Re: GC - the Papenator
- From: McDuck <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:13:27 -0400
On 9 Jun 2006 08:37:01 -0700, "Gnork" <gnork@xxxxxxxxx> quacked:
And, more to the point, the players will not willingly accept the idea
that they will get paid without the supporting stats. They will ignore
stats, to some degree, to win. No big push back from the occasional
sac bunt, and players will try to get the sac fly to get a runner in.
But major stuff that ruins their record will create problems. Some
will rant about the players not being for the team, etc., and there
may be something to that criticism. Doesn't matter. Most players are
convinced that baseball is a business and that they need to look out
for their interests.
One way to avoid the "problem" might be to pay everyone the same (not
really socialism, by the way). But I doubt that Gary was actually
entertaining that possibility --- just noting that as long as money
talks, you need a stat change to change the reliever model.
As often happens you are completely wrong. (And ugly too~^)
A relief pitcher with 115 IP, an ERA of 2.00 and 22 so called saves
will be highly rewarded in arbitration or any other contract
negiotiations. There will be no shortage of teams willing to pay highly
for such services.
Ugly? Hans Christian Andersen thinks otherwise.
I agree, of course, that a relief ace with great stats could get a
premium price. You are asserting that a player with great stats that
are accepted by the profession will get a good price. I agree. In
fact, that was my point, you swan-breathed cockerel.
Of course, under the present system, a guy with 75 innings, same ERA,
and 45 saves, will get more in arbitration --- probably a lot more.
Less clear on the open market, as I explained in my post. And the fact
that he will get a lot more, with a lot less apparent risk to his good
health, and with a much better chance of success, will make him prefer
the closer model over the ace reliever model. That should be clear to
everyone, even you.
The ace reliever you describe does not exist. He may never have
existed. Even Rollie Fingers had a career ERA of 2.90, in an era when
ERAs were much lower. And 115 is a lot of innings --- Fingers' numbers
from his days with the A's, which was viewed even then as exceptional.
Goose Gossage had only one year in his glory years with NYY with over
100 innngs (134), and he is sort of the model for the ace reliever.
His only year with NYY with an ERA of 2.0 or below was the year he
pitched only 47 innings. Okay, he had an ERA of 2.01 in 1978, his
134-inning year, when he was being flogged nearly to death by Billy
Martin. His career ERA was 3.01, again in an era with much lower ERAs
than we have today. Mariano Rivera has a career ERA of 2.33, but his
innings are low by your standards (typically in the 70s, with saves in
the 40-50 range).
I'd guess that no GM today would let an expensive reliever guy exceed
90 innings if the pitcher had a longterm contract. Foulke had 83 IPs
in 04 with the RS and 87 IPs with the A's in 02. I think THAT aspect
of the ace reliever model --- getting over 100 innings or even 115
innings --- is not on the table for serious discussion in today's game
(for good or bad).
- Prev by Date: Re: GC - the Papenator
- Next by Date: Re: It's Sooo Nice When Schilling Beats the Yanks
- Previous by thread: Re: GC - the Papenator
- Next by thread: Re: GC - the Papenator