Another one got away. [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Another one got away.

scorekeeper

01-10-2007, 03:45 PM

TonyK

01-11-2007, 12:56 PM

pburghpen51

01-11-2007, 03:42 PM

skeletor

01-11-2007, 07:25 PM

My son just told me we lost another one. Mulder resigned with the Cards.

Geez! It would be so nice to be able to sign more than guys who are big question marks health wise, or not sliding rapidly downhill at the end of a career, to go along with the great core of young talent!

Do ya suppose its that the city sucks so bad, no one wants to come, the management is so cheap they can’t compete, or that there just aren’t enough really good players to go around?

I think sometimes, the best deals are the ONES that the club does not
make...lots of over priced fa's..and many aren't worth the extended
and over priced contracts..overall, the TRIBE did pretty good in filling
some needs..and could really give the SOX and TIGERS a run in 2007.

Mulder is damaged goods...and won't be back till probably after the all star
break..and there's a chance, he might not come back up to the standards
needed...and that would be a waste of money...Cleveland's a pretty good
baseball town..who wouldn't want to play there ?..unless the player craves
the ego and mini dramas ,that NY or LA offers...sheeesh

scorekeeper

01-12-2007, 01:41 PM

I think sometimes, the best deals are the ONES that the club does not
make...lots of over priced fa's..and many aren't worth the extended
and over priced contracts..overall, the TRIBE did pretty good in filling
some needs..and could really give the SOX and TIGERS a run in 2007.

Mulder is damaged goods...and won't be back till probably after the all star
break..and there's a chance, he might not come back up to the standards
needed...and that would be a waste of money...Cleveland's a pretty good
baseball town..who wouldn't want to play there ?..unless the player craves
the ego and mini dramas ,that NY or LA offers...sheeesh

Although I love the Tribe, and have for more than 50 years, Cleveland is no better or worse a baseball town than anywhere else.

The Indians sold out a record 455 straight. Was that because it’s a great baseball town, or was it because the Indians were on a definite upward trajectory? How much of a baseball town was it when there were more vendors and employees at Municipal Stadium than fans, even those that got in for free?

There’s nothing more fickle than sports fans. The business of professional sports is no longer about athletics, its about entertainment. And just like movie goers will stay away from theaters when poor movies show, fans will stay away from ball parks when poor teams play. Its just human nature.

To be honest, I really didn’t care about Muldar being damaged. Heck, almost every P in the ML is damaged to some extent, and those that aren’t, soon will be. Its simply a matter of time.

The thing is, who do you want to bet on? Would anyone really like to wait for Fausto to meet his expectations? Not me! Would we be better off waiting for Wood or Prior? Shoot! I don’t care how good either of them has looked in the past, there are no odds great enough to bet on either of them.

Would it have been smart to go after Zito just because he hasn’t been hurt? I think Giants fans are gonna see really quickly that most of what made him successful, was the Oakland organization.

I think we’re just fine, but our pitching would certainly appear a lot better with Omar and Roberto at short and 2nd. ;-)

scorekeeper

01-12-2007, 01:55 PM

I don't think the city sucks badly enough for a player to avoid it completely. In fact, I think the stadium is somewhat underrated. At this point in time, with property taxes as they are and pressure from the MLBPA (the organization ruining baseball and draining fans, owners, cities of their money), players choose almost entirely on dollar amounts. They go for the biggest contract, unless they're in their twilight years (i.e. Roger Clemens). Sometimes, if the city is their hometown it'll play a part, but the decision maker is usually the green-eyed monster. Cleveland doesn't need to be offering big contracts, at least not this season where their talent under-performed last year and needs to prove they can be competitive in a surprisingly strong AL Central. Teams drastically over-pay pitchers. Need I even reference Gil Meche? Or how about self-proclaimed "over-paid athlete" Randy Johnson. The best way to accumulate a solid five-man is to grab the good deals on the market, pitchers who have good talent, salvageable mechanics, and have under-performed for most of their careers, something like the Chicago White Sox have done. I thought Cleveland had that last year in Cliff Lee, Jake Westbrook, and C.C.. Evidently, that wasn't the right mix. This off-season those mid-level pitchers were gobbled up too. Tribe needs to wait until someone affordable comes along. Affordable pitcher, ha. That's a big oxymoron.

