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.

The median isn't skewed by a trillion-dollar team. That's the point of a median. It's the standard reply to the Bill Gates example. An outlier like Bill Gates moves the mean, but not the median. You're on both sides of this now. You rejected the mean, because it was skewed by the Dodgers and therefore somehow misrepresentative. Now you reject the median, because it isn't skewed by the Dodgers. Anybody want in?

I then invite you to look it up, and please present what you find here.

That's the point of a median. It stays the same despite the presence of extreme outliers on the top and bottom. You're complaining that the mean is thrown off because of how much the Dodgers spend. But now you dismiss the median, because it's not thrown off by how much the Dodgers spend.

I'm having a discussion here, too. Please try it without the un-necessary and undeserved sarcasm. I just don't see it the way you wanna see it. I don't want to see it any way. I'm looking at what the data tells me. Your position reminds me of the old line where if you put Bill Gates and 20 average people in the same room, each person in that room would, on average, be worth over a billion dollars. Which technically, would be true. I looked beyond the mean and spoke to the median, too, so what I've presented is meaningfully different.

That's not science. That's arbitrary. It's real money real people are being paid. You don't have to tell me about math. I'm the one presenting math. I can't understand your Phillies comment at all. Just trying to have a discussion here.

Reds have announced that Pete Rose will be inducted into their team Hall of Fame. They've long operated under the premised that him being on the ineligible list should make him ineligible for their Hall, but they've clearly changed their minds, likely with the realization that his banishment has a good chance of outliving him. His number hasn't be officially retired by the team, but has been removed from circulation, with the exception of a brief assignment to Pete Rose, Jr., so that will probably be part of his induction as well.

The data knows.

It's not a question of the Dodgers authenticity, whatever that even means. It means to respond to your implication that their status as an outlier somehow invalidates this data. To which I'd ask why? If the players in the National League are getting paid, they're getting paid. If the advantage of the designated hitter has been offset, it has. If it helps iron out the Dodgers' supremacy to use a median instead of a mean, the National League had the higher median payroll in 2014. The American League in 2015.

And I thought I was presenting data that suggested that may not be true. I certainly disagree that the McCourt-era Dodgers somehow represent a more authentic version of what the Dodgers truly are. Dodgers Shmodgers. A mean is a mean. If the players are getting the money, they are.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You can explain the same numbers in a multituide of ways. McLaughlin seems to be measuring them the same way.

Here's the same data for 2014, with the National League topping the American League by 2.08%. NL TeamProjected 2014 PayrollAL TeamProjected 2014 PayrollLA Dodgers$235,295,219NY Yankees$203,812,506Philadelphia Phillies$180,052,723Boston Red Sox$162,817,411San Francisco Giants$154,185,878Detroit Tigers$162,228,527Washington Nationals$134,704,437LA Angels$155,692,000Arizona Diamondbacks$112,688,666Texas Rangers$136,036,172Cincinnati Reds$112,390,772Toronto Blue Jays$132,628,700St. Louis Cardinals$111,020,360Baltimore Orioles$107,406,623Atlanta Braves$110,897,341Seattle Mariners$92,081,943Milwaukee Brewers$103,844,806Kansas City Royals$92,034,345Colorado Rockies$95,832,071Chicago White Sox$91,159,254San Diego Padres$90,094,196Minnesota Twins$85,776,500NY Mets$89,051,758Oakland A's$83,401,400Chicago Cubs$89,007,857Cleveland Indians$82,534,800Pittsburgh Pirates$78,111,667Tampa Bay Rays$77,062,891Miami Marlins$47,565,400Houston Astros$44,544,174Sum:$1,744,743,151 Sum:$1,709,217,246 Mean:$116,316,210 Mean:$113,947,816

That's certainly worthwhile speculation, but it's not like the Dodgers haven't been on top for a few years now. The same perspective could say any of a number of teams (the Mets?) is skewing the data. The only answer is a linear study. The Dodgers, after loading up down the stretch with the likes of Jimmy Rollins, were actually closer to $300 million.

But man, it looks like he's punching Granderson in the armpit. And that baghead in the inset... bagheads are a lousy subject.

Dee Gordon gets five years and $50 million from the Marlins, which is a pretty handsome price even if he regresses, which he likely will. It's a bloody bargain if he doesn't. The Marlins were looked at as a dark horse last season and proved to be a bottom dweller before launching into third place with a strong September. A revitalized José Fernandez might make that prediction still valid for 2016.

Hey, Shaun Marcum, the 2013 Mets' go-to guy for coming out of the pen in extra innings and pitching until he dropped, has retired and become the pitching coach for Northwestern Oklahoma State University. Go, um... Rangers!

It also gets lost in the background.

Isn't bunting already down to something like record lows?

In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified. Hey, that's how we did it when we were adolescents! And when we were done, we'd trek on over to the candy store for Yoo-Hoos and baseball cards. Relatable! yes, but the result of that is otherwise crappy play in other situations. Yes, I tried to thoughtfully address this as well as I could. Frankly, I'm surprised that this "DH in the NL" has momentum. DH's cost money. Lots of it. The union deeply desires this. And I imagine the owners considering dangling it as a tradeoff for something the owners deeply desire. AL team payrolls are higher, on average, than NL payrolls, especially at the top end. I'd like to see if this is indeed true, year-in and year-out, or just assumed to be so. For instance, here are the projected payrolls for the start of 2015. (Try as I might, I cannot find semi-official final payrolls from last year, but this is just an experiment.) NL TeamProjected 2015 PayrollAL TeamProjected 2015 PayrollLos Angeles Dodgers$272,789,040New York Yankees$219,282,196San Francisco Giants$172,672,111Boston Red Sox$187,407,202Washington Nationals$164,920,505Detroit Tigers$173,813,750Philadelphia Phillies$135,827,500Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim$150,933,083St. Louis Cardinals$120,869,458Texas Rangers$142,140,873Chicago Cubs$119,006,885Toronto Blue Jays$122,506,600Cincinnati Reds$117,197,072Seattle Mariners$119,798,060Milwaukee Brewers$105,002,536Chicago White Sox$115,238,678Colorado Rockies$102,006,130Kansas City Royals$113,618,650New York Mets$101,409,244Baltimore Orioles$110,146,097San Diego Padres$100,675,896Minnesota Twins$108,945,000Atlanta Braves$97,578,565Cleveland Indians$86,091,175Arizona Diamondbacks$91,518,833Oakland A's$86,086,667Pittsburgh Pirates$88,278,500Tampa Bay Rays$76,061,707Miami Marlins$68,479,000Houston Astros$70,910,100Sum:$1,858,231,275 Sum:$1,882,979,838 Mean:$123,882,085 Mean:$125,531,989 There we have National League payrolls 1.31% lower per team than those of their American League counterparts. I suppose if that's the average outcome every season, it could be meaningful to management and unions fighting for ever dollar, but it strikes me as, if not inconsequential, certainly within the realm of one-year fluctuations. Obviously more (and more reliable) data is needed, but I don't think it's crazy that the one more big payday that the DH gets is (largely or completely) made up for piecemeal by the National League teams needing deeper bullpens and deeper benches. The union may still prefer the DH and the one big contract/satisfied member per team, but that strikes me as not particularly loyal to the rank-and-file members who may be doing better in the National League.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Frankly, I'm surprised that this "DH in the NL" has momentum. DH's cost money. Lots of it. The union deeply desires this. And I imagine the owners considering dangling it as a tradeoff for something the owners deeply desire. batmagadanleadoff wrote: AL team payrolls are higher, on average, than NL payrolls, especially at the top end. I'd like to see if this is indeed true, year-in and year-out, or just assumed to be so.

I have no problem if they play poor defense. Trading a skill in one area for a paucity in another is part of sports. It makes for better fundamental strategy, and it humanizes players and makes them relatable. It makes the rarity of five tool player that much more remarkable. But such beasts as young A-Rod or the like become less special when the Manny Ramirezes are artificially protected from having to employ their most lacking tools. And what brings more joy than Bartolo Colon briefly breaking free from what is presumed to be his limitations and slugging an RBI double? Or skedaddling off the mound and flipping an assist behind his back? Or Rusty Staub playing the outfield for the first time in years and making a game-saving shoestring catch in extra innings? Or a 280-pound tackle finding a tasty pastry of a football suddenly bouncing into his arms and pumping his bloated form down the field with all the joy of a third-grader? Even when they fail — even when their weaknesses are exposed and they utterly, utterly fail (think Todd Hundley, 1998, playing the outfield), that's real human drama. Truth and beauty and nobility and courage are bursting out all over. Generalization is good. Specialization is bad. In my world (and I do aim to someday have one), professional baseball rosters will be limited to about 16 players. Everybody will have to hit. Everybody will have to play multiple positions. Most everybody will eventually be called on to pitch an inning here or there, including being called in from the outfield to warm up mid-inning. And the human person will shine and God will we glorified.

Read a book — or write one! — in honor of David Voigt, fiercely scholarly historian of baseball, and past president of SABR. Author of this definitive three-volume history. [fimg=250]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516GlneCXjL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=250]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JPxqhjmjL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=250]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lqJQTPcXL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[/fimg]

Not since "walk-off" has a term seemingly gone from "I've never heard that before" to "Wow, I've heard that 100 times this week" so quickly. Every day, suddenly, it's pillow deal this and pllow deal that and would you like some pillow deal on your breakfast cereal, Dear? It's everywhere. It's raining from the ceiling. By Grabthar's hammer, four days ago, I had never heard the term.

The flip side is settling for a contract so downgraded from his expectations might make him bitter and surly. Aloof and misanthropic. Human resources is tough!

Seven years of Chris Davis is going to be some dramatic stuff. That guy has a WIDE range of outcomes. He'll surely break Mark Reynolds' single-season strikeout record before he's done. Health-permitting, of course.