Share your interesting baseball reads here

[rhd]

Brief LA Times article today that is closer to the truth on this topic:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...203-story.html

I read this article and also re-read the FG article. I fail to see how the LA Times article contravenes the FG article at all. Tony Clark says the revenues are as close to 50-50 as they've ever been w/o giving any supporting evidence or argument, and the article didnt provide any either. Of course the best evidence probably is the owners' books, which they'll never let us see.

Also, this issue kind of presents baseball fans w a Hobson's choice. Fans' natural inclination is to side w the workers, which are the players, so part of them wants to see the players get a bigger piece slice of the revenue pie. But the luxury tax "cap" has seemed to level the playing field considerably for the small market/revenue teams, making MLB more competitive and exciting in general in that a well-run small revenue team has a realistic chance of competing. But still few fans will side w the owners on this, at least not openly. Whatever happens, be assured that the ticket prices, concessions prices and CATV bills will go up and the fans will foot the bill.

It will be interesting to see what happens in next year's CBA negotiations.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I read this article and also re-read the FG article. I fail to see how the LA Times article contravenes the FG article at all. Tony Clark says the revenues are as close to 50-50 as they've ever been w/o giving any supporting evidence or argument, and the article didnt provide any either. Of course the best evidence probably is the owners' books, which they'll never let us see.

You understand that if it weren't true, that Tony Clark would be the person most unhappy about it? No, he doesn't give evidence, for the same reason I can't. Until this article came out, I haven't made any comments on all these articles that have appeared claiming that the player share of revenues was decreasing because (a) people could say I was simply parroting the company line and (b) I am unable to offer any evidence for anyone to examine. Now Tony Clark isn't able to offer the evidence here, either, but at least it should be obvious that he is speaking against his own interests here if it weren't true. Furthermore, he's in a good position to know, much more so than any of the Fangraphs writers or Jonah Keri or any other sportswriter.

[Judge Jude]

"Whatever happens, be assured that the ticket prices, concessions prices and CATV bills will go up and the fans will foot the bill."

that's optional on the part of the fans. they have no responsibility to pay more for tickets just because salaries go up. their decision should be, and is, based on the value they place on going to a ballgame. if the prices ever get too high, MLB will find out in short order via the marketplace.

[YourPalChrisMal]

"Whatever happens, be assured that the ticket prices, concessions prices and CATV bills will go up and the fans will foot the bill."

that's optional on the part of the fans. they have no responsibility to pay more for tickets just because salaries go up. their decision should be, and is, based on the value they place on going to a ballgame. if the prices ever get too high, MLB will find out in short order via the marketplace.

Exactly. Most of the population likes to completely ignore the most basic economic principal of supply and demand. Prices wouldn't keep going up if people weren't willing to pay for it.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Exactly. Most of the population likes to completely ignore the most basic economic principal of supply and demand. Prices wouldn't keep going up if people weren't willing to pay for it.

While that is certainly true, I can also understand why people would lament increasing costs of attending a game, even if they understood the economics behind it.

[YourPalChrisMal]

Um, supply and demand as a microeconomic principle doesn't work so well when there is only one supplier.

Yes and no. There's only one supplier of baseball, but there are many sports and many forms of entertainment for people to spend their money on.

[rhd]

You understand that if it weren't true, that Tony Clark would be the person most unhappy about it? No, he doesn't give evidence, for the same reason I can't. Until this article came out, I haven't made any comments on all these articles that have appeared claiming that the player share of revenues was decreasing because (a) people could say I was simply parroting the company line and (b) I am unable to offer any evidence for anyone to examine. Now Tony Clark isn't able to offer the evidence here, either, but at least it should be obvious that he is speaking against his own interests here if it weren't true. Furthermore, he's in a good position to know, much more so than any of the Fangraphs writers or Jonah Keri or any other sportswriter.

Whenever the argument is that there is evidence that would prove or support a certain thing but that the evidence is unavailable or cant be disclosed, that presents an obvious credibility issue. And of course the owners can reveal their evidence, they simply wont because it's against their interests. Well, I dont trust them and I cant see where any intelligent person would. Why Tony Clark said what he said I really dont know. The players cant be too happy w him rt now about this.

[rhd]

For those interested in Japanese or international baseball, here's an interesting article about baseball issues in Japan:

http://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00204/?pnum=2

I hadnt even realized that there had been a players' strike in Japan. I think characterizing baseball growth in the Japan Leagues as stagnant strikes me as exaggeration. The tripling of attendance is hardly stagnant and there have been several recent significant innovations in Japan such as interleague play and the awarding of the first game of the first 2 palyoffs series to the team w the better record. Now that's really giving more importance to regular-season W/L records! I dont know how significant CATV is in Japanese baseball. or whether they even have CATV in Japan, or whether they have regional sports networks there but if not creating them might be a way to give a boost to baseball in Japan.