I can’t help but try to figure out yet again, how its at all possible that with all the great talent, the great coaching, the advances in baseball knowledge and technology, the undeniable ability of scouts to find the talent, and for organizations to teach, develop, and make the best use out of it, why every single team in the ML doesn’t have at least 4 very high quality starting pitchers, a super middle guy, and a beast of a closer!

Instead, what is there? I wouldn’t say ML any ML pitcher sucks, but its sure hard for me to believe the 450 or so pitchers in the ML are all the very best available in the world!

I guess what I’m saying is, there has to be a better way to find talent, the put it together to make an exciting team that wins lots of games gets to the post season every year. If Billy Beane can figger out how to do it, everyone else in baseball should be able to also.

ACrank

01-13-2007, 09:50 AM

My son just told me we lost another one. Mulder resigned with the Cards.

Not to be a nitpicker, but the Indians never had Mulder to begin with so the team really didn't lose him.

Geez! It would be so nice to be able to sign more than guys who are big question marks health wise, or not sliding rapidly downhill at the end of a career, to go along with the great core of young talent!

Trouble is the Indians really have never done that. At least not for a number of years. Everyone points to Jacobs/Hart signing players like Hersheiser and Martinez and Murray, but all of them had their question marks as well. Might have to go back to the Indians signing Black Jack McDowell, and we know how well that went over.

Do ya suppose its that the city sucks so bad, no one wants to come, the management is so cheap they can’t compete, or that there just aren’t enough really good players to go around?

Could also be that the Cleveland market is just not suited for big ticket free agents.

The Indians sold out a record 455 straight. Was that because it’s a great baseball town, or was it because the Indians were on a definite upward trajectory? How much of a baseball town was it when there were more vendors and employees at Municipal Stadium than fans, even those that got in for free?

People who mention the 455 sell out streak as some sign of how good a baseball city Cleveland really is, or can be, tend to forget the status of the Browns, Cavaliers, and the economy of the city at that time (as well as Jacobs Field being a new stadium) as opposed to how they are now.

If Billy Beane can figger out how to do it, everyone else in baseball should be able to also.

You would think so, but its not that easy. And there are a lot of reasons why. Probably the most important is the idea that talented young athletes are not pursuing baseball as much as they had done in the past - they get seduced by the lure of easy money with football or basketball.

Also when you have 29 other people doing the same thing you are doing, the competition is feirce. Building a baseball franchise is a cut throat business. People who read Moneyball and think its an ode to OBP is misisng completely what the book is about - its about looking for something that is undervalued. Beane's success lies in thinking ahead of the game.

scorekeeper

01-13-2007, 01:27 PM

Could also be that the Cleveland market is just not suited for big ticket free agents.

Exactly what makes a market suited for that?

People who mention the 455 sell out streak as some sign of how good a baseball city Cleveland really is, or can be, tend to forget the status of the Browns, Cavaliers, and the economy of the city at that time (as well as Jacobs Field being a new stadium) as opposed to how they are now.

Like everything else in life, there are millions of things that determine the outcome of anything. I’m sure there’s been some economist who’s crunched as many numbers as he could to try to come up with the definitive answer, but it can’t be done.

Heck, getting out of the Mistake by the Lake was such a great thing, that alone would have increased attendance to some degree, as has happened every time a franchise opens a new park. But how long that honeymoon lasts is very dependent on how successful the team is.

In Cleveland’s case, you’re absolutely correct in that by stripping the city of the Browns, it left many sports fans begging for someplace to go. And of course there were many other thing too that contributed to their success at the turnstiles, but by far and above is that they were a great franchise to watch for everyone.

