<< <i>the Yankees are paying for for over 3/4 of the stadium. >>
The Yankees should pay for the whole damned stadium. According to Playboy Steinbrenner has a net worth of over a billion dollars. I used to work in New York City, and New York City wage tax and state sales and income taxes are through the roof. Why should taxpayers subsidize the cancer that is growing on baseball? Why don't you Yankee fans pass the hat so the corporations can buy their skyboxes for a little less money? Sounds fair to me so the you can look at the best baseball money can buy in a first class facility. >>
troll much? >>
Nope.
I’m just giving you an honest opinion. I’m not the first to argue that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for sports stadiums. It’s been an issue at least since the days of the late Howard Cosell, who was a huge New York sports fan and journalist. When a team has as much money as the Yankees have, they don’t need to receive to corporate welfare.
Conservatives have chastised me many times for knocking the Yankees. Their argument is if the free market gives the Yankees all that money, then they should be free to buy up the whole game if they want. OK. Well if that’s the way it should be, then the Yankees should pay for their stadium with no taxpayer money. >>
And for the money the taxpayers kick in they get an owner who kicks in MORE than his share on top, which is more....no, WAY more than be said for the other billionaire owners who get their new parks funded by taxpayers and still pocket money and put crap on the field.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." -- Yogi Berra
<< <i>the Yankees are paying for for over 3/4 of the stadium. >>
The Yankees should pay for the whole damned stadium. According to Playboy Steinbrenner has a net worth of over a billion dollars. I used to work in New York City, and New York City wage tax and state sales and income taxes are through the roof. Why should taxpayers subsidize the cancer that is growing on baseball? Why don't you Yankee fans pass the hat so the corporations can buy their skyboxes for a little less money? Sounds fair to me so the you can look at the best baseball money can buy in a first class facility. >>
troll much? >>
Nope.
I’m just giving you an honest opinion. I’m not the first to argue that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for sports stadiums. It’s been an issue at least since the days of the late Howard Cosell, who was a huge New York sports fan and journalist. When a team has as much money as the Yankees have, they don’t need to receive to corporate welfare.
Conservatives have chastised me many times for knocking the Yankees. Their argument is if the free market gives the Yankees all that money, then they should be free to buy up the whole game if they want. OK. Well if that’s the way it should be, then the Yankees should pay for their stadium with no taxpayer money. >>
And for the money the taxpayers kick in they get an owner who kicks in MORE than his share on top, which is more....no, WAY more than be said for the other billionaire owners who get their new parks funded by taxpayers and still pocket money and put crap on the field. >>
I wonder if you would be writing this back in the early 1990s when George was running the team, and many Yankee fans thought he was running it into the ground? And yes, when Georgle got banned from baseball because of the way he handled Dave Winfield, many Yankee fans cheered.
I've been around long enough to have seen how the bottom rail can end up on top.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>the Yankees are paying for for over 3/4 of the stadium. >>
The Yankees should pay for the whole damned stadium. According to Playboy Steinbrenner has a net worth of over a billion dollars. I used to work in New York City, and New York City wage tax and state sales and income taxes are through the roof. Why should taxpayers subsidize the cancer that is growing on baseball? Why don't you Yankee fans pass the hat so the corporations can buy their skyboxes for a little less money? Sounds fair to me so the you can look at the best baseball money can buy in a first class facility. >>
troll much? >>
Nope.
I’m just giving you an honest opinion. I’m not the first to argue that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for sports stadiums. It’s been an issue at least since the days of the late Howard Cosell, who was a huge New York sports fan and journalist. When a team has as much money as the Yankees have, they don’t need to receive to corporate welfare.
Conservatives have chastised me many times for knocking the Yankees. Their argument is if the free market gives the Yankees all that money, then they should be free to buy up the whole game if they want. OK. Well if that’s the way it should be, then the Yankees should pay for their stadium with no taxpayer money. >>
And for the money the taxpayers kick in they get an owner who kicks in MORE than his share on top, which is more....no, WAY more than be said for the other billionaire owners who get their new parks funded by taxpayers and still pocket money and put crap on the field. >>
I wonder if you would be writing this back in the early 1990s when George was running the team, and many Yankee fans thought he was running it into the ground? And yes, when Georgle got banned from baseball because of the way he handled Dave Winfield, many Yankee fans cheered.
