Pirates $78,111,667 Tampa Bay Rays $77,062,891 Miami Marlins $47,565,400 Houston Astros $44,544,174 Sum: $1,744,743,151 Sum: $1,709,217,246 Mean: $116,316,210 Mean: $113,947,816 But that trend doesn't exist in 2014, where looking at the teams side by side, the NL clubs win over their counterpart.

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2016 03:13 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

So to sum up: the DH rule increases payrolls except in those cases where it doesn't.

Ceetar Jan 19 2016 03:25 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I think the sample size and the volume is too small for it to show up in the data that clearly. in a way we're comparing 4% of one set of players to 4% of another set. But who knows, maybe the NL generally compensates by paying middle relievers a wee bit more to get those crunch time 7th inning outs. But there doesn't seem to be any particularly obvious gap in innings pitched or even starter value between the leagues of the last 3 years so maybe not.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 04:45 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

The data knows.

Centerfield Jan 19 2016 04:58 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Yup. You would need to do a long-term breakdown to see. I would guess there wouldn't be much difference. I think clubs have a certain amount they can spend, and tend to use it all up, whatever that amount is. If they have money left over, I'm guessing they buy middle relievers. They're like the checkout line bait of baseball.

Vic Sage Jan 19 2016 06:40 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Generalization is good. Specialization is bad. In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified. i was right there with you, right up to that last bit... but mileage varies on that point, so... yeah.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 06:47 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Frayed Knot wrote: So to sum up: the DH rule increases payrolls except in those cases where it doesn't. That'll work for me. Edgy MD wrote: That's certainly worthwhile speculation, but it's not like the Dodgers haven't been on top for a few years now. The same perspective could say any of a number of teams (the Mets?) is skewing the data. The only answer is a linear study. The Dodgers, after loading up down the stretch with the likes of Jimmy Rollins, were actually closer to $300 million. And if the Phillies were in the AL, they woulda had a $325M payroll! The post-McCourt Dodgers are an outlier, payroll-wise. And the thing to do, statistically, with outlier data is to exclude it. That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit. The DH increases costs, especially at the top end, among the teams that spend the most. What more can I say? If you don't wanna believe it, you don't have to.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 06:51 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

That's not science. That's arbitrary. It's real money real people are being paid. You don't have to tell me about math. I'm the one presenting math. I can't understand your Phillies comment at all. Just trying to have a discussion here.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 06:55 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: That's not science. That's arbitrary. It's real money people are being paid. You don't have to tell me about math. I'm the one presenting math. I can't understand your Phillies comment at all. Just trying to have a discussion here. I'm having a discussion here, too. I just don't see it the way you wanna see it. Your position reminds me of the old line where if you put Bill Gates and 20 average people in the same room, each person in that room would, on average, be worth over a billion dollars. Which technically, would be true.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 07:00 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I'm having a discussion here, too. Please try it without the un-necessary and undeserved sarcasm. I just don't see it the way you wanna see it. I don't want to see it any way. I'm looking at what the data tells me. Your position reminds me of the old line where if you put Bill Gates and 20 average people in the same room, each person in that room would, on average, be worth over a billion dollars. Which technically, would be true. I looked beyond the mean and spoke to the median, too, so what I've presented is meaningfully different.

Centerfield Jan 19 2016 07:29 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The post-McCourt Dodgers are an outlier, payroll-wise. And the thing to do, statistically, with outlier data is to exclude it. That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit. The DH increases costs, especially at the top end, among the teams that spend the most. What more can I say? If you don't wanna believe it, you don't have to. Understood. I see the correlation. If you exclude the Dodgers (and their AL counterpart MFY's), the next 5 AL teams all have higher payrolls than the next 5 NL teams in 2015. In 2014, it's 4 out of 5. I'll leave it to you and Edgy to determine if that is significant, or if the Dodgers should properly be excluded.

metsmarathon Jan 19 2016 07:37 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

NL Team Projected 2015 Payroll AL Team Projected 2015 Payroll Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 New York Yankees $219,282,196 San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 Washington Nationals $164,920,505 Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 Texas Rangers $142,140,873 Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 New York Mets $101,409,244 Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 San Diego Padres $100,675,896 Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 Oakland A's $86,086,667 Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 Miami Marlins $68,479,000 Houston Astros $70,910,100 Sum: $1,858,231,275 Sum: $1,882,979,838 Mean: $123,882,085 Mean: $125,531,989 I think what batmags is saying is that the trend he's citing doesn't affect the outliers as much. If you look at the side by side comparisons, if you exclude the top 2 teams and the bottom 2 teams, 9 of 11 AL clubs outspend their counterpart. I kinda lost the point of what you guys were arguing, and I have no idea if it makes sense to artificially exclude the teams on both ends. the charts would look a lot more comparable, cross-wise, if you scooch the mets up to a $185M-ish payroll where they fuckin' belong.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 07:47 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm having a discussion here, too. Please try it without the un-necessary and undeserved sarcasm. I just don't see it the way you wanna see it. I don't want to see it any way. I'm looking at what the data tells me. Your position reminds me of the old line where if you put Bill Gates and 20 average people in the same room, each person in that room would, on average, be worth over a billion dollars. Which technically, would be true. I looked beyond the mean and spoke to the median, too, so what I've presented is meaningfully different. Speaking to the median wouldn't do anything here. The .median would remain the same even if the Dodgers spent a trillion dollars on payroll.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 07:52 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

That's the point of a median. It stays the same despite the presence of extreme outliers on the top and bottom. You're complaining that the mean is thrown off because of how much the Dodgers spend. But now you dismiss the median, because it's not thrown off by how much the Dodgers spend.

Ceetar Jan 19 2016 08:06 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

screw team based, I want to see it on a player level.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 08:07 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I then invite you to look it up, and please present what you find here.

Ceetar Jan 19 2016 08:07 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: I then invite you to look it up. Not sure it's available anywhere.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 08:20 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: That's the point of a median. It stays the same despite the presence of extreme outliers on the top and bottom. You're complaining that the mean is thrown off because of how much the Dodgers spend. But now you dismiss the median, because it's not thrown off by how much the Dodgers spend. That's exactly right. . What is it that you're trying to prove with .median data?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 08:23 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

How would median data help to understand that there's a trillion dollar payroll skewing the data?

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 08:31 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

The median isn't skewed by a trillion-dollar team. That's the point of a median. It's the standard reply to the Bill Gates example. An outlier like Bill Gates moves the mean, but not the median. You're on both sides of this now. You rejected the mean, because it was skewed by the Dodgers and therefore somehow misrepresentative. Now you reject the median, because it isn't skewed by the Dodgers. Anybody want in?

d'Kong76 Jan 19 2016 08:36 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe. Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2016 09:02 PM

Edgy MD wrote: Anybody want in? No way! I'll take some popcorn and a pint...

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 08:44 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: The median isn't skewed by a trillion-dollar team. That's the point of a median. It's the standard replay to the Bill Gates example. An outlier like Bill Gates moves the mean, but not the median. You're on both sides of this now. You rejected the mean, because it was skewed by the Dodgers and therefore somehow misrepresentative. Now you reject the median, because it isn't skewed by the Dodgers. Anybody want in? Of course the median remains unchanged even with a trillion dollar payroll. But all of the other data is skewed to give the false impression tbat DHs dont add costs. Just like its .misleading to say that the average person is worth billions when its Gates and 19 destitute people that comprise the sample.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2016 08:58 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Yes, you've made that clear. You reject the average. The mean. It's skewed. That's why I offered you the median. It isn't.