You would think so, but its not that easy. And there are a lot of reasons why. Probably the most important is the idea that talented young athletes are not pursuing baseball as much as they had done in the past - they get seduced by the lure of easy money with football or basketball.

I don’t know if the excuse that baseball is losing so many talented athletes is really a valid one, even though its true that there are many more avenues open today, than there was 50 years ago.

60 years ago we didn’t allow players of color into the ML, and certainly foreign players were almost invisible. The country had just lost a very high percentage of its “best” to war, something that also happened during the Korea and Vietnam eras. I’d say baseball lost a lot more athletes because of those things than it does now to other sports.

60 years ago there were only 16 ML teams and now there are a lot more, but we aren’t looking for millions, hundreds of thousands, or even thousands of more players. All we need is to find another 350 players to keep the game going, and 750 total.

60 years ago there were less than 200,000,000 people in the country, today we have almost half that more. In addition to the increased population here, the game also now allows those people of color that were kept out for so long. So no only has the gross number of white athletes available increased, the additional athletes long kept out of the has increased dramatically.

On top of all that, now there are millions of additional players available from other countries. And, the 30% number of foreign players in the ML is going up every year.

So considering everything, talent being lured away won’t fly as a valid excuse.

Also when you have 29 other people doing the same thing you are doing, the competition is feirce. Building a baseball franchise is a cut throat business. People who read Moneyball and think its an ode to OBP is misisng completely what the book is about - its about looking for something that is undervalued. Beane's success lies in thinking ahead of the game.

Of course the competition is fierce, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t enough great talent to fill every roster! And if Beane can do it, why can’t someone else? I hope you’re not trying to suggest that in the entire world, there aren’t 29 people as sharp as Billy Beane! ;-)

Personally, I think the problem lies in that the system used to find the talent is fatally flawed. It works to a pretty fair degree, but is so sloppy and inefficient in its operation, there’s no way it can possibly be identifying all of the best athletes out there, let alone get them signed, develop them, and eventually get them into the ML.

What is the main requirement for being a really great baseball player? Really great baseball skills. But, are baseball skills really the main criteria used to choose the players who get the opportunity to get to the ML?

Given the choice between signing a really great player or signing the owner’s grandson who just barely meets the qualifications, who do you think is gonna get signed?

Given the choice between signing a guy 5’6” skinny runt who has 4 of the 5 tools but lacks power, or signing a Mark McGwire type, who’s gonna get signed?

I could go on and on, but the point is, the algorithms being used to cull the candidates is screwed up because it allows the insertion of way too many un-baseball skill related variables to be thrown in for just about any reason.

I’ve run into folks who insist that if a player can’t run a 4.6 40 at a tryout camp, the scouts will just send him home without even looking at anything else. There’s no way that’s true for every scout or organization, but I’m sure its true somewhere by some scouts. The thing is, even if its only one moron who sends home one kid and that kid gives up, the game might have lost the next “Greatest Player of All Time”!

The same thing happens when talking about pitchers. Although there’s no way everyone is like this, there are some scouts who will pursue a HS P who throws 90 and otherwise sucks, but not even fill out a card on one who only trips the gun at 89, but never does anything but get people out and win.

Another one is, players going to a big D1 program draw far more attention than those going to a JUCO or DIII school. Why is that really? Its because the pros are counting on the colleges doing a great job at the culling process for them. Although that does happen to some degree, there’s no way it’s a perfect system.

The bottom line is, there’s no way every player with the potential to play in the ML gets identified as such, and no way that every player that does get signed is better than every player who isn’t.

I know there’s no way to make choosing players infallible, but there certainly has to be a more efficient way than what’s being used now.

ACrank

02-09-2007, 03:49 PM

Exactly what makes a market suited for that?

Like everything else in life, there are millions of things that determine the outcome of anything. I’m sure there’s been some economist who’s crunched as many numbers as he could to try to come up with the definitive answer, but it can’t be done.

