MVP and Cy Young contract bonuses
RFM
> I also wonder if Giambi has any clauses
> in his contract that give him a bonus
> if he wins the MVP? Could the front office
> be instructing Joe to not play Jason at 1B
> because of this? Oh, those conspiracy theories!
There are all sorts of MVP and Cy Young bonuses out there, some for players
who haven't come close to winning since signing their contracts. The Big
Unit has really been he's been cleanin' up!
Here's what I found on Google:
Miguel Tejada
$100,000 for winning AL MVP in 2002
Source: ESPN - http://tinyurl.com/2n2l
Ichiro Suzuki
$150,000 for winning AL MVP in 2001
Source: MLB.com - http://tinyurl.com/kezi
Randy Johnson
Signed before 1999 season
1st place NL Cy Young, first time: $250,000
1st place, second time: $500,000
1st place, third time: $750,000
1st place, fourth time: $1 million
Already collected: $2.5 million for four straight Cy Young Awards, PLUS his
$12 million option for 2003 increased to $15 million after winning the 2002
NL Cy Young!
Source: http://tinyurl.com/kf1g
Barry Zito
Signed May 2002
$1.05 million for winning Cy Young anytime 2002-05, if his IP total is at
least 570 during that time span
Source: http://tinyurl.com/kex2
Roger Clemens:
$100,000 for winning 1997 AL Cy Young
$250,000 for winning 1998 AL Cy Young
Pedro Martinez:
$75,000 for finishing 2nd for 1998 AL Cy Young
$500,000 for winning 2000 AL Cy Young
$500,000 for finishing 2nd for 2002 AL Cy Young
Derek Lowe:
$50,000 for finishing 3rd for 2002 AL Cy Young
David Wells:
$50,000 for finishing 3rd for 1998 AL Cy Young
Alex Rodriguez:
Signed before 2001 season
1st place, first time: $500,000
1st place, second time: $1 million
1st place, third time and after: $1.5 million
2nd-through-5th place: $200,000
6th-through-10th place: $50,000
Already collected: $250,000 (6th 2001, 2nd 2002)
Source: SI.com - http://tinyurl.com/ket3
Manny Ramirez
Signed before 2001 season
1st place: $200,000
2nd place: $125,000
3rd place: $100,000
4th place: $75,000
5th place: $50,000
Already collected: $0
Source: USA TODAY - http://tinyurl.com/ket7
Mike Piazza
Signed before 1999 season
1st place: $125,000
2nd place: $100,000
3rd place: $75,000
4th place: $50,000
5th place: $25,000
Already collected: $75,000 (3rd 2000)
Source: http://tinyurl.com/kext
Mike Hampton
Signed before 2001 season
Cy Young 1st place: $100,000
2nd-through-5th place: $50,000
Already collected: $0
Source: http://tinyurl.com/keuw
Frank Thomas
Signed before 2003 season
"Up to $2 million for top 10 MVP finish"
Source: http://tinyurl.com/kewx
RFM
> > in his contract that give him a bonus
> > if he wins the MVP? Could the front office
> > be instructing Joe to not play Jason at 1B
> > because of this? Oh, those conspiracy theories!
>
>
> There are all sorts of MVP and Cy Young bonuses out there, some for
players
> who haven't come close to winning since signing their contracts. The Big
> Unit has really been he's been cleanin' up!
>
> Here's what I found on Google:
>
I forgot to add that I couldn't find any mention of Giambi getting a bonus
for his MVP finishes the last three seasons (1st 2000, 2nd 2001, 5th 2002).
BadgerBC
agreed to giving bonus clauses for all-star or any awards for quite some
time.
"RFM" <rfm73...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f415df9$0$564$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
Seth Jackson
wrote:
>Yankees (unless they inherit someone else's contract clause) have never
>agreed to giving bonus clauses for all-star or any awards for quite some
>time.
Which I think is a good thing. Those types of clauses are ridiculous,
IMO. They provide incentives that could potentially create conflicts
of interest. Plus, they put too much weight on the opinions of
sportswriters.
- Seth Jackson
Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
brink
Seth Jackson <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message
news:cbh3kvgtp6dp82eb1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:24:47 GMT, "BadgerBC" <svin...@uwisc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Yankees (unless they inherit someone else's contract clause) have never
> >agreed to giving bonus clauses for all-star or any awards for quite some
> >time.
