|
|
Post by chiyankee on Mar 5, 2022 22:37:01 GMT -5
yanksgoyard.com/2022/03/05/yankees-tigers-angels-cbt-treshold-hal-steinbrenner/Get a load of this... "Thanks to Evan Drellich’s reporting (subscription required), we know the four ownership groups opposed to raising the luxury tax threshold even to $220 million, a number rejected by the players, were the men behind the Tigers, Angels, Reds and Diamondbacks. So cheap were these owners that they even attempted to tie players’ meal money into the newly-proposed luxury tax number, further reducing the spending power any of them had without “crossing” or approaching the dreaded faux-salary cap." "Hal Steinbrenner is more like these callous men than you’d like to believe because … earlier in the offseason, he voted to drop the $210 million threshold all the way to $180 million, effectively setting a salary cap $30 million below where it currently stands." Meanwhile revenues keep going up. The players should be pissed and hold out for a fair deal. |
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Mar 6, 2022 0:45:34 GMT -5
yanksgoyard.com/2022/03/05/yankees-tigers-angels-cbt-treshold-hal-steinbrenner/Get a load of this... "Thanks to Evan Drellich’s reporting (subscription required), we know the four ownership groups opposed to raising the luxury tax threshold even to $220 million, a number rejected by the players, were the men behind the Tigers, Angels, Reds and Diamondbacks. So cheap were these owners that they even attempted to tie players’ meal money into the newly-proposed luxury tax number, further reducing the spending power any of them had without “crossing” or approaching the dreaded faux-salary cap." "Hal Steinbrenner is more like these callous men than you’d like to believe because … earlier in the offseason, he voted to drop the $210 million threshold all the way to $180 million, effectively setting a salary cap $30 million below where it currently stands." Meanwhile revenues keep going up. The players should be pissed and hold out for a fair deal. Unfortunately, the only option may be for the MLBPA to prepare for a season-long strike. It is the only method to convince the owners not everyone is unscrupulous with no philosophy of right beyond increasing profits. |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Mar 6, 2022 0:57:45 GMT -5
The cockiness of both sides here will be the Giant that kills the goose that lays the golden eggs. The shit going on right now is a good way to get sponsors to pull out and drive away fans in droves.
Those constantly rising profits are possibly going to go in the other direction. The sport has only a perceived value. Once people or sponsors no longer perceive that value, it will become less important.
Delivering a lesser product is one thing, but what of denying the public access to a flawed product certainly seems like a toxic idea to me…
|
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Mar 6, 2022 8:55:18 GMT -5
yanksgoyard.com/2022/03/05/yankees-tigers-angels-cbt-treshold-hal-steinbrenner/Get a load of this... "Thanks to Evan Drellich’s reporting (subscription required), we know the four ownership groups opposed to raising the luxury tax threshold even to $220 million, a number rejected by the players, were the men behind the Tigers, Angels, Reds and Diamondbacks. So cheap were these owners that they even attempted to tie players’ meal money into the newly-proposed luxury tax number, further reducing the spending power any of them had without “crossing” or approaching the dreaded faux-salary cap." "Hal Steinbrenner is more like these callous men than you’d like to believe because … earlier in the offseason, he voted to drop the $210 million threshold all the way to $180 million, effectively setting a salary cap $30 million below where it currently stands." Yea the Hal voting to drop the threshold to 180 million really pissed me off. How are you the owner of the Yankees with all that financial muscle and you vote for that?  |
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Mar 6, 2022 9:53:45 GMT -5
yanksgoyard.com/2022/03/05/yankees-tigers-angels-cbt-treshold-hal-steinbrenner/Get a load of this... "Thanks to Evan Drellich’s reporting (subscription required), we know the four ownership groups opposed to raising the luxury tax threshold even to $220 million, a number rejected by the players, were the men behind the Tigers, Angels, Reds and Diamondbacks. So cheap were these owners that they even attempted to tie players’ meal money into the newly-proposed luxury tax number, further reducing the spending power any of them had without “crossing” or approaching the dreaded faux-salary cap." "Hal Steinbrenner is more like these callous men than you’d like to believe because … earlier in the offseason, he voted to drop the $210 million threshold all the way to $180 million, effectively setting a salary cap $30 million below where it currently stands." Yea the Hal voting to drop the threshold to 180 million really pissed me off. How are you the owner of the Yankees with all that financial muscle and you vote for that?  A Steinbrenner voting against the interest of his own team for a luxury tax specifically designed to hamstring the Yankees and Hal’s father. |
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Mar 6, 2022 18:44:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Mar 6, 2022 19:01:51 GMT -5
What about the windmill and the clown’s mouth? Once a game for each team, a runner at second base can try to score by running across the mound to home plate. The ninth player in the line up can request a specific pitch be thrown at anytime during an at bat in odd numbered innings. |
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Mar 6, 2022 19:20:22 GMT -5
What about the windmill and the clown’s mouth? Once a game for each team, a runner at second base can try to score by running across the mound to home plate. The ninth player in the line up can request a specific pitch be thrown at anytime during an at bat in odd numbered innings.