Actually it can be done, but it would take a lot to give a true idea of what would be involved. Usually when people measure market size they look at simple things like:

population

television market size

But I don't think thats enough. I think you have to factor other things into the consideration of what makes up a market size:

1) number of same sports teams within a driving distance (give it an arbitrary figure of 2 hours). Face it - a lot of sports fans are bandwagoners - will they be more than willing to watch a team more prone to winning (especially if that team is closer to their home then the Indians are)?

2) number of different sport teams within the same city (under the idea of that if the average fans discretionary spending capability is down they are going to be more picky oin what games they are going to - then prorities are set. Indians fans could very well be going to less games because they are saving their money to attend more Cavs or Browns games).

3) General economic situation of the city in mention. (Cleveland was named the biggest poor city in tne nation within the last couple of years. Its foolish to assume something like that has no effect on the sports teams in the area.)

Heck, getting out of the Mistake by the Lake was such a great thing, that alone would have increased attendance to some degree, as has happened every time a franchise opens a new park. But how long that honeymoon lasts is very dependent on how successful the team is.

In Cleveland’s case, you’re absolutely correct in that by stripping the city of the Browns, it left many sports fans begging for someplace to go. And of course there were many other thing too that contributed to their success at the turnstiles, but by far and above is that they were a great franchise to watch for everyone.

I think you have the cart before the horse here. I think the Indians became a great franchise because of the Browns leaving, the Cavs being ineptly run, and the economy booming, not the other way around.

I don’t know if the excuse that baseball is losing so many talented athletes is really a valid one, even though its true that there are many more avenues open today, than there was 50 years ago.

60 years ago we didn’t allow players of color into the ML, and certainly foreign players were almost invisible. The country had just lost a very high percentage of its “best” to war, something that also happened during the Korea and Vietnam eras. I’d say baseball lost a lot more athletes because of those things than it does now to other sports.

60 years ago there were only 16 ML teams and now there are a lot more, but we aren’t looking for millions, hundreds of thousands, or even thousands of more players. All we need is to find another 350 players to keep the game going, and 750 total.

60 years ago there were less than 200,000,000 people in the country, today we have almost half that more. In addition to the increased population here, the game also now allows those people of color that were kept out for so long. So no only has the gross number of white athletes available increased, the additional athletes long kept out of the has increased dramatically.

On top of all that, now there are millions of additional players available from other countries. And, the 30% number of foreign players in the ML is going up every year.

So considering everything, talent being lured away won’t fly as a valid excuse.

If Baseball were the only sport being played, then it wouldn't. Unfortunately, in the US you are dealing with swift competition against Basketball (a sport that financially underpviveldged youth find easier to play as it doesn't take much additional equipment), and Football (one that has passed Baseball decades ago as "Americas Game" and one that some might see a better chance at making more money at). I don't know enough about overseas to be able to comment on that completely, but I think its safe to say that Baseball is in stiff competition with Soccer and other sports.

Of course the competition is fierce, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t enough great talent to fill every roster! And if Beane can do it, why can’t someone else? I hope you’re not trying to suggest that in the entire world, there aren’t 29 people as sharp as Billy Beane! ;-)

No, of course not, but one of Beane's success traits as a GM is that he is one step ahead of the curve. He didn't create OBP, but he saw that it was something being undervalued so he picked up players good at it cheaply, and it seemed to benefit his team greatly. Recently he shifted that to players who were good at defense, and the results were evident. Lets just say, as much as I think Mark Shapiro is a great GM, I would love for Shapiro to be as sharp as Beane is.

Personally, I think the problem lies in that the system used to find the talent is fatally flawed. It works to a pretty fair degree, but is so sloppy and inefficient in its operation, there’s no way it can possibly be identifying all of the best athletes out there, let alone get them signed, develop them, and eventually get them into the ML.

