Look at Ray Ray Run

Murakami looks like it is quite a bit higher at glance.

There may be one, but i cant remember any Japanese player coming over with a k-rate that high in Japan and doing anything.

Maybe they want to get a worse player for a higher price tag for fun.

Murakami could legit strike out 250 times in a season.

Those markets aren't considered as small of a market from a competitive standpoint because the NFL does significant revenue sharing and has a salary cap to prevent market size from dictating the quality of team you can put on the field. Also, saying that caps don't matter in other sports when you literally watched the Chiefs have to move all their offensive talent, but for Kelce, to retain Mahomes just shows how pointless this conversation is. I've already wasted too much time here though, as you could present some here with the most indisputable evidence possible and they'll still dispute it.

The size of a market and it's influence doesn't change based on the sport. The NFL has significant revenue sharing. The MLB does not. The Dodgers make 3 times as much revenue as the A's. Meanwhile, the Cowboys are only making twice as much in revenue than the last ranked NFL team. The Chiefs were 18th in revenue during a dynasty run so not sure what you're pointing too. Again though, just you arguing argue. Didn't you say you don't even follow the NFL/NBA anymore?

K

R&D is always more expensive than the products themselves. It's an investment in staff and people as well. While the costs are minimal compared to a players salary, as I've said before, they're also costs that require an investment in innovation which is much more affordable to teams with more funds. Additionally, a huge issue with not having approved data and vendors is that a team could technically pay a provider or person to ONLY provide services/data/etc to their team which would be another big issue. I never said this area is where teams gain the biggest edge, but it's another area where teams with more resources come out on top exasperating the inequality issue in baseball.

Royals are small market but Chiefs are big market. LOL, the mental hoops you will go through to continue one of your long winded arguments is good for a laugh in the morning for sure! LIP, every sport has bad owners. You're never going to get rid of all bad owners. Difference is baseball stacks the deck against those teams much more.

Of course you don't, meanwhile teams like the Bucks and OKC!! in the NBA can win titles and retain all their talent, and teams like the Packers and KC have dynasty like runs in the NFL. People like almagast and Westeddy just come into these threads to disagree with me at length, regardless of the logic put in front of them. It's an illness.

Championships in baseball are the byproduct of a playoffs which is much-more luck centric than the NBA playoffs (for example). Division wins and playoff appearances are what drive parity in a sport like baseball. The parity is no where near the same. The correlation between money spent and wins is significant in baseball. Therefore, baseball has less parity given that it has no salary cap and money drives wins/losses. This is very basic math. Using World Series wins as the indication of parity, in a sport with a 162 game regular season, is obviously not the way to asses parity.

Can I just say the WestEddy/Almagest circle jerk is just hilarious to watch in every thread.

Those two scandals involved teams cheating internally, not cheating with another legal business entity that knowingly goes into an agreement with a team against the bylaws of the league. "Interesting in analytics" lol. "People fail governance all the time so I guarantee an MLB team will" is not really something I agree with, but then again you guaranteed it so this discussion rests.

None of these sports are remotely close to baseball. Those things you listed are all within the rules that everyone abides by. Theyre all accessible at fair market prices. I'm not sure what you or ss2k are arguing. Baseball has a significant parity problem that is exasperated by the inequality throughout the sport. I have no idea why any fan would want the richest ownership group to have the advantage. The richest owners will always live in one or two cities. The green bay packers are one of the most successful organizations in the NFL and you think the NFL and MLB are similar in that regard.

LOL, Mark Walter alone is worth 6 times more than Jerry Reinsdorf. The fund itself manages almost 400 billion in assets. Jerry could afford to field a much more competitive team than he does, and the White Sox could make much more money than they do, but in no world could Jerry Reinsdorf compete financially with the Guggenheim fund if there are n restrictions in place.

It will have been 22 years since they had a payroll as low as they're about to have. League revenues have tripled since then. Adjusting for inflation and revenue growth, this will be the lowest White Sox payroll since I have a record.

Picking up the option and immediately trading it would be hilarious. Pushing the Sox payroll under 50 million. Then Getz would get to go make his big splash and sign some bum like Luis Arraez.

I'm not sure what the obsession is with this free-market philosophy in baseball. Of course technology and data should be normalized, and teams should be forced to compete on the same grounds. That is how it is in every other major sport in the world. This idea that money should buy infinite edge is bad for competitive balance in athletics. Pretending that Reinsdorf has the same resources as Guggenheim is laughable, and I love to hate on Jerry as much as the next guy. The fact is that some brands will always have greater value and market share (Yankees, Dodgers) and that brand equity shouldn't generate a competitive advantage for their clubs. It's bad enough the sport has no salary cap or floor, but add in all those other little edges and you see competitive balance deteriorate.

There is no reason to institute this if you aren't going to take it seriously. Do you think teams are currently cheating and using proprietary technology to gather data/measurements at the MLB level? I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's very unlikely and these rules already exist there. NBA and NFL have approved data partners and approved technologies as well. As we've seen with the Kawhi Leonard situation, an approved vendor doesn't mean a reputable one, but I would guess it's much less likely than not that teams will circumvent the rules and use unapproved technology or partners. Especially when the gains you derive from it will be so marginal. Now.... where there's money, there's rule stretching but in this case it seems pretty unlikely that teams will be signing contracts with non-approved vendors. Your second point doesn't align at all with any governance or controls at any reputable organization. Third party organizations, with any credibility, won't circumvent enterprise-wide rules and make back alley deals. And a start-up that did would quickly be a failing organization.

I just wonder if maybe the dope has learned his lesson from jumping out in front to sign Austin Slater before anyone else could get him... only to realize the rest of the market has made veterans who don't warrant big guarantees wait until later in the off-season to even be considered.

If there are actual penalties for this, and defined bylaws within the MLB organization, any third party vendor who circumvented those would be liable for the agreements just as much as the team would be. No smart or viable vendor would risk their company to do under-the-table deals with individual teams.

There's a lot of really good reasons for normalizing tech and data accumulation in athletics. One of those reasons being privacy and reducing overall liability for the league and franchises. The other reason is promoting competition through the means of leveler playing field where performance is improved by your internal team and not third party vendor agreements whom the league has no control over which is a big risk.

Limiting data actually still gives a huge advantage to teams at the top. While it limits their ability to find novel proprietary data, what it does is allows them to benefit more greatly from their internal talent. Most novel ideas and data are snuffed out in under a year in athletics before everyone is copying. Now the unique findings will be harder to discover as they'll be deriving from the same data set as the Sox can use, but the Sox will have less internal talent to find their own unique value.

"Someone once felt highly of this guy before? Well, I cant develop him but maybe I cant sell him like its 2018 baby!!"

At least he was bad in the minor leagues too, so he's consistent! Getz saw a first round pick available and just couldn't help himself!