|
|
Post by Jackass on Oct 17, 2007 7:56:30 GMT -5
BTW, I saw that Mythbusters show and laughed my ass off.
Those two nerds and their crew of herbs know absolutely NOTHING about baseball. They made huge assumptions with which to base their experiments, and they were laughable.
Overall, they proved nothing. It was entertaining, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Oct 17, 2007 8:04:03 GMT -5
The Rockies making the World Series is a great story for baseball. This fundamental thought about baseball not belonging in Denver is about as ridiculous as saying that baseball doesn't belong in Southern California, because it's warm there in September and it's supposed to be cold.
Fuck....baseball belongs in Denver more than a lot of other cities that are generally apathetic about their sports teams. Denver is an incredible sports town.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator 
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 8:19:03 GMT -5
While I don't like the idea of baseball in Denver because of the cold (baseball is a warm weather sport so being warmer in California is not the same thing), I can't argue that other cities deserve baseball a lot less, notably the two Florida teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Oct 17, 2007 8:47:20 GMT -5
My girl went to a Broncos/Patriots playoff game in Denver in January, and it was like 70 degrees. The temperature is hit or miss. You never know what you'll get in the valley.
That said, it's good for baseball, because they are a passionate sports town. The baseball is just fine...the Rox have to play in the same environment as the opposing team. It's a control situation.
And yes, baseball shouldn't be in Florida. And it shouldn't be in Atlanta either. The tradeoff of having to put baseballs in a humidor is just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 17, 2007 8:48:30 GMT -5
If they take it out of FL, I'll never get to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Oct 17, 2007 8:49:39 GMT -5
Sure you will. In March.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 9:12:52 GMT -5
Do you think baseball should be in Pittsburgh? Obviously the tradition is there, but is it a worthy baseball town still? How are the crowds? They're consistently at the bottom in attendance and haven't drawn 2 million since the first year of the new park.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 17, 2007 9:15:42 GMT -5
What, you want to take baseball out of Pittsburgh now???
Teams are not going away. Drop it, already. LOL @ "is Pittsburgh still worthy of baseball?"
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 9:18:06 GMT -5
Actually, I think it's been talked about.
And I think given the failure of the Pirates to both win and draw crowds even with a new park makes it a fair question. Justin would obviously know this better than anyone since he lives there and goes to the games.
|
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Oct 17, 2007 9:25:56 GMT -5
The Pirates won 3 straight division titles from 1990-1992. Then Barry Bonds left, and Bonilla, and Van Slyke, and things went to shit. They haven't had a winning record since. People wouldn't go to Yankee games either with that track record.
That said, this town is so hungry for a winning team. People still watch the Pirates on television. People are ready for it. They've just kinda given up hope at this point.
I wish Cuban would have bought the Pirates.
That said, to even broach the subject of moving a team that has been in existence in the same city for 125 years seems pretty dumb compared to the other short-draw teams that have been around a lot shorter period of time.
New parks by themselves are irrelevant to drawing people, much in the same way that old parks can draw just fine when a team is winning (see: Stadium, Yankee; Field, Wrigley; Park, Fenway)
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 17, 2007 9:27:39 GMT -5
Maybe they should have moved the Yankees in the late 80s. I mean, all those empty seats!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 9:35:59 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong--the Pirates would hardly be first on the list. In fact, it would be a last resort simply because of that 125 year history.
And sure, I understand that winning breeds attendance. But even at the height of their 3 division titles, they barely drew over 2 million. Their highest ranking was 6th out of 12 teams in the league in 1991. In 1979, when they won it all, they were 10th out of 12 in attendance. Since 1890, they've finished first in attendance just once.
One huge problem with that team is payroll. It's only at $38 million. A payroll that low is as bad for baseball as a payroll as high as the Yankees'. Despite the luxury tax, the 2007 Pirates payroll is actually $20 million LESS than the 2001 payroll.
They haven't made much of an effort to improve their team. If a team can't afford a $70 million payroll in this day and age, there's something wrong. But I think they have the money and just won't put it into the team. I think that's true of all teams--especially when they get luxury tax money.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 9:42:32 GMT -5
Oh and as for the Yankees in the 1980s, they were always doing well in attendance. The Yankees had exactly 2 years ranked 11th out of 14 teams in the early 1990s.
In their entire history, the Yankees have never ranked last in the league, even before Yankee Stadium. So once again, Tom's attempt to attack the Yankees fails.
|
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Oct 17, 2007 9:47:27 GMT -5
The ownership stinks. They aren't fooling anyone. They are content with netting their $30 million a year off the team, and they are content with throwing the lemmings a promotion here and there to get people in the park. Unfortunately, this owner ship isn't in the business of baseball so much as it's in the business of bobbleheads and fireworks.
The teams only drew 2 million because it was a terrible place to watch a baseball game. New park is good if the team is winning. If you have a baseball park there instead of a cookie cutter with that team winning, it would have been different.
The years they were drawing around 2 million...I'm guessing that the Dodgers lead the league those years with over 3 million, as they normally do. Back then, I imagine the LA metro area had 5 million people easily. Pittsburgh metro area? I bet it wasn't even 2 million.
I'd say Pittsburgh drew just fine.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 9:56:37 GMT -5
Pretty decent shooting with that era. The Dodgers indeed were first in 1991 with 3.3 million, but they were 2nd in 1992 and 3rd in 1993.
Of course, Colorado entered the league in 1992 and smashed records.
The ownership must be horrific there. But that's something MLB should step in and deal with.
If a team is going to take luxury tax money, they should not be allowed to pocket it. It MUST go into payroll. A team that receives luxury tax money should be forced to increase their payroll by that same amount over the previous year. If they refuse, then they should forfeit the luxury tax money.
But baseball really should step in with a team like the Pirates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 17, 2007 10:05:34 GMT -5
The only problem with forcing them to spend it on payroll is making them spend it wisely.... easier said than done.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 17, 2007 10:08:03 GMT -5
Balls, dont play naive. Even when I started my tenure as a Bleacher Creature, the Yankees were pulling 17,000 - 23,000 every night. Look at my old Scorecard Memories, which not only give the games attendance, but are funny as all get-go.
The Yankees had crap attendance for a long time throughout those dark ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Oct 17, 2007 10:08:44 GMT -5
Actually, Colorado entered the league in 1993. I actually saw live the first home run in Rockies history. Dante Bichette at Shea Stadium, in Game # 2 (they were blanked by Gooden in the first game ever).
|
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Oct 17, 2007 10:11:01 GMT -5
Force them to spend their $? ARe you kidding me? So, MLB should be TRYING to increase payrolls even more?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 10:12:37 GMT -5
Pete--making them spend it wisely is something that MLB can't control. But they can make them spend it on players. Hell, even keeping their own good ones would be a start. And Tom, you started in the bleachers in 1993, right? They were 5th in the league in attendance, averaging 29000 a night. 2.4 million. www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/attend.shtmlMac--there should be team minimums. Not saying they should all be forced to have $100 million payrolls, but the purpose of the luxury tax is to deal with the payroll disparity. If the teams getting the money don't spend it on payroll, then you accomplish nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Oct 17, 2007 10:15:02 GMT -5
I agree there should be a minimum AND maximum cap on payrolls. I think that would be best for the sport.
If the Pirates could draft a good player this century, they'd be ahead of the game. That's their main issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Oct 17, 2007 10:34:38 GMT -5
I know that MLB can't make them do it wisely, I just don't want to see them throwing money at players who aren't deserving. A cap and a floor would work best, but we know the MLBPA would never go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 17, 2007 10:54:27 GMT -5
I don't like it. Nor will I ever. Non-uniform stadium dimensions, different size and weight bats, are one thing. Hell, if you're gonna get that granular in this argument you might as well use players of different heights and weights as part of your argument.
