Say it ain't so, Joe.

[Edgy MD]

Yes, you've made that clear. You reject the average. The mean. It's skewed.

That's why I offered you the median. It isn't.

[Centerfield]

What do you mean?
Yes!

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, you've made that clear. You reject the average. The mean. It's skewed. That's why I offered you the median....

Which is just about useless here. Just because it's a tool, doesn't mean it has to be used. You wouldn't hammer nails into your wall with a screwdriver handle just because you had a screwdriver, would you?

Median is a terrible way to measure the disparity between discrete data points. And it's an ineffective tool in understanding data that includes outliers. But most of all, why would I care about the median when I'm mostly concerned with the top of the distribution -- the action above the median? Payroll differences caused by having to pay for a DH occur mainly because of the action at the high end, where the biggest spenders spend big (i.e. free agent) money for everyday players with a track record of excellent hitting. This is so plainly obvious, even from the data that you present, that I don't know why you bother with all this fancy math talk when it's as plain as your eyeballs could see. And the teams at the lower end, or below the median, that can't or won't spend with the big spenders are suddenly at a disadvantage because in baseball, as in life, money matters and the less you have of it, the more disadvantaged you are. Maybe not in the pursuit of happiness, but try and get Clayton Kershaw to pitch for your baseball team without enough money. Try and get on an airplane without the money to buy a ticket. Try and buy a pair of shoelaces, or even just one shoelace -- a half of a pair -- without any money. So the bottom spending teams have to get creative. Earl Weaver did that all the time, platooning Ayalas and Lowensteins and god knows who else and running circles around everybody in the process. But that was 40 years ago when very few teams knew what the fuck they were doing. That plan might still work but those market inefficiencies don't exist the way they existed in Weaver's day. But hey, you never know. This time of year, 1969, no one ever imagined that a corner outfield platoon of Art Shamsky and Ron Swoboda would be a part of a winning formula for 100 regular season wins. So the bottom spending teams are disadvantaged at one more position because they can't spend with the big boys, because they have to hope that the big spenders spend their money stupidly, because if they're gonna come up with a platoon on the cheap, they have to nail it twice instead of once, because if they don't have the money to spend big on a DH in the first place, they'll have even less to spend on a backup plan if their plan A fizzles. They're also at a disadvantage because the big spenders also have the option of coming up with a creative DH on the cheap even though for the small spenders, that's their only option. So with a DH, a team either spends significantly more money on payroll, or is at a disadvantage.


And you're telling me that this is all wrong because of a median point?

[Edgy MD]

No. But you're throwing the kitchen sink at this now.

One post, you're sarcastically laying me out with "That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit." Now you're dismissing me for using "fancy math talk." Which is it?

You've rejected the mean for 2015 and 2014's projected starting salaries, and you've rejected the median for the same. What data would you accept?

Art Shamsky? If that isn't the reddest herring in history, I don't know what.

But, of course, this is obvious obfuscation. We're not talking about Art Shamsky, or Earl Weaver. We're talking about whether American League teams spend more than National League teams on player salaries. Current data, at least data that I've been able to collect, suggest they do not. I'm loathe to make broad conclusions, but that's just what the number say.

So what else have you got?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: No. But you're throwing the kitchen sink at this now. One post, you're sarcastically laying me out with "That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit." Now you're dismissing me for using "fancy math talk." Which is it? You've rejected the mean for 2015 and 2014's projected starting salaries, and you've rejected the median for the same. What data would you accept? Art Shamsky? If that isn't the reddest herring in history, I don't know what.

Stop being such a literalist. Art Shamsky's a frolic and a detour that's got nothing to do with nothing and you know it. I'm not rejecting anything. Really. I just think that DH's raise payroll. You can disagree. Really. You've got medians and everything. DH's probably reduce payrolls. I'm just a crazy motherfucker. But if I found that Grantland piece before I wrote my post instead of after, half of this thread never happens and you accept the same statement because coming from Grantland, it was vetted and everything. But it's me, not Grantland. And you're already dug in. So go ahead and insist that DH's don't raise payroll. Because there's a median point.

[Edgy MD]

That's some strange and empty speculation about what I would and wouldn't do. But no, that's not true.

Grantland's using the same basic math that I am on the same data. Add things up and get a total. Divide the total by the elements, and get an average. I'm just measuring more recent years.