I've been around long enough to have seen how the bottom rail can end up on top. >>
I have been around long enough to see the dark days of the Yankees. Not you or anyone else is going to question that. Through it all my only fault with George was his meddling. It certainly was not his ability to care about a winner and reach into his own pocket to try and build one. To sit here or anywhere else and deny that he is one among many billionaire owners, or to further dispute that out of all those billionaires he has given the most of his own $$ to try and build a winner is either being blind, or just plain ignorant.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." -- Yogi Berra
<< <i>To sit here or anywhere else and deny that he is one among many billionaire owners, or to further dispute that out of all those billionaires he has given the most of his own $$ to try and build a winner is either being blind, or just plain ignorant. >>
Nope, I don't dispute any of it.
I'm just saying that George Steinbrenner is a grotesquely fat pig that has been allowed to lie in trough and spoil the fun for everyone else. And while he's been allowed to do that, I as a sports fan and a consumer have chosen not to buy the product that the rest of baseball has allowed him to market. Baseball can choose to fix that, or they can ignore it to their peril. The attendance records of the 1960s show that ignoring the problem is not a great strategy.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>To sit here or anywhere else and deny that he is one among many billionaire owners, or to further dispute that out of all those billionaires he has given the most of his own $$ to try and build a winner is either being blind, or just plain ignorant. >>
Nope, I don't dispute any of it.
I'm just saying that George Steinbrenner is a grotesquely fat pig that has been allowed to lie in trough and spoil the fun for everyone else. And while he's been allowed to do that, I as a sports fan and a consumer have chosen not to buy the product that the rest of baseball has allowed him to market. Baseball can choose to fix that, or they can ignore it to their peril. The attendance records of the 1960s show that ignoring the problem is not a great strategy. >>
Which attendance records of the 60's are you speaking of ?
And last time I checked there are ALOT of teams in the playoff hunt right now, so saying the REST of baseball is a stretch.
"The other teams could make trouble for us if they win." -- Yogi Berra
I'm just saying that George Steinbrenner is a grotesquely fat pig that has been allowed to lie in trough and spoil the fun for everyone else. And while he's been allowed to do that, I as a sports fan and a consumer have chosen not to buy the product that the rest of baseball has allowed him to market. Baseball can choose to fix that, or they can ignore it to their peril. The attendance records of the 1960s show that ignoring the problem is not a great strategy. >>
bye bye.
Baseball is setting all time attendance records .... period. Spin that whatever way you want. It is what your sect does best.
<< <i>Baseball is setting all time attendance records .... period. Spin that whatever way you want. It is what your sect does best. >>
I'm not saying you're wrong Dan - but can you provide some stats that bear this out? I think you read something that might be misleading - yes, maybe more tickets have been sold this season than in seasons past, but is that due to the existence of newer, bigger stadiums in many cities? Is it due to the extra playoff round of games? Is it even true at all? Because, ratings-wise, football is the clear number one, and the numbers are available to prove this.
<< <i>Baseball is setting all time attendance records .... period. Spin that whatever way you want. It is what your sect does best. >>
I'm not saying you're wrong Dan - but can you provide some stats that bear this out? I think you read something that might be misleading - yes, maybe more tickets have been sold this season than in seasons past, but is that due to the existence of newer, bigger stadiums in many cities? Is it due to the extra playoff round of games? Is it even true at all? Because, ratings-wise, football is the clear number one, and the numbers are available to prove this. >>
sigh ........... it is beyond comprehension that you STILL are trying to compare FOOTBALL TV ratings with that of BASEBALL. A game that is played just once per week to a game played every god damn day ..... I give up, where is that brick wall ....
<< <i>the Yankees are paying for for over 3/4 of the stadium. >>
The Yankees should pay for the whole damned stadium. According to Playboy Steinbrenner has a net worth of over a billion dollars. I used to work in New York City, and New York City wage tax and state sales and income taxes are through the roof. Why should taxpayers subsidize the cancer that is growing on baseball? Why don't you Yankee fans pass the hat so the corporations can buy their skyboxes for a little less money? Sounds fair to me so the you can look at the best baseball money can buy in a first class facility. >>
<< <i> Baseball is setting all time attendance records .... period. Spin that whatever way you want. It is what your sect does best. >>
Attendance is but a tiny part of revenue...and as a yankees fan, you of all people should know how much the TV contract means to the yankees' financial health, and how little attendance does.
Why don't you look at, oh, say tv ratings for the world series over the past 10 years to see the dramatic drop off.
