Quick hit: Red Sox score 14 runs AGAIN
Posted by Andy on June 21, 2011
Here are all the times so far in 2011 that a team has scored exactly 14 runs:
The Red Sox have done it twice as often as all the other teams combined.
Going back 20 full seasons to 1991, only 3 teams have ever scored 14 runs more times the whole year (let alone in the first 3 months...)
June 21st, 2011 at 2:07 pm
This post reminded me of just how great the Red Sox offense was in 2003. The led in all three slash stats by pretty big margins and just generally scored more frequently than Wilt Chamberlain.
June 21st, 2011 at 2:20 pm
and they still have the Pirates for 3 games
June 21st, 2011 at 2:32 pm
The exact number of runs may be somewhat random, but the sense that they are the best offensive team in baseball is dead on.
The Red Sox currently lead the majors in scoring average (5.49 R/G), BA, OBP, OPS and OPS+.
Their 118 OPS+ would match the highest in the majors since 1997, when the Mariners had a 119 OPS+.
In their last 30 games, the BoSox are averaging 7.1 R/G.
On the other hand, to the people who add, "... and Crawford, Pedroia and Youkilis haven't even gotten hot yet!", I counter that:
(a) Pedroia is right at his career OPS+, and Youk is well above his; and
(b) Gonzalez and Ortiz aren't likely to finish the year with OPS over 1.000.
So I think what we have seen to date is probably the upper end of what the Red Sox will finish the year with. And that's scary enough for me.
June 21st, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Gonzalez has 52 RBI in his last 45 games. Like JA says--at the same time that's a "WOW" moment and a "but he's very unlikely to maintain that pace" moment. Still, The Red Sox are a major force.
That's especially impressive considering that the only starter to take all his turns is Lester. Beckett is missing his today due to illness of some sort.
June 21st, 2011 at 3:09 pm
That 10 run seventh was crazy yesterday. And no home runs!
June 21st, 2011 at 4:01 pm
@1 Yeah that 2003 Red Sox offense did a tremendous job getting the most out of doping that year. Three cheers to their drug suppliers!
June 21st, 2011 at 4:05 pm
fun fact: the boston red sox are sacrificing local hobos to satan to make this work.
June 21st, 2011 at 4:32 pm
I know its a long season to go but I will be surprised if anyone but the Red Sox and Phillies play in the series. The Cardinals could make the NL interesting if they rent Reyes, but i'd still favor Philly with that dominant staff. The Red Sox lineup is an opponent's nightmare and I think they'll finish at least as a team with a 115+ OPS
June 21st, 2011 at 4:38 pm
@2
The Bucs just took 2 of 3 from the Phils 2 weekends ago. Their pitching is, somehow, collectively pretty good. The Sox may sweep but it's not a gimme like the recent past.
June 21st, 2011 at 4:45 pm
@#6,
Childish Troll.
June 21st, 2011 at 4:51 pm
@9: It's good to see there being some hope in Pittsburgh, finally......
It's more uncommon, than not, these days, for favorites to actually finish the job. But, this year BOS and PHI were WS favorites, and I don't see any way, that either is going to stumble. They are just too stacked.
Of course, we could turn this back around, to the discussion, on the potential of even more rounds of playoffs, and how it could be perceived as cheapening the regular season, by increasing the odds that a powerhouse will lose to a much lesser team. (Such as PHI did to PIT, recently.)
But, I guess that we've been there already!!!
June 21st, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Considering what Gonzalez was abel to do in Petco, I see no reason why he shoudln't continue on his current in Fenway.
Papi I could see fading, but who knows...? Sometimes the old guys have that one 'last hurrah' season before a really steep falloff. Thsi could be his. (IOW: I think he'll finish this season solid, but I wouldn't go siginging him to any long terms deals!)
June 21st, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Although I subscribe of the school of thought that championships are won by how you develop players within your own system, I am sick of the Yankee/Red Sox domination of the AL East. The latest Red Sox acquisitions (Gonzalez and Crawford) have turned this team from average into a powerhouse. Baseball has to do something to help small market teams win and keep the players they develop. As a Jays fan, I'm tired of "hope". Since their glory years, they have not made the playoffs and have had very few chances in the pennant races. When they have, they have always fell short. It must be frustrating to be an O's fan this year. With their impressive finish last season, there was a lot of hope in Baltimore. They still could turn it around, but it may be too late to challenge for even the WC. The Yanks and Sox are in a league of their own. Its time for MLB to acknowledge this and find a solution.
