Look at Ray Ray Run

The White Sox are not a smaller market than the Twins and Indians. That is complete nonsense. As I said, produce actually numbers and studies refuting the number - don't just throw out some random number. If you think the Twins and Indians have a larger market you might want to talk to the TV networks because the local contracts for the Sox blow the Indians and Twins out of the water, and I'm using the Sox last contract not the current extension.

I would disagree; having been someone who grew up in the Western and Southern suburbs, I can say that I saw more Sox fans than Cub fans. Being someone who lived on the north side of the city, I can understand how anyone living their could view it differently than me, but 45ish seems about right to me.

Yes they do. I grew up in the Western Suburbs and it was split pretty much evenly - Oak Park/River Forest area. The South Suburbs are Sox heavy and the North Suburbs are Cubs heavy. The Cubs have a further reaching fanbase - ie, they have central illinois with the cardinals, iowa, and northern illinois/southern wisco. Their reach goes further, but in the immediate Chicagoland area, the Sox are nearly evenly split. 47/53 is pretty accurate imo, unless you want to produce a study that refutes that point... or you can just stick to pointless first hand experience to draw erroneous conclusions if you prefer that.

No chance. The Sox control 47% - according to this study by the Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/23/upshot/24-upshot-baseball.html - of a major metropolitan area. According to that study, Cook County is split nearly 40/40. Cook County alone is 5.3 million people, meaning the Sox have nearly 2.2 million of that in Cook alone. St Louis has 300,000 people - the metropolitan area has 2.8 million people. Of Sox Fans in Cook alone, they nearly match the total of St Louis. Chicago is a MASSIVE market in which the Sox have a 47% share of. There are 10 million people in this area, and if you want to say the Sox just control 40% of it (It's higher, FTR) then they control a fan base north of 4 million people. That's bigger than the entire St Louis Metro Area. The White Sox are not a small market team; don't let them sell you otherwise. In the early 90's the Sox were a bigger draw than the Cubs. Jerry being a big part of the strike hurt a lot with the fan base, but the Sox still have a market share bigger than 90% of MLB teams.

I guess he never full out said it... a lot of inferences for sure though. Christians and Jews can have a mutual respect for each other to create a civil society. As you know, Islam cannot do that. Therefore we cannot ever let Islam become a large part of our society. Muslims are naturally my (our) enemy due to their deep antagonism and bias against non-Muslims.

Why do people continue to call these thoughts goofy? These arent goofy thought. His email discusses the genocide of muslims and also takes shots at black people and Mexicans. theres nothing goofy about them.

You've made horrible post after horrible post in this thread. Comparing this to Jerry's dad and other irrelevant nonsense. You said this has nothing to do with the Cubs when Joe is literally the reason they bought the team - it was his equity. Then you excuse it all by saying hes just an old guy and that's what old people do.... while also claiming that just because Joe is an old racist it doesn't mean Tom is... despite Tom heading down the same political path while making a push for Sinclair with the Cubs network. Theres no excuse for mlb to have allowed an old pos bigot to fund the purchase of one of their biggest franchises.

Oh man, someone supporting a racist by calling those who don't unreasonable. It's Joe Ricketts lack of tolerance that led to this.

Lol Joe sold 430 million dollars in Ameritrade stock to put up the equity in the Cubs. Claiming that Joe Ricketts has nothing to do with buying the Cubs is horribly wrong and misleading.

Lol its been defended like 15 times on the first page. "Goofy," just an "old man," nothing to be outraged about... just chain emails yada yada. People comparing this to Jerry's dad lol when ricketts dad money is literally how they own the team and the Cubs have their push for Sinclair on their network. Anyone who is trying to marginalize this as not a big deal are the same people who fuel racism by excusing and making excuses for why it's not a big deal. The Ricketts family is trash... whether they own the Cubs or not.

Forbes list the Cubs worth as nearly 3 billion yet they sold for 700 million 9 years ago. Makes sense.

A made up Forbes number does you know good. The sox operating income doesnt go to zero by spending 30 million more - that's not how that works. Why cant he make disparaging remarks about the Cubs owners financial standing?

I'd rather be JR because I'd have bought something for 30 million that is now worth 1.5 billion. Rickets on the other hand spent pretty much all he's worth on the team.

Yes but the mlb teams pay higher aav to pitchers is going to end in a month so that argument doesn't really work.

It is raw usage. A player gets 600 at bats but he also plays 1400 innings. His usage is much higher than the 200 inning guy. Also, the position players sacrifice some aav for the years. 6 years additional at 25 million a year is more valuable than the 6 extra million a year over the first 6 years.

Its not a flaw. If you want to argue that a pitcher faces over 600 at bats in a full season I can understand that but it's a fallacy to say that is equal to a batter taking 600 at bats. The reason is this. A player can impact the outcome for all 162 games in a season - it's not just his 600 at bats. It's his time on the bases and in the field. The ability to impact the game daily is why an owner is more likely to invest heavily in a bat.

No, shorter term investments are to accommodate for the higher volatility. When assessing the risk of a large and long term investment that is very likely to not warrant its end year values, it's the total investment that matters - not the aav investment. Teams weren't paying Stanton or Cabrera for their age 37 seasons. These are the biggest investments given and I want to reiterate that it's the total investment that matters for investments that are likely to have no value in them at the end of it... 1. Giancarlo Stanton, $325,000,000 (2015-27) 2. Alex Rodriguez, $275,000,000 (2008-17) 3. Alex Rodriguez, $252,000,000 (2001-10) 4. Miguel Cabrera, $248,000,000 (2016-23) 5. Albert Pujols, $240,000,000 (2012-21) … Robinson Cano, $240,000,000 (2014-23) 7. Joey Votto, $225,000,000 (2014-23) 8. David Price, $217,000,000 (2016-22) 9. Clayton Kershaw, $215,000,000 (2014-20) 10. Prince Fielder, $214,000,000 (2012-20)

Greinke's contract is for 7 years. No one is giving a pitcher a 10 year deal.

Position players are more valuable than pitchers because of raw usage. It's really that simple. Reliability and frequency matter a lot in long term contracts. It's why the longest and biggest contracts will always go to hitters before pitchers. Signing a bunch of pitchers under the premise of expected injury is not a good way to allocate funds to maximize return. You don't sign a guy for any decent wage to be a security blanket for a guy you signed for a bigger wage. Injuries should be reactionary, despite assumed likelihood. Otherwise it's a misallocation of funds.

That's why they are more volatile... That's why I used the word dangerous? Volatility in performance is tied greatly to injury. It's why when deciding between investing heavily in an arm or a bat, you should always chose a bat; which was the exact opposite argument of your initial post.

There are times in baseball in which scoring ONE run is more valuable to the win rate of your team than scoring multiple. In that scenario ONLY should you sacrifice an out. The frequency in which that happens is incredibly rare which is why 99% of sacrifices are bad baseball

Eh, the problem is your giving the pitchers in general the duty of preventing runs while ignoring the fact that pitchers are much more volatile and dangerous commodity... In today's game, adding the position player is probably the answer if both players are equal in value because of the increased pitched volatility.

No they're not.

Ahhh this is where I made my mistake. Its wRC not wRC+. You are correct the adjustment for parks and etc harm it. Similarly to how ops+ is less efficient wRC+ is more efficient than OPS+.

That ISO information is rather surprising.