Centerfield Jan 19 2016 09:28 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

What do you mean? Yes!

batmagadanleadoff Jan 19 2016 11:38 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, you've made that clear. You reject the average. The mean. It's skewed. That's why I offered you the median.... Which is just about useless here. Just because it's a tool, doesn't mean it has to be used. You wouldn't hammer nails into your wall with a screwdriver handle just because you had a screwdriver, would you? Median is a terrible way to measure the disparity between discrete data points. And it's an ineffective tool in understanding data that includes outliers. But most of all, why would I care about the median when I'm mostly concerned with the top of the distribution -- the action above the median? Payroll differences caused by having to pay for a DH occur mainly because of the action at the high end, where the biggest spenders spend big (i.e. free agent) money for everyday players with a track record of excellent hitting. This is so plainly obvious, even from the data that you present, that I don't know why you bother with all this fancy math talk when it's as plain as your eyeballs could see. And the teams at the lower end, or below the median, that can't or won't spend with the big spenders are suddenly at a disadvantage because in baseball, as in life, money matters and the less you have of it, the more disadvantaged you are. Maybe not in the pursuit of happiness, but try and get Clayton Kershaw to pitch for your baseball team without enough money. Try and get on an airplane without the money to buy a ticket. Try and buy a pair of shoelaces, or even just one shoelace -- a half of a pair -- without any money. So the bottom spending teams have to get creative. Earl Weaver did that all the time, platooning Ayalas and Lowensteins and god knows who else and running circles around everybody in the process. But that was 40 years ago when very few teams knew what the fuck they were doing. That plan might still work but those market inefficiencies don't exist the way they existed in Weaver's day. But hey, you never know. This time of year, 1969, no one ever imagined that a corner outfield platoon of Art Shamsky and Ron Swoboda would be a part of a winning formula for 100 regular season wins. So the bottom spending teams are disadvantaged at one more position because they can't spend with the big boys, because they have to hope that the big spenders spend their money stupidly, because if they're gonna come up with a platoon on the cheap, they have to nail it twice instead of once, because if they don't have the money to spend big on a DH in the first place, they'll have even less to spend on a backup plan if their plan A fizzles. They're also at a disadvantage because the big spenders also have the option of coming up with a creative DH on the cheap even though for the small spenders, that's their only option. So with a DH, a team either spends significantly more money on payroll, or is at a disadvantage. And you're telling me that this is all wrong because of a median point?

Edgy MD Jan 20 2016 01:12 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

No. But you're throwing the kitchen sink at this now. One post, you're sarcastically laying me out with "That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit." Now you're dismissing me for using "fancy math talk." Which is it? You've rejected the mean for 2015 and 2014's projected starting salaries, and you've rejected the median for the same. What data would you accept? Art Shamsky? If that isn't the reddest herring in history, I don't know what. But, of course, this is obvious obfuscation. We're not talking about Art Shamsky, or Earl Weaver. We're talking about whether American League teams spend more than National League teams on player salaries. Current data, at least data that I've been able to collect, suggest they do not. I'm loathe to make broad conclusions, but that's just what the number say. So what else have you got?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 20 2016 01:21 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: No. But you're throwing the kitchen sink at this now. One post, you're sarcastically laying me out with "That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit." Now you're dismissing me for using "fancy math talk." Which is it? You've rejected the mean for 2015 and 2014's projected starting salaries, and you've rejected the median for the same. What data would you accept? Art Shamsky? If that isn't the reddest herring in history, I don't know what. Stop being such a literalist. Art Shamsky's a frolic and a detour that's got nothing to do with nothing and you know it. I'm not rejecting anything. Really. I just think that DH's raise payroll. You can disagree. Really. You've got medians and everything. DH's probably reduce payrolls. I'm just a crazy motherfucker. But if I found that Grantland piece before I wrote my post instead of after, half of this thread never happens and you accept the same statement because coming from Grantland, it was vetted and everything. But it's me, not Grantland. And you're already dug in. So go ahead and insist that DH's don't raise payroll. Because there's a median point.

Edgy MD Jan 20 2016 01:27 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

That's some strange and empty speculation about what I would and wouldn't do. But no, that's not true. Grantland's using the same basic math that I am on the same data. Add things up and get a total. Divide the total by the elements, and get an average. I'm just measuring more recent years. So, what else have you got? Because mocking me for using the most basic concepts of math isn't really shaming me as well as you might think.

