2023 MLB (non-Tigers) catch all thread

[Motown Bombers]

9 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It’s a difference in style that leads to the substance of parity between the sports. It’s OK to have good and bad franchises in a sport, I agree, and football has those too. (See Lions, Detroit.)

But even beyond that, it’s a different animal when there are also systemic issues that lead to the lack of parity, versus merely competence differences among the individual franchises. One can point to Tampa and say, look, there’s a franchise that doesn’t spend big bucks on free agents and they’re winning. But do the people of Tampa love love love their team that recycles its entire roster every four or five seasons because they won’t bid to keep stars longer than that? The stadium is in a ****ty location, sure, but I’d bet unusually low roster stability must have something to do with the weak attendance, too.

What I don’t know is whether there’s any causation between inability/disinclination to sign and keep big stars, and a team’s inability to finally win a ring. Many people might say that idea is ridiculous on its face, because the playoffs are a crapshoot 100%, but remember, Oakland had the same issue in the playoffs when they were winning 90+ every year, too. It’s only two anecdotes so I’m not fully subscribing to the hypothesis yet, but I also don’t think it can be rejected out of hand for lack of sample size.

I would also argue teams like Oakland and Tampa are handicapped because they have to draft well and win while their players are on rookie contracts because they will most likely lose them. In the NFL, the greatest player ever signed with Tampa because they had as much money as any other team to offer Brady and made the case they were the best team for Brady and not the one with the most money. 

[Tiger337]

9 minutes ago, chasfh said:

But even beyond that, it’s a different animal when there are also systemic issues that lead to the lack of parity, versus merely competence differences among the individual franchises. One can point to Tampa and say, look, there’s a franchise that doesn’t spend big bucks on free agents and they’re winning. But do the people of Tampa love love love their team that recycles its entire roster every four or five seasons because they won’t bid to keep stars longer than that? The stadium is in a ****ty location, sure, but I’d bet unusually low roster stability must have something to do with the weak attendance, too.

 

I would not want the Tigers to turn into the Rays.  It would certainly be more entertaining than the last eight years, but it wuld be less enjoyable than a team that keeps its core together long term.   

[chasfh]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

I would also argue teams like Oakland and Tampa are handicapped because they have to draft well and win while their players are on rookie contracts because they will most likely lose them. 

Right. That’s a direct result of the systemic issue.

[Tiger337]

15 minutes ago, chasfh said:

What I don’t know is whether there’s any causation between inability/disinclination to sign and keep big stars, and a team’s inability to finally win a ring. Many people might say that idea is ridiculous on its face, because the playoffs are a crapshoot 100%, but remember, Oakland had the same issue in the playoffs when they were winning 90+ every year, too. It’s only two anecdotes so I’m not fully subscribing to the hypothesis yet, but I also don’t think it can be rejected out of hand for lack of sample size.

I don't know.  The Dodgers do more things right than any team in baseball and still have won a real World Series since 1988.  I think it's a crap shoot.  

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

I would not want the Tigers to turn into the Rays.  It would certainly be more entertaining than the last eight years, but it wuld be less enjoyable than a team that keeps its core together long term.   

These are not the only choices, of course, but if the choice were between a Tampa situation in which they make the playoffs with constantly changing young players nearly every year and have well-known struggles winning in the playoffs, versus winning one ring with high-priced veterans and then dumping them for a seven-year rebuild during which they lose 100+ a year—I’d have to think a bit before making a choice between the two, but I’m leaning toward the former, as long as losing in the playoffs is not a guarantee, just more of a struggle.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

These are not the only choices, of course, but if the choice were between a Tampa situation in which they make the playoffs with constantly changing young players nearly every year and have well-known struggles winning in the playoffs, versus winning one ring with high-priced veterans and then dumping them for a seven-year rebuild during which they lose 100+ a year—I’d have to think a bit before making a choice between the two, but I’m leaning toward the former, as long as losing in the playoffs is not a guarantee, just more of a struggle.

I don't want either scenario, but I'd probably take the Rays.  Leaving the super wealthy teams out of it, I want the Tigers to be more like the Braves or Cardinals.  That's hard to do, but I would hope that is who they emulate.   

[Motown Bombers]

I just don't think the current system in MLB rewards teams who draft and develop well the way the NFL does. Some teams in MLB are just advanced farm teams for MLB teams. 

[Motown Bombers]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't want either scenario, but I'd probably take the Rays.  Leaving the super wealthy teams out of it, I want the Tigers to be more like the Braves or Cardinals.  That's hard to do, but I would hope that is who they emulate.   

The Cardinals and Braves are most like NFL teams. They draft and develop well, keep their homegrown players for the most part, and will sign free agents to fill out the roster. 

[chasfh]

19 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't want either scenario, but I'd probably take the Rays.  Leaving the super wealthy teams out of it, I want the Tigers to be more like the Braves or Cardinals.  That's hard to do, but I would hope that is who they emulate.   