>
> Which I think is a good thing. Those types of clauses are ridiculous,
> IMO. They provide incentives that could potentially create conflicts
> of interest. Plus, they put too much weight on the opinions of
> sportswriters.
but i thought sportswriters were always *right*... ;-)
Craig Richardson
<a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:24:47 GMT, "BadgerBC" <svin...@uwisc.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>Yankees (unless they inherit someone else's contract clause) have never
>>agreed to giving bonus clauses for all-star or any awards for quite some
>>time.
>
>Which I think is a good thing. Those types of clauses are ridiculous,
>IMO. They provide incentives that could potentially create conflicts
>of interest. Plus, they put too much weight on the opinions of
>sportswriters.
I'm not a GM, but I play one on my computer, and I love incentive
clauses to death. By lowering the guaranteed payout, they shift risk
to the player's side. By coupling actual payroll tighter to actual
performance than theoretical performance, they allow for more
in-season flexibility. And by the proper mix of incentives, a lesser
team can compete for the services of an MVP-caliber player - who is
worth the money to them if and only if he has an MVP-caliber season,
but would be a hard-to-move albatross if he slides back to "merely"
good or very good (since players tend to overestimate their own future
performance, money between a "true" estimate and the player's estimate
is likely to be vapor, and thus should never be guaranteed - this is
not possible in the "real" world, but management should still try to
shift it whenever possible).
Also, I'm sure that you could get some positive PR by emphasizing
nominal value rather than full value in press releases and the like,
but I'm pretty sure there's no current game <quite> that realistic.
--Craig
--
I start to wish Bob Melvin would walk out to the mound, ask Freddy if he
was injured, and then kick him in the balls so he can call in an
emergency replacement from the bullpen --Derek Zumsteg in BP, 5/13/2003
wunnuy
> capt...@hotmelt.com wrote
>
> >
> There are all sorts of MVP and Cy Young bonuses out there, some for players
> who haven't come close to winning since signing their contracts. The Big
> Unit has really been he's been cleanin' up!
> Signed before 2001 season
> 1st place, first time: $500,000
> 1st place, second time: $1 million
> 1st place, third time and after: $1.5 million
> 2nd-through-5th place: $200,000
> 6th-through-10th place: $50,000
> Already collected: $250,000 (6th 2001, 2nd 2002)
> Source: SI.com - http://tinyurl.com/ket3
>
This is just wrong. A-rod winning an MVP should be a given with that
contract. He makes 25 mil a year and has incentives ON TOP? I was
flabbergasted when I saw he made a quarter mil for making the all star
team. Doesn't making the all star team go without saying when you're
getting 25 mil a year? My God, how much money does that guy need?
Tom MacIntyre
Someone I once worked with told me that we all need as much money as
we can get...(before you get me wrong, I disagree with this as well).
:-)
It's all about that old "whoever dies with the most toys wins" thing,
I guess. I have fought this battle here many times, and most posters
disagree with me...we have agreed to disagree for quite some time, and
it is a quieter and better place as a result, but they haven't changed
my mind, either. :-)
Tom
Hank Gillette
wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:
> This is just wrong. A-rod winning an MVP should be a given with that
> contract. He makes 25 mil a year and has incentives ON TOP? I was
> flabbergasted when I saw he made a quarter mil for making the all star
> team. Doesn't making the all star team go without saying when you're
> getting 25 mil a year? My God, how much money does that guy need?
As much as someone is willing to pay him. I don't understand your
agitation. Are you on the hook to pay his incentives?
--
Hank Gillette
Eric Opperman
And would you turn them down?
--
Thanks for your time,
Eric Opperman
"I've got a job to do, and that's part of it. I've got a special feeling
for Sidney, and I will in 20 years--unless he blows up my house or
something." -- Baltimore Orioles manager Mike Hargrove on telling Sidney
Ponson he'd been traded to the Giants.
Ima Pseudonym
<eri...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
>Hank Gillette wrote:
>>
>> In article <5c3cdaf6.03082...@posting.google.com>,
>> wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:
>>
>> > This is just wrong. A-rod winning an MVP should be a given with that
>> > contract. He makes 25 mil a year and has incentives ON TOP? I was
>> > flabbergasted when I saw he made a quarter mil for making the all star
>> > team. Doesn't making the all star team go without saying when you're
>> > getting 25 mil a year? My God, how much money does that guy need?