The factor that bothers me here is the air - an uncontrollable natural occurrence...and this is a constant, this isn't a fluke insect infestation. Why do you think the balls are put in a humidor? It's to make them heavier in order to compensate for the thin air. Thin air means less drag on an object traveling through it = greater inertia factor = equals further traveling distance with less force behind it. A heavier baseball does not reduce the thin air/less drag factor, it only increases the gravity factor in order to compensate. Thus, it's simulated. Some of you (and I know YOU don't, Jackass) need some physics 101 refreshers as evident from this and the previous steroids/strength/bat speed discussions.
If you want to argue with me that the simulated environment created by the humidor and/or heavier baseballs is so close to "normal" playing conditions that the effect of the thin air is negligible...ok, I'll entertain that. But the fact that the need for artificial external treatment to the equipment is required to implement this simulation....just doesn't sit well with me fundamentally. I admit, it's more of a perception thing, but that's enough for me...I just don't like baseball a mile high...period.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 11:06:51 GMT -5
I absolutely do not believe in a maximum payroll. That's not the problem with the game. Baseball is a business. If an owner of a business wants to invest in that business, so be it, especially when the rewards are great. I still believe contraction is the best thing, but at the same time, small teams have the money, but refuse to spend it. Not only that, if Boston loses one more to Cleveland, then we are guaranteed the 7th different champion in 7 years, which indicates parity.
You make a great point about the Pirates and the draft though. Shit--if the Yankees could draft some quality arms, why can't the Pirates?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 17, 2007 11:09:23 GMT -5
Baseball is a business. If an owner of a business wants to invest in that business, so be it, especially when the rewards are great
And what if an owner does not want to? Your logic is skewed. You can not let one owner spend as much as he wants cause there is no right to stop him, and then say someone else is not spending enough, and force him to do so.
Long story short, the Pirates HAVE drafted some tremendous young arms, but have been absolutely ravaged with injuries to that staff. In fact, the only team with less luck in pitching is the Reds. The Pirates are not the worst drafters in the world.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 11:16:34 GMT -5
And what if an owner does not want to?
==================
Then his business gets the same result as any other business where the owner is incompetent. It fails. That team will lose and deserve to lose.
Baseball revenue is at an all time high. No owner is on the verge of going out of business.
Why have a luxury tax so that a small market owner can buy a new mansion?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 17, 2007 11:23:11 GMT -5
In all due respect, if you purchase a baseball team, you can choose to do what you want with any monies coming your way.
I dont even want to talk about what people NEED to do with their luxury tax money until a much-needed SALARY CAP is put in place, so that teams like the Yankees dont outspend entire divisions.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 17, 2007 11:25:55 GMT -5
Not if you are basically taking money from other teams for the purpose of payroll.
If these teams don't put that luxury tax money into their payroll, then they shouldn't be getting it.
And regarding a salary cap, like you said, if you purchase a baseball team, you can choose to do what you want with any monies coming your way.
No one should stop you from putting money into your team as you see fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Oct 17, 2007 11:26:58 GMT -5
You need a floor AND a ceiling when it comes to salary.
A team cannot be ultimately successful in a league unless the other teams have some success.
|
|
|
|
Post by yanxchick on Oct 17, 2007 19:34:27 GMT -5
Chris, the problem with the thin air is not so much the ball travels farther in it, but because of the low humidity the baseballs dry out faster and shrink. Therefore, the baseballs become light, too light for MLB standards. Plus, the humidors weren't brought in to punish the hitters. It was brought in the give the Rockies pitchers an even playing field while at home.
If you look at the numbers, the Rockies used to have a 7-something ERA at home while a 4-something on the road. Since the inception of the humidors the numbers have evened out.
Clint Hurdle has even said he wouldn't be surprised if other stadiums around the country begin using humidors.
Just saying.
|
|
