I'll be brief.
I hate the National League. It's pretty easy to. In a world where two straight All-Star wins is a huge anomaly, and where big media markets (Yankees, Red Sox) are pretty much AL-exclusive, it's difficult to get excited about the National League. Here are the easiest ways the National League can change for the better and stop being the ugly stepsister to the AL powerhouses.
1. Adopt the DH
Okay, unpopular move. But really, this is what makes interleague play so painful and NL games so aggravating to watch. Baseball is a tough enough sell to young'uns who think it's boring, it's slow, etc. But if you take away an offensive opportunity 3-4 times a game by inserting a hitter whose sole purpose is just to avoid getting hurt and maybe try to sacrifice a runner over, you're just going through a pointless formality. Adopting the DH would make the NL more interesting, more relevant, there would be better opportunities for free agents and you might see more star power in the NL (which it kind of lacks). The only good thing about pitchers hitting is when they occasionally get a hit. Which never really happens anymore. Bring in the DH.
2. Get a team to compete with the Phillies.
Basically, the Phillies will be the dominant team in the NL for years to come because they have suddenly realized that being the Yankees or Red Sox in a league of Marlins is a good strategy. Jury is still out why no other teams have figured this out earlier. But come on, if you give the Dodgers a competent (and able) owner with some cash to spend, you could see a transformation of that franchise and the NL. Bring in some people to watch the Dodgers with a couple big names, and you could have the makings of a powerhouse in a division where the best team (The Giants) can't even score a run.
3. Amp up the rivalries
Everyone watches when the Red Sox play the Yankees. It's the greatest rivalry in baseball, in sports. Name the second best in baseball... nothing. Dodgers and Giants? It's a tough sell with the Dodgers being irrelevant and laughable, but if you played up this rivalry, and got some people to LA to watch baseball, the NL could become an interesting place in the future. Make these games a must-see on Sunday Night Baseball. Bring in some fans.
And that's it, essentially. The AL continually beats up on the NL teams, usually due to bigger markets, but often just because of the structure of the NL. If Major League Baseball could finally resolve its DH problem, we could see a revival of what was once the best league.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Why Moneyball is irrelevant
Stop pushing Billy Beane on us. Already subjected to endless praise of Moneyball, the book (which, in all honesty, was more of a flourish on the work that was already done by Bill James), Brad Pitt has launched a Moneyball project that is scheduled to be released in the fall. It looks well done - kind of like a Social Network, for a different audience (read: no audience in particular). However, is it really a worthwhile project to look into? Is it still relevant in the modern world? A look at modern baseball statistics, and modern World Series, might prove different.
There's no denying that, at the time of Moneyball's original publication, the Oakland A's, the Billy Beane-led subject of the book, were actually performing remarkably well. Of course, it could be due to some amount of luck in the trio of great pitchers (Hudson, Mulder, Zito), all of whom eventually left. But since 2003, the book's publication date, here's a list of the World Series winners and their yearly salaries:
2004 - Red Sox - 127.3 million (second highest)
2005 - White Sox - 75 million (13)
2006 - Cardinals - 89 million (11)
2007 - Red Sox - 143 million (2)
2008 - Phillies - 98 million (12)
2009 - Yankees - 201 million (1)
2010 - Giants - 98.6 million (9)
Meaning, no team finished that won the World Series since Billy Beane's "revolution" were in the bottom half in salary. Since then, the White Sox and the Phillies, the two lowest ranked teams in terms of relative salary, have become financial giants (especially the Phillies' recent pitching acquisitions). Meanwhile, how have Billy Beane's A's fared? They have payed pretty much a consistent $55-59 million since 2003, which usually lands them in the bottom half, if not the bottom 10. And in 2010, with a payroll of 51 million, they were third to lowest in payroll. Meanwhile, they have been to the playoffs once since the publication of Moneyball (in what is arguably the weakest division in baseball). 2010, when they finished .500, was the first time they had gotten back to that mark since 2006. And remember, even in the height of Moneyball hype, they did not win a playoff series.
The point being? Maybe money does win championships. It's not everything - if it was, the Yankees would win every year (then again, pitching also wins championships). And the Moneyball-era A's team did win a lot of regular season games. But they didn't win anything when it counted. It's soon becoming clear that, despite Moneyball's belated entrance into Hollywood, Billy Beane is no longer relevant in baseball.
There's no denying that, at the time of Moneyball's original publication, the Oakland A's, the Billy Beane-led subject of the book, were actually performing remarkably well. Of course, it could be due to some amount of luck in the trio of great pitchers (Hudson, Mulder, Zito), all of whom eventually left. But since 2003, the book's publication date, here's a list of the World Series winners and their yearly salaries:
2004 - Red Sox - 127.3 million (second highest)
2005 - White Sox - 75 million (13)
2006 - Cardinals - 89 million (11)
2007 - Red Sox - 143 million (2)
2008 - Phillies - 98 million (12)
2009 - Yankees - 201 million (1)
2010 - Giants - 98.6 million (9)
Meaning, no team finished that won the World Series since Billy Beane's "revolution" were in the bottom half in salary. Since then, the White Sox and the Phillies, the two lowest ranked teams in terms of relative salary, have become financial giants (especially the Phillies' recent pitching acquisitions). Meanwhile, how have Billy Beane's A's fared? They have payed pretty much a consistent $55-59 million since 2003, which usually lands them in the bottom half, if not the bottom 10. And in 2010, with a payroll of 51 million, they were third to lowest in payroll. Meanwhile, they have been to the playoffs once since the publication of Moneyball (in what is arguably the weakest division in baseball). 2010, when they finished .500, was the first time they had gotten back to that mark since 2006. And remember, even in the height of Moneyball hype, they did not win a playoff series.
The point being? Maybe money does win championships. It's not everything - if it was, the Yankees would win every year (then again, pitching also wins championships). And the Moneyball-era A's team did win a lot of regular season games. But they didn't win anything when it counted. It's soon becoming clear that, despite Moneyball's belated entrance into Hollywood, Billy Beane is no longer relevant in baseball.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)