>>
>> As much as someone is willing to pay him. I don't understand your
>> agitation. Are you on the hook to pay his incentives?
>
>And would you turn them down?
Exactly. I try to do as good a job as possible for my salary, without
any concern for any additional incentives. But if my boss offers me a
bonus for something, I don't turn it down.
sanford sklansky
Tom MacIntyre wrote:
Well if an owner is dumb enough to do this more power to the player and his agent I guess. With a player of
Rodriguez's magnitude I am not sure if this would be a deal breaker if an owner didn't cave. Besides
Steinbrenner, how many owners would have given him that huge of a contract in the first place.
>
>
> Tom
Imran Rafi
Texas owner could be that dumb. 25 million for a hitter. When did a great
hitter win a world series for his team? It's pitching that wins world
series. If he had spent that 25 million on pitching, his team would be
better off.
"sanford sklansky" <san...@wi.net> wrote in message
news:3F4D85A6...@wi.net...
Doug Norris
>It's pitching that wins world series.
Prove it. From my perspective, hitting and pitching/defense are each 50% of
baseball (since they're same thing, looking at it as opposite sides of the
same matchup).
So pitching/defense is 50% of baseball. Regardless of your opinions of how
much defense should be valued, it's clear that it has *some* positive value.
Therefore, to make the numbers work out, pitching has to be less than 50%
of baseball, and is therefore less important than hitting (which is 50% of
baseball).
Doug
David
<mra...@email.mot.com> wrote:
>I don't think that Steinbrenner would have given him that contract. Only
>Texas owner could be that dumb. 25 million for a hitter. When did a great
>hitter win a world series for his team? It's pitching that wins world
>series. If he had spent that 25 million on pitching, his team would be
>better off.
Hicks also greatly overbid for A-Rod. The next-best offer was nowhere
near what Texas ended up paying.
Ima Pseudonym
Norris) wrote:
Well, offense is 50% of baseball. But offense does include
baserunning. Even though of hitting, pitching, defense, and
baserunning the last is probably the least important, it does have
some value.
Doug Norris
Granted. We could quibble over relative degrees of measure, but it's
probably easier for me to state that "pitching is less important than offense".
Doug
Steve McKay
"Imran Rafi" <mra...@email.mot.com> wrote
"It's pitching that wins world series."
I believe that the Atlanta Braves would disagree . . .
marty mcmahone
"Steve McKay" <nospa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2s3b.131$9i3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Imran Rafi" <mra...@email.mot.com> wrote
> "It's pitching that wins world series."
>
> I believe that the Atlanta Braves would disagree . . .
>
Without really researching it, I've been wondering if it's more that
"pitching wins games, but hitting wins the World Series." The Baltimore
Orioles were a dominant pitching team from the late 60s through the early
80s -- and they won a lot of games: finishing first or second most years,
winning several pennants, etc., but they won only 2-3 series (depending on
how far you stretch those dates). The Braves are similar in the 90s. Seems
like the 50s Indians might fit here as well. Just some anecdotal thoughts,
but I wonder if the case can be made?
Steve McKay
"marty mcmahone" <mmcma...@hot.rr.com> wrote
"pitching wins games, but hitting wins the World Series."
It wouldn't take a lot of convincing for me to agree with you, Marty.
Steve
FM
> I don't think that Steinbrenner would have given him that contract. Only
> Texas owner could be that dumb. 25 million for a hitter.
Yet Jeter is *far* more overpaid relatively to his
contribution (and expected contribution at the time
of signing) than A-Rod.
Dan.
Steve
Jeter, 18 mill. A-rod, 25 mill. Assume 3/4 of salary. Then, realize
a) Jeter brings in far more revenue with merchandising and teenage girls
than does A-rod, and b) Jeter is easily 3/4 the player that A-Rod is.
He slumped a bit last year but is back this year, and I think one is no
more overpaid than the other.
--
Steve Alpert
GO YANKEES!
Civil Engineering (Course 1) at MIT
FM
> "Imran Rafi" <mra...@email.mot.com> writes:
> >It's pitching that wins world series.
> Prove it. From my perspective, hitting and pitching/defense are each 50% of
> baseball (since they're same thing, looking at it as opposite sides of the
> same matchup).
That's not necessarily true though. Empirically, I think
that's close to being true, but it depends on variability.