I'm glad to see hope in Pittsburgh. All of those teams in the NL Central are comparable in terms of market size. Its possible for any of those teams to win that division with good drafting, development of players and putting all the pieces together for a good team.
June 21st, 2011 at 8:02 pm
@1
The 2000 White Sox actually scored more runs than the 2003 Red Sox. I didn't look it up but I'm thinking the 978 runs scored by the White Sox in 2000 is the most scored by any team since 2000.
However, I do think one of those great Indian lineups of the mid 90's put up over 1000 runs so I can only go back to the year 2000. haha
June 21st, 2011 at 8:34 pm
That 2003 Sox team had every regular start with...
... at least 12 HRs (ranging from Damon's 12 to Manny's 37)
... at least a .273 BA (ranging from Damon/Varitek's .273 to Mueller's .326)
... at least an OBP of .333 (ranging from Walker's .333 to Manny's .427)
... at least a SLUG of .405 (ranging from Damon's .405 to Ortiz's .592)
... at least a 94 OPS+ (ranging from Damon's 94 to Manny's 160)
Their primary subs were...
... Hillenbrand (303/335/443)
... Kapler (293/349/449)
Mirabelli was a backup catcher (primarily caught Wakefield) and put up a 258/307/448.
Aside from SBs, CSs, SOs, and HBP, they were 1st or 2nd in every major offensive category. Yikes!
June 21st, 2011 at 8:54 pm
@13
Kenh, amen!
Somebody has to rock the ML boat. The O's and Jays are finished this year. Seven games behind in the WC to the Yankees. Not gonna happen.
Why buy tickets, why care?
June 21st, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I totally forgot about Hillenbrand...Shea it ain't so!
June 21st, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Who are all these great players Baltimore has been developing and losing to other teams? They've finally had a few promising guys come up in the last few years and most have failed to develop or regressed entirely. It's the fault of the MLB salary structure that Nick Markakis has turned into Juan Pierre? Their organization stinks. How Baltimore can keep crying when Tampa Bay has won 2 of the last 3 divisions is beyond me.
June 21st, 2011 at 9:31 pm
@18
Gonna take you on Johnny Twisto on this one. Only some one from a NY/ Boston market can fail to see the inequity in the AL East structure. Put one of those two teams into the AL Central. Let either the Red Sox or Yankees win the AL Central and truly open up the wild card. IMO, it has nothing to do with superior/inferior player development.
Not even the NL East has such an uncompetitive disparity.
I realize it's a waste of "breath" (typing) ..... but it's gotta be said. 🙂
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:19 am
@15: Mildly ironic, given the recent debate, swirling around J. Damon, that he was last, in almost every category, that you listed..........even after close to 700PA's.
I wonder how he would have performed, had he played, on a bad team that year. (No way, that he scores 100+ runs, for example.)
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:51 am
Neil, it's certainly not a waste of typing. I'll admit I get frustrated with complaints about baseball's "inequities," for numerous reasons. I won't get into all of it right now. But I clearly remember when the Yankees stank, were in fact the worst team in baseball, and it doesn't seem that long ago. They've had a long time near the top, no question, but that doesn't mean it can't end. I think MLB's (Selig's) own anti-marketing has infected a lot of people. T(he)y told fans that certain teams couldn't compete, so it seems to be accepted as true. "Competitive balance," however one wants to measure it, is probably worse in basketball, and yet no one seems to complain about it there, because the NBA didn't trash its own product. Tampa Bay is in the terribly unequal AL East and doing quite nicely. Minnesota was so hopeless they were going to be contracted, and they've been a good-to-great team ever since.
Do some teams have advantages? Of course. Could more be done to level the playing field? I suppose. I just can't be that sympathetic when it's plain to see that many (if not most) teams do not have winning as a priority, and the commissioner himself is so anti-player that any changes to the system will probably just take money out of their pockets.
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:07 am
Having been a Twins fan for years, yet only after being a Phillies fan, as a 'kid', I think that I have some perspective....
The name "Mitch Williams" came up in conversation today. 'Didn't he blow the World Series?' Ah, yes. I remember those days.....in '93, Toronto had an enormous, amazing stadium, which was still filled to the sky with fans, who came to watch their 3 division, and 2 consecutive WS championships. Toronto ruled. The Yankees, and Boston? Eh, they were around, but were still trying to get their acts together.
After the strike, in '96, Pat Hentgen won the Cy Young. The Jays followed that up, by going out and adding Roger Clemens(!) to that rotation...giving (steroids or not) the next two Cy Young awards to the Jays, also. In the Rocket's last season in Toronto, Roy Halladay made his debut. Granted it was only a cup of coffee, and he had a short down period, before he took off for good.....but the Jays still had him for 12 seasons. Twelve. (10 of which, I'd call 'full seasons'.)
A ginormous, filled stadium, Cy Young, Cy Now, and Cy Old. What happened? I'd sure to hell wished the Twins had anything close to that kind of pitching, over these years. They STILL gave Johan Santana away, even AS Target Field was being built, rather than paying him. Granted, he was not, what he was before, but, as still a true, legitimate #1 starter, (and, on a good day, still as dominant as ever) he sure as hell would have given MN a fighting chance in '09, and '10, against NY. (and also assured that they made it, in '08.)
My point? It comes down to ownership. Ask the Pirates. What has that stadium done for the team? Zero. The crap that fans were fed was that 'this will make us competitive'. Bull. Lies. Their payroll is zero. MN fans had a mostly financed stadium, stuffed down their throats, against their wishes. A couple of days before they broke ground on the new stadium, the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, like 1 1/2 miles away. Deaths. No public money for bridges, but they broke ground on the stadium, as scheduled.....cold-hearted. (Didn't even wait, like a week, or anything, out of respect.)
Very short point: Lot of slumlords running teams, in baseball. Don't know what happened up there in TOR, but you guys have had some players. It seems like there have been resources....what's your ownership like?
My apologies, for my lack of brevity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Field#Legislation_and_funding
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:11 am
@ Neil : My running joke, last year, with my Red Sox Nation friend, (as Boston scrambled, to try and get back in the hunt) was:
Friend: "Who is leading your guy's division (AL Central)?"
Me: "Toronto!!"
LOL
It is Quadruple-A, of a sort, I'll never deny that.....
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:32 am
@my own post(22):I guess I wouldn't have wasted MY time, typing this, if I'd known that JT (21) was going to make my points just as well, and in about 1/3 of the words...... 🙂
June 22nd, 2011 at 1:37 am
last post, sorry....... re:my post (22), paragraph towards the end, meant to say "mostly *PUBLIC*-financed stadium, stuffed down their throats".....
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:16 am
I'm totally with JT on this one. There are definitely inequities but they are mostly caused by uneven population and wealth distribution in the various local markets for each team. And when you look at recent bottom-feeding teams like Pittsburgh and Baltimore, you see a long almost completely one-sided story of poor personnel decisions, ranging from GM and manager to draft picks, trades, and free agents.
I mean...did the Orioles think that Derrek Lee and Vladimir Guerrero weren't going to play like over-the-hill former stars?
Did the Pirates really think carefully about hiring and then keeping John Russell as manager?
It reminds me of the first bunch of years of Tampa Bay's existence as a team. They made one horrible decision after another. It was comical. Then once they got rid of Chuck LaMar, they started drafting properly and everything fell into place.
June 22nd, 2011 at 7:48 am
Johnny and Nash, generous, intelligent posts regarding baseball inequities.
I hit the sack early last night and dropped out of the discussions. Just didn't want both of you to think this thread was dead.
I'll try to sneak some time at work later to reply.
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:08 am
@10...what, you don't like hearing the truth?
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:10 am
@21
"I'll admit I get frustrated with complaints about baseball's "inequities," for numerous reasons."
Johnny Twisto, I understand that the constant whining from the poorly-managed, poorly-"owned", have-not teams gets annoying after a while, but Toronto is a unique situation.