Compare that to the increased super bowl ratings over the past 10 years.
Also, how many people do you know that do fantasy football? Now, how many do baseball? I'd bet those numbers run 5:1 for most people.
Baseball's been in a slow, descending spiral for a decade...and is only getting worse financially.
The final test is, if the baseball play-offs or World Series go head to head on the TV schedule with the REGULAR season pro football games, which coms out on top in the TV ratings? The answer in most cities is football.
When a sport's post season showcase loses to the regular season product, that sport has got problems.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I don't think Papi can win the MVP Award this year if the Sox (as expected) fail to make the playoffs. I think it's between Jeter & Dye at this point and Jeter will probably win it. I'd have an issue voting for a DH, too, though I'd have voted for Ortiz probably if the Sox hadn't folded so emphatically against the Yanks like they did. The Jays may even wind up finishing 2nd in the AL East afrter all is said & done.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
An MVP must hit and play defense nearly every day of the season. I will allow for the day off every now and then. This excludes DH and starting pitchers. It almost completely excludes all pitchers, but sometimes you at least have to consider the great relief pitchers.
If you only hit then you play a maximum over a season of about 4 - half innings per game (the 4 innings you get to bat), as compared to 4 - half innings plus 9 - half innings (the 9 innings you are in the field) totalling 13 - half innings per game.
If you only pitch (as is the case in the AL), then you as a starter only play 9 - half innings per game (maximum, but probably less) once every 5 games. If you pitch and at least bat (as is the case in the NL) then you as a starter only play 13 - half innings per game (maximum).
Relief pitchers never hit in the AL and rarely hit in the NL. The time in the game is a maximum of 3 - half innings once every one to 3 games.
How can any of you compare this to a complete baseball player that must make the defensive plays on the field and hit the ball.
The best pitcher in the league has his own trophy - Cy Young. The best non-pitcher player does not have his own trophy - just the MVP - to aspire to win.
Why would you penalize a guy for being a DH from ever winning the award?
MLB endorses the position of DH, so why condemn a guy who is a fantastic hitter from ever winning? Seems short-sighted to me.
Why are so many yankee fans obssessing over something which Ortiz did or did not say? Why not, instead, relish the fact your team has bought yet another division crown?
<< <i>Why would you penalize a guy for being a DH from ever winning the award? MLB endorses the position of DH, so why condemn a guy who is a fantastic hitter from ever winning? Seems short-sighted to me. >>
I think it is short-sighted to give the award to someone who plays less than half the game (about 1/3 as much as someone who plays in the field for nine innings). The DH gets to just sit in the dugout and rest, while the rest of the players are on the field.
<< <i>Why would you penalize a guy for being a DH from ever winning the award? MLB endorses the position of DH, so why condemn a guy who is a fantastic hitter from ever winning? Seems short-sighted to me. >>
I think it is short-sighted to give the award to someone who plays less than half the game (about 1/3 as much as someone who plays in the field for nine innings). The DH gets to just sit in the dugout and rest, while the rest of the players are on the field. >>
And the MVP voting rules specifically say the DH is elligible.
Would you rule out outfielders? They don't play as much as the infielders.
If you want to be fair about it, how can the DH be the MVP? I am not kidding here. A player that plays nine innings a game in the field for 150 games (or whatever the minimum is to be eligible for MVP honors) has a much harder time staying healthy than a DH. Infielders and outfielders have a hard time staying healthy for one reason or another. I do believe it is a little harder on the infielders because of the risk of crashing into one another or baserunners, but outfielders have to be able to run at top speed in about two steps and run for a long distance at top speed and not run into one another or a wall.
In my opinion, a DH would have to put up crazy numbers much higher than anyone else in at least two categories of offense to win. One would need to be RBIs and the other either batting average or home runs. It would be hard not to award a .400 batting average and leading the league in RBIs. Also it would be hard not to award a leader in RBIs and a leader in home runs by a clear gap, say 15 to 20 RBIs more than anyone else and say 10 homeruns more than anyone else.
<< <i>If you want to be fair about it, how can the DH be the MVP? I am not kidding here. A player that plays nine innings a game in the field for 150 games (or whatever the minimum is to be eligible for MVP honors) has a much harder time staying healthy than a DH. Infielders and outfielders have a hard time staying healthy for one reason or another. I do believe it is a little harder on the infielders because of the risk of crashing into one another or baserunners, but outfielders have to be able to run at top speed in about two steps and run for a long distance at top speed and not run into one another or a wall.