Centerfield Jan 20 2016 03:49 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

NL Team Projected 2015 Payroll AL Team Projected 2015 Payroll Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 New York Yankees $219,282,196 San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 Washington Nationals $164,920,505 Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 Texas Rangers $142,140,873 Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 New York Mets $101,409,244 Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 San Diego Padres $100,675,896 Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 Oakland A's $86,086,667 Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 Miami Marlins $68,479,000 Houston Astros $70,910,100 Sum: $1,858,231,275 Sum: $1,882,979,838 Mean: $123,882,085 Mean: $125,531,989 I think what batmags is saying is that the trend he's citing doesn't affect the outliers as much. If you look at the side by side comparisons, if you exclude the top 2 teams and the bottom 2 teams, 9 of 11 AL clubs outspend their counterpart. I kinda lost the point of what you guys were arguing, and I have no idea if it makes sense to artificially exclude the teams on both ends. the charts would look a lot more comparable, cross-wise, if you scooch the mets up to a $185M-ish payroll where they fuckin' belong. This message has been brought to you by PAW.

Nymr83 Jan 20 2016 04:36 AM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

excluding the top 2 and the bottom 2 in each league seems like some real cherry-picking to make the data fit your desired outcome. you are excluding 8 of 30 data points! the DH seems proven to be spending-neutral at least over the past 2 years. perhaps a 30-year study would show differently, but i think that burden is on the guy who didn't just provide the data showing it to be even. one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. Should the union care if this is the case? are they HURTING some of their lower-paid players to help out thew guys making the big bucks? If this is true, I would say the union, really any union, should take no position on a rule that is payroll-neutral where abolishing/keeping it shifts money from some of their members to others. because by taking either side they are acting against the interests of some of their players.

metsmarathon Jan 20 2016 05:47 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. Should the union care if this is the case? are they HURTING some of their lower-paid players to help out thew guys making the big bucks? this is my expectation. the only reason the DH would drive up payroll is if DH drives up revenue. (otherwise it's just reallocating the same amount of payroll, right?) using attendance as a surrogate value for revenue, the NL has better attendance last year, therefore the DH is bad for baseball.

Ceetar Jan 20 2016 05:51 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

metsmarathon wrote: Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. Should the union care if this is the case? are they HURTING some of their lower-paid players to help out thew guys making the big bucks? this is my expectation. the only reason the DH would drive up payroll is if DH drives up revenue. (otherwise it's just reallocating the same amount of payroll, right?) using attendance as a surrogate value for revenue, the NL has better attendance last year, therefore the DH is bad for baseball. But payroll might be driven up by competition, if your division opponents have more hitters, it puts the pressure on you to pay for another big hitter.

Nymr83 Jan 20 2016 06:47 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

...therefore the DH is bad for baseball. end of story.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 05:56 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. This is exactly what's going on. The DH is another position, as likely to be filled by an everyday player as any other position player position. So it drives up costs. AL teams don't make up the difference by paying bench players less. If that were the case, the best bench players would all eventually wind up in the NL. And there's no evidence that AL teams compensate by paying pitchers less on account of that they don't have to bat. It's an extra cost. On the other hand, it's just one position, so you're not gonna find data showing that AL teams are spending ten or fifteen or twenty million dollars more on average than their NL counterparts. But it's an extra position and extra stuff costs extra money.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 06:02 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. This is exactly what's going on. The DH is another position, as likely to be filled by an everyday player as any other position player position. So it drives up costs. AL teams don't make up the difference by paying bench players less. If that were the case, the best bench players would all eventually wind up in the NL. And there's no evidence that AL teams compensate by paying pitchers less on account of that they don't have to bat. It's an extra cost. On the other hand, it's just one position, so you're not gonna find data showing that AL teams are spending ten or fifteen or twenty million dollars more on average than their NL counterparts. But it's an extra position and extra stuff costs extra money. And should the DH come to the NL with the Mets in their current state of poverty, they'll be at a disadvantage. Because teams like the Dodgers and the Nats and the Cards and Cubs will simply add another $10 or $15M to their payroll without breaking a sweat --well maybe not the Cubs because they already have Kyle Schwarber who looks like a DH more than anything else but you know what I mean -- while the Mets will jerk off their fans with more bullshit, all the while trying to come up with a DH plan without increasing payroll. They'll tell you that there are no all hit and no field players worth pursuing and that's why they're not spending money on a DH.

