tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64275072024-03-23T11:22:59.513-07:006-4-2 — an Angels/Dodgers double play blogA blog mostly about the Dodgers, Angels, baseball in general, and other minutiae as it may happen.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.comBlogger9098125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-79028995196246966102023-06-15T08:01:00.001-07:002023-06-15T08:01:26.358-07:00Administrivia: Comments LockedHaving received a godawful amount of spam comments this morning, I am locking comments for the time being, until the spammers give up. Not that anyone cares anymore...Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-43974883407147932562020-06-23T20:35:00.001-07:002020-06-23T20:35:55.884-07:00MLB 2020 Season Announced, Stupid Rules EnsueMLB has announced there will, in fact, be a <a href="https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-announces-2020-regular-season">2020 major league baseball season</a>, which surprised the hell out of me. There will be a <a href="https://www.mlb.com/press-release/press-release-mlb-announces-2020-regular-season?t=mlb-press-releases">60-game schedule</a>, with opening day on July 23 or 24. The schedule will be optimized for in-division (regardless of league) play to minimize travel.<br />
<br />
Rob Manfred is using this opportunity to annoy us with other stupid rule changes, including the <a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-runner-second-rule-extra-183708056.html">runner on second rule for extra innings</a>, which is un-American and probably a commie plot. Likewise, <a href="https://twitter.com/BNightengale?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1275446975249301513&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.radio.com%2Fsports%2Fmlb%2F2020-mlb-rules-the-latest-on-universal-dh-extra-innings">National League teams will adopt the designated hitter at home</a>, which was an inevitability but is there some reason to think anything other than that a pandemic was a convenient excuse?<br />
<br />
Play ball, but stop annoying me, Manfred.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-17572903496294002832020-03-12T11:22:00.000-07:002020-03-12T16:07:27.060-07:00NBA, NHL Suspend Seasons, MLB Suspends Spring Training In Response To CoronavirusFollowing yesterday's announcement that the <a href="https://www.nba.com/article/2020/03/11/coronavirus-pandemic-causes-nba-suspend-season">NBA has suspended its season</a> following yesterday's scheduled games, the <a href="https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-coronavirus-status/c-316155530">NHL has suspended its entire season</a>. Also, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-03-12/mlb-suspends-spring-training-indefinitely-coronavirus-pandemic?utm_source=LAT+Breaking+News&utm_campaign=40315fe8d8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_03_12_05_55&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b3d39b0044-40315fe8d8-85532609">MLB has suspended spring training indefinitely</a> according to the <i>Los Angeles Times</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Update:</b> The <a href="https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2020-season-delayed">MLB regular season will be “delayed” by two weeks</a>.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-70394295936877897432020-01-04T17:46:00.002-08:002020-01-04T17:46:55.924-08:00Administrivia: Sidebar CleanupFor the one person who cares (me, now), I finally cleaned up the sidebar of dead links, including duplicated links to now-defunct blogs, both at major newspapers (the LAT and OCR Dodgers and Angels blogs are now long-gone), and other cruft that has vanished over time. Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-52862482277436816722019-10-03T11:59:00.000-07:002019-10-03T12:08:00.538-07:00The One Stat That Tells You Everything You Need To Know About The 2019 Angels' RotationMatt Welch recently tweeted something about the 2019 Angels that grabbed my attention in a sad and disturbing way:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
The Angels today fired their pitching coach, a day after firing their manager. How bad was the team's pitching in 2019? This bad: By Wins Above Average, the Angels' rotation (at -6.5) and overall staff (-9.4) were the worst in all of baseball. Yet there's a much crazier stat.</div>
— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1179233578435133440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
The team leader in innings pitched in 2019 was Trevor Cahill, with 102.1. Respectfully, I don't think you fully realize how bonkers that number is.</div>
— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1179233680709095424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Remember the strike-aborted season of 1994, when teams played around 114 games? The lowest IP total from a team leader that year was 130, from Greg Harris, in the second-ever season of the Colorado Rockies.</div>
— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1179233780936130560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
How about strike-disfigured 1981, when teams averaged 107 games? The low total from a team leader then was 130.1, by Seattle’s Glenn Abbott. <br />
<br />
I think it’s likely that Trevor Cahill’s 102.1 IP is the lowest team-leading total in modern baseball history.</div>
— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1179233944753049600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
This got me updating my <a href="http://www.seanlahman.com/baseball-archive/statistics/">Lahman database</a> for the first time this year. (Note to Sean: why hasn't there been a MySQL/MariaDB-compatible schema available for two years now?) After a good bit of SQL detective work, it turns out there are only <i>four</i> team innings-pitched leaders with less than the measely 102.1 Mr. Cahill managed:<br />
<br />
<center>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr><th>Year</th><th>Team</th><th>Pitcher</th><th>IP</th></tr>
<tr><td>1872</td><td>Washington Olympics*</td><td>Asa Brainard</td><td>79.0</td></tr>
<tr><td>1873</td><td>Baltimore Marylands*</td><td>Ed Stratton</td><td>27.0</td></tr>
<tr><td>1884</td><td>St. Paul White Caps</td><td>Jim Brown</td><td>36.0</td></tr>
<tr><td>1891</td><td>Milwaukee Brewers</td><td>GeorgeDavies</td><td>102.0</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<br />
All of them are 19th century teams, and two (those denoted with an asterisk [*]) were National Association teams. In other words, we are talking about some of the sketchiest professional teams ever assembled in the earliest days of the sport. For context, here's a graph of lowest team innings pitched leaders throughout history:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw7BH7Mb_TMlpKm3TCJYlh_flE-z2XU5FkZzkJ41dKOd27qo_QVvzgaA03b9hTByYCAIh2XaSmyjK-gj5r_SBIPkhTZXXH6Ax9sgsR-VlnNnmMzrDnGKBPzYj0LssNdoJfMlU/s1600/Screenshot+from+2019-10-03+12-13-17.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="376" data-original-width="574" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw7BH7Mb_TMlpKm3TCJYlh_flE-z2XU5FkZzkJ41dKOd27qo_QVvzgaA03b9hTByYCAIh2XaSmyjK-gj5r_SBIPkhTZXXH6Ax9sgsR-VlnNnmMzrDnGKBPzYj0LssNdoJfMlU/s1600/Screenshot+from+2019-10-03+12-13-17.png" /></a></div>
Unsurprisingly, the number settles down right about at the turn of the 20th century, and has drifted down ever since. While the current trend certainly projects that eventually, Trevor Cahill won't be such an outlier, for now, he is more than 40 innings off last year's low-high champion, Toronto's <a href="https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/estrama01.shtml">Marco Estrada</a> (143.2 IP). In the last decade, his nearest competition is <a href="https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/francje01.shtml">Jeff Francis</a> on the 2012 Rockies, whose 113 IP was the lowest in the 21st century, and lower than any 20th century IP team leader.<br />
<br />
This is obviously awful; as Matt goes on to observe, "<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">The Angels gave a mind-numbing 492 innings to pitchers who had a season ERA+ of under 80." The Halos now have a losing record for four consecutive years for the first time since they lost seven straight years from 1971 to 1977. They have no depth, poor roster construction, and absolutely no idea how to get out of this pit.</span><br />
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-28163206167254646872017-11-02T08:08:00.004-07:002017-11-02T08:08:52.367-07:00The End Of Dreams: Astros 5, Dodgers 1If it is possible for the Dodgers to have a more ignominious end to their season, I cannot think of it. Battered in Game 3, Dave Roberts sent Yu Darvish out for second helpings in a win-or-die scenario; Darvish made it clear early that the second option was his choice. The Astros out pitched the Dodgers, whose offense never bothered to show up. Honestly, that was the team I watched through much of August and September, the hellacious losing streak that made you wonder which team would be playing in October.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers-hernandez-20171101-story.html">Dylan Hernandez' LAT piece</a> pulls no punches. I think he oversteps by claiming<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Rangers probably knew something. They probably knew he was as likely to perform how he did in this World Series as he was of ever realizing his breathtaking potential. Darvish made two postseason starts for the Rangers and lost both.</blockquote>