[madducks]

Recently read two true crime books that are baseball related. Both were great reads.

The first is The Pittsburgh Cocaine Seven and is directly linked to Major League Baseball. It tells the story of the Pittsburgh drug trials from 1985 and how players received immunity for their testimony against their cocaine suppliers, who all turned out to be low level dealers and fans (and one mascot) who just wanted to hang out with the players. Some of the player's testimony also suggests amphetamine use by many of the players of the 60's & 70's. Some of the big names involved in the trial were Dave Parker, Keith Hernandez, Dusty Baker, and Lonnie Smith. Also covered, is how MLB failed to seize this golden opportunity to implement drug testing, thus leaving the door open for the rampant steroid use that would soon follow.

The second book is Operation Bullpen which tells the story of the biggest, most profitable forgery ring in the annals of American crime and the FBI investigation that eventually broke it up. The forgers sold more than $100 million worth of fake celebrity (mostly baseball) autographs during the 90's. Some of the fakes were even sold on TV shopping channels! The fakes are good enough to fool some of the experts and the majority of them are still owned by collectors and often turn up for sale online to this very day. If you buy autographed memorabilia this is a must read.

[rhd]

Kinda fun to read what some of the prospects are tweeting re: MLB's recently released Top 100 list:

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/163243356/2016-top-100-prospects-go-on-twitter

Brett Phillips sure has a cool middle name!

[mgwiz22]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/voting-now-open-for-sabr-analytics-awards/#more-210193

Some very interesting articles here

[rhd]

ESPN's Tristan Cockcroft did a ranking on the most/least hitter-friendly parks:

http://espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/story/_/page/mlbdk2k16_parkfactors/which-parks-most-least-favorable-fantasy-baseball-hitters-pitchers-mlb

No surprise that Coors Field is the #1 hitters' park. And good that it mentioned that the advantage to hitters is more than just the fact that the ball travels farther. The facts that breaking balls break less and that it is one of the most spacious parks also contribute greatly. Some items that should surprise most people were Minnesota's ranking as the 9th-best hitter's park. I've known for a while that it wasnt the pitchers' park that many think. Also, the Phillies' park was only the 18th-best hitters' park. I've known that it's been pretty much a neutral park for quite a while. Also, another perceived hitters park, Minute Maid is very neutral at #14. Some things that did surprise me was Wrigley being ranked only #17. It mentioned that it is one of the most inconsistent parks from year to year w the park factors heavily dependent on the winds which vary greatly. Also, Rogers Centre came in at #4, which shouldnt surprise most people but I've considered it to be overrated as a hitters' park. The runs factor is only 1.040 so I'm not sure I agree w this ranking.

AL East has to be the best division for hitters w 4 of the 5 teams in the top 10. NL East looks like the best division for pitchers w no teams in top 10 and 4 teams #18 or lower. NL West is the Jekyll-and-Hyde division w both the top 2 hitters' parks and the top 2 pitchers' parks.

Also, there's a link to an article that says the Rays now are free to explore other stadium sites in the Tampa area. St Petersburg's mayor says that the best site is the one where the current stadium sits (of course!). I dont really know but somehow I'm skeptical anything much will happen re: this.

[rhd]

Fascinating article today at BP re: the public availability of some of the Braves financial info:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28561#commentMessage

Some interesting things:
1) it shows the Braves w an operating loss 3 of the last 4 years. Seems incredible in light of modern cable deals. It mentions that the Braves cable deal is one of the smaller ones. It also shows that the Braves' payroll is only $97 mil but that they had $76 mil in other expenses. I cant imagine what else the Braves spent this $76 mil on besides payroll. I suspect this is at least partially some creative accounting. So I'm thinking rt now that even when the owners open their books you still cant trust what they're telling you. The data also looks incomplete, as revenues are $54 mil more than expenses yet it still indicates a loss of $16 mil. Perhaps, I need to brush up on my accounting.
2) It averages the % spent on payroll for 6 teams and calculates a figure of 47.4%. This is higher than the 43% figure that Boras gave but still short of the 50% that Tony Clark said the figure was close to. But it also mentions that if you include the approx $11 mil that each team is contributing to a player benefits fund, the figure becomes about 49.5%, which may be the reason why Clark said what he said. A fair point but changing the definition of what constitutes player compensation still doesnt change the fact that players are getting a lot lesser percentage than they did about 10 years ago. I'm not sure when the teams started contributing this amount to this benefits fund and I dont know exactly what this fund is used for.

Anyway, as the article notes, all this is more grist for the mill in the upcoming CBA negotiations.

[heyelander]

I'm always suspect when teams report that they are operating at a loss, then you find out the owner is paying himself a $30m salary for being president and CEO or something.

[mjl]

Fangraphs mentioned in their writeup (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/repor...b-is-regional/) that they can amortize the cost of the team over 15 years, so maybe that's a chunk of it.