In my opinion, a DH would have to put up crazy numbers much higher than anyone else in at least two categories of offense to win. One would need to be RBIs and the other either batting average or home runs. It would be hard not to award a .400 batting average and leading the league in RBIs. Also it would be hard not to award a leader in RBIs and a leader in home runs by a clear gap, say 15 to 20 RBIs more than anyone else and say 10 homeruns more than anyone else. >>
So on your own argument, relief pitchers should never be elligible for the cy young, either?
<< <i>So on your own argument, relief pitchers should never be elligible for the cy young, either? >>
Totally different.
I will agree that to win a cy young is much harder for a relief pitcher, but it can be done in the right situations. In any one year, the very best relief pitchers in a league can single-handedly win games. I don't recall how many cy youngs have went to relief pitchers off the top of my head, but it is pretty rare. To win as a reliever, the reliever has to be in a lot of games. To be in a lot of games, the reliever has to be able to get ready fast. A good starter will play every fifth start these days. In 162 games, the starting pitcher will get about 32 to 33 starts. 32 to 33 starts means the starter has to get ready to pitch 32 to 33 times. A great reliever will have to get ready about 60 to 70 times, but not get in the game every time he gets ready.
<< <i>So on your own argument, relief pitchers should never be elligible for the cy young, either? >>
Totally different. >>
It's exactly the same, isn't it? When you call out a DH for playing a fraction of the game that a position player, isn't that what a reliever does? Look at the leaders in saves, arguably the best relivers in the game, and compare their IP to a starter. We're talking on average about 25% of the workload.
<< <i>I will agree that to win a cy young is much harder for a relief pitcher, but it can be done in the right situations. In any one year, the very best relief pitchers in a league can single-handedly win games. I don't recall how many cy youngs have went to relief pitchers off the top of my head, but it is pretty rare. To win as a reliever, the reliever has to be in a lot of games. To be in a lot of games, the reliever has to be able to get ready fast. A good starter will play every fifth start these days. In 162 games, the starting pitcher will get about 32 to 33 starts. 32 to 33 starts means the starter has to get ready to pitch 32 to 33 times. A great reliever will have to get ready about 60 to 70 times, but not get in the game every time he gets ready. >>
So let's say he gets ready 60 times, and pitches in 50, and throws an inning at most. That's still a tiny percentage of what a starter goes through.
Now, let's take your argument about 'getting ready'. How hard is it for a DH who's not playing in the field to 'get up' for an at bat after he's been in the dugout, and not playing in the field?
George Brett should have won the MVP that year. He had 212 hits (including 42 doubles, 20 triples, 23 home runs), 107 RBI, 119 runs scored and .329 batting average and played in 154 games. He only struck out 36 times in 645 at bats.
The 1979 MVP - Don Baylor had fewer hits (186), fewer doubles (33), fewer triples (3). Don Baylor had a lower batting average (.296), and more strike outs (51). He had more home runs (36) and more RBI (139).
I really don't see your point. The writers pick the winners of these awards and they agree with me. It is a very rare thing for the DH to win the MVP. By the way, it is also a rare thing for the Cy Young to be won by a relief pitcher (although not as rare as the MVP being won by a DH). For that matter, it seems that on about half of the times the Cy Young was won by the relievers, the MVP was also won by the relievers. This just means that in those years they were so dominant that they had to be recognized at the highest possible level.
Nothing in the past indicates it cannot happen, but it should be really really hard for the DH to win the MVP. In the one example of it happening, IMO it should not have happened.
George Brett should have won the MVP that year. >>
Don Baylor was indeed one of the absolutely worst MVP picks in history. But that's the kind of thing that happens when writer's don't even look at the non-playoff teams for candidates.
But please check again: Fred Lynn was the best player in the AL in 1979 by a mile and a half.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
George Brett played in more games (154 vs 147), had more at bats (645 vs 531), scored more runs (119 vs 116), had more hits (212 vs 177), same amount of doubles, had more triples (20 vs 1), and had more total bases (363 vs 338).
Fred Lynn had more home runs (39 vs 23), had more RBI (122 vs 107), had a better batting average (.333 vs .329), better on base percentage (.423 vs .376), better slugging percentage (.637 vs .563)
I think both players could have arguably been awarded the MVP over Don Baylor. The fact they both had such good years probably hurt both of them.
Being the best and being the most valuable are two different things. baylor was on a team that won its first division crown that year. he also was not a full time dh that year as he played almost 100 games in the field too.
player of the year is an award for that player deemed the best.
many times over the years a player with not the best stats has won the MVP.......larkin comes to mind.
I remm reading long ago that the mvp voters look at other things besides stats when they vote for an mvp.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>the Yankees are paying for for over 3/4 of the stadium. >>
The Yankees should pay for the whole damned stadium. According to Playboy Steinbrenner has a net worth of over a billion dollars. I used to work in New York City, and New York City wage tax and state sales and income taxes are through the roof. Why should taxpayers subsidize the cancer that is growing on baseball? Why don't you Yankee fans pass the hat so the corporations can buy their skyboxes for a little less money? Sounds fair to me so the you can look at the best baseball money can buy in a first class facility. >>
troll much? >>
Nope.
I’m just giving you an honest opinion. I’m not the first to argue that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for sports stadiums. It’s been an issue at least since the days of the late Howard Cosell, who was a huge New York sports fan and journalist. When a team has as much money as the Yankees have, they don’t need to receive to corporate welfare.
Conservatives have chastised me many times for knocking the Yankees. Their argument is if the free market gives the Yankees all that money, then they should be free to buy up the whole game if they want. OK. Well if that’s the way it should be, then the Yankees should pay for their stadium with no taxpayer money. >>
And for the money the taxpayers kick in they get an owner who kicks in MORE than his share on top, which is more....no, WAY more than be said for the other billionaire owners who get their new parks funded by taxpayers and still pocket money and put crap on the field.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>the Yankees are paying for for over 3/4 of the stadium. >>
The Yankees should pay for the whole damned stadium. According to Playboy Steinbrenner has a net worth of over a billion dollars. I used to work in New York City, and New York City wage tax and state sales and income taxes are through the roof. Why should taxpayers subsidize the cancer that is growing on baseball? Why don't you Yankee fans pass the hat so the corporations can buy their skyboxes for a little less money? Sounds fair to me so the you can look at the best baseball money can buy in a first class facility. >>
troll much? >>
Nope.
I’m just giving you an honest opinion. I’m not the first to argue that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for sports stadiums. It’s been an issue at least since the days of the late Howard Cosell, who was a huge New York sports fan and journalist. When a team has as much money as the Yankees have, they don’t need to receive to corporate welfare.
Conservatives have chastised me many times for knocking the Yankees. Their argument is if the free market gives the Yankees all that money, then they should be free to buy up the whole game if they want. OK. Well if that’s the way it should be, then the Yankees should pay for their stadium with no taxpayer money. >>
And for the money the taxpayers kick in they get an owner who kicks in MORE than his share on top, which is more....no, WAY more than be said for the other billionaire owners who get their new parks funded by taxpayers and still pocket money and put crap on the field. >>
I wonder if you would be writing this back in the early 1990s when George was running the team, and many Yankee fans thought he was running it into the ground? And yes, when Georgle got banned from baseball because of the way he handled Dave Winfield, many Yankee fans cheered.
I've been around long enough to have seen how the bottom rail can end up on top.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>the Yankees are paying for for over 3/4 of the stadium. >>
The Yankees should pay for the whole damned stadium. According to Playboy Steinbrenner has a net worth of over a billion dollars. I used to work in New York City, and New York City wage tax and state sales and income taxes are through the roof. Why should taxpayers subsidize the cancer that is growing on baseball? Why don't you Yankee fans pass the hat so the corporations can buy their skyboxes for a little less money? Sounds fair to me so the you can look at the best baseball money can buy in a first class facility. >>
troll much? >>
Nope.
I’m just giving you an honest opinion. I’m not the first to argue that taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for sports stadiums. It’s been an issue at least since the days of the late Howard Cosell, who was a huge New York sports fan and journalist. When a team has as much money as the Yankees have, they don’t need to receive to corporate welfare.
Conservatives have chastised me many times for knocking the Yankees. Their argument is if the free market gives the Yankees all that money, then they should be free to buy up the whole game if they want. OK. Well if that’s the way it should be, then the Yankees should pay for their stadium with no taxpayer money. >>
And for the money the taxpayers kick in they get an owner who kicks in MORE than his share on top, which is more....no, WAY more than be said for the other billionaire owners who get their new parks funded by taxpayers and still pocket money and put crap on the field. >>
I wonder if you would be writing this back in the early 1990s when George was running the team, and many Yankee fans thought he was running it into the ground? And yes, when Georgle got banned from baseball because of the way he handled Dave Winfield, many Yankee fans cheered.
I've been around long enough to have seen how the bottom rail can end up on top. >>
I have been around long enough to see the dark days of the Yankees. Not you or anyone else is going to question that. Through it all my only fault with George was his meddling. It certainly was not his ability to care about a winner and reach into his own pocket to try and build one. To sit here or anywhere else and deny that he is one among many billionaire owners, or to further dispute that out of all those billionaires he has given the most of his own $$ to try and build a winner is either being blind, or just plain ignorant.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>To sit here or anywhere else and deny that he is one among many billionaire owners, or to further dispute that out of all those billionaires he has given the most of his own $$ to try and build a winner is either being blind, or just plain ignorant. >>
Nope, I don't dispute any of it.
I'm just saying that George Steinbrenner is a grotesquely fat pig that has been allowed to lie in trough and spoil the fun for everyone else. And while he's been allowed to do that, I as a sports fan and a consumer have chosen not to buy the product that the rest of baseball has allowed him to market. Baseball can choose to fix that, or they can ignore it to their peril. The attendance records of the 1960s show that ignoring the problem is not a great strategy.
<< <i>
<< <i>To sit here or anywhere else and deny that he is one among many billionaire owners, or to further dispute that out of all those billionaires he has given the most of his own $$ to try and build a winner is either being blind, or just plain ignorant. >>
Nope, I don't dispute any of it.
I'm just saying that George Steinbrenner is a grotesquely fat pig that has been allowed to lie in trough and spoil the fun for everyone else. And while he's been allowed to do that, I as a sports fan and a consumer have chosen not to buy the product that the rest of baseball has allowed him to market. Baseball can choose to fix that, or they can ignore it to their peril. The attendance records of the 1960s show that ignoring the problem is not a great strategy. >>
Which attendance records of the 60's are you speaking of ?
And last time I checked there are ALOT of teams in the playoff hunt right now, so saying the REST of baseball is a stretch.
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>
I'm just saying that George Steinbrenner is a grotesquely fat pig that has been allowed to lie in trough and spoil the fun for everyone else. And while he's been allowed to do that, I as a sports fan and a consumer have chosen not to buy the product that the rest of baseball has allowed him to market. Baseball can choose to fix that, or they can ignore it to their peril. The attendance records of the 1960s show that ignoring the problem is not a great strategy. >>
bye bye.
Baseball is setting all time attendance records .... period. Spin that whatever way you want. It is what your sect does best.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Baseball is setting all time attendance records .... period. Spin that whatever way you want. It is what your sect does best. >>
I'm not saying you're wrong Dan - but can you provide some stats that bear this out? I think you read something that might be misleading - yes, maybe more tickets have been sold this season than in seasons past, but is that due to the existence of newer, bigger stadiums in many cities? Is it due to the extra playoff round of games? Is it even true at all? Because, ratings-wise, football is the clear number one, and the numbers are available to prove this.
<< <i>
<< <i>Baseball is setting all time attendance records .... period. Spin that whatever way you want. It is what your sect does best. >>
I'm not saying you're wrong Dan - but can you provide some stats that bear this out? I think you read something that might be misleading - yes, maybe more tickets have been sold this season than in seasons past, but is that due to the existence of newer, bigger stadiums in many cities? Is it due to the extra playoff round of games? Is it even true at all? Because, ratings-wise, football is the clear number one, and the numbers are available to prove this. >>
sigh ........... it is beyond comprehension that you STILL are trying to compare FOOTBALL TV ratings with that of BASEBALL. A game that is played just once per week to a game played every god damn day ..... I give up, where is that brick wall ....
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>the Yankees are paying for for over 3/4 of the stadium. >>
The Yankees should pay for the whole damned stadium. According to Playboy Steinbrenner has a net worth of over a billion dollars. I used to work in New York City, and New York City wage tax and state sales and income taxes are through the roof. Why should taxpayers subsidize the cancer that is growing on baseball? Why don't you Yankee fans pass the hat so the corporations can buy their skyboxes for a little less money? Sounds fair to me so the you can look at the best baseball money can buy in a first class facility. >>
troll much? >>
Nope.