So, what else have you got? Because mocking me for using the most basic concepts of math isn't really shaming me as well as you might think.

[Centerfield]

NL Team Projected 2015 Payroll AL Team Projected 2015 Payroll Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 New York Yankees $219,282,196 San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 Washington Nationals $164,920,505 Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 Texas Rangers $142,140,873 Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 New York Mets $101,409,244 Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 San Diego Padres $100,675,896 Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 Oakland A's $86,086,667 Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 Miami Marlins $68,479,000 Houston Astros $70,910,100 Sum: $1,858,231,275 Sum: $1,882,979,838 Mean: $123,882,085 Mean: $125,531,989 I think what batmags is saying is that the trend he's citing doesn't affect the outliers as much. If you look at the side by side comparisons, if you exclude the top 2 teams and the bottom 2 teams, 9 of 11 AL clubs outspend their counterpart. I kinda lost the point of what you guys were arguing, and I have no idea if it makes sense to artificially exclude the teams on both ends. the charts would look a lot more comparable, cross-wise, if you scooch the mets up to a $185M-ish payroll where they fuckin' belong.

This message has been brought to you by PAW.

[nymr83]

excluding the top 2 and the bottom 2 in each league seems like some real cherry-picking to make the data fit your desired outcome. you are excluding 8 of 30 data points!

the DH seems proven to be spending-neutral at least over the past 2 years. perhaps a 30-year study would show differently, but i think that burden is on the guy who didn't just provide the data showing it to be even.

one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. Should the union care if this is the case? are they HURTING some of their lower-paid players to help out thew guys making the big bucks?

If this is true, I would say the union, really any union, should take no position on a rule that is payroll-neutral where abolishing/keeping it shifts money from some of their members to others. because by taking either side they are acting against the interests of some of their players.

[metsmarathon]

Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. Should the union care if this is the case? are they HURTING some of their lower-paid players to help out thew guys making the big bucks?

this is my expectation.

the only reason the DH would drive up payroll is if DH drives up revenue. (otherwise it's just reallocating the same amount of payroll, right?)

using attendance as a surrogate value for revenue, the NL has better attendance last year, therefore the DH is bad for baseball.

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. Should the union care if this is the case? are they HURTING some of their lower-paid players to help out thew guys making the big bucks? this is my expectation. the only reason the DH would drive up payroll is if DH drives up revenue. (otherwise it's just reallocating the same amount of payroll, right?) using attendance as a surrogate value for revenue, the NL has better attendance last year, therefore the DH is bad for baseball.

But payroll might be driven up by competition, if your division opponents have more hitters, it puts the pressure on you to pay for another big hitter.

[nymr83]

...therefore the DH is bad for baseball.

end of story.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less.

This is exactly what's going on. The DH is another position, as likely to be filled by an everyday player as any other position player position. So it drives up costs. AL teams don't make up the difference by paying bench players less. If that were the case, the best bench players would all eventually wind up in the NL. And there's no evidence that AL teams compensate by paying pitchers less on account of that they don't have to bat. It's an extra cost. On the other hand, it's just one position, so you're not gonna find data showing that AL teams are spending ten or fifteen or twenty million dollars more on average than their NL counterparts. But it's an extra position and extra stuff costs extra money.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. This is exactly what's going on. The DH is another position, as likely to be filled by an everyday player as any other position player position. So it drives up costs. AL teams don't make up the difference by paying bench players less. If that were the case, the best bench players would all eventually wind up in the NL. And there's no evidence that AL teams compensate by paying pitchers less on account of that they don't have to bat. It's an extra cost. On the other hand, it's just one position, so you're not gonna find data showing that AL teams are spending ten or fifteen or twenty million dollars more on average than their NL counterparts. But it's an extra position and extra stuff costs extra money.

And should the DH come to the NL with the Mets in their current state of poverty, they'll be at a disadvantage. Because teams like the Dodgers and the Nats and the Cards and Cubs will simply add another $10 or $15M to their payroll without breaking a sweat --well maybe not the Cubs because they already have Kyle Schwarber who looks like a DH more than anything else but you know what I mean -- while the Mets will jerk off their fans with more bullshit, all the while trying to come up with a DH plan without increasing payroll. They'll tell you that there are no all hit and no field players worth pursuing and that's why they're not spending money on a DH.