Dan.
realto_m...@fu2spam.hotmail.com
Variability? As it varies? Like somedays the team that allows the
fewest runs wins while another day the team that scores the most
runs wins?
cordially, as always,
rm
FM
> FM wrote:
> > "Imran Rafi" <mra...@email.mot.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I don't think that Steinbrenner would have given him that contract. Only
> >>Texas owner could be that dumb. 25 million for a hitter.
> > Yet Jeter is *far* more overpaid relatively to his
> > contribution (and expected contribution at the time
> > of signing) than A-Rod.
> Jeter, 18 mill. A-rod, 25 mill. Assume 3/4 of salary. Then, realize
> a) Jeter brings in far more revenue with merchandising and teenage girls
> than does A-rod,
Do you really think Jeter is more marketable than
A-Rod? Jeter sells because the Yankees sell and
he's their most marketable star. The association
helps Jeter far more than it helps the Yankees.
> and b) Jeter is easily 3/4 the player that A-Rod is.
That's quite absurd. A-Rod has been easily more
than twice as valuable than Jeter since their new
contracts.
> He slumped a bit last year but is back this year, and I think one is no
> more overpaid than the other.
Right. He's having a better year and has been about
the 7th most valuable shortstop in baseball.
According to the EQA report, A-Rod has been twice as
valuable offensively as Jeter so far this season.
And that's before his superior defense is taken into
account.
Dan.
Doug Norris
Do tell; specifically, how does variability cause this to deviate from a 50/50
split?
Doug
Aaron J. Ginn
> Jeter, 18 mill. A-rod, 25 mill. Assume 3/4 of salary. Then, realize
> a) Jeter brings in far more revenue with merchandising and teenage
> girls than does A-rod, and b) Jeter is easily 3/4 the player that
> A-Rod is. He slumped a bit last year but is back this year, and I
> think one is no more overpaid than the other.
If Jeter is "back" this year, just think how good Alex Cintron is
going to be.
NAME G AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS
Cintron 89 332 55 103 18 4 11 162 43 24 27 2 3 .310 .357 .488 .845
Jeter 94 392 69 124 21 3 9 178 47 37 73 9 4 .316 .384 .454 .839
Aaron
--
"A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and
nobody wants to read."
-- Mark Twain
FM
If there's greater variability in "offensive" abilities
than in "defensive" abilities, offense would be more
important than defense. In particular, if there was no
variation in defensive abilities, it would have zero
importance.
Dan.
Doug Norris
I see what you're saying, but I think you're arguing something else entirely
here. Even with no variation amongst defensive abilities, defensive ability
is still important to the game of baseball in the sense that I'm describing
it. Offense is still half of baseball, whether or not all players hit the
same or not.
Now, if you want to argue that certain players are more valuable than other
players, you can use your line of reasoning to devalue fielding (for instance).
Doug
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Aaron J. Ginn" <google...@theginnfamily.net> wrote in message
news:snk78xh...@theginnfamily.net...
> Steve <smal...@mit.edu> writes:
>
> > Jeter, 18 mill. A-rod, 25 mill. Assume 3/4 of salary. Then, realize
> > a) Jeter brings in far more revenue with merchandising and teenage
> > girls than does A-rod, and b) Jeter is easily 3/4 the player that
> > A-Rod is. He slumped a bit last year but is back this year, and I
> > think one is no more overpaid than the other.
>
>
> If Jeter is "back" this year, just think how good Alex Cintron is
> going to be.
>
>
> NAME G AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG
OPS
> Cintron 89 332 55 103 18 4 11 162 43 24 27 2 3 .310 .357
.488 .845
> Jeter 94 392 69 124 21 3 9 178 47 37 73 9 4 .316 .384
.454 .839
>
Tom MacIntyre
He may not get a severe shoulder injury, though... :-)
Tom
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p05tkvktv50cirboe...@4ax.com...
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown" <hot...@mofo.com> wrote in message
news:yax3b.6714$yg.26...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
day. :D (He was Moe Green, in case you didn't know.)
David J. Grabiner
Bill James's World Series predictor suggests that pitching was more
important in the playoffs. The team that scored more runs in the
regular season won only a bit over half the time; the team whose ERA was
further below the league ERA won over 60% of the time. (This isn't
statistically significant, though.)
