PearlJamNoCode Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Yes, it is possible to succeed as a small market team. However, if you want to be a perennial contender (Angels, Red Sox, Yankees are probably the best examples right now, but also Cardinals a few years ago and the Braves before that), then you probably need to spend money. Spending money does not guarantee success and not spending much does not guarantee failure. Basically, anything a small market team can do personnel wise (draft and scout well), a big market team can do too. There are some things (signing premium free agents, extending players with big contracts, taking on big contracts via trade) that big market teams can do and small market teams can't or won't. Sometimes the big market teams do not parlay these advantages into on the field success. At the same time, there are some small market teams that seem to underspend and cheat the fans. Perfect example of both would be the Florida Marlins. 2 rings already, but refuse to spend money to bring in free agents. And don't get me started on that stadium situation. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Perfect example of both would be the Florida Marlins. 2 rings already, but refuse to spend money to bring in free agents. And don't get me started on that stadium situation. We've brought in free agents before, we've shown a willingness to spend a little to make a run. BUt until the new stadium is done (Ground breaking in february? Fingers crossed), they don't have the revenue streem to throw money. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 10, 2008 Author Share Posted December 10, 2008 Looks like the Nats are in on the Teixeira bidding:http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ys-m...o&type=lgns Link to post Share on other sites
CrushOfVeils80 Posted December 10, 2008 Share Posted December 10, 2008 Tex is from the DC area (Maryland I believe)....the Nats and Orioles both want him badly Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Edwin Jackson to Detroit for Matt Joyce. Apparently Dumbrowski doesn't think of Joyce as being as good a prospect as I'd hoped, and with the acquisition of Gerald Laird, Inge is back at third, so Carlos Guillen heads out to left field, so if he's nothing special I guess there's no real reason to hold on to him. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 I'm glad the White Sox won't be trading for Edwin Jackson, in that case. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Oh, I don't expect great things from Jackson, but he's a young guy who threw 184 league average innings last year (OPS+ of 101). The Tigers need pitching very badly. He'll be a fine back of the rotation guy. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hollinger. Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Somewhat true....the Marlins have done a good job contending with no money, just gut your team every few years and get the farm for guys and start over, they are doing the best a franchise like that can, two world series rings is ok so did he come through every time with guys on base? I dont see that stat anywhere, I think someone with more free time should utilize a google search and find out that out, what his ARod's avg with RISP in the post season? Im sure its awesome Eh, that's a bad argument to be making. Hitting with RISP isn't a skill. The player could hit .600, but if the runners weren't on when he was getting the hits, he won't have many RBI. Runners being on base is completely independent of a hitters performance, which is why RBI is a misleading stat, regardless of what the writers want to argue. Any argument for "clutch" hitting doesn't hold much weight, because no one has been able to put together a study that shows any evidence that a player can be clutch, beyond streaks of luck. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Eh, that's a bad argument to be making. Hitting with RISP isn't a skill. The player could hit .600, but if the runners weren't on when he was getting the hits, he won't have many RBI. Runners being on base is completely independent of a hitters performance, which is why RBI is a misleading stat, regardless of what the writers want to argue. Any argument for "clutch" hitting doesn't hold much weight, because no one has been able to put together a study that shows any evidence that a player can be clutch, beyond streaks of luck.I don't think these are correct statements. Runners on base affect every aspect of the hitter's approach. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hollinger. Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Prove it. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Go play some baseball and let me know if you didn't consider the baserunner when you were up at bat. It's a no-brainer, lack of stats be damned. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Runners on base generally mean that a good hitter isn't going to get very many good pitches to hit. But aside from that, a good hitter tends to be good with RISP and a poor hitter tends to be poor with RISP. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hollinger. Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 I've played plenty of baseball, which is completely irrelevant to the argument. If there's some magic skill that makes players better when there are runners on base, why would they not also use these skills when the bases are empty? Does it not manifest itself in certain situations? The only difference is pitch selection, the choice to try for a sac fly, or an effort to go the opposite way for a right handed hitter. Are you arguing that a bad hitter can be "clutch" because he waits for a pitch he is capable of popping up and driving in a runner on third? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 11, 2008 Author Share Posted December 11, 2008 How come Arod has never had a "steak of luck?"in the post season, then? Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 11, 2008 Author Share Posted December 11, 2008 BTW, pitch selection matters depending on who's on base and who's batting. C'mon, if there's no one on base or one-two guys on base the pressure isn't higher?. A bad hitter will almost always be a bad hitter. He may get lucky once in a blue moon, but he still blows. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 11, 2008 Author Share Posted December 11, 2008 Humans, generally, perform better in high--outcome situations. Any profession. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 How come Arod has never had a "steak of luck?"in the post season, then?I don't know if he ever ate a lucky steak--that's really a lifestyle choice, but did you read the conversation earlier that included discussion about the good post-seasons he had? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 How come Arod has never had a "steak of luck?"in the post season, then? He's had bad luck... Link to post Share on other sites
CrushOfVeils80 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 ARod can shut everyone up by having a huge October and winning a World Series in the Bronx....its that simple Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Humans, generally, perform better in high--outcome situations. Any profession.prove it Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 prove itthat sounds like a low outcome situation Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 How come Arod has never had a "steak of luck?"in the post season, then? He has, but no one ever talks about them. Link to post Share on other sites
CrushOfVeils80 Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Royals are set to sign Kyle Farnsworth to a 2 year/9.5 million contract, thats it give the Royals the AL now, finally the move to put them over the top and back in the postseason Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted December 11, 2008 Share Posted December 11, 2008 Royals actually have a good pen, IIRC. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 11, 2008 Author Share Posted December 11, 2008 He has, but no one ever talks about them.Link? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts