Caryatid

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/beyond-belief/ My favorite line from that article: "Even if Bodley's worst-case scenario were to come true and Jeffrey Loria did go bankrupt, well it's like this: when you factor in the money you get from revenue sharing, merchandising, MLB.com, national television, local television, radio, even before you sell a single ticket or hot dog and you've got a friggin' monopoly on your product plus the mega tax breaks that come with owning a major league sports team and you still go belly-up—then chances are you're too bloody stupid to be in business anyway."

It would seem that the simplest plan for making a profit is to allocate enough money to maximize the best product you can sell. Clearly, the system that exists allows for teams in Pittsburgh, KC, and Tampa to profit by NOT creating a good product, which is antithetical to how business should work. Clearly, it is possible to create a championship (and thus, profitable) team by spending $60-70 million. These teams are simply not doing it right. Yes, the income disparity between the Yankees and every other team is problematic. But that should not give these inept organizations a free pass to play the victim.

The teams every talking head on the radio loves to cite when talking about the "cancer that is payroll disparity" in baseball are the Devil Rays, Pirates, and Royals. "See! These teams KNOW that when the season begins, they have no shot, and that's baseball's fault." They then go on to explain that, somehow, a salary cap would save parity in baseball. For them, here's Jayson Stark: " At least four teams -- the Marlins, Devil Rays, Pirates and Royals -- are getting more money from their good friends at MLB than they're spending on their entire payroll (this is before they sell one ticket). This is true. All of them, according to sources, rake in around $30 million in revenue-sharing handouts alone -- plus another $20 million to $30 million in TV, radio, Internet and Central Fund payoffs (generated by national TV contracts and licensing deals). That comes to $50 million to $60 million, by our count. But their payrolls, by anyone's count, come to slightly less than that. Or, in the Marlins' count, to insanely less. " Using this information, among other sources, I would submit that baseball's perceived lack of parity has as much to do with inept ownership and management among certain teams as it does with their collective payrolls.

I'm not one to say what people can and cannot talk about, but is there any way to get some things stipulated to on this board, so the same conversation doesn't have to be re-examined every three hours or so: 1. Neifi Perez is bad 2. Jacques Jones was a bad signing and is mediocre at best. Since so many people seem to, for all intents and purposes(and to somewhat varying degrees), agree on these two items, can't they be placed somewhere?

Woah woah. Are you saying those that criticise the Cubs organizations are rational and those that don't are irrational? I think he/she means rational in the philosophical sense. It is a clash of world views. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ Exactly. I do not have a philosophy background either, but as far as my limited knowledge brings me, you are still saying that those who are critical of the Cubs organization are the only ones being rational and those that don't criticize, are unreasoned drones. nonsense. No. A rationalist beleives there is more to something than what one can get through their senses (see, hear, touch, taste or smell). You could call these people "anti-stat" or "pro-chemistry" or "pro-speed kills" if you like. An emperists believes almost the opposite. But I would say that Caryatid has it backwards in some respects. Actually, I was simply using the term in which James, Neyer, et. al. refer to themselves. That's all. There was no hidden agenda there.

Woah woah. Are you saying those that criticise the Cubs organizations are rational and those that don't are irrational? I think he/she means rational in the philosophical sense. It is a clash of world views. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ Exactly.

This is just an observation, so feel free to disregard it: There are clearly two factions within the board: those who lean towards rationalism (and thus criticism of the Cubs organizatio), and those who don't (and tend not to criticize as much). In this thread, and in many threads overall on the board, this is apparent. However, I've noticed that there are certain types of posts on BOTH SIDES that get more negative reactions than others. Those that get angrier responses fall into two categories, represented by each "faction" that seems to exist on the board. Here goes: 1. The post criticizing either (a) the manager, (b) a player, or © other posters who buy into the rationalist approach AND have an inference within the post that seems to imply that anyone who doesn't believe in that approach is somehow incredibly stupid. 2. The post criticizing either other posters who DON'T buy into the rationalist approach AND have an inference within the post that seems to imply that anyone who does believe in that approach is somehow not a "true fan". So, in my humble opinion, the key to avoiding the type of circular discussion that has gone on in this thread is to maybe be a little more conscious of the tone of a post (which, admittedly, is really hard), and understand that others may not be reading what you write word-for-word, but with a certain attitude that shapes the manner in which they read it. I don't know if that will do much of anything, but its at least something that is worth being conscious of. Who knows...just a spitballed thought.