Taking the eleven-year span from 2000-10 as a frame of reference, Toronto's dollars have never been spent as poorly as Baltimore's, IMO, so their lack of success is not just overspending for under-performing players..
Tampa Bay is frequently cited as an example of how anybody from the AL East can go deep into the post-season but that may be cherry-picking a short time span. Tampa Bay was so bad for so long from 2000 on that their recent success may be a spike.
Tampa Bay will be in tough this year to compete with the big boys, despite their amazing pitching staff, so market realities may bring them back to earth over the next few years.
A quick and dirty look, shows that Toronto never really stunk in the 11 year span from 2000-10. They had 6 winning seasons and two of the losing seasons were 80-82. Tampa Bay had 3 winning seasons in the same time span.
Toronto won 100 more games than Tampa Bay (890 to 790) from 2000 to 2011. I don't have time right now to compare that to, say AL Central or West teams, but I imagine it stacks up pretty well
There are lots more points to be made relating to the issues you raise in #21 and Nash in #22 and #23, (Great post, @22), but it's all the time I can spare at the moment.
(I am a horribly slow keyboardist and takes me a while to get my thoughts into writing.)
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Any time I hear people complain about "buying championships," I remind them that I root for the Cubs and point them to their payroll. Sputtering ensues.
June 22nd, 2011 at 2:08 pm
@22
"Lot of slumlords running teams, in baseball. Don't know what happened up there in TOR, but you guys have had some players. It seems like there have been resources....what's your ownership like?"
Nash, no argument about Toronto having had some great players come through in the 90's but probably only Roy Halladay in the 2000's, Carlos Delgado and Orlando Hudson notwithstanding. But the price of free agents has escalated beyond Toronto's revenue streams since then.
Ownership says Alex Anthopoulos can have extra money to spend when he needs to make a mid-season player rental or a free-agent acquisition, but the question is in what year do you financially blow your brains out?
The locals don't want any more Frank Thomas, Scott Rolen, Troy Glaus deals as engineered by J.P. Ricciardi.
As a Toronto GM, with finite resources at your disposal you would look for a year when the Yankees and/or Red Sox look vulnerable and the AL East is truly up for grabs but they can trump your every move. Were the Blue Jays ever in the running for Adrian Gonzalez?
Nash, the comparisons between Toronto and Minnesota in terms of competitiveness are intriguing. Except that Toronto fans are disillusioned and are staying away from the ballpark in droves.
Without having seen post-season play since the WS year of 1993, and with the Ricciardi 7-year plan having left a sour taste in people's mouths, spending will probably have to precede an uptick in attendance. That requires ownership with deep pockets and faith in "the plan".
The current GM, Alex Anthopoulos, is just coming off his honeymoon period with the media and fans so we'll see how he addresses the serious problems the ball club has.
June 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 pm
gotcha 🙂
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:30 pm
I read the bit about the Red Sox 10-run inning with no home runs, 4 pitchers, and 40+ minutes in length. I also heard about it early in the Phillies' radio broadcast last night. I wondered if I would ever see such an inning myself.
No, I still haven't. However, after I got home and put the Phillies game on T.V., I did see a 9-run inning played in 40+ minutes with no home runs or extra base hits but with 5 pitchers.
The Phillies "only" scored 10 runs last night, after being shut out through six innings - one in the 7th, then 9 in the 8th. The top of the ninth ended on a flyout to the warning track with the bases loaded. Had it gone out, a grand slam would have given them 14 runs for the night. With two outs and the bases empty, the chances of scoring again would have been slim. Then again, most of those 8th inning runs crossed the plate with two out, and all three players who loaded the bases in the 9th reached after the first two hitters in the inning were retired.
And the Twins had an 8-run inning last night, but it was "constructed" quite differently than the huge innings that the Red Sox and Phillies had this week, with extra base hits and occurring in the first inning rather than in one of the final three innings of the game.