In the regular season, it's split evenly; the team that leads the league
in runs scored is just as likely to win the pennant as the team that
leads the league in ERA.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@alumni.princeton.edu, http://remarque.org/~grabiner
Baseball labor negotiations FAQ: http://remarque.org/~grabiner/laborfaq.html
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
David Peng
> I don't think that Steinbrenner would have given him that contract. Only
> Texas owner could be that dumb. 25 million for a hitter. When did a great
> hitter win a world series for his team? It's pitching that wins world
> series. If he had spent that 25 million on pitching, his team would be
> better off.
That's exactly right. That's why the Dodgers are so dominant this season.
-------
d.
GO ANGELS! 2002 WORLD CHAMPIONS!
Proud to sponsor the 1995 California Angels at www.baseball-reference.com!
www.baseballprimer.com
www.myplanet.net/blackjack/index/sball
Steve Grant
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
Somebody (Mike Jones?) used a neat hypothetical here some time ago to
illustrate FM's point.
Use the reductio absurdum of bizarro tee-ball. Every team, instead of a
pitcher, has a tee off which the opposing batters hit. Instead of fielders,
they have nets which cover most of the infield and a little bit of the
outfield. Hit the ball into one of the nets, you're out; otherwise, it's a
HR.
In this version of the game, good hitting really matters. Defense is
identical for every team and is irrelevant.
In real-life MLB, variability suggests that offense is about 48% of the
game, defense 52%. Close enough to the 50-50 split Doug is suggesting.
Seapig
I don't think pitching is any less important in the postseason, but
pitching depth is. The teams you mentioned were all known for their
starting rotations, throwing four quality starters out there. That
helps you run up big win totals in the regular season, but the bottom
of the rotation plays a smaller role in a short series full of
off-days.
The 2001 Snakes were a perfect example of how far you can ride two
dominant starters in the postseason. Your big two are going to start
less than half your games during the regular season. They'll give you
three starts in a five-game series, and four or five in a seven-game
series. That makes a big difference. It's a lot easier to match up
with the Braves or Yankees 1-2 starters than to try to match them 1-5.
Doug Norris
>Use the reductio absurdum of bizarro tee-ball. Every team, instead of a
>pitcher, has a tee off which the opposing batters hit. Instead of fielders,
>they have nets which cover most of the infield and a little bit of the
>outfield. Hit the ball into one of the nets, you're out; otherwise, it's a
>HR.
>In this version of the game, good hitting really matters. Defense is
>identical for every team and is irrelevant.
I like this example, but I still think in this example defense is "important"
in the abstract sense that I'm talking about. You obviously can't (won't?)
make comparisons between two different sets of nets in this example, so
you can't say one is better than the other, but they're both "important".
To be absurd in another direction, although the amount of oxygen in the
air is roughly the same across the continent (*). That doesn't make the
oxygen any less important to our survival.
To bring this back to my point, just because the defenses are the same
(assuming that they are), they're still important in the sense that
offense + defense = 100% of the game. I've conceded the other point about
relative abilities.
Doug
(*) Within reason, and for day-to-day activities. I've played hockey in
Aspen, and I've also played against teams that have come to Boulder. If
this point bothers you, imagine a continent where the amount of oxygen
*is* the same everywhere, and the point follows.
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"Seapig" <sea...@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:42d09627.03082...@posting.google.com...
Look at the Twins, 87 version.
Like the name (Seapig).
Eric Opperman
He deserves one after the way he hurt Scott Rolen in last year's
playoffs.
--
Thanks for your time,
Eric Opperman
"I've got a job to do, and that's part of it. I've got a special feeling
for Sidney, and I will in 20 years--unless he blows up my house or
something." -- Baltimore Orioles manager Mike Hargrove on telling Sidney
Ponson he'd been traded to the Giants.
Cameron Laird
Imran Rafi <mra...@email.mot.com> wrote:
>I don't think that Steinbrenner would have given him that contract. Only
>Texas owner could be that dumb. 25 million for a hitter. When did a great
>hitter win a world series for his team? It's pitching that wins world
>series. If he had spent that 25 million on pitching, his team would be
>better off.
.
.
He did. Commit $25 million to pitching this year, I mean.
Here are the nominal 2003 salaries for pitchers on the
opening day and disabled rosters of the Texas Rangers:
Chan Ho Park 12,884,803
Ugueth Urbina 4,500,000
dl-Jeff Zimmerman 3,366,667
Jay Powell 3,250,000
Ismael Valdes 2,500,000
dl-Todd Van Poppel 2,500,000
Esteban Yan 1,500,000
John Thomson 1,300,000
Francisco Cordero 900,000
Aaron Fultz 600,000
C.J. Nitkowski 550,000
Colby Lewis 302,500
Reynaldo Garcia 300,000
Those figures sum to $34,453,970.
