Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
46 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

All I know is that somehow the Pistons and Red Wings will drop 2 spots despite this being an MLB lottery. 

This is a solid post everyone 

Posted
43 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Is there evidence that baseball is now more competitive than it was before?  Has the variance of win totals decreased for example?   

I don't care if the owners make money or not, but they fall all over themselves spending hundreds of millions on free agents.  Good thing they suppressed the salaries of the younger players with the draft.  

 

Variance of win totals does little to say whether it's more competitive. That's a silly ask to measure to see if it's more competitive.

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Variance of win totals does little to say whether it's more competitive. That's a silly ask to measure to see if it's more competitive.

I wouldn't say that's a silly measure, but I wouldn't take it as the best measure of the draft at distributing talent. That would better be measured by something like the average number of consecutive years teams stay over or under 500, or maybe better over 550 or under 450.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Like 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, KL2 said:

Variance of win totals does little to say whether it's more competitive. That's a silly ask to measure to see if it's more competitive.

What measure would you use?  

Posted
12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I wouldn't say that's a silly measure, but I wouldn't take it as the best measure of the draft at distributing talent. That would better be measured by something like the average number of consecutive years teams stay over or under 500, or maybe better over 550 or under 450.

That would be better, but if the goal is to have a competitive league, there shouldn't be 4 100+ win teams and 4 100+ loss teams.  

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

That would be better, but if the goal is to have a competitive league, there shouldn't be 4 100+ win teams and 4 100+ loss teams.  

I tend to think the extremities - particularly on the losing side, have a lot to do with the way the current CBA drives all but the richest teams into a boom and bust cycle. In one sense, it's working as designed as it does make it hard for most teams to afford being good for more than a few years at a time, but I think the effects in the current system are too extreme. Teams should cycle some as their star players arc out of their best years, but I don't think you have to have a system that leads so many teams to feel they have to do total teardowns to get out from under the costs they incurred during their up phases. On that score I agree there are too many too good and too bad teams and that is a bad sign/result.

Edited by gehringer_2
Posted

The draft is just one element of a handful  of building an organization.  You are still limited to small sample sizes when it comes to HS and college players. Drafting and development do go hand in hand but i do think they are also somewhat mutually exclusive.  If your 6th round pick becomes a decent MLB player I chalk that up to your minor league coaching staffs and development people. (and the player)

Profiling is important but the draft is still a crapshoot and you are lucky to get one good player a year out of what, 20 picks?  

Posted
10 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

That would be better, but if the goal is to have a competitive league, there shouldn't be 4 100+ win teams and 4 100+ loss teams.  

Where do you think teams at the top and bottom line up in a competitive league?  The one thing about baseball vs other sports is the game to game nature of it.  You really don't know who will win any given game.  The winning percentages of teams is a much more narrow range than those of the other major sports.

Posted
11 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

That would be better, but if the goal is to have a competitive league, there shouldn't be 4 100+ win teams and 4 100+ loss teams.  

The draft is only one aspect that promotes competitive balance, but baseball is the only major US sport that contains a gross economic disparity among members that continues to be an issue. 

  • Like 2
Posted

We should know which competitive balance pick we get tomorrow. I believe that is set December 1. It will be after the second round, but the formula to determine the order within is not public.

  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

That would be better, but if the goal is to have a competitive league, there shouldn't be 4 100+ win teams and 4 100+ loss teams.  

Why not?

There is no problem with rebuilding. Its part of the natural evolution of sports. Not every team needs to try to win 81 games every year. To make that a bench mark of 'competitive' is silly and just produces a mediocre product. I don't believe a team that wins 71 games is anymore competitive as a team that only wins 65. They are both pretty bad. 

A competitive league is on a longer timeline. Playoff appearance, new champions, ratings are all better measure than year-by-year win variances to determine if a team is more competitive. 

Posted

My understanding on the history of the draft was that the goal wasn't to make teams better per se.... but to give teams a shot at desirable talent rather than just the big market teams out bidding everyone.  The draft was a crapshoot even back then so it wasn't about year to year events.  It's about the standouts that pop up periodically being available to smaller clubs.

Posted
3 hours ago, KL2 said:

A competitive league is on a longer timeline. Playoff appearance, new champions, ratings are all better measure than year-by-year win variances to determine if a team is more competitive. 

You can't compare playoff appearances and new champions before and after the start of the draft because they didn't have playoffs prior to the draft.  They just took the winner in each league and had a World Series.  

As for you other point, I think all teams should try to be competitive every year.  Constant tear downs and re-building are not good for the game.  I don't even think they are more effective for individual teams long-term.    

Posted
10 hours ago, casimir said:

Where do you think teams at the top and bottom line up in a competitive league?  The one thing about baseball vs other sports is the game to game nature of it.  You really don't know who will win any given game.  The winning percentages of teams is a much more narrow range than those of the other major sports.

I don't know, but a 100-loss season should be a rare event for any respectable franchise.  It should only be the result of everything just going wrong for a season.  It shouldn't be because teams didn't try to put together a decent roster.  

Posted
11 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

As for you other point, I think all teams should try to be competitive every year.  Constant tear downs and re-building are not good for the game.  I don't even think they are more effective for individual teams long-term.    

And the issues that drive that are not the draft.

Posted
2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't know, but a 100-loss season should be a rare event for any respectable franchise.  It should only be the result of everything just going wrong for a season.  It shouldn't be because teams didn't try to put together a decent roster.  

I think there’s some psychological magic with 100 wins or losses for an MLB record.  It’s just a theory.  Kind of like 20 pitching wins or home runs (used to be anyway).

I’d like to say 100 wins or losses doesn’t occur very often, but there probably needs to be s9me research behind that.  For the record, there were three 100 win teams and four 100 loss teams this season.  I’m sure most of us that were around for 1984 look at 104 wins as something special.  And, unfortunately we know the sting of 119 losses, too.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...