What is the main requirement for being a really great baseball player? Really great baseball skills. But, are baseball skills really the main criteria used to choose the players who get the opportunity to get to the ML?

Given the choice between signing a really great player or signing the owner’s grandson who just barely meets the qualifications, who do you think is gonna get signed?

Have you read "Moneyball"? Because what you said is highly ironic considering your mention of Beane above - basically speaking Beane the player fit your description perfectly, and he failed as a player. Failed msierably.

I've had the fortune to follow minor league ball long enough to know that a lot of players with great tools get drafted early and fail. You don't have to look much further than the Indians with Corey Smith (now working his way out of the Padres organization) to realize that this is true. To bring Beane back into the conversation, it was his failure as a player that got him to start thinking "outside the box" to find other measurables to help predict a players success instead of just relying solely on tools.

Given the choice between signing a guy 5’6” skinny runt who has 4 of the 5 tools but lacks power, or signing a Mark McGwire type, who’s gonna get signed?

Don't be too sure that holds that true anymore.

I could go on and on, but the point is, the algorithms being used to cull the candidates is screwed up because it allows the insertion of way too many un-baseball skill related variables to be thrown in for just about any reason.

I’ve run into folks who insist that if a player can’t run a 4.6 40 at a tryout camp, the scouts will just send him home without even looking at anything else. There’s no way that’s true for every scout or organization, but I’m sure its true somewhere by some scouts. The thing is, even if its only one moron who sends home one kid and that kid gives up, the game might have lost the next “Greatest Player of All Time”!

The same thing happens when talking about pitchers. Although there’s no way everyone is like this, there are some scouts who will pursue a HS P who throws 90 and otherwise sucks, but not even fill out a card on one who only trips the gun at 89, but never does anything but get people out and win.

Another one is, players going to a big D1 program draw far more attention than those going to a JUCO or DIII school. Why is that really? Its because the pros are counting on the colleges doing a great job at the culling process for them. Although that does happen to some degree, there’s no way it’s a perfect system.

The bottom line is, there’s no way every player with the potential to play in the ML gets identified as such, and no way that every player that does get signed is better than every player who isn’t.

I know there’s no way to make choosing players infallible, but there certainly has to be a more efficient way than what’s being used now.

It sounds like you haven't read "Moneyball" at all. In which case I would highly recommend it. I think you would enjoy it and perhaps realize things aren't as bad as you think they are.

scorekeeper

02-09-2007, 06:02 PM

I don’t know with any degree of certainty because I was 3,000 miles away when it happened, but the Indians had quite a solid core of players from ’93 on.

Maybe I have the timeline wrong, but I seem to remember the Jake opening in 94 and having nothing but sellouts before anyone knew the Browns were moving. Now how much the Browns moving and the Cavs ineptitude helped their gate, I can’t say. But I seriously doubt that they would have continued to draw like they did unless the team was not only winning, but an exciting team to watch.

Whether or not basketball is more attractive or not is really beside the point. Yes there is a lot of competition for athletes, but when you figure that there’s only 750 needed at the top echelon of baseball, but there are literally millions in the pipeline, the amount lost to other sports is really insignificant, especially assuming there are players going both ways in every sport.

What you’re saying is, Beane is just better at ignoring baseball dogma than all the other GMs. ;-)

Yup, I read “Moneyball”. But I didn’t say great baseball skills were the only criteria! I said they were the main criteria.

Who is it that makes the determination who has the great tools? The system does. And what I’m saying is, the system doesn’t do the best job of choosing those with the best tools.

C’mon now, try to stay serious. ;)

Culling players by physical traits starts way back in LL when the kids are 1st allowed to pitch. Size is equated with velocity on the mound, and its not often you won’t see the biggest kid on a team who also doesn’t pitch. And that same mindset extends all the way to the ML.

There are players who defy the odds and manage to :make it”, but don’t try to make me believe the players who are smaller don’t have to perform better than their counterparts to get much chance at all.