I think the Tigers becoming the Braves is now within the range of outcomes, whereas it was not before, and I find that possibility very exciting!

[oblong]

15 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Cardinals and Braves are most like NFL teams. They draft and develop well, keep their homegrown players for the most part, and will sign free agents to fill out the roster. 

How can that be?  You said MLB doesn't "reward" teams like that, whatever that means.

I'm not even sure what your point is.  MLB and the NFL are structurally different, they have to be. 

One league plays 10 times the number of games, teams have local broadcast rights, there's no hard salary cap, they have guaranteed contracts, players take longer to develop, there's more of an international presence, they play every day...

If you like one over the other, fine, that's a personal choice.  But you can't objectively say one is better than the other because it's a matter of opinion.  

 

 

[Tiger337]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think the Tigers becoming the Braves is now within the range of outcomes, whereas it was not before, and I find that possibility very exciting!

I do too, but I still don't have any idea whether they will spend enough to sustain what the Braves are doing.  I don't know that they won't either.  

Edited December 13, 2023 by Tiger337

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, oblong said:

How can that be?  You said MLB doesn't "reward" teams like that, whatever that means.

I'm not even sure what your point is.  MLB and the NFL are structurally different, they have to be. 

One league plays 10 times the number of games, teams have local broadcast rights, there's no hard salary cap, they have guaranteed contracts, players take longer to develop, there's more of an international presence, they play every day...

If you like one over the other, fine, that's a personal choice.  But you can't objectively say one is better than the other because it's a matter of opinion.  

 

 

Because the Cardinals and Braves have more resources than the A's and Rays to keep their players. In the NFL the A's and Rays would have the same resources as the Cardinals and Braves to keep their players. The Cardinals and Braves are the middle class of MLB. They have enough money to keep their players but not enough to consistently poach star players from other teams. I think I have been pretty clear about what I mean by rewarding teams who draft well. The Dombrowski Tigers are the perfect example of a team who benefited from other teams drafting and developing well. The Tigers threw a lot of money at Ordonez and Rodriguez, traded prospects for Cabrera, prospects they paid over slot for, threw $200 million at Prince Fielder when they need a one year stopgap at DH, and only developed Verlander who they paid over slot for and possibly Granderson. 

You also repeat the reasons why the NFL is better. There is no hard salary cap. That's an issue. The NFL didn't always have a hard salary cap. I can objectively say the NFL is better because every metric says it is such as viewership, money etc. 

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

You also repeat the reasons why the NFL is better. There is no hard salary cap. That's an issue. The NFL didn't always have a hard salary cap. I can objectively say the NFL is better because every metric says it is such as viewership, money etc. 

It's still subjective.  Just because a form of entertainment is more popular does not make it better for all fans.  I think the more popular a sport becomes the worse it gets for hardcore fans.  Baseball becomes worse for me almost every time they do something to attract casual fans.   

[oblong]

I think it is pretty clear that popularity doesn't make something "better".  Especially when it comes to entertainment.  That's not an argument you want to start.

You keep mentioning the Tigers under Dombrowski.  One franchise doesn't prove anything.  It's simply a data point among many.  Drafting and development are just one of several ways to build a team. 

Also I think the NBA's financial success and popularity sort of refutes your argument.   Just accept that the NFL is unique among american sports and you can't use it to make a judgement against any other league.

 

 

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, oblong said:

I think it is pretty clear that popularity doesn't make something "better".  Especially when it comes to entertainment.  That's not an argument you want to start.

You keep mentioning the Tigers under Dombrowski.  One franchise doesn't prove anything.  It's simply a data point among many.  Drafting and development are just one of several ways to build a team. 

Also I think the NBA's financial success and popularity sort of refutes your argument.   Just accept that the NFL is unique among american sports and you can't use it to make a judgement against any other league.

 

 

If it wasn't a better product, people wouldn't be consuming it at levels higher than MLB. 

There's also the Dodgers. Just looking at their roster they have Betts, Freeman, and now Ohtani that came from other teams that they offered a pile of cash to. Kershaw is a home grown talent but they also paid a lot to keep him that many other teams couldn't afford. 

 

[Tiger337]

29 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

If it wasn't a better product, people wouldn't be consuming it at levels higher than MLB. 

 

 

So, McDonalds is the best restaurant in the United States.  

Edited December 13, 2023 by Tiger337

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

So, McDonalds is the best retaurant in the United States.  

Yes? but you can't compare McDonalds to Taco Bell because Taco Bell is international. 

[casimir]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Currently 30 of 32 teams have real a possibility of making the playoffs in the NFL right now.

That's false.  You're only counting out Carolina and New England, teams that have been eliminated.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/standings/

New York (both of them), Los Angeles (what the heck, both of them), Tennessee, Las Vegas, Washington, Chicago, and Arizona are 9 teams with a combined chance of making the playoffs of around 35%.