--
Cameron Laird <Cam...@Lairds.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://phaseit.net/claird/home.html
Bob-Nob
> On 27 Aug 2003 15:59:51 -0700, wun...@netzero.net (wunnuy) wrote:
>> This is just wrong. A-rod winning an MVP should be a given with that
>> contract. He makes 25 mil a year and has incentives ON TOP? I was
>> flabbergasted when I saw he made a quarter mil for making the all star
>> team. Doesn't making the all star team go without saying when you're
>> getting 25 mil a year? My God, how much money does that guy need?
> Someone I once worked with told me that we all need as much money as
> we can get...(before you get me wrong, I disagree with this as well).
> :-)
> It's all about that old "whoever dies with the most toys wins" thing,
> I guess. I have fought this battle here many times, and most posters
> disagree with me...we have agreed to disagree for quite some time, and
> it is a quieter and better place as a result, but they haven't changed
> my mind, either. :-)
How much extra cash do you have then? Feel free to send me some of
your surplus. Now I'll understand if you don't send any (if you deem
yourself not to have such a surplus), but I can prety much guarantee that
what you deem to be "not a surplus" is still more than I have. In my eyes
then, you're no better than ARod, making more money than I would know what
to do with. (Well, no, technically, I know what I'd do with it, but it's
certainly not money I have right now). Which suggests to me at least that
either you can stop complaining about ARod's high salary (since yours and
his are both unreasonably high to someone who has less) or start sending
me money.
Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College alumnus, '96 | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
IF9: Tan Lines: best film, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
http://www.ifilm.com/promo/fathersday/index.jsp?pg=fathersday "The Talk"
Imran Rafi
Rangers are in wilderness.
I am not saying that hitting is not important. I just think pitching is more
important than hitting to be a successful team.
"David Peng" <blac...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:429a18c9.0308...@posting.google.com...
Imran Rafi
25 million. I hope you see the disparity.
"Cameron Laird" <cla...@lairds.com> wrote in message
news:vkut2vm...@corp.supernews.com...
Doug Norris
>You are exactly right. LA Dodgers are still in wild-card race whereas
>Rangers are in wilderness.
I think you've got a different meaning of "dominant" than the rest of the
planet.
Doug
Steve Grant
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
You misspelled "dominate."
Cameron Laird
Imran Rafi <mra...@email.mot.com> wrote:
>His whole pitching staff costs him 35 million and only one hitter cost him
>25 million. I hope you see the disparity.
.
.
I assume baseball executives have little interest in pay
equity except as it supports such other goals as "winning
it all". You seem to be saying that it's deleterious to
concentrate much of the payroll either in one player, or
in one hitter, or perhaps in all hitters. It's a provo-
cative proposition. Do you have any particular empirical
evidence, or does this derive from abstract reasoning about
what ought to work?
Myself, I think I could cite plenty of examples of success-
ful sports teams which had severely skewed pay schedules.
You haven't convinced me that, were I a baseball executive,
I should make a special effort to balance the pay of my
pitchers and position players.
Seth Jackson
wrote:
Actually, *you* misspelled "dominant".
- Seth Jackson
Songwriting & Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
igor eduardo küpfer
<vkv9cu1...@corp.supernews.com>:
>In article <binvlq$spv$2...@avnika.corp.mot.com>,
>Imran Rafi <mra...@email.mot.com> wrote:
>>His whole pitching staff costs him 35 million and only one hitter cost him
>>25 million. I hope you see the disparity.
> .
> .
> .
>I assume baseball executives have little interest in pay
>equity except as it supports such other goals as "winning
>it all". You seem to be saying that it's deleterious to
>concentrate much of the payroll either in one player, or
>in one hitter, or perhaps in all hitters. It's a provo-
>cative proposition. Do you have any particular empirical
>evidence, or does this derive from abstract reasoning about
>what ought to work?
>
Hmm. Just for fun, I calculated the Herfindahl index for each team, a measure
of salary inequality *within* each team. The most imbalanced team -- one in
which one player earns the entire payroll as a salary, and every other player
earns zero -- would score 10000. An ideally balanced team in which everybody
earned exactly the same amount would score 100.