Again, I did read money ball when it was 1st published, but I’ve also watched what goes on in baseball at levels below the ML too. Perhaps you believe all best players are being chosen to go on, but I don’t. Remember, before players get to the point where scouts will even see them, players need to survive all kinds of situations, both good and bad.

ACrank

02-09-2007, 06:54 PM

The sellout streak begun in the 95 season and ended in 2001.

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/cle/history/cle_history_overview.jsp?story=5

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/J/Jacobs_Field.stm

The Browns moved to Baltimore in 1995 and were reborn as an expansion franchise in 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns

1994-95 Cleveland 43 39 .524 (4) Cent 1 3 .250
1995-96 Cleveland 47 35 .573 (3) Cent 0 3 .000
1996-97 Cleveland 42 40 .512 (5) Cent
1997-98 Cleveland 47 35 .573 (5) Cent 1 3 .250
1998-99 Cleveland* 22 28 .440 (7) Cent
1999-00 Cleveland 32 50 .390 (6) Cent

The above is the Cavs w/l record during the same time frame.

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=nba/teams/DIRECT094.htm

I'm hoping this proves my point that the succes of the Indians were, at least greatly influenced by the lack of success (or existence) of two other major league professional sports franchises that they would be competing against.

Whether or not basketball is more attractive or not is really beside the point. Yes there is a lot of competition for athletes, but when you figure that there’s only 750 needed at the top echelon of baseball, but there are literally millions in the pipeline, the amount lost to other sports is really insignificant, especially assuming there are players going both ways in every sport.

How exactly is it besides the point? You were asking about the ability to jduge talent. I was commenting that a lot of the young talent you seem to think should be drawn to baseball is, in fact, not drawn to the sport at all.

Now to give MLB credit - they seem to be making inroads to change that. And locally there is a lot of work being done to help improve local ball fields. But the truth is if it is easier for a child to play basketball then that child is going to work harder at it and be more prone to develop as a basketball player.

What you’re saying is, Beane is just better at ignoring baseball dogma than all the other GMs. ;-)

Agree completely. Thats a reaccuring theme in the book. And there have been some great and heated Scouts Vs Stats debates that have popped up since then.

Yup, I read “Moneyball”. But I didn’t say great baseball skills were the only criteria! I said they were the main criteria.

Who is it that makes the determination who has the great tools? The system does. And what I’m saying is, the system doesn’t do the best job of choosing those with the best tools.

Thing is - not even sure they are the main criteria. Its not tools anymore. Its tools + the ability to play the game. Tools alone don't mean that much anymore. You still have scouts who go by what they see on the field (& thats fine - one of these days I'm going to strike up a conversation with one at a game, would love to pick their brain about so many things).

Culling players by physical traits starts way back in LL when the kids are 1st allowed to pitch. Size is equated with velocity on the mound, and its not often you won’t see the biggest kid on a team who also doesn’t pitch. And that same mindset extends all the way to the ML.

There are players who defy the odds and manage to :make it”, but don’t try to make me believe the players who are smaller don’t have to perform better than their counterparts to get much chance at all.

Again, I did read money ball when it was 1st published, but I’ve also watched what goes on in baseball at levels below the ML too. Perhaps you believe all best players are being chosen to go on, but I don’t. Remember, before players get to the point where scouts will even see them, players need to survive all kinds of situations, both good and bad.

Could be you and I are looking at different things then. On the grade school high school and even college level I have no doubt what you say is accurate. I just disagree on the major league level.

Yes, I believe all the best players are being chosen to make it to the big leagues. Where we disagree is the talent pool these players are being drawn from. I think the best or most talented players that, years before, would have been drawn to baseball are more drawn to the lure of immediate riches that basketball and football offer (think about it this way - the best players in both sports can go to their respective major leagues often as early as one or two years out of high school - sooner in basketball before they locked down on high school players making the jump to the NBA. That same player going into baseball is looking at 4-5 years, on average, of less then a stellar existance as a minor leaguer before they have a chance to even have a cup of coffee in the big leagues.