Plus, only one team out of the NFC South are going to make the playoffs.  Carolina has been eliminated, so add two of the remaining teams that will be eliminated.

So, if you could, please explain how you've arrived at your 30 of 32 teams having a "real" possibility of making the NFL playoffs right now.  Because I see 2 eliminated and 11 others barely having a pulse.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, casimir said:

That's false.  You're only counting out Carolina and New England, teams that have been eliminated.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/standings/

New York (both of them), Los Angeles (what the heck, both of them), Tennessee, Las Vegas, Washington, Chicago, and Arizona are 9 teams with a combined chance of making the playoffs of around 35%.

Plus, only one team out of the NFC South are going to make the playoffs.  Carolina has been eliminated, so add two of the remaining teams that will be eliminated.

So, if you could, please explain how you've arrived at your 30 of 32 teams having a "real" possibility of making the NFL playoffs right now.  Because I see 2 eliminated and 11 others barely having a pulse.

In the AFC there is only one team, New England, who is not within two games of playoff spot. In the NFC, only three teams are not within one game of the playoffs. I forgot about Arizona so we'll say 29 of 32. Keep in mind the NFL season is 75% over and most of the league is within a playoff spot. 

[RandyMarsh]

I mean when you only play 17 games vs  162 you're naturally going to have more parity and teams in it. Just imagine what the MLB playoff race would look like if the season ended in Mid April instead of October.

[oblong]

The Tigers were still eligible in the playoffs on Sep 20.

[Motown Bombers]

30 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I mean when you only play 17 games vs  162 you're naturally going to have more parity and teams in it. Just imagine what the MLB playoff race would look like if the season ended in Mid April instead of October.

That's not an accurate comparison. If you reduce the NFL schedule, different teams would have been eligible. If MLB schedules were reduced, you would see different roster construction. Likely shorter rotations and teams would spend even more on starting pitching. The issue, no team in the NFL has a competitive advantage. Regardless of the length of schedule, teams in MLB will have competitive advantages. That means a lot of fanbases seasons will be over before they start whereas the NFL has teams that are competitive in non big markets that keeps fan interested. The Chiefs are way more popular than the Royals because they are able to keep the best player in the league on their team. The Royals would never be able to get the best player on their team.

[casimir]

2 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

I mean when you only play 17 games vs  162 you're naturally going to have more parity and teams in it. Just imagine what the MLB playoff race would look like if the season ended in Mid April instead of October.

 

2 hours ago, oblong said:

The Tigers were still eligible in the playoffs on Sep 20.

13 games down in the NFL is 76%, which would equate to game 123 in MLB.

When the Tigers played game 123 on 08/19/2023, no MLB team had been eliminated yet.  Not even Oakland was eliminated.  100% of all teams were playoff eligible.  30 of 30 is more parity than 30 of 32, eh?

[oblong]

4 minutes ago, casimir said:

 

13 games down in the NFL is 76%, which would equate to game 123 in MLB.

When the Tigers played game 123 on 08/19/2023, no MLB team had been eliminated yet.  Not even Oakland was eliminated.  100% of all teams were playoff eligible.  30 of 30 is more parity than 30 of 32, eh?

Which just speaks to the structural diffrences, of which MLB has no control over except to move to a 17 game season. I get that on any given Sunday, or Monday or Thursday, team A could win and team B could lose, turning one of those contenders into a playoff participant. That's more likely than team A winning 9 games and team B losing 9 games in a row to keep it proportional.  Baseball cannot, and is not trying to, emulate that.  That's why comparions between the two leagues are apples and oranges.  In baseball teams play almost everybody.  If you have several great teams then mathematically you are likely to have several teams comparitively worse.  

Now to more more to the spirit of what MB is inferring, would baseball be better if on Aug 19, 2023 you had a few teams with 75+ wins (BAL/TB/ATL/LAD) and then more teams with 60-74 wins? (15 teams were over, 9 teams were under 60 at that point).  I'm not sure the math would support that unless the bad teams were that much worse.

Worth noting, on that date the Arizona Diamondbacks were at 64-61. 

 

[Motown Bombers]

1 hour ago, casimir said:

 

13 games down in the NFL is 76%, which would equate to game 123 in MLB.

When the Tigers played game 123 on 08/19/2023, no MLB team had been eliminated yet.  Not even Oakland was eliminated.  100% of all teams were playoff eligible.  30 of 30 is more parity than 30 of 32, eh?

All but 3 teams in the NFC are within 1 game of the playoffs. 1 game in the NFL is equivalent to 9 games in MLB. The Tigers were within 7.5 games of a weak division. They were 12.5 out of a final Wild Card (fancy that, MLB has one game playoffs like the NFL). 7 MLB teams were more than 9 games out of the playoffs.  Less than 20% of NFC teams would be the equivalent of 9 games out.