ptatc

How about true revenue sharing of a percentage of local revenue. I wonder if the large market owners would go for it if there was a higher level of a luxury tax. It could funnel more money to other teams yet allow the large market teams to spend more if they want.

Ick.

It's really weird to think 13 pitchers isn't enough. I'm old. I remember when there was 10 and the last couple didn't pitch much.

Probably. I don't think anyone wants that so I don't think it would happen.

This is all based on suggested predictive values of runs expectancy not based on actual values of what happened. I would prefer to see the actual values of what happened to see if it actually happened not an algorithm of what they think might happen.

Should you choose the bat or add to the pitching which you know has a better chance of getting injured and becoming more of a liability. Adding all the hitting you want won't help if they lose pitching and don't have at least a decent replacement. This is why the GMs make the money.

And how tough would it be for the owners to take away those guarantees?

I can't see them giving up the holy grail of the guaranteed contract. The owners wouldn't give up just increasing the pay for young players for no reason. I guess they could fight for arbitration earlier.

I never said it would be good for the teams, I said the players.

The solution would be to get to free agency earlier. However, I have no idea what they would need to give up to get that.

I wasn't taking dangerous as likelyhood of injury. I took it in the context of volatile and dangerous to predict performance. I agree that they have a greater likelyhood to get injured. All the more reason to have a greater number of quality ones.

I don't think the pitchers are more volatile or dangerous. It's more that the analytics are farther along for the hitters than the pitchers. It's more difficult to quantify pitching because of other variables such as the defense.

Maybe that was the incentive he needed to be as good as he is. ?

Makes sense. I remember when Bill came out with that theory. The .24 differential is significant. In that year defense had a much stronger correlation. It would be interesting to see it year after year. The differential is obviously the better way. However, as a GM, if it came down to adding the hitter or pitcher, the pitcher would be the answer. In today's game the answer may be different.

I'm surprised batting average is at .79, while HR is .56. Have you found anything about runs scored or runs given up and the correlation to wins? What's more important offense or pitching/defense?

Wow. That's excellent when dealing with human subjects.

Again, it makes common sense but that doesn't meanit's TRUE. Until someone calculates it, you can't definitively conclude this.

.83 is pretty strong. It would be good to see if OPS was better.

None of that has anything to do with how strong the predictive correlation is. All that sounds good but until you run the numbers, you don't know.

How strong is the correlation? Just because it is the #1 doesn't mean it's a strong correlation.

Everyone tries to throw as hard as they can now. Buerhle could have added a few mph on his fastball if he only planned on going 5 innings too. Wildness also goes along with near max effort.

4 mil. Is nothing to the Sox with a payroll of 80 mil. If the Sox had a payroll of 150 already I would agree. His contract is inconsequential as is Alonso at this time. The players aren't anything to really help the team but the contracts are nothing.

Considering he "won" offseasons and had terrible years maybe "losing" the off season could be a good thing.

He tore the triceps going into the wall and tarp in foul territory by the fans, I believe.

There is so much wrong with this that it doesn't surprise me that it is true.