[Ceetar]

Mets will be just fine.

David Wright would inevitably be the DH and there's a non-zero chance that the DH in 2017 could make or break his Hall of Fame chances.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I think if they instituted the DH this offseason the Mets would have signed Cespedes already.

[batmagadanleadoff]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think if they instituted the DH this offseason the Mets would have signed Cespedes already.

I doubt it. If the NL went DH, Cespedes would be that much more attractive and a shitload of NL teams that today, have little or no interest, would suddenly want Cespedes badly.

[Ceetar]

I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH.

Not good enough compared to whom? The DH would create 15 more batting slots. You don't think there's a nice payday in store for a guy with 30+ HR power who isn't a defensive cripple and who has one of the best throwing arms in the game? You could do plenty worse than Cespedes as your DH.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH. Not good enough compared to whom? The DH would create 15 more batting slots. You don't think there's a nice payday in store for a guy with 30+ HR power who isn't a defensive cripple and who has one of the best throwing arms in the game? You could do plenty worse than Cespedes as your DH.

yeah, he'll throw out a ton of guys playing DH.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH. Not good enough compared to whom? The DH would create 15 more batting slots. You don't think there's a nice payday in store for a guy with 30+ HR power who isn't a defensive cripple and who has one of the best throwing arms in the game? You could do plenty worse than Cespedes as your DH. yeah, he'll throw out a ton of guys playing DH.

No, but he'll get paid for his arm, too because a DH that can play the field is worth more than a DH that can't.

[Ceetar]

You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest.

[dgwphotography]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think if they instituted the DH this offseason the Mets would have signed Cespedes already.

That's if you think the Mets haven't gone after Cespedes harder due to no room in the outfield as opposed to no room in the budget. I think it's the latter, and not the former.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest.

\

Teams might not be interested in Cespedes because he might not fit cleanly into their existing lineups, or fill their needs. That's one of the arguments advanced for the Mets not to re-sign him. But the NL DH would suddenly create 15 new needs that weren't even under consideration before. Frankly, I think that it would be a bonanza for Cespedes and that he might've even been the most sought after FA of this off-season.

But yeah, this is all just another guessing game.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest. \ Teams might not be interested in Cespedes because he might not fit cleanly into their existing lineups, or fill their needs. That's one of the arguments advanced for the Mets not to re-sign him. But the NL DH would suddenly create 15 new needs that weren't even under consideration before. Frankly, I think that it would be a bonanza for Cespedes and that he might've even been the most sought after FA of this off-season. But yeah, this is all just another guessing game.

Well, Chris Davis would've probably been the most sought after guy as his position is the least valuable, but yeah, there are only so many players available.

The Mets could make Cespedes as DH work but I think they're actually more apt to benefit from d'Arnaud there, particularly if they believe in Plawecki. rest the catchers, slide Wright in there a lot, etc.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest. \ Teams might not be interested in Cespedes because he might not fit cleanly into their existing lineups, or fill their needs. That's one of the arguments advanced for the Mets not to re-sign him. But the NL DH would suddenly create 15 new needs that weren't even under consideration before. Frankly, I think that it would be a bonanza for Cespedes and that he might've even been the most sought after FA of this off-season. But yeah, this is all just another guessing game. Well, Chris Davis would've probably been the most sought after guy as his position is the least valuable, but yeah, there are only so many players available. The Mets could make Cespedes as DH work but I think they're actually more apt to benefit from d'Arnaud there, particularly if they believe in Plawecki. rest the catchers, slide Wright in there a lot, etc.

Yeah, I think there's truth in that. Sometimes I think that a good deal of the static this off-season over the Mets and Cespedes is, subconsciously, not so much about re-signing Cespedes, but as a premise to tee off on the Wilpons. Which the Wilpons deserve.

[Edgy MD]

Lennon is tweeting that Manfred sees the change gaining momentum.

With an upcoming CBA, this could be the last year of the hitting pitcher.

[Benjamin Grimm]

That would be terrible news. Watching baseball would become a lot less interesting.

[Edgy MD]

Alls I can say is start coordinating lobbying efforts NOW!!!!

[Guest d'Kong76]

Guess we could start a fb page, aim for 1,000,000 followers.

[Edgy MD]

Manfred says "No change for the foreseeable future."

Or maybe he's just trying to dampen the spirit of your campaign.