The Dodgers knew that too, but I suspect they were hopeful the better pitching environment of Dodger Stadium would attenuate those bad outings. Nevertheless, Dave Roberts leaving him in for so long was a critical failure; he had to be on a very short leash. Darvish got only two swings-and-misses total in the <i>ten</i> batters he faced, a bad sign that Roberts ignored. Not that it mattered with the offense failing; the two runs the Astros collected in that first inning would be enough.<br />
<br />
So, congratulations to the now American League Astros, who win their first title ever for America's fourth-largest city. The Dodgers have their work cut out for them in the offseason.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.espn.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=371101119">ESPN Box</a> • <a href="http://m.dodgers.mlb.com/news/article/260380704/astros-beat-dodgers-to-win-first-world-series/">MLB Recap</a>Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-17094947774091744622017-08-17T05:41:00.001-07:002017-08-23T09:04:21.748-07:00Disney's $1.5B MLBAM Purchase Foretells Grim Tidings For ESPNAl Yellon a couple days ago posted a piece about <a href="https://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2017/8/15/16150152/mlb-teams-50-million-dollar-windfall">MLBAM being sold to Disney in a $1.5 billion deal</a>. The upshot of this is that every MLB team will get $50 million in cash off the bat, but it also suggests something else: MLBAM, which has been a cash cow for the league, is going away at the exact moment cord-cutting continues to be a problem for cable TV. There's something about this deal that reminds me of the <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-dodgers-board-sinking-rsn-revenues.html">Yankees getting out from YES Network</a>, which now seems prescient: better to let someone else figure out how to sell those ad dollars, and take whatever they want off the top.<br />
<br />
Along those lines, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170815/11444638006/as-streaming-future-looms-espn-is-damned-if-it-does-damned-if-it-doesnt.shtml">ESPN is now launching its own streaming service</a>, which looks from the outside like a Pyrrhic victory. As <i>Techcrunch</i> explains,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"A streaming service, while it might attract sports fans who have
cut the cord, won’t solve ESPN’s profit problems. Instead it will
exacerbate them. Why? Because ESPN will continue to lose the millions
upon millions of cable subscribers who pay for it but never watch it.
Losing $7.21 from each non-watcher is going to be a revenue killer.
There is no possible way the universe of sports fans who want ESPN can
make up that revenue, even if they’re charged more for a streaming
service."
</i></blockquote>
(The above was quoted in the story text, but it's unclear from context <i>who</i> was being quoted. <b>Edit:</b> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-11/espn-s-surrender-to-grim-new-reality">it's an excerpt of this Bloomberg News story</a>.) This is a problem of long-standing I first noticed with the <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-sports-net-la-cant-sell-la-carte.html">Dodgers and their cable TV deal</a>; there's simply no way the insane TV rights deals stand up without mandatory bundling. Things are going to get tighter for everyone in this space, and soon.<br />
<br />
<b>Update 2017-08-23:</b> One aspect of this that has bothered me from the beginning is the <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2012/03/do-you-believe-in-magic-thoughts-on-new.html">same sense I got when the Guggenheim Group bought the Dodgers for $2.1 billion</a>, and that is that this is predicated on revenue streams that simply cannot exist in the real world. (Even my <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2012/03/gedankenexperiment-worst-case-tv.html">rough contemporaneous pencil test</a> showed the Dodgers couldn't milk that stream for the kind of dough they were getting out of bundled cable deals.) I'll spend some time digging and see if I can get MLBAM subscriber numbers somewhere. Also, it's important to know for return-on-investment figures that <a href="http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/disney-bam-tech-streaming-espn.html">Disney earlier bought 33% of BAMTech for $1 billion</a>, so their total investment appears to be $2.5 billion for (effectively) the whole magilla, or at least a majority stake.<br />