June 22nd, 2011 at 6:58 pm
I do agree with the general sentiment there is much greater parity in baseball since revenue sharing was brought in, but I still think a hard salary cap with a salary floor at half the cap is the best way to ensure parity. It definitely ushered in an era of unpredictability and parity in the NFL..an era where certain years like 2001, 2009 going into a season you could argue there were 10-11 teams that had a decent shot to win the Super Bowl. Baseball is at the point where there are 5-6 teams that go into Spring Training with a very good shot, which is a stark improvement from the past but a hard cap would even out the league. It makes dynasties almost impossible to build, but to me that's best for the sport as a whole because dynasties are only enjoyable for the players, coaches, fans, front office, of that 1 team. I think $120 million as a cap with a $60 million floor for tightwad(comparably speaking..60 million is still $60 mil I realize). Right now there are 6 teams above $120 mil and 6 teams below. And the top 3 teams are the 3 odds on favorites according to Vegas at the moment to win the world series(Phillies-2nd highest payroll @2.5:1, Red Sox 3rd highest at 3:1, Yankees obviously #1 with 6:1 odds). I know its a long season to go, and at this time last year the Yankees were the favorites and that meant nothing in October, but those teams wouldn't be the 3 favorites if they had payrolls around $100 million in my opinion.
Yes, the Rays and Twins have proven you can win divisions and compete with modest payrolls, even my favorite team the Chi Sox who is now 6th in payroll was mid-level when they won it all in 2005, but its clearly advantageous to have a massive payroll over $150 million. You would have to have the most incompetent GM in the world to win less than 84 games with what the Yankees are allowed to spend and their margin of error is triple that of teams with smaller payrolls. Likewise, the MLB should enforce a salary floor between $50-$65 million because there is no way you can spend less than that in today's league and consistently have a shot to make a run in the playoffs.
I'm for a hard cap in all American sports..at least the major ones. The teams that suffer in sports with hard caps who consistently cannot break through are those run by incompetent front offices like the Detroit Lions and Atlanta Thrashers.
June 22nd, 2011 at 8:48 pm
@34
Bob M., an excellent post, in my opinion. Our comments may never get read in an almost-dead thread but the NFL does provide the best revenue-sharing model for MLB if they were interested.
A hard cap, as in hockey, would be an excellent equalizer. Imagine the big baseball spenders (Phillies/Yankees/Red Sox) trying to dump salary in a given year to meet a hard cap. It would really take general manger skill to adhere to a salary cap and remain competitive.
Look at what happened to the Black Hawks after their Stanley Cup season because of the salary cap.
I truly believe that another facet of the problem, though, is the incestuous relationship between MLB and television. Do major networks truly want parity among baseball cities? What major network sports executive pines for a Kansas City-Pittsburg or a Toronto-Florida world series?
In my opinion, there is a vested television interest in keeping certain teams at the top of the baseball heap. And what television wants from baseball, television gets, I have posted similar thoughts in other threads a while back.
The exact floor and ceiling could be open to negotiation, but can you imagine the Players' Union or the agents ever going for it. Over their dead bodies!
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:55 pm
a hard cap would even out the league. It makes dynasties almost impossible to build, but to me that's best for the sport as a whole because dynasties are only enjoyable for the players, coaches, fans, front office, of that 1 team.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I think fans appreciate greatness, even if it's not their team. People talk about the Yankee dynasties, the A's of the early '30s or '70s, the '50s Dodgers, etc. Teams that win a title despite only winning 90 games, or have one great season surrounded by mediocre-decent seasons, don't capture the imagination of most fans. Of course, people will have differing opinions on how dominant a dynasty is "acceptable." I'm sure most are sick of the Yankees by now.
I think $120 million as a cap with a $60 million floor for tightwad(comparably speaking..60 million is still $60 mil I realize).
It's never easy to figure seasonal team payrolls, because of trades, etc., but I'm just going to take the 2011 numbers at Cot's Contracts. If I assume that everyone spending over $120M would spend exactly $120, everyone under 60 comes up to 60, and the teams in between stay where they are....then total MLB payroll drops by $154M, or over $200,000 per player. That's what I was referring to in #21. Bud Seaslug would love this, because he hates players earning money. I think the players are highly skilled professionals, the best in the world, who people pay lots of money to see, and a significant percentage of that money should end up in their pockets. And it seems like any suggested change to the salary structure takes money away from them. This when salaries relative to total revenues have already dropped significantly over the past several years.