So here is every MLB team, in ascending order of salary equality (ie most
heavily skewed first):
Tampa Bay Devil Rays 1950
Toronto Blue Jays 1744
Detroit Tigers 1287
Kansas City Royals 1285
Montreal Expos 1101
Colorado Rockies 1086
Chicago White Sox 1074
San Diego Padres 1039
Houston Astros 1026
Texas Rangers 1012
Oakland A's 1011
Milwaukee Brewers 1007
Atlanta Braves 953
Chicago Cubs 943
Cleveland Indians 932
Arizona Diamondbacks 926
Cincinnati Reds 923
Boston Red Sox 911
Philadelphia Phillies 893
Los Angeles Dodgers 889
Pittsburgh Pirates 887
Anaheim Angels 869
Minnesota Twins 867
New York Mets 834
San Francisco Giants 821
Florida Marlins 802
Baltimore Orioles 798
St. Louis Cardinals 717
Seattle Mariners 647
New York Yankees 624
>Myself, I think I could cite plenty of examples of success-
>ful sports teams which had severely skewed pay schedules.
>You haven't convinced me that, were I a baseball executive,
>I should make a special effort to balance the pay of my
>pitchers and position players.
Obviously there's more to it than my little calculation, which doesn't take
player value into account. After all why pay every player equally if they
produce at different rates?
--
--------------------------------
| best, | Sticking it to |
| ed | The Man since 1971 |
--------------------------------
Watch the spam trap -- the domain is rogers
igor eduardo küpfer
wrote in <7hbvkvoepplug8i4c...@4ax.com>:
>
>Hmm. Just for fun, I calculated the Herfindahl index for each team, a measure
>of salary inequality *within* each team. The most imbalanced team -- one in
>which one player earns the entire payroll as a salary, and every other player
>earns zero -- would score 10000. An ideally balanced team in which everybody
>earned exactly the same amount would score 100.
>
Er, that ain't right. The Herfindahl index would approach zero as n ->
infinity.
Roger Moore
>His whole pitching staff costs him 35 million and only one hitter cost him
>25 million. I hope you see the disparity.
Yes. The $25 million spent on Rodriguez is actually helping the team win
games. The $35 million spent on those pitchers is helping the team about
as much as if they had spent $5 million picking up a bunch of guys off the
AAA scrap heap.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
Seapig
> To bring this back to my point, just because the defenses are the same
> (assuming that they are), they're still important in the sense that
> offense + defense = 100% of the game. I've conceded the other point about
> relative abilities.
There's a big difference between saying that offense and defense are
each 50% of the game and that offense + defense = 100% of the game.
Offense + defense = 100% of bowling; that doesn't mean that defense is
important in bowling.
Steve Grant
news:oo9vkvkvocjfm286p...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Aug 2003 18:45:17 GMT, "Steve Grant" <ACE...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Doug Norris" <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
> >news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
> >> "Imran Rafi" <mra...@email.mot.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >You are exactly right. LA Dodgers are still in wild-card race whereas
> >> >Rangers are in wilderness.
> >>
> >> I think you've got a different meaning of "dominant" than the rest of
the
> >> planet.
> >
> >You misspelled "dominate."
>
> Actually, *you* misspelled "dominant".
Old r.s.bb. joke. Before your time, maybe.
Chris Lynch
"Doug Norris" <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
> "Imran Rafi" <mra...@email.mot.com> writes:
>
>
of
> baseball (since they're same thing, looking at it as opposite sides of the
> same matchup).
>
how
> much defense should be valued, it's clear that it has *some* positive
value.
> Therefore, to make the numbers work out, pitching has to be less than 50%
> of baseball, and is therefore less important than hitting (which is 50% of
> baseball).
However, a workhorse starting pitcher will face ~1000 batters per season,
and an everday player won't get more than 700-750 PA. Over the course of a
season it seems a pitcher would have as much as a role as a position player,
if not more.
This "pitching wins World Series'" thing, though... it's seven freakin'
games at most. Scoring more runs than your opponent in four of them wins
World Series', whether the score was 29-22 or 1-0.
Hank Gillette
"Imran Rafi" <mra...@email.mot.com> wrote:
> His whole pitching staff costs him 35 million and only one hitter cost him
> 25 million. I hope you see the disparity.
>
Yeah, the one hitter is useful.
--
Hank Gillette