>>
Liar.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>
Baseball is setting all time attendance records .... period. Spin that whatever way you want. It is what your sect does best. >>
Attendance is but a tiny part of revenue...and as a yankees fan, you of all people should know how much the TV contract means to the yankees' financial health, and how little attendance does.
Why don't you look at, oh, say tv ratings for the world series over the past 10 years to see the dramatic drop off.
Compare that to the increased super bowl ratings over the past 10 years.
Also, how many people do you know that do fantasy football? Now, how many do baseball? I'd bet those numbers run 5:1 for most people.
Baseball's been in a slow, descending spiral for a decade...and is only getting worse financially.
When a sport's post season showcase loses to the regular season product, that sport has got problems.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
An MVP must hit and play defense nearly every day of the season. I will allow for the day off every now and then. This excludes DH and starting pitchers. It almost completely excludes all pitchers, but sometimes you at least have to consider the great relief pitchers.
If you only hit then you play a maximum over a season of about 4 - half innings per game (the 4 innings you get to bat), as compared to 4 - half innings plus 9 - half innings (the 9 innings you are in the field) totalling 13 - half innings per game.
If you only pitch (as is the case in the AL), then you as a starter only play 9 - half innings per game (maximum, but probably less) once every 5 games. If you pitch and at least bat (as is the case in the NL) then you as a starter only play 13 - half innings per game (maximum).
Relief pitchers never hit in the AL and rarely hit in the NL. The time in the game is a maximum of 3 - half innings once every one to 3 games.
How can any of you compare this to a complete baseball player that must make the defensive plays on the field and hit the ball.
The best pitcher in the league has his own trophy - Cy Young. The best non-pitcher player does not have his own trophy - just the MVP - to aspire to win.
<< <i>
Gotta love Jete though >>
Jete?? U r gay!
MLB endorses the position of DH, so why condemn a guy who is a fantastic hitter from ever winning? Seems short-sighted to me.
Why are so many yankee fans obssessing over something which Ortiz did or did not say? Why not, instead, relish the fact your team has bought yet another division crown?
<< <i>Why would you penalize a guy for being a DH from ever winning the award?
MLB endorses the position of DH, so why condemn a guy who is a fantastic hitter from ever winning? Seems short-sighted to me. >>
I think it is short-sighted to give the award to someone who plays less than half the game (about 1/3 as much as someone who plays in the field for nine innings). The DH gets to just sit in the dugout and rest, while the rest of the players are on the field.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why would you penalize a guy for being a DH from ever winning the award?
MLB endorses the position of DH, so why condemn a guy who is a fantastic hitter from ever winning? Seems short-sighted to me. >>
I think it is short-sighted to give the award to someone who plays less than half the game (about 1/3 as much as someone who plays in the field for nine innings). The DH gets to just sit in the dugout and rest, while the rest of the players are on the field. >>
And the MVP voting rules specifically say the DH is elligible.
Would you rule out outfielders? They don't play as much as the infielders.
In my opinion, a DH would have to put up crazy numbers much higher than anyone else in at least two categories of offense to win. One would need to be RBIs and the other either batting average or home runs. It would be hard not to award a .400 batting average and leading the league in RBIs. Also it would be hard not to award a leader in RBIs and a leader in home runs by a clear gap, say 15 to 20 RBIs more than anyone else and say 10 homeruns more than anyone else.
<< <i>If you want to be fair about it, how can the DH be the MVP? I am not kidding here. A player that plays nine innings a game in the field for 150 games (or whatever the minimum is to be eligible for MVP honors) has a much harder time staying healthy than a DH. Infielders and outfielders have a hard time staying healthy for one reason or another. I do believe it is a little harder on the infielders because of the risk of crashing into one another or baserunners, but outfielders have to be able to run at top speed in about two steps and run for a long distance at top speed and not run into one another or a wall.
In my opinion, a DH would have to put up crazy numbers much higher than anyone else in at least two categories of offense to win. One would need to be RBIs and the other either batting average or home runs. It would be hard not to award a .400 batting average and leading the league in RBIs. Also it would be hard not to award a leader in RBIs and a leader in home runs by a clear gap, say 15 to 20 RBIs more than anyone else and say 10 homeruns more than anyone else. >>
So on your own argument, relief pitchers should never be elligible for the cy young, either?
<< <i>So on your own argument, relief pitchers should never be elligible for the cy young, either? >>
Totally different.
