WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > The New “Moneyball”

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
The New “Moneyball”  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 10:28 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9430
Status: 
Offline
Franchises are satisfied not trying to be great or even good when it comes to wins and losses.  “Any” profit is viewed as a success.   
I think this is very true in MLB.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-14/major-league-baseball-s-draft-rewards-teams-that-don-t-try-to-win

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 01:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48026
Status: 
Offline
I think lots of teams still try to win, but the "New Moneyball" says it's smart to spend your money on shorter-term, less expensive contracts with interchangeable younger journeymen rather than over-spend on superstars who are old enough to have already reached free agency.  The numbers back this up.  And it's sent pitching strategy in a tailspin especially, because starting pitchers and innings-eaters, who just 3-4 years ago still had tons of value, became worthless almost over night. Teams are just stocking up on flame-throwing relievers who can hit 99 for 1 inning each and can come in well before the 5th inning, and once they're ineffective there seems like there's another who can step in.  Most of these guys aren't stars, just more interchangeable parts.      



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 01:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Kriss
Citizen of nowhere


Joined: Wed Dec 12th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 6394
Status: 
Offline
This is the biggest thing that puts me off US sports leagues compared to my beloved European football. There is no real punishment for being crap. The worst team wins the first draft pick, and as long as attendance doesn't fall off too much, there is very little difference between being average and being crap. If the bottom teams were replaced every year, as they are in European football, you would have much more to play for and many more meaningful games.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 03:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48026
Status: 
Offline
There really is a ton of parity in baseball in particular. People keep bitching about it but a different team wins the World Series almost every year. I posted all the winners before in this century since 2001 and won't go through it again, but it was something like 13 different WS winners in 18 years or something like that, and even more diversity if you include WS and ALCS and NLCS losers. There's no comparison between this and the last century when the Yankees and A's and a couple of other teams were basically the only ones that ever won.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 04:11 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9430
Status: 
Offline
There may be parity, but there are still owners today looking to make profits or increased profits by not investing into the actual team. That is the issue.  It is getting real close to violating the public trust of MLB which an unwritten rule but is known within the spirit of the league.  

Last edited on Thu Mar 7th, 2019 04:14 pm by Papa Voo

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 04:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: D-ville
Posts: 3176
Status: 
Offline
At the end of the day it’s a business and only one team can be the champion each year so I don’t blame them for trying to make money the best way they legally can.

Last edited on Thu Mar 7th, 2019 04:36 pm by Franchise



____________________
"Beginning this week, Nitro is going head-to-head with Thunder in Australia" - The Wrestling Observer Newsletter: January 22, 2001
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 04:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9430
Status: 
Offline
Eh, I think there should be some form of the public trust involved.  I find it interesting how several former commissioners and other baseball people warned about this occurrung decades ago. 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 06:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Superstar
2018 Poster of the Year


Joined: Thu Jan 31st, 2008
Location: Isle Of, Malta
Posts: 5208
Status: 
Offline
It bugs the shit out of me that there are teams that do their best to NOT win, but reap the benefits of revenue sharing. Use any examples you wish, but look at a team such as the Marlins. They have new ownership, and that ownership does everything it can to strip every good player from the roster. Including guys under team control (Realmuto) and guys signed to favorable contracts (Stanton for at least three more years based on the escalations). They have a new stadium that they benefit from advanced revenue streams. They make money from their local TV contract. And when you factor in their total payroll expense, they basically make a profit for sucking. THEN, MLB gives them their share of revenue sharing and all of a sudden as far as percentages go they are in the top half of MLB as far as profitability goes. It's just not right. Teams should be forced to use their revenue sharing money to at least attempt to make the product on the field better, and they should be forced to account for it.



____________________
"Jack Brisco grabbed my testicles once but I told him "Brisco, you have exactly 15 minutes to get your hands off my balls"." -WongLee 7/22/2017
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 07:08 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: D-ville
Posts: 3176
Status: 
Offline
Even if everyone tried balls out wouldn’t some teams just be terrible? What would be different if every team was the best they could be?



____________________
"Beginning this week, Nitro is going head-to-head with Thunder in Australia" - The Wrestling Observer Newsletter: January 22, 2001
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 07:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 48026
Status: 
Offline
There's always going to be winners and losers - in life, in sports, and everywhere else. I find it hysterical that people don't get that. This is kind of the minimum wage argument. OK, the minimum wage is $60 trillion dollars an hour starting tomorrow. Now what? $60 trillion becomes worthless and you need to be a gazillionaire to eat. What magic button do people want to push so that every team wins most games, which by definition isn't possible since sports is a zero sum proposition where there has to be a winner and loser every day? 

Yes, there are a handful of teams (and I don't think it's that many) in every sport not making a good faith effort to compete.  But the consequences should be no fan support and then when the owner is forced to sell because he's losing money he shouldn't make a $100 million profit on the sale.  Sports teams are like housing costs, they seem to only increase.  That's a problem.  When you make a mess of your team, you should sell at a loss.  But owning a team is too much of a cache to billionaires with more money than they know what to do with, and prices keep getting driven up for sports teams.  You want to fix that?  Start with ZERO public funding of stadiums!  When the government gets involved, market realities get bastardized.  You want to buy a team, great.  Now pay for it, including the stadium.  That brings everyone back down to earth and makes it a less sexy proposition unless you're really a dedicated owner who plans on running it right.