I'm in favor of a pitch clock. Game length has gotten too ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Mar 6, 2022 20:30:53 GMT -5
What about the windmill and the clown’s mouth? Once a game for each team, a runner at second base can try to score by running across the mound to home plate. The ninth player in the line up can request a specific pitch be thrown at anytime during an at bat in odd numbered innings.
I'm in favor of a pitch clock. Game length has gotten too ridiculous.
A larger base makes sense at first. Pitch clock is fine, as long as they do not allow batters to leave the box following every pitch. I am just greatly opposed to the ban of shifts or restricting defensive alignments. |
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Mar 6, 2022 20:46:56 GMT -5
I'm in favor of a pitch clock. Game length has gotten too ridiculous.
A larger base makes sense at first. Pitch clock is fine, as long as they do not allow batters to leave the box following every pitch. I am just greatly opposed to the ban of shifts or restricting defensive alignments. I wouldn't ban shifts either, but I wouldn't go as far as to stop watching the game because of it. Don't you think you're overreacting a tad there rizz?  |
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Mar 6, 2022 21:10:45 GMT -5
A larger base makes sense at first. Pitch clock is fine, as long as they do not allow batters to leave the box following every pitch. I am just greatly opposed to the ban of shifts or restricting defensive alignments. I wouldn't ban shifts either, but I wouldn't go as far as to stop watching the game because of it. Don't you think you're overreacting a tad there rizz?  It's a structural change. I used to be a huge basketball fan, having played and coached. When officials stopped enforcing traveling/walking, carrying/palming the ball, five-second rule, three-second rule, over-the-back, moving screens, yet eliminated hand-checking - essentially ending defense - it was too much. The nature of the game changed. With zero continuity plays, no team passing concepts, or team defense, the NBA is essentially a pickup game that can be watched any day on a municipal court. I stopped watching the NBA and then college basketball. Currently, watching 8 to 12 different pitchers for a nine-inning game, one of every three at bats ending in a strikeout, more home runs than doubles, a dearth of triples, awful base running, no hit and runs, and no two strike approaches, the game is devoid of action for seven of the nine innings. And, watching Boone manage a roster and daily lineup - ugh. It's becoming tough to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Mar 6, 2022 21:29:59 GMT -5
I wouldn't ban shifts either, but I wouldn't go as far as to stop watching the game because of it. Don't you think you're overreacting a tad there rizz? It's a structural change. I used to be a huge basketball fan, having played and coached. When officials stopped enforcing traveling/walking, carrying/palming the ball, five-second rule, three-second rule, over-the-back, moving screens, yet eliminated hand-checking - essentially ending defense - it was too much. The nature of the game changed. With zero continuity plays, no team passing concepts, or team defense, the NBA is essentially a pickup game that can be watched any day on a municipal court. I stopped watching the NBA and then college basketball. Currently, watching 8 to 12 different pitchers for a nine-inning game, one of every three at bats ending in a strikeout, more home runs than doubles, a dearth of triples, awful base running, no hit and runs, and no two strike approaches, the game is devoid of action for seven of the nine innings. And, watching Boone manage a roster and daily lineup - ugh. It's becoming tough to watch. I agree with you that all the pitching changes, the abundance of strikeouts, the domination of the three true outcomes, and the lack of action is hurting the game. I guess banning shifts is the straw that will break the camels back for you. I'm not there yet. And I wouldn't stop watching baseball because then it would deprive me of having the wonderful convos and the camaraderie I get from my friends on this board.