I will agree that to win a cy young is much harder for a relief pitcher, but it can be done in the right situations. In any one year, the very best relief pitchers in a league can single-handedly win games. I don't recall how many cy youngs have went to relief pitchers off the top of my head, but it is pretty rare. To win as a reliever, the reliever has to be in a lot of games. To be in a lot of games, the reliever has to be able to get ready fast. A good starter will play every fifth start these days. In 162 games, the starting pitcher will get about 32 to 33 starts. 32 to 33 starts means the starter has to get ready to pitch 32 to 33 times. A great reliever will have to get ready about 60 to 70 times, but not get in the game every time he gets ready.
Rolaids Relief Man of the Year is an award for the best relief pitcher in each league. Most of the time, this award is good enough. However, in certain years, it is not enough. Link to list of Cy Young winners
<< <i>
<< <i>So on your own argument, relief pitchers should never be elligible for the cy young, either? >>
Totally different.
>>
It's exactly the same, isn't it? When you call out a DH for playing a fraction of the game that a position player, isn't that what a reliever does? Look at the leaders in saves, arguably the best relivers in the game, and compare their IP to a starter. We're talking on average about 25% of the workload.
<< <i>I will agree that to win a cy young is much harder for a relief pitcher, but it can be done in the right situations. In any one year, the very best relief pitchers in a league can single-handedly win games. I don't recall how many cy youngs have went to relief pitchers off the top of my head, but it is pretty rare. To win as a reliever, the reliever has to be in a lot of games. To be in a lot of games, the reliever has to be able to get ready fast. A good starter will play every fifth start these days. In 162 games, the starting pitcher will get about 32 to 33 starts. 32 to 33 starts means the starter has to get ready to pitch 32 to 33 times. A great reliever will have to get ready about 60 to 70 times, but not get in the game every time he gets ready. >>
So let's say he gets ready 60 times, and pitches in 50, and throws an inning at most. That's still a tiny percentage of what a starter goes through.
Now, let's take your argument about 'getting ready'. How hard is it for a DH who's not playing in the field to 'get up' for an at bat after he's been in the dugout, and not playing in the field?
What does getting ready have to do with anything ? That may be one of the silliest things Ive read here to date.
-- Yogi Berra
1979 is the only year the DH has won the MVP.
George Brett should have won the MVP that year. He had 212 hits (including 42 doubles, 20 triples, 23 home runs), 107 RBI, 119 runs scored and .329 batting average and played in 154 games. He only struck out 36 times in 645 at bats.
The 1979 MVP - Don Baylor had fewer hits (186), fewer doubles (33), fewer triples (3). Don Baylor had a lower batting average (.296), and more strike outs (51). He had more home runs (36) and more RBI (139).
I really don't see your point. The writers pick the winners of these awards and they agree with me. It is a very rare thing for the DH to win the MVP. By the way, it is also a rare thing for the Cy Young to be won by a relief pitcher (although not as rare as the MVP being won by a DH). For that matter, it seems that on about half of the times the Cy Young was won by the relievers, the MVP was also won by the relievers. This just means that in those years they were so dominant that they had to be recognized at the highest possible level.
Nothing in the past indicates it cannot happen, but it should be really really hard for the DH to win the MVP. In the one example of it happening, IMO it should not have happened.
<< <i>Link to 1979 American League statistics
1979 is the only year the DH has won the MVP.
George Brett should have won the MVP that year. >>
Don Baylor was indeed one of the absolutely worst MVP picks in history. But that's the kind of thing that happens when writer's don't even look at the non-playoff teams for candidates.
But please check again: Fred Lynn was the best player in the AL in 1979 by a mile and a half.
George Brett played in more games (154 vs 147), had more at bats (645 vs 531), scored more runs (119 vs 116), had more hits (212 vs 177), same amount of doubles, had more triples (20 vs 1), and had more total bases (363 vs 338).
Fred Lynn had more home runs (39 vs 23), had more RBI (122 vs 107), had a better batting average (.333 vs .329), better on base percentage (.423 vs .376), better slugging percentage (.637 vs .563)
I think both players could have arguably been awarded the MVP over Don Baylor. The fact they both had such good years probably hurt both of them.
player of the year is an award for that player deemed the best.
many times over the years a player with not the best stats has won the MVP.......larkin comes to mind.
I remm reading long ago that the mvp voters look at other things besides stats when they vote for an mvp.
Steve