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 06:04 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Mets will be just fine. David Wright would inevitably be the DH and there's a non-zero chance that the DH in 2017 could make or break his Hall of Fame chances.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 21 2016 06:38 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I think if they instituted the DH this offseason the Mets would have signed Cespedes already.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 06:40 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think if they instituted the DH this offseason the Mets would have signed Cespedes already. I doubt it. If the NL went DH, Cespedes would be that much more attractive and a shitload of NL teams that today, have little or no interest, would suddenly want Cespedes badly.

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 07:08 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 07:14 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH. Not good enough compared to whom? The DH would create 15 more batting slots. You don't think there's a nice payday in store for a guy with 30+ HR power who isn't a defensive cripple and who has one of the best throwing arms in the game? You could do plenty worse than Cespedes as your DH.

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 07:27 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH. Not good enough compared to whom? The DH would create 15 more batting slots. You don't think there's a nice payday in store for a guy with 30+ HR power who isn't a defensive cripple and who has one of the best throwing arms in the game? You could do plenty worse than Cespedes as your DH. yeah, he'll throw out a ton of guys playing DH.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 07:32 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH. Not good enough compared to whom? The DH would create 15 more batting slots. You don't think there's a nice payday in store for a guy with 30+ HR power who isn't a defensive cripple and who has one of the best throwing arms in the game? You could do plenty worse than Cespedes as your DH. yeah, he'll throw out a ton of guys playing DH. No, but he'll get paid for his arm, too because a DH that can play the field is worth more than a DH that can't.

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 07:39 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest.

dgwphotography Jan 21 2016 07:47 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think if they instituted the DH this offseason the Mets would have signed Cespedes already. That's if you think the Mets haven't gone after Cespedes harder due to no room in the outfield as opposed to no room in the budget. I think it's the latter, and not the former.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 07:48 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Ceetar wrote: You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest. \ Teams might not be interested in Cespedes because he might not fit cleanly into their existing lineups, or fill their needs. That's one of the arguments advanced for the Mets not to re-sign him. But the NL DH would suddenly create 15 new needs that weren't even under consideration before. Frankly, I think that it would be a bonanza for Cespedes and that he might've even been the most sought after FA of this off-season. But yeah, this is all just another guessing game.

Ceetar Jan 21 2016 07:56 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest. \ Teams might not be interested in Cespedes because he might not fit cleanly into their existing lineups, or fill their needs. That's one of the arguments advanced for the Mets not to re-sign him. But the NL DH would suddenly create 15 new needs that weren't even under consideration before. Frankly, I think that it would be a bonanza for Cespedes and that he might've even been the most sought after FA of this off-season. But yeah, this is all just another guessing game. Well, Chris Davis would've probably been the most sought after guy as his position is the least valuable, but yeah, there are only so many players available. The Mets could make Cespedes as DH work but I think they're actually more apt to benefit from d'Arnaud there, particularly if they believe in Plawecki. rest the catchers, slide Wright in there a lot, etc.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 21 2016 08:00 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest. \ Teams might not be interested in Cespedes because he might not fit cleanly into their existing lineups, or fill their needs. That's one of the arguments advanced for the Mets not to re-sign him. But the NL DH would suddenly create 15 new needs that weren't even under consideration before. Frankly, I think that it would be a bonanza for Cespedes and that he might've even been the most sought after FA of this off-season. But yeah, this is all just another guessing game. Well, Chris Davis would've probably been the most sought after guy as his position is the least valuable, but yeah, there are only so many players available. The Mets could make Cespedes as DH work but I think they're actually more apt to benefit from d'Arnaud there, particularly if they believe in Plawecki. rest the catchers, slide Wright in there a lot, etc. Yeah, I think there's truth in that. Sometimes I think that a good deal of the static this off-season over the Mets and Cespedes is, subconsciously, not so much about re-signing Cespedes, but as a premise to tee off on the Wilpons. Which the Wilpons deserve.