(Now of course you have exceptions to the rule - like the Notre Dame WR/pitcher whose name I could never hope to spell - who signed w/ the Cubbies and announcing he was forgoing his future in football. And then you have someone like Drew Henson who jumps from football to baseball, back to football, and apparently is at least being rumored to be heading back to baseball. As a whole though I think its been shown that young and talented players are drawn to basketball and football and away from baseball. And thats why the talent pool just isn't there anymore.)

scorekeeper

02-10-2007, 10:50 AM

I'm hoping this proves my point that the succes of the Indians were, at least greatly influenced by the lack of success (or existence) of two other major league professional sports franchises that they would be competing against.
I never said there were no other factors involved in their success! What I tried to say is, the main reason for it was that they put one heckofa product on the field!

If the failure of other sports teams was all it took for a ball team to be successful, what happened in San Francisco? When they opened their new park, they too had a honeymoon of sellouts, but it sure disappeared in a hurry, even though the basketball team in the area has sucked forever and both football teams have been horrible since it opened.

Even the other very successful, baseball team in the area would seem to argue against me, but they play in what is arguable the sorriest stadium in the ML now, and couldn’t draw fans even if it won the pennant.

Look down the list of ML ballparks. There are plenty of examples of teams in cities where the other sports teams suck. But its rare that they draw packed houses unless the team is not only a winner, but exciting too.

How exactly is it besides the point? You were asking about the ability to jduge talent. I was commenting that a lot of the young talent you seem to think should be drawn to baseball is, in fact, not drawn to the sport at all.

Now to give MLB credit - they seem to be making inroads to change that. And locally there is a lot of work being done to help improve local ball fields. But the truth is if it is easier for a child to play basketball then that child is going to work harder at it and be more prone to develop as a basketball player.

Where did I say talent “should be drawn to baseball”? I’m saying it doesn’t make any difference where the athletes go, there’s plenty of players in the baseball pipeline to replace all of the 750+ spots every year, let alone just replace the percentage that retires. But the great judges and teachers you seem enamored with can’t even seem to do that very well, considering the scads of players that go up and down like yoyos.

Give MLB credit for what? A few million to fix a few fields across the country? You gotta be kidding! If those bloodsuckers were just to give amateur baseball the royalties they get for forcing kids to pay for MLB manes and logos, and a percentage of the limo expenses they give to players and admin people who could well afford to buy their own limo service, they could probably build domed stadiums all over the country for little kids! ;)

Agree completely. Thats a reaccuring theme in the book. And there have been some great and heated Scouts Vs Stats debates that have popped up since then.
And there are more to come! As technology improves, so does the ability to prick the dogma bubble about things people believe not because of science, but because “that’s the way its always been”.

Thing is - not even sure they are the main criteria. Its not tools anymore. Its tools + the ability to play the game. Tools alone don't mean that much anymore. You still have scouts who go by what they see on the field (& thats fine - one of these days I'm going to strike up a conversation with one at a game, would love to pick their brain about so many things).

In my mind, “the ability to play the game” is a tool. It’s a sign of mental maturity and understanding that has to be there to succeed in any endeavor. The kind of success I’m talking about, purely being able to play the game better than anyone else, will always be about the “tools”. The other stuff is the aesthetic glue that holds the business part of the game together.

Take away the plus stadiums, the gozillion dollar contracts, the crazy perks, and just throw all the ball players naked on a field together, and the ones with the best skills will be the most successful. :eek:

Could be you and I are looking at different things then. On the grade school high school and even college level I have no doubt what you say is accurate. I just disagree on the major league level.

Yes, I believe all the best players are being chosen to make it to the big leagues. Where we disagree is the talent pool these players are being drawn from. I think the best or most talented players that, years before, would have been drawn to baseball are more drawn to the lure of immediate riches that basketball and football offer (think about it this way - the best players in both sports can go to their respective major leagues often as early as one or two years out of high school - sooner in basketball before they locked down on high school players making the jump to the NBA. That same player going into baseball is looking at 4-5 years, on average, of less then a stellar existance as a minor leaguer before they have a chance to even have a cup of coffee in the big leagues. But if you admit that’s what’s happening at the lower levels, there’s no way you can believe all the best players are being chosen to make it to the big leagues.

You and I can agree that very likely the best players in the minors that will help the parent team are being chosen to move up, but that’s not the same thing. Good players stuck in a system that doesn’t need their talent at the ML level might just sit and rot, even though they are better than what some ML teams have at their position.

How many basketball and football players are you really talking about that might have gone to baseball? Then you also have to figure in how many baseball players could have gone to those other sports but didn’t, and figure them into the mix.

You can’t believe that prior to 1947 what you believe is true, but what I believe holds true even then. The players that will most likely benefit the parent club were sent to the show, but that’s nothing like ALL of the best players.

(Now of course you have exceptions to the rule - like the Notre Dame WR/pitcher whose name I could never hope to spell - who signed w/ the Cubbies and announcing he was forgoing his future in football. And then you have someone like Drew Henson who jumps from football to baseball, back to football, and apparently is at least being rumored to be heading back to baseball. As a whole though I think its been shown that young and talented players are drawn to basketball and football and away from baseball. And thats why the talent pool just isn't there anymore.)
Well, thankfully in this country you can sure believe what you want and express it wherever you like, and I for one am glad that’s possible, and we certainly don’t have to agree. As long as you’re a Tribe fan, I’ll defend your right to be wrong. :gt

JamesWest

02-10-2007, 11:03 AM

As someone who attended 1/4 to 1/3 of the games in the 455 sellout streak, I don't the streak says much more than theat there were a lot of fair weather fans in Cleveland, who were attending games at Jacobs Field because it was new and that going there had a certain cachet. Early in the streak, the park was usually full, but there were always quite a few people sitting around us who had no real interest in the game, especially when the Indians were in the field. Starting around 1998, it got to be pretty ludicrous being at a game when the announced attendance was 42,183 and it was obvious that there weren't more than 25,000 people in the park. Parto f that was probably due to the ludicrous way the Indians sold tickets during the off-season and partly because the corporate clients could be counted to buy tickets but not be counted on to attend the games. Much like Ozzie Newsome's streak, the sellout streak was and is a joke.

As far as free agents avoiding Cleveland: how many top-flight free agents have ever signed a deal with the Indians? In my estimation there have been three: Wayne Garland, Jack McDowell and Roberto Alomar. Only Alomar had a decent run with Cleveland, and even he was over-rated in his stay with Cleveland, in my opinion.

RuthMayBond

02-11-2007, 09:24 PM

As someone who attended 1/4 to 1/3 of the games in the 455 sellout streak, I don't the streak says much more than theat there were a lot of fair weather fans in ClevelandThen why has no other team even come that close to the streak?

JamesWest

02-12-2007, 07:51 AM

Then why has no other team even come that close to the streak?

Because no other team has a bandwagon that big.

RuthMayBond

02-12-2007, 08:31 AM

Because no other team has a bandwagon that big.Let us introduce you to the Yankees :grouchy

SoxSon

02-13-2007, 04:15 PM

Let us introduce you to the Yankees :grouchy

Or, at this point (I say grudgingly), a certain other team in the east. :ughh

TSZMike

02-21-2007, 07:48 AM

Was Mulder the answer for this team? I dont know? But it wouldnt have been a bad signing. Getting starting pitching in baseball these days is tuff though.

BoofBonser26

02-21-2007, 01:02 PM

Was Mulder the answer for this team? I dont know? But it wouldnt have been a bad signing. Getting starting pitching in baseball these days is tuff though.
True, but the Indians have plenty.