Its a shame you stopped watching basketball. I used to watch basketball religiously but I stopped watching mainly because of the Knicks suckitude over the years. I still watch occasionally and in the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Mar 6, 2022 21:30:29 GMT -5
The shifts we see today are the creation of the introduction of the spread sheet to baseball. While they were not banned before, they were simply not employed. Okay, we know they used them against Ted Williams. But that was such an exception that it seemed to prove the rule.
There is nothing wrong with restricting where players can stand prior to a pitch being thrown. It used to simply be the way the game was played, just like attempting stolen bases without a lot of thought about the chances of being successful.
The use of openers, and the use of multiple pitchers has taken much away from the game I knew growing up. Games are going to change, I suppose. But I don’t have to like the changes…
|
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Mar 6, 2022 21:53:51 GMT -5
The shifts we see today are the creation of the introduction of the spread sheet to baseball. While they were not banned before, they were simply not employed. Okay, we know they used them against Ted Williams. But that was such an exception that it seemed to prove the rule. There is nothing wrong with restricting where players can stand prior to a pitch being thrown. It used to simply be the way the game was played, just like attempting stolen bases without a lot of thought about the chances of being successful. The use of openers, and the use of multiple pitchers has taken much away from the game I knew growing up. Games are going to change, I suppose. But I don’t have to like the changes… It is not how the game was played. The reason there were few extreme shifts in the past was due to the bunt, hitting behind the runner, hitting to the opposite field, and two strike approaches offensively that would put the ball in playing field to load the bases. The reason for banning the shift is because players do not put the ball in play, striking out a third of the time, do not change their approach depending upon the count, and do not hit behind the runner, or bunt, even when there is only one player on the left side of the diamond. It's a travesty. By banning the shift, the game shall only accentuate and cement the three truly boring outcomes, as there shall be no reason for batsmen to adapt or to refine their approach in response to the count, defensive alignment, or men on base. It is anathema to me. The reason the shift is being employed has nothing to do with spreadsheets and everything to do with the overemphasis on pulling the ball without fail to the same two vectors on the diamond due to the homogenization of the swing plane and arc to produce lift. Why have a third baseman for a left handed batter, when every swing produces extreme wrist pronation? No data required. There used to be hitters on offense; now they are almost exclusively swingers. Hitting the ball where it is pitched is no longer encouraged or taught. |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Mar 6, 2022 22:28:30 GMT -5
The shifts we see today are the creation of the introduction of the spread sheet to baseball. While they were not banned before, they were simply not employed. Okay, we know they used them against Ted Williams. But that was such an exception that it seemed to prove the rule. There is nothing wrong with restricting where players can stand prior to a pitch being thrown. It used to simply be the way the game was played, just like attempting stolen bases without a lot of thought about the chances of being successful. The use of openers, and the use of multiple pitchers has taken much away from the game I knew growing up. Games are going to change, I suppose. But I don’t have to like the changes… It is not how the game was played. The reason there were few extreme shifts in the past was due to the bunt, hitting behind the runner, hitting to the opposite field, and two strike approaches offensively that would put the ball in playing field to load the bases. The reason for banning the shift is because players do not put the ball in play, striking out a third of the time, do not change their approach depending upon the count, and do not hit behind the runner, or bunt, even when there is only one player on the left side of the diamond. It's a travesty. By banning the shift, the game shall only accentuate and cement the three truly boring outcomes, as there shall be no reason for batsmen to adapt or to refine their approach in response to the count, defensive alignment, or men on base. It is anathema to me. The reason the shift is being employed has nothing to do with spreadsheets and everything to do with the overemphasis on pulling the ball without fail to the same two vectors on the diamond due to the homogenization of the swing plane and arc to produce lift. Why have a third baseman for a left handed batter, when every swing produces extreme wrist pronation? No data required. There used to be hitters on offense; now they are almost exclusively swingers. Hitting the ball where it is pitched is no longer encouraged or taught. Agree pretty much. I mean, the uppercut swings, etc. that’s really all because of spread sheet genius, too. One the left to another. But you are correct that killing the shift will mean we’ll never see hitters convert back to hitting the opposite way. I recall people calling baseball boring back in the 60’s. I always figured they were people who had no idea what was going on… |
|