And the top 3 teams are the 3 odds on favorites according to Vegas at the moment to win the world series
I look at this a different way. I don't think it's a bad thing that the teams spending the most money are the favorites. If the best players are *not* earning the most money, then the salary structure and/or player evaluation is completely inefficient (and salaries are somewhat unbalanced because of the restrictions on young players). The key question to me is: Can other teams afford to spend that much money? Either now, or in a few years if they build up their brand? In 1996, the Yankees drew 2.2M fans, 7th in the league. After years of winning, they could jack up their ticket prices every year and still sell out almost every game, drawing over 4M. There's no question that they had an advantage due to their location, but NYC metro didn't double in population (or prosperity) over that time. They built their brand.
The teams that suffer in sports with hard caps who consistently cannot break through are those run by incompetent front offices like the Detroit Lions and Atlanta Thrashers.
This goes back to what I'm talking about with Selig badmouthing his sport. I've had similar conversations with other people. In other sports, teams lose for year after year after decade because they're "incompetent." In baseball, it's never incompetence, it's just that they have "no chance." That's BS.
Look at what happened to the Black Hawks after their Stanley Cup season because of the salary cap.
And is that a good thing? I don't follow hockey but I did hear something about how they lost their entire team. If a team should have to make some hard decisions about who to keep and who to shed, fine. For a champion to be forced to lose all their best players is silly. (Though I see Chicago was still good this season. I don't know the details of the NHL so I'll stop on this.)
***
People bandy about terms like "parity" and "competitive balance." It's hard to engage when I don't know exactly what they mean. You can cherrypick any numbers to make some point about parity.
Should every team have a chance to win? Of course. Should every team have a chance to win every single season? Well, the literal answer is that they do. The realistic answer is no. In any season, some teams will be better than others (and appear to be so before it starts). That's not a bad thing. That's how competition, and the world, works. Now, should every team have a reasonable chance to compete over some reasonable window (10 years?). Yes, that makes sense to me. Are there teams which, for whatever reasons, are distinctly disadvantaged and, barring a fluke, have *no* chance to build a team which could compete for multiple years? Honestly, I don't know.
I don't believe anything owners say, but can Tampa Bay afford a $200M payroll? My best guess is, given the current state of their local economy and fan enthusiasm, no they cannot. Obviously one doesn't need to spend that much to have an excellent chance to compete. The Yankees have an old team which consequently earns more than they are necessarily worth, and of course TB *has* been very competitive recently (and looks to remain so over the next few years). Let's suppose TB has excellent management. Maybe terrible management should be punished, but what about average, competent management. If a "small market" team has that, surely they still deserve a chance to compete? I think so. I just don't know if they really "can't." There is already a sizable amount of revenue sharing. Should it be increased? Maybe so. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Suppose a team has been successful for a few years, their attendance and ratings increase, and they start earning a lot more money. The problem with a cap is they are prevented from reinvesting in the major league team (I guess they could still spend on scouting, signing amateurs, coaching, etc). A team that has performed well and consequently earned more money would have little to do with it but let the owners get rich.
Believe me, I definitely don't think the current system is perfect. I just don't like changes which implicitly hurt (a) the talent or (b) the successful teams.
And I hope this thread ain't dead after spending so much time on this damn post.........
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:06 am
@36
JT, I'm alive and kickin' in this thread and willing to engage in constructive discussion. I think it's a great discussion even if it is all academic.
I'n not quite as quick as you in marshalling my thoughts, but give me a chance to mull over all you've written and respond.
(That is if my wife doesn't pull the plug on me using my laptop in bed because of the glare!)
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:51 am
@36
Johnny Twisto, your post deserves a detailed, reasoned response. My input will come in bits and pieces. Thanks for bearing with me ....
"I think fans appreciate greatness, even if it's not their team. People talk about the Yankee dynasties, the A's of the early '30s or '70s, the '50s Dodgers, etc. "
I agree, but I think that those appreciative fans of other teams have to be able to "identify" with the dynasty, have to believe that it was built according to the same "rules" that govern their team. If they don't perceive that, then there is a disconnect.
The Miami Heat were a "great" team talent-wise this year, but there was a huge backlash against them winning it all, a lot of resentment.
Would the Dallas Mavericks be an example of a team that did capture the common fan's imagination despite mediocre-decent seasons after knocking off a dynasty (the Lakers) and a would-be dynasty?
"Of course, people will have differing opinions on how dominant a dynasty is "acceptable." I'm sure most are sick of the Yankees by now."
In my circles, the Yankees and to a lesser degree the Red Sox, are the teams people "love to hate". Filtering out the "fandom" I don't sense appreciation of these teams. Johnny, surely you've come encountered the derisive phrase "evil empire" in reference to the Yankees.
Not much about baseball yet, but I'm taking on your points one at a time .....
More to come, but it may be tomorrow.
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:03 am
I think that those appreciative fans of other teams have to be able to "identify" with the dynasty, have to believe that it was built according to the same "rules" that govern their team.
Fair point. Fans may not feel that way anymore. And while I think part of that is misinformation/anti-advertising from MLB, part of it is probably reality.
the Yankees and to a lesser degree the Red Sox, are the teams people "love to hate"
I don't think that's a bad thing. In a "parity league" where every team wins from 70 to 90 games every season and all the winners and losers switch places every couple years, no team will ever be hated. As long as fans still care enough to hate teams, a league is vital. If they don't care anymore, then yes, there may be a problem.
I'll try to remember to keep checking this thread even after it sadly slides to the second page (and beyond).
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:20 pm
More to post #36.
"I think the players are highly skilled professionals, the best in the world, who people pay lots of money to see, and a significant percentage of that money should end up in their pockets."
Johnny, just a matter of personal opinion or perhaps a product of my upbringing, but I tend to think that professional atheletes in general are overpaid, even comparing them to movie star as entertainers.
However, baseball players no more so than other sports. We can agree to disagree on that and it is neither here nor there in terms of the larger equity/competitiveness discussion.
"I don't think it's a bad thing that the teams spending the most money are the favorites. .......... The key question to me is: Can other teams afford to spend that much money?"
I think that paragraph hits at the crux of the matter. And I am saying the answer is .... no!!
You mention a team "building its brand". That is more easily said than done. What if a team is in a small population city (or another country) without a lot of national media exposure, for example, a Kansas City? How do they build their brand compared to (recently) non-winning teams like the Mets or Cubs?
One aspect of my post @35 that didn't catch your attention, Johnny, was the role that television plays in propping up the current baseball status quo. Maybe it was so off-base as to not merit a response. When ESPN or FOX pays MLB for television rights does that money get parcelled out to teams in 30 equal amounts regardless of number of appearances on TV or is there a per-appearance cheque issued?
If the national media money is parcelled out equally, then who picks what games get telvised on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday night? The networks or MLB? If it is MLB, then why not equalize exposure so that teams can "build their brand"?
(I'm assuming you mean building your brand = winning.)
Why do I have it my head that the NFL is such a perfect revenue-sharing system? When the Redskins play the Giants in NY and FOX televises the game does any more media/advertising money from that game go into the Giants' pockets than, say Green Bay's?
Got off on a tangent there, but I'll get back to baseball eventually. Later ......
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Can other teams afford to spend that much money?"
.... no!!
We don't know that. I do realize not every team has the same financial resources. But we don't know how much they do have. As I said, I think many or most owners do not make winning a priority. I think most are capable of investing more in their teams, but choose not to, especially if there is no immediate obvious benefit. Owners do not have the same interests as fans, so there is always going to be friction.
One aspect of my post @35 that didn't catch your attention, Johnny, was the role that television plays in propping up the current baseball status quo. Maybe it was so off-base as to not merit a response. When ESPN or FOX pays MLB for television rights does that money get parcelled out to teams in 30 equal amounts regardless of number of appearances on TV or is there a per-appearance cheque issued?
That did get my attention, I just overlooked it. I actually think you are right. I believe TV does have a great interest in the bigger market teams being successful. I don't know what can be done about that. If MLB demands that every team be televised the same amount, the TV deal won't be as rich, and MLB will never want that.
However, the national TV money is evenly distributed.
more later....
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I do not believe that players are overpaid. If they are, who should get the extra money? Owners? They already make large profits both in cash and in inflation of team value.
The obvious answer is that fans should keep some of the money. That would mean us paying less for tickets and also paying less for products that advertise on TV and radio and increase those products' prices. But the free market isn't supporting that. Teams do a good job of optimizing ticket prices to ensure that fans keep coming, and people are still buying products. Think players are overpaid? Stop going to the ballpark.
June 23rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
@36, again
"Should every team have a chance to win? .......... ".
Totally with you Johnny, on everything in the paragraph down to,
"Are there teams which, for whatever reasons, are distinctly disadvantaged and, barring a fluke, have *no* chance to build a team which could compete for multiple years?"
.
There I have to answer, yes! I believe the prime exhibits are Tampa Bay, Baltimore, and Toronto. Baltimore I would put in a slightly different category because I think there have been contract decisions that have been worse than average. Other exhibits are Minnesota, Kansas City, and Pittsburg but their division structure at least permits a sniff of post-season hope.
Tampa Bay will have difficulty remaining competitive again this year and next, I believe although they had built a good team.
Andy, thanks for posting to this private little dialogue. Gotta go now but will pick up the discussion about player salaries later.
June 23rd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
@ Andy (41):
As I said, I think many or most owners do not make winning a priority. I think most are capable of investing more in their teams, but choose not to, especially if there is no immediate obvious benefit.
I couldn't imagine owning a chain of 30 restaurants, and having some locations, consistently under-perform, over an absurdly long period of time, and, upon asking the management, of one of these restaurants,'What is going on?' being told,"aaaahh....you know.....we don't want to spend on this place, we choose not to....there's no obvious immediate benefit. BTW, can you give us a larger revenue stream??"
There's your problem. Ownership. No, not every team has the same resources. But, every team can care.
(Again, the stadium in Pittsburgh, it didn't help.)
June 23rd, 2011 at 6:55 pm
@44
Nash, cutting to the chase, here, should baseball owners, corporate or individual, expect to make a profit, even marginal, on their team? I say yes or at least not take a loss.
I don't think that every franchise can have a Mark Cuban or some other sugar daddy owner who will treat it as a charity or a tax write-off under their corporate umbrella. That's not a realistic, sustainable model.
If I understand Johnny Twisto's reasoning correctly, he is saying spend the money in advance, for several years, compete with the highest spenders and your brand will be built because you will win. But what if you don't win? Then you call in a Sandy Alderson to restore "order".
Arrrgh ...... my thoughts are spinning 'round and 'round. I believe I'm on to something valid but it's not coming too well.
June 24th, 2011 at 4:45 am
Neil, I agree with you- it is a business. So let's play by business rules, then. No corporate welfare. No owners getting free money from the public, for stadiums, against the public's will. (Shouldn't business owners be making money, through.... business??)No 'profit sharing', for teams that are not willing to try and compete......Sadly, of course, in life, business often doesn't work that way.
I am all for revenue sharing, certainly, for teams that show that they are deserving.....but, c'mon. Should Florida have a franchise? Really??? Should the Yankees(as much as I hate them, lol) be forced to flush money down that commode? As JT said(36), NY built their brand.
Minnesota was lined up for contraction, years back. A team with a fine baseball history, a good baseball town, state, and region, in fact. Montreal, which would have won in '94, and had great fan support for many years, while they were winning, had their fans finally give up, I guess. Nothing like having a WS title canceled, and then being lined up for contraction, after the fact.(Boy did they get screwed.)
Milwaukee, though.....no mention of contraction for that struggling small-market team.
Nor should there have been. Another great, small-market, baseball town, deserving of some sort of revenue sharing. But, my bigger point is- they were Selig's darlings. Does anyone care, in Tampa Bay, despite their success?? Had to keep the Rays, though, cause it looked good to the NYC snowbirds.....good for Selig's ego. And, there's a huge problem. Baseball needs an actual commissioner, who thinks about the game, as a whole, without self- interest. BS owners should be 'nudged' towards competing, "remember your franchise is a part of OUR league", and encouraged to sell, otherwise. In cases of non-compliance, or apathetic markets, drop franchises if necessary!! Expand the other rosters by 2 players, and let those owners can still take their team to the Pacific Coast League, or something.
Selig lacks the character, to enforce the greater good of the game. Hopefully he is gone, before he sends out any more 'slumlord owners' to raid public treasuries, for new stadiums.