Seconded.

Which is inevitably followed by the bitching about the bitching about the bitching...

true Sidney Ponson also has a winning record. Sample size Regardless, my point was that its a good sign when two question marks are producing as well as these two have.

2/3 of the Cubs wins have come when one of these two has been pitching.

Even if it is against a AAA team...

Once again, before all the rationalists go crazy, I'm not arguing that they're this great strategic thing that works better as an overall strategy, I'm simply saying that they're fun to watch. That's all. Nothing more.

I know some people don't like the stolen base, squeeze play, etc., because they're not backed up by stats proving their effectiveness (and to be honest, I totally understand where you're coming from), but dang, they sure are fun.

He needs to send out a new search team, because all he seems to be able to find is the second basemen.

Just to clarify: Cub fan goes to game and cheers: "Dumb; only there for bleachers, Budweisers..." Cub fan goes to game and boos: "Dumb; only there for bleachers, Budweisers..."

I'm fairly certain that Perez could hit a GW HR in the 7th game of the World Series this year and people would find a way to criticize the way he ran around the bases. He's a bad hitter. Leave it at that.

I think EVERY player who swings at the first pitch after the guy in front of him walks on four pitches should be booed. I despise booing a player as he comes up to the plate (Patterson), and I dislike booing a player for simply making an out or a physical mistake, but making such a dumb mistake that is 90% a mental mistake deserves something to let him know that he is playing poorly and stupidly.

What was Pierre doing looking back at the ball? Run, dammit!

This guy can barely locate the plate on a map and this team has only had two runners in scoring position all night. The offensive philosophy of this team is absolutely and completely embarasssing.

You know, I don't necessarily need the Cubs to win it all-I've come to accept that it probably just won't happen. But is it too much to ask for one year...ONE YEAR...that I don't absolutely get my heart ripped out by this team?

this is not football. there is nowhere near the parity, and the schedule is not made years in advance. the schedule makers know exactly who they are matching up against who. good teams become bad and bad become good incrementally in baseball, with few exceptions (this years Marlins being one, and a fine example of what it takes to go from good to bad). you can pretend that it's hard to predict whether the WhiteSox, Twins and Braves will be good and the Rockies and Royals will be bad, but that's being pretty damn naive. while it may appear minute to you, this division very well could be decided by a game or two. the Cubs could go 9-6 against the Cards, play exactly equal to the Cards with every common opponent in baseball, and still lose the division. those 10 or so games where the Cubs have considerably harder competition very well could be the difference in this 162 game season. thus, in my opinion, a legitimate issue to piss and moan about. Believe it or not there is actually more parity in baseball than in football. Basketball is actually the worst. I wrote an article on it for my school paper a couple weeks ago. Since 1980: MLB: 18 WS Champs in 25 seasons (no 1994) NFL: 13 SB Champs in 26 seasons NBA: 7 Finals Champs in 26 seasons Parity can't be measured in terms of that magnitude. True, but there have also been more unique teams in baseball to win their division or make the playoffs (relative to the number of teams who get in), than any other league over the last 15 years. The "lack of parity" argument against baseball has quite a bit of smoke and mirrors to it.

While I like interleague play, I think there is really no reason for 6 games between geographic rivals (Cubs-Sox). They should either play them each year 3 times, or play them 6 times every other year. It gives a basic advantage to teams that play perpetually putrid organizations (Royals, Pirates).

Say what you will about Reinsdorf, but there have been exactly 7 championships for Chicago teams in the four major sports in the last 20 years. All 7 have been Reinsdorf's teams.

Does anyone else have some other examples of Cardinals' players stats as striking as Tatis?