Edgy MD Jan 21 2016 08:30 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Lennon is tweeting that Manfred sees the change gaining momentum. With an upcoming CBA, this could be the last year of the hitting pitcher.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 21 2016 09:08 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

That would be terrible news. Watching baseball would become a lot less interesting.

Edgy MD Jan 21 2016 09:10 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Alls I can say is start coordinating lobbying efforts NOW!!!!

d'Kong76 Jan 21 2016 09:22 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Guess we could start a fb page, aim for 1,000,000 followers.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2016 01:14 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Manfred says "No change for the foreseeable future." Or maybe he's just trying to dampen the spirit of your campaign.

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2016 01:48 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Sounds to me like Manfred has since heard from from several owners/GMs who gave him a "not so fast" response after his original riffing off the comments from Mozeliak that momentum was shifting towards universal acceptance. Or at least that's my interpretation of what happened and I'm sticking to it.

d'Kong76 Jan 26 2016 01:55 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Should this atrocity take place, they really couldn't do it off-season and say next year bbbyyy. It would have to be more like starting with the 2021 season bbbyyy.

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2016 01:58 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

It would be even worse the other way. If they ever decided to trash it there would have to be something like a 10 year lead-up period to allow all the contracts (Pujols, Fielder, etc.) to run their course.

d'Kong76 Jan 26 2016 02:01 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Well, I did five years... ten would be even better. I know there are now generations who've lived with half of baseball having a DH and now it's in the inter-league play (not a big fan of that either) but I would really have trouble adopting it full time for my team and league and it would take a lot of air out of my baseball balloon.

MFS62 Jan 26 2016 02:21 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: Manfred says "No change for the foreseeable future." That was thrown in just before the closing credits on SNY's Geico sports show last night, almost like an afterthought. When I heard it I broke into my happy dance. And it makes sense. The reason I had read for not getting rid of the rule was that the Union would complain about "loss of jobs" (yeah, I know. They're usually higher paying jobs). But I think MLB took some wind out of those sails by expanding the rosters, adding more jobs. If I had my druthers, I'd keep the expanded rosters and eliminate the DH (it pains me to have to type that aberration) over time ...at all levels of baseball. Any rule that made Joe Torre look smart could not be a good thing. Later

d'Kong76 Jan 26 2016 03:31 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Some more ice cream with those waffles... AP wrote: "I think the status quo on the DH has served the industry the well," he said. "I think it serves an important purpose in terms of defining the difference between the American League and the National League, and that league definition is important to us from a competitive perspective."

Edgy MD Jan 26 2016 03:33 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I'm not sure what MFS62 means about MLB expanding rosters. Roster size has been set at 25 since 1914, hasn't it?

MFS62 Jan 26 2016 04:04 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure what MFS62 means about MLB expanding rosters. Roster size has been set at 25 since 1914, hasn't it? Wasn't there something under discussion about making the rosters 28 players for part of the year? I was suggesting that if this were extended to the full year, it would placate the union and allow MLB to let the players who are still in the majors under that silly rule slowly fade away into the sunset. BTW, I remember the rosters being more than 25 players for the first few weeks of the season. Then, when minor league seasons started, the rosters dropped back to 25 players. This gave the major league teams more chances to evaluate fringe players and prospects in real game situations. This was probably necessitated by the old option rules that had a limit of three options/ recalls - period. NOT as many options as necessary during three years. So teams had to be more judicious with the number of times they would option a player, and they felt the extra games they could see a player in action were necessary. But the commissioner has now said he wants to keep the leagues different. So it looks like roster expansion would have nothing to do with the elimination of that rule. Later