Last edited on Thu Mar 7th, 2019 07:46 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 08:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Angelic Assassin



Joined: Mon Dec 27th, 2010
Location: Driving Through Philly, Home Of Losers., Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 5673
Status: 
Offline

MLB could institute a hard salary cap although I'm not sure how successful it would be a few teams would be sold or relocated as a result.
A hard cap has worked in the NHL.
The NBA and it's super team bullshit is crap.
The NFL is not bad though certain teams are always at the top.
In every major sports league there is that element where certain teams are just horribly mismanaged.
Bad ownership, bad management, bad player decisions.
Edmonton, Ottawa, Buffalo, Florida, Arizona come to mind in the NHL.
Obviously Miami in baseball, Baltimore, Chicago W.S. and a couple others.
The Expos should still be in existence but MLB didn't give a shit but they allow the Miami Marlins to exist. You know the major league team that is actually a farm team for whoever has the most money.
Outside of hockey the other 3 major sports are almost unwatchable most of the time.  Yet as long as fans keep paying the league's will thrive in that sense.



____________________
This thread was great till Rossi posted that AA ruined it.

Rossi=The Mouth That Bored
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 08:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9430
Status: 
Offline
MLB also needs a bottom amount for owner to spend.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 09:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
tamalie
Hall Of Famer
 

Joined: Mon Oct 22nd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 4175
Status: 
Offline
Kriss wrote: This is the biggest thing that puts me off US sports leagues compared to my beloved European football. There is no real punishment for being crap. The worst team wins the first draft pick, and as long as attendance doesn't fall off too much, there is very little difference between being average and being crap. If the bottom teams were replaced every year, as they are in European football, you would have much more to play for and many more meaningful games.
On the one hand, promotion and relegation puts something at stake for the bottom and near bottom teams and that defniitely makes international soccer exciting. However, the trade off is that the top soccer leagues around the world have what amounts to a permanent underclass of teams that have no hope of ever winning a championship.
 
Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund have won the Bundesliga 21 of the last 25 times. In the Premier League era that began effective 1992-93, only Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, and Chelsea have won the title apart from Blackburn Rovers in 1993-94 being a holdover from the previous era when a provincial club with some money could rise up and the miracle of Leicester City in 2015-16 which was such a big story due to the impossibility of it all. Apart from Liverpool and Tottenham, what other English club could realistically hope to win a title? From 1990-91, every Serie A title has been won by Juventus, Milan, and Inter barring one apiece to Roma and Lazio with no other team's having much hope of ever winning it all.
 
There are undoubtedly some teams in North American sports that sit back and count their money rather than trying to compete and the teams with more money and big markets have inherent advantages. However, the drafts and salary caps prevent the institutionalization of power to the extent that not only does the same handful of teams win every year, but few teams even have a hope. If a team like the A's, the Bucks, the Lions or the Blues manages its resources well, it can compete for and win titles. The Patriots are now a dynasty, but spent the late 1980s and first half of the 1990s as a disaster zone. The Warriors are now a super team, but from 1992-93 to 2011-12 made the playoffs just twice. The Royals went nowhere from the mid 1990s to mid 2010s and then made two World Series in a row, winning the latter. Another Leicester City might happen someday, but I doubt it will be soon. Another Royals can and will much sooner.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 09:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
Franchise
Low key big hog


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: D-ville
Posts: 3176
Status: 
Offline
Tottenham totally rules!!!



____________________
"Beginning this week, Nitro is going head-to-head with Thunder in Australia" - The Wrestling Observer Newsletter: January 22, 2001
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Mar 7th, 2019 09:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9430
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: There's always going to be winners and losers - in life, in sports, and everywhere else. I find it hysterical that people don't get that. This is kind of the minimum wage argument. OK, the minimum wage is $60 trillion dollars an hour starting tomorrow. Now what? $60 trillion becomes worthless and you need to be a gazillionaire to eat. What magic button do people want to push so that every team wins most games, which by definition isn't possible since sports is a zero sum proposition where there has to be a winner and loser every day? 

Yes, there are a handful of teams (and I don't think it's that many) in every sport not making a good faith effort to compete.  But the consequences should be no fan support and then when the owner is forced to sell because he's losing money he shouldn't make a $100 million profit on the sale.  Sports teams are like housing costs, they seem to only increase.  That's a problem.  When you make a mess of your team, you should sell at a loss.  But owning a team is too much of a cache to billionaires with more money than they know what to do with, and prices keep getting driven up for sports teams.  You want to fix that?  Start with ZERO public funding of stadiums!  When the government gets involved, market realities get bastardized.  You want to buy a team, great.  Now pay for it, including the stadium.  That brings everyone back down to earth and makes it a less sexy proposition unless you're really a dedicated owner who plans on running it right.



True, but MLB actually rewards these questionable owners.  The Pirates are making a profit before the first fan enters the park. 


Last edited on Fri Mar 8th, 2019 04:54 pm by Papa Voo

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 04:43 pm Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > Sports Talk > The New “Moneyball” Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems