11/21/24
March 25, 2002
What's your "town hall" question for Bud Selig?: This will be the first public forum Budzilla has participated in since the threatened contraction 2 days after the World Series ended. How about the extortion of the fans in Kansas City? Submit questions March 26th after 2 P.M. ET.
I'm going to turn this around a little bit... Now, I want to make it clear that Bud Selig is not a favorite of mine and there are a ton of reasons why I dislike the guy. ( You can check it out here if you'd like to see a few ). Additionally, I will fully admit that his timing could not have been worse with the great World Series and whatnot. Still, can we face the facts and say that contraction is a good thing? People have been saying that it been needed for years, but now that it has been proposed not a single soul is in support of it. I don't get it. Is it all due to the backlash of the bad timing or am I missing something? Again, I'm not a Selig fan, but as a baseball fan I really think it's time to demote a few teams and get the talent levels back to major league status. My question for Selig: How on Earth could you screw this one up so badly?
posted by 86 at 10:28 PM on March 25, 2002
I'm not sure what the reasoning is for saying "contraction is a good thing". No one has adequately explained how cutting more than 100 jobs per team contracted is a "good thing". Let's see the arguments: 1) "get the talent levels back to major league status" Huh. So what players would be demoted or released? The young players? Doubtful, as they are the cheapest to employ and the most likely to improve. If this is all about money, then why would owners get rid of the best value players? Then how about the top-notch players? Like anyone is going to cut ARod, Jeter, Andruw or Vlad! Then it would be...the middle-level players. Players like, oh, Paul Konerko, Christian Guzman, Jeff Cirillo and Matt Lawton. So you'd end up with each team having 2 or 3 superstars earning outrageous sums of money and 20 or so young players. This makes it better? This is how it is supposed to work? 2) "drop the non-competitive teams losing money and not drawing fans" Back in 1987, there were 3 franchises on the brink of implosion from bad management, bad fan support and bad finances: Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians and Seattle Mariners. At the same time, the Minnesota Twins were winning the World Series and nobody was proposing they get "contracted". It's a cycle. Smart management and the ability to grow players in your own system that fans will enjoy watching can turn around any franchise. I can't think of any other "logical" reason that has been mentioned to contract teams. Oh, and to keep on topic, here is my question for Bud Selig: Why do you hate baseball so much?
posted by grum@work at 11:26 PM on March 25, 2002
Grum, there is no way Konerko, Guzman, Cirillo or Lawton would go without jobs. It wouldn't happen. At the very least they'll be forced to accept a couple hundred grand less on a contract. 15 years ago were middle level players bagging groceries while Double A wannabes were starting shortstops? No, back then a middle reliever was a middle reliever and a fifth starter was a fifth starter? Natural laws will prevail and I won't shed a single tear if Paul Konerko makes $1.5 million rather than $2.3. Contraction would, quite simply, improve the quality of the product. Better players would be on the field and the 60 or so who don't make the cut can head back to the farm and work ever-harder to achieve their dreams. I would much rather watch legit major leaguers square off than pay good money to watch Barry Bonds go yard on Jeff Austin and Sammy Sosa club Joe Beimel 70 times a year. Your argument about smart management and growth of players being a cycle is well founded. Still, it doesn't change the fact that with a diluted talent pool, the game has become a circus and terrible baseball is commonplace. Players hit 60 home runs a year and we don't give it a second thought. Games end up 11-10 and we don't give it a second thought. That's not baseball, it's rocket-ball. It's a shame that Minnesota or Tampa Bay would lose their franchise, but those folks would find alternatives sooner or later and baseball as a whole would benefit. Montreal, I could care less about and from what I know, they don't have any fans anyway.
posted by 86 at 11:16 AM on March 26, 2002
I was all for contraction until reading this. I don't always agree with Neyer on non-stats issues (he usually weirds me out), but I think he did a good job of demonstating what a callous dodge contraction is.
posted by yerfatma at 11:20 AM on March 26, 2002
Need another opinion on the insanity of contraction? How about this one? (snatched from here) I think he's got an interesting and informed point of view... Former Commissioner Fay Vincent, who told ESPN Radio, "I would put my money on Donald [Fehr]'s [head of the MLB Players Union] legal opinion over the owners because Donald is always right and the owners never are." Terming contraction "a public-relations fiasco delivered by the owners," Vincent asked pointedly, "If baseball is suffering financially as much as they say they are, then where are they going to get the money to buy these teams out?"
posted by grum@work at 01:24 PM on March 26, 2002
I don't believe the talent pool is diluted at all. I believe that players are bigger and stronger, ballparks are smaller and yes the ball is probably juiced. The strikezone is supposedly expanding as of last year but it had shrunk to postage-stamp size previous to that. Compare an average team in this era (say last year's Padres, or the Marlins) and compare them to a .500 team 30 years ago and I think you'll be forced to conclude that the Padres or whoever are vastly better. The reason lousy teams can't compete isn't dilution or even because they can't pay Mike Mussina enough money, it's because even when they can pay the money, the organization lacks sufficient competence, vision and integrity to convince players who would otherwise be happy to play there to stay, e.g. Mike Sweeney. As a corollary how can they then convince rational ballplayers to join their team for the first time when they have no inducement worth offering except money? This is what creates "overpaid" players and "free-agent busts," although from what I read in the media, I get the impression others expect Marquis Grissom to turn his head in shock and refuse to sign Selig's giant contract because he can't possibly meet those expectations.
posted by pastepotpete at 01:59 PM on March 26, 2002
For the record: I never said that contraction would solve financial problems or that dilution of talent had anything to do with small-market teams not being able to compete. I was simply commenting on the quality of the games that I've watched over the last few years and about how eliminating two teams would improve that. It is my belief that over-expansion has weakened the game. (Seriously folks, you couldn't blink two years ago without hearing three people mentioning this). The product is far worse than it was in years gone past and contraction would be one step in the fix-it-up process. It's only one step, but it's a significant step and based on what people were saying a year or two ago, I cannot understand why there is such widespread opposition to the call now. hysdavid, bad syntax or not, this has turned into quite the post. Nice work.
posted by 86 at 03:50 PM on March 26, 2002
Explain to me how the "product is worse than it was in years gone past". This kind of statement is made by EVERY person about EVER sport, and in general it is a crock of shit. Just because all the old-time writers are saying this doesn't make it right. And it has to be the old-time writers since they are the only ones qualified to make the comparison. But these are the same writers that tell me that Barry Bonds isn't as good as Mickey Mantle was, or that Greg Maddux isn't the pitcher that Sandy Koufax was. It's simply a fact that everyone wants to believe that when they were fans of a sport, it was the best it ever was and the stars they watched were the best there ever was. If the sport was "better back then", tell me how. It wasn't because more teams had a chance to win: from 1940-1959, 8 franchises won a World Series title; from 1960-1979, 9 teams won a WS title; from 1980-1999 14 teams won a WS title. It wasn't because the players were better: there was nothing but white players until Jackie Robinson. Since then, more black players, hispanic players and oriental players have joined, increasing the talent pool immensely. Players are stronger, faster, more educated, better trained, better equipped than ever before. Certain injuries are no longer career ending and players are able to play longer at a higher level than ever before. Someone with the power and speed combination of Alex Rodriguez, and having the skill to play shortstop, would have been unheard of 30 years ago. For a good essay about this sort of thing, I highly recommend you read The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. He debunks many myths about baseball. Plus, it's a damn entertaining book.
posted by grum@work at 05:10 PM on March 26, 2002
Oh, in case everyone thinks I'm an apologist for the the sport of baseball in general, there are quite a few things wrong with the game that need to be fixed:
- minority hiring
- ownership rules
- crowding the plate and body armour
- arbitration
- minor league free agency
- signing bonuses for top draft picks
- no world-wide draft
posted by grum@work at 05:18 PM on March 26, 2002
Grum@work, you forgot the biggest things that need to be fixed: 1) the designated hitter (the rule book states that baseball is a game of 9 players versus 9 players) and 2) Astroturf (insert Tug McGraw quote here).
posted by trox at 10:57 PM on March 26, 2002
Grum, again, I am not talking about competitive balance, minority participation or even today vs. thirty years ago. I will fully admit that certain aspects of the game have made huge strides and others desperately need to be fixed. What I think this comes down to is simple preference. If you think you can baseball is better as a shoot-out of sorts, with games ending in double-digits and balls leaping out of the parks off the bats of minor-league caliber players, fair enough. Sure, it stems from a variety of sources, but the end all be all is crappy pitching, something which is directly related to dilution of talent brought about by over-expansion. You can point to Greg Maddux, Pedro and Randy Johnson, but those players would still be in the league if we lost two teams. The players we would lose are long-relievers, knocked back to their minor league teams when fifth starters were placed in the pen. Oh, and in case anyone thinks I'm an apologist for the owners, I fully agree with each of the bullet points Grum and Trox mentioned. They would have a decidedly positive affect on the quality of the play and overall status of the league. I'm all for em. More than contraction, I would like to see relegation like they have in English Football (soccer). Minor League Baseball seems to be doing at least as well as a few of their Major League cousins and it would mean double the races and double the fun. By the way, not sure if anyone checked it out, but the "Town Meeting" was held last night. Selig is an idiot.
posted by 86 at 08:26 AM on March 27, 2002
But what would contraction do to reduce double-digit scores? If anything, it would INCREASE the occurance of it. Simply put, hitters dominate pitchers. That's how it works right now. It's easier to be a good hitter than a good pitcher. Adding one good pitcher to each roster (which is all that contracting two teams would do) isn't going to make a difference since one good hitter is going to be added as well. And that good hitter is still going to be a good hitter. Even All-Star games (contraction taken to the extreme limit) have high scoring affairs. Of the last 11 games, a team has scored 6 or more runs 9 times. Back in the early 60's, pitchers dominated hitters. Bob Gibson had his insanely good season (sub 2.00 ERA) and baseball realized there was a problem. So they fixed it by changing the rules. They lowered the mound and (in the case of the AL) added the DH. What baseball should do to fix the imbalance of hitter can be a bunch of smaller changes:
- limit batter protection/armour
- call the high strike all the time
- set a limit to the thinness of the bat handle
- don't allow batters to step out of the batters box
- remove the DH
posted by grum@work at 11:41 AM on March 27, 2002
Grum, I'm going to stop writing about this, given that you said all the right things better than I would have. One of the reasons I like my girlfriend's dad so much is that he's old enough to have seen Ted Williams and the Sox teams of the 40's and 50's in person, but he doesn't fall into the trap of claiming a sport was "better back then."
posted by yerfatma at 04:13 PM on March 27, 2002
Ooops, bad syntax. Post questions/comments here anytime. But if you want to participate in the "town hall", MLB isn't accepting questions until after 2 P.M. ET tomorrow. Sheesh, can 'ya tell it's my 1st post?