Benjamin Grimm Jan 26 2016 04:17 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

That's the deal I would like. A year-round 27-man roster and the total elimination of the DH. I don't know that it's ever been proposed by the people who have the actual power to make things happen, but it has been kicked around by fans and sportswriters at least a little bit.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 26 2016 04:19 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

27 sounds like a lot of pitching changes to me. 26 would be better, 25 best.

d'Kong76 Jan 26 2016 04:29 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

I don't know why, but I thought some time in my lifetime there was a 24-man roster in baseball.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 26 2016 04:32 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

In 1986 (and maybe a year or two before or after that) teams had the option to carry only 24 men, and every team did it for the entire season, including the postseason.

d'Kong76 Jan 26 2016 04:39 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Well, color me clueless... no idea, as Edgemeister said, it's been 25 since 2014. I guess I was partially remembering the 24 number for whatever reason.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2016 04:43 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

It wasn't so much a change to the roster size, as roster limits were still fixed at 25, but teams had long had the option of carrying 24 players, but only ever did for brief periods of transition, between transactions. During a period of labor hardball (1985-ish-through-1987-ish), the teams agreed with each other to carry 24 players only. Newspapers mocked them, saying that a team would cave and add a player as soon as one was needed, especially in the post-season. But the Mets marched in lockstep, carrying only 24 through the 1986 post season. This widely understood unofficial agreement was cited in the collusion lawsuits that followed. Peter Ueberroth was looking to be the commissioner that rode in on a white horse and saved baseball from itself, but his short tenure led to the owners ultimately losing three straight collusion suits. Now, as a rule, 25 guys get paid for the day, even if only 22 are in the dugout.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 26 2016 04:44 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 27 sounds like a lot of pitching changes to me. 26 would be better, 25 best. Yeah, you're probably right that that's how it would play out. I'd like to see those two additional roster spots go to position players, and maybe they would, at first, but inevitably it would probably lead to a 14-man pitching staff. UGH!

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2016 04:48 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 27 sounds like a lot of pitching changes to me. 26 would be better, 25 best. Yeah, you're probably right that that's how it would play out. I'd like to see those two additional roster spots go to position players, and maybe they would, at first, but inevitably it would probably lead to a 14-man pitching staff. UGH! Since we're fantasizing anyway, why not tweak the rule so that rosters expand to 27, but a team may not carry more than, say, 13 players that are eligible to pitch? Then carve out an exception for blow-outs, so that if a team trails by x runs after y innings, a position player may pitch.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2016 04:51 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

AP wrote: "I think the status quo on the DH has served the industry the well," he said. "I think it serves an important purpose in terms of defining the difference between the American League and the National League, and that league definition is important to us from a competitive perspective." I don't agree here. I like variety, but I think it's a dumb idea for the leagues to have materially different rules and that a team that is constructed under one rule should have to play meaningful games, maybe even World Series games, under the other rule. If I had the magic wand, I'd abolish interleague play and the DH, and contract back to 24 teams. In my dreams.

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2016 05:01 PM Re: Say it ain't so, Joe.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Since we're fantasizing anyway, why not tweak the rule so that rosters expand to 27, but a team may not carry more than, say, 13 players that are eligible to pitch? Then carve out an exception for blow-outs, so that if a team trails by x runs after y innings, a position player may pitch. That's the logical alternative: to adopt an NHL style rule of a larger (28?) roster but have only 25 active for any given game. The only problem is that you'd need some fairly complicated set of conditions in order to have teams not simply put the most recent three starting pitchers on the inactive list each time allowing them to carry 16 in the bullpen. I'd prefer to stick with 25, but if it'll take going to 26, or to a 27/25 type of situation (above), to get rid of the DH then I'd back roster expansion.