<br />
It appears that MLBAM as of two years ago had 3.5 million subscribers, though <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-advanced-media-20150930-story.html">this <i>LA Times</i> article</a> doesn't mention how many are MLB.TV subscribers. But assume that 90% of them are paying for MLB.TV at $112.99/year. That means revenues are
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>3.5M subscribers * .9 * $112.99 subscriber<sup>-1</sup>*year<sup>-1</sup> = $356M/year</i></blockquote>
It's not <i>implausible</i> that they might be able to make money under this scenario, but it omits the costs of carriage for MLB, MiLB, PGA, and other content. Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-90924068116409967432017-04-20T09:04:00.002-07:002017-04-20T09:04:42.035-07:00A Diffident Anniversary: Six Years Ago, MLB Ousted The McCourtsSix years ago today, <a href="https://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2011/04/go-away-frank-mlb-to-take-over-dodgers.html">MLB ousted the contentious and rapacious McCourts</a> as the owners of the Dodgers. Their tenure as owners would be marred by problems with parking lots, and in particular, <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2011/04/beaten-giants-fan-in-medically-induced.html">the problem Bryan Stow had</a>. This would be a happy anniversary if not for the <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-dodgers-board-sinking-rsn-revenues.html">years-long fight</a> over cable TV revenues that have thus far failed to materialize. The price of ousting the McCourts, apparently, was <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2012/03/do-you-believe-in-magic-thoughts-on-new.html">$2.1 billion</a>, a figure largely hoisted on the now-obviously dim prospects of extracting absurdly generous concessions from a new cable TV network that thus far remains <a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-tv-20170213-story.html">off the cable boxes of most Southern California fans</a>. The <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-sports-net-la-cant-sell-la-carte.html">math is so absurd</a>, and so large are Dodger salaries, it is impossible to imagine this stalemate going on much longer, but the Guggenheim group seems set on their course. The one advantage of being out of market now is that at least I get to see the Dodgers. It is more than outweighed by being two timezones east, so the Blue finish most of their games after my bedtime. I can only hope my in-market friends get to see their team on the TV some year soon.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-21621289441583015132017-04-19T07:43:00.002-07:002017-04-19T07:43:33.042-07:00The Collapse Of Starting Pitcher WinsIt's been a while since anything really caught my attention about baseball — <a href="http://m.mlb.com/news/article/207995060/cubs-win-world-series-after-108-years-waiting/">the Cubs won the World Series</a> last year, an event that passed without note in these all but abandoned pages; the team will never need to buy another round anywhere in Chicago, and Theo Epstein <i>et al.</i> probably punched their own ticket to Cooperstown. Reversing the curse in two cursed towns is some sort of witch doctory! But with both my native teams two time zones past my now Central Daylight Time bedtime, I find keeping up with the Angels or Dodgers difficult, save on weekends or during day getaway games.<br />
<br />
So the game moves on without me, in many ways; the deep detailed looks at various sabermetric aspects (and more, the impressive roster of solid writers) I got at <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/"><i>Baseball Prospectus</i></a>, watering holes like <a href="http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/newsblog/"><i>Baseball Think Factory</i></a> (now enervated thanks to a squabble between founder Jim Furtado and Darren Viola), Jon Weisman's on-again, off-again blogs (<a href="http://www.dodgerthoughts.com/"><i>Dodger Thoughts</i></a>, now largely defunct) — all have lost my attention, and that predated my 2015 move to Arkansas. So it's kind of a surprise to see a post that really grabs me, and this one comes from ESPN: "<a href="http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/19092794/state-stat-mlb-numbers-taking-yet-another-crazy-turn">State of the Stat: MLB numbers taking yet another crazy turn"</a> offers some interesting changes lately in baseball. Particularly, home runs:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZHE1GKYAAv9BAGZCY4-hhwO6F2MnB7nyn8CuaLGVaOE53_woiGGO2571q6dtN_WKZU4smedXDDBWXeO6eM_M3B_duPnAj6mf8RWb5aE1G_3Foas2kdAW4Bv21Mf1fr_plHXw/s1600/HR_leaders_by_decade.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZHE1GKYAAv9BAGZCY4-hhwO6F2MnB7nyn8CuaLGVaOE53_woiGGO2571q6dtN_WKZU4smedXDDBWXeO6eM_M3B_duPnAj6mf8RWb5aE1G_3Foas2kdAW4Bv21Mf1fr_plHXw/s320/HR_leaders_by_decade.jpg" width="223" /></a></div>
What pops out is the names of the decade home run leaders for the 1990's and 2000's, Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez's, respectively. Neither will make it into Cooperstown as a consequence of steroid use, and more's the pity, especially in A-Rod's case. As with Roger Clemens and Barry bonds, a legitimate first-ballot inductee is being kept out of the Hall largely because of political pressure rather than his actual record.<br />
<br />
In some ways, though, the most interesting thing in here is the steady decline in wins by starters:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnlne2QAzq2Ra7a2BYi43FwR4R3Jfcn0zRNcbaaTS75Zr9nTI39M79cS0Kvms9tKXrb-WSMgB8zBU3Nnwdh2T7HGozUuk7xsi57NZpqFA51Ic6OcMjripXOpDkVjxjC6dduSI/s1600/starting_pitcher_win_averages_by_decade.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnlne2QAzq2Ra7a2BYi43FwR4R3Jfcn0zRNcbaaTS75Zr9nTI39M79cS0Kvms9tKXrb-WSMgB8zBU3Nnwdh2T7HGozUuk7xsi57NZpqFA51Ic6OcMjripXOpDkVjxjC6dduSI/s320/starting_pitcher_win_averages_by_decade.jpeg" width="320" /> </a></div>
The piece continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The traditional standard of 20 wins remains a high bar, with just a
few pitchers getting there each season. There were three 20-game winners
in 2016, two in 2015, three in 2014 and one in 2013. The peak for
20-win seasons came in the late '60s and early '70s, when many starters
threw a huge number of innings. There were 15 20-game winners in 1969,
14 in 1971, 13 in 1973 (and 1951) and 11 in 1970 and 1974. As the
five-man rotation became standard by the 1980s, the 40-game starter
became obsolete. Then the complete game neared extinction.<br />
<br />
Maybe the 20-game winner is next on the endangered species list.</blockquote>
What would be especially ironic is if Bert Blyleven, who famously was kept out of the Hall for so long because he did not have 300 wins, might instead be an early forebear of ending the win as a pitching stat with any actual value.
Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-24439490946880806392017-01-18T17:36:00.003-08:002017-01-18T17:36:49.310-08:00Bagwell, Raines, Pudge Enter CooperstownWhile only Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, and Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez <a href="http://baseballhall.org/hof/class-of-2017">entered the Hall of Fame as players</a>, both Bud Selig and John Schuerholz do so as executives, Selig the commissioner who held baseball labor peace for over two decades. Schuerholz was the general manager of the Braves during the 1990's when they virtually owned the NL East (actually <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Schuerholz">from 1990 to 2007</a>), and of the Kansas City Royals before that in 1982-1990.<br /><br />Jeff Bagwell's credentials should have made him an easy first ballot candidate, but <a href="http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/11/30/jaws-2017-hall-of-fame-ballot-jeff-bagwell">steroids rumors delayed his entry by six years</a>. Unlike Jay Jaffe, I'm unconvinced that <a href="http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/12/01/jaws-2017-hall-of-fame-ballot-tim-raines">Tim Raines should be in the Hall</a>, but as with everything, will take his word for it. Finally, Pudge actually did get in on the first ballot, <a href="http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/12/20/jaws-2017-hall-of-fame-ballot-ivan-rodriguez">Jay's questions notwithstanding</a>. I take this as a positive sign for other players of the era who may have been tarnished by allegations or actual proof of steroid use. Congratulations to all. Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-42037776255614259832016-03-25T05:41:00.002-07:002016-03-25T05:41:44.871-07:00The Dodgers' Cynical 30% ManipulationBill Plaschke, improbably, has managed to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-tv-plaschke-20160325-column.html">write a column on the Dodgers' first flirtation with actual negotiations</a>, which appears to be more <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-dodger-channel-tv-channel-compromise-offer-20160322-story.html">cynical than real</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That Time Warner Cable has offered to cut the price of SportsNet LA
by 30% is admirable, but that the offer is good for only one year is
ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Would you make that deal? Buy somebody's car for one
year at a deeply discounted price, then take your hands off the wheel
and agree to renegotiate?</blockquote>
As expected, Plaschke misunderstands the nature of the contract to justify his dudgeon— its more like renting an apartment than buying a car — but his admonition to "[m]ake the discount permanent" is entirely sound, and likely, doesn't go far enough. The reality is <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-sports-net-la-cant-sell-la-carte.html">the Dodgers are not going to get that $5/head</a>, now nor at any point in the future; bankruptcy looms. That the team uses Vin Scully's last season as a chit is unconscionable manipulation. I did not think it possible that the new ownership would be materially worse than the McCourts, but at least in this one dimension, they are: at least Frank never took the Dodgers off the air.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-83114557300794201662016-02-24T07:38:00.003-08:002016-02-24T07:38:51.384-08:00The Bleeding Continues As SportsNet LA Halves Dodgers' Spring Training CoverageBill Plaschke brings the sad yet predictable news that <a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-sp-plaschke-dodgers-tv-20160224-column.html?track=lat-email-latimessports">SportsNet LA plans on halving its coverage of spring training games from 31 to 16</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
No, this is not about the importance of watching spring exhibitions,
which become awfully boring when all the good players hit the golf
courses by the fifth inning. No, SportsNet LA is not alone in taking a
spring break, as most teams televise only a smattering of games — and
even KLAC radio is broadcasting only 14 games from Arizona. And yes, it
makes sense when Time Warner Cable officials say they are cutting back
because of lousy midweek afternoon ratings.
<br />
<br />
But when the Dodgers and Time Warner Cable continue to deny 60% of Southern California households a chance to watch their team because of ego and greed, then each misstep becomes more galling than the previous one, and every stumble becomes emblematic of a legendary fall.
<br />
<br />
At this point in the three-year debacle, it is worth wondering whether this might be the worst team-TV partnership in modern sports history. If the Dodgers keep Vin Scully from Los Angeles during his final season, that seals it.
</blockquote>
The reason I say this is predictable is due to the fact that the channel is hemorrhaging money, and so they have to cut costs somewhere. Spring training games, broadcast in the afternoons with poor viewership, are an obvious place to trim.<br /><br />It's rare that I can endorse a Plaschke column in its entirety (or even majority); it seems to happen about twice a year now. But here it is.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-80279478700601160082016-01-12T10:16:00.001-08:002016-01-12T10:35:28.451-08:00Television Rights, Baseball's TsunamiI unfortunately don't have enough time to properly treat this story, but a couple related pieces turned up on <i>Techdirt</i> and <i>Fangraphs</i> on the always-interesting subject of television rights that are required reading for anyone concerned about the future of baseball. First, <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-impending-battle-over-the-future-of-televised-baseball/"><i>Fangraphs</i> draws us up-to-date</a> with a case I can't believe I had missed, <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/294239819/Garber-v-Office-of-the-Commissioner-of-Baseball-Second-Amended-Complaint"><i>Garber v. Office Of The Commissioner Of Baseball</i></a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Long-time Fangraphs readers are probably already familiar with the <i>Garber</i> suit, as we’ve previously covered <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/your-2014-mlb-legal-year-in-review-part-three/" target="_blank">the case</a> <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-blackout-policy-under-attack-in-the-courts/" target="_blank">on a</a> <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-strongly-defends-local-broadcast-territories-in-court/" target="_blank">number of</a> <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/consumers-suing-mlb-over-exclusive-broadcast-territories-win-right-to-trial/" target="_blank">different</a> <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-week-that-was-in-mlb-antitrust-litigation/" target="_blank">occasions</a>.
By way of a brief recap, though, the lawsuit essentially alleges that
MLB violates federal antitrust law by assigning its teams exclusive
local broadcast territories (the same rules that also give rise to <a href="http://www.hardballtimes.com/end-the-blackouts/" target="_blank">MLB’s infamous blackout policy</a>).<br />
<br />
Not only do the plaintiffs allege that the creation of these
exclusive territories illegally prevents MLB teams from competing for
television revenue in each others’ home markets, but they also contend
the rules restrict teams from competing with the league itself in the
national broadcast marketplace (preventing teams from signing their own
national television contracts, for instance, or offering their own
out-of-market pay-per-view services in competition with MLB Extra
Innings and MLB.TV).</blockquote>
The plaintiffs want to entirely do away with regional broadcast restrictions, which would possibly pave the way for MLB Advanced Media (MLB.TV) to take over that entirely. It could also allow the Indians to sell games in the New York market, or vice versa (much more likely), opening the prospect for both internecine warfare and additional revenue streams. MLB will argue that fans benefit from the current situation by keeping smaller market teams in higher revenue local TV deals. There is something to that argument, particularly with respect to casual fans, who are <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-sports-net-la-cant-sell-la-carte.html">mightily subsidized by cable viewers who don't care about baseball</a>.<br />
<br />
Such subsidies are unfortunately not part of <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160104/08140233238/mlb-goes-to-court-to-defend-antitrust-actions-that-go-against-all-progress-mlb-has-made.shtml"><i>Techdirt's</i> analysis</a>, which fails to grapple with the fact that the overall revenue picture is much bigger with cable than without, for the simple reason that the average fan can only shell out so much:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It's an argument that essentially claims that MLB must limit the number
of broadcast options customers have to choose from because <i>not</i>
limiting them will eventually lead to even less options when teams fold.
This argument rests on MLB's revenue sharing practice, where teams
negotiate their local broadcast rights and leave the national rights
entirely up to the league, which then doles out national broadcast (and
streaming) revenue democratically through the league, meaning the
popularity of the Yankees and other large market clubs is resulting in
income for small market teams (like the Tampa Bay Rays).
<br />
<br />
Here's the thing: everyone knows this argument's time was twenty years
ago. Fans know it, because they use the internet and streaming services
and they embody the desire of customers to watch more teams in more ways
without blackout restrictions. MLB knows this as well, as you simply
can't make sense of all the work the league has done to expand its
streaming options without that knowledge. What they are trying to save
in all of this is a bit of the right to still handle national streaming
rights the way they handle national broadcast rights. It's about
retaining control. But the league itself is what allowed for the
expansion of the league into small market areas. For them now to rest
the argument for their antitrust exemption on the un-viability of those
markets, resulting in harming consumer choice, doesn't make any sense.
It's essentially asking for a kind of bailout for some teams via the
exemption. Put another way, MLB's argument amounts to: some of our teams
don't have enough fans to sustain themselves, so we need an antitrust
exemption to keep them afloat, just because. How is that in the public's
interest, even if MLB's assessment is correct?
</blockquote>
A fine question. The assumption hitherto is that team valuations can only ever go up, at least over a long enough time frame; but much of that in turn is built on a foundation of cable TV rights deals, deals that now look not only long in the tooth but primed for extinction. <br />
<br />
<b>Addendum:</b> <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20160108-column.html">An interesting David Lazarus column from a few days back in the <i>Times</i> about cord-cutting</a>; the author details the calculations by which he reckoned it would save him money. Time-Warner had an uptick in video subscribers, about which they made<a href="http://ir.timewarnercable.com/investor-relations/investor-news/financial-release-details/2016/Time-Warner-Cable-Delivers-Its-Best-Full-Year-Residential-Subscriber-Growth-Ever/default.aspx"> a booming press report</a>, but in reality 32,000 is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to their overall subscriber base.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A recent report by the New York research firm EMarketer estimated
that about 17% of U.S. households will have cut the cord by the end of
this year, rising to nearly a quarter of households by 2019.<br />
<br />
"Cord cutting is unambiguously accelerating," Moffett said.</blockquote>
Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-13843642413837572262016-01-07T11:18:00.002-08:002016-01-07T12:24:03.946-08:00Ken Griffey, Jr. And Mike Piazza Elected To The Hall Of FamePer <a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14517514/ken-griffey-jr-mike-piazza-voted-cooperstown-baseball-hall-famers">ESPN</a>, Ken Griffey, Jr. and Mike Piazza were the only players voted into the Hall of Fame. Griffey, who is by no means an inner-circle Hall of Famer, garnered a 99% vote, which I presume is mostly a protest at the steroid era. Piazza is the lowest draftee ever to go to Cooperstown, and Griffey the highest (first overall):
<br />
<blockquote>
While Griffey was selected first in the 1987 amateur draft and became the first No. 1 pick to make the Hall, Piazza was selected by the Los Angeles Dodgers with the 1,390th pick on the 62nd round in 1998. Since the draft started in 1965, the lowest draft pick elected to the Hall was John Smoltz, taken with the No. 574 pick in the 22nd round in 1985.
</blockquote>
<b>Update:</b> I should explain a bit on my remarks about Griffey. There's a 30-point JAWS dropoff between Mickey Mantle and Junior, the largest between any two players above the mean. Partly that was from memory, so if you want to disagree based on the fact that he's well above the mean of 70.4 JAWS, feel free to do so.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-39171506906885053722015-12-30T17:31:00.001-08:002015-12-30T21:59:55.861-08:00Buying Low On Aroldis Chapman, Or, The Precedent Of Michael Vick<a href="https://www.baseballmusings.com/?p=109828">David Pinto</a> passed on an excerpt from a <a href="http://riveraveblues.com/2015/12/thoughts-following-the-aroldis-chapman-trade-131760/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RiverAveBlues+%28River+Ave.+Blues%29">Mike Axisa essay</a> about the Yankees possibly buying low on Aroldis Chapman:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think it’s pretty gross the Yankees essentially used a domestic
violence incident to buy low on a player. That’s how I feel. You’re
welcome to feel differently. The Dodgers had a deal in place for Chapman
earlier this offseason, then backed away when news of the incident got
out. <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/news/aroldis-chapman-s-girlfriend-alleged-he--choked--her--according-to-police-report-023629095.html">(Here’s the story if you haven’t seen it</a>.) The Reds then dropped their asking price — <a href="http://riveraveblues.com/tag/brian-cashman/">Brian Cashman</a>
confirmed it during a conference call yesterday — and the Yankees
swooped in. There are a lot of people out there whose lives have been
impacted by domestic violence and I think turning a blind eye to it
sends a very bad message. Pro sports teams — it’s not just baseball, it
happens in every sport — have shown time and time again they will
overlook stuff like this as long as the player is good enough. I’d like
to think the Yankees hold themselves to higher standards but it’s clear
they don’t. It’s one thing for a player to be a jerk and difficult to
get along with. Allegations of domestic violence are much more serious.
Not a good look, Yankees.</blockquote>
There are a lot of potential responses to that. A particularly greasy, commercial observation came from (at least) <a href="http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/yankees-aroldis-chapman-trade-reds.html"><i>MLB Trade Rumors</i></a>, when they noticed that if Chapman misses 45 days (the maximum possible for the domestic violence offense he's accused of is 50 days), the Yankees could end up with not one but <i>two</i> years of team control. This means the Yanks might land arguably the best available reliever in baseball at a comparatively bargain price, and on a multiyear deal, no less. (No telling how Chapman might react if it turns up the Yanks schemed to get the commissioner's office to throw the book at him in full force.)<br />
<br />
But if Chapman's poor self-control off the field costs him in his contractual matters, it says very little about what sports leagues more generally need to do about domestic violence. One of the bigger off-field cases to come up in recent years was that of the NFL's Michael Vick, <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2009/08/pickoff-moves_16.html">which I wrote about at the time</a>. Vick's depravity to dogs, his lack of remorse, and his failure (entirely due to the state prosecutor in the case) to spend a single day in prison on animal cruelty charges led me then to conclude the league had taken inadequate steps to deal with the situation. It did not help that the league itself appeared to be a willing participant in the charade, even going so far as to hand him a farcical <a href="http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6093512">Comeback Player of the Year</a> award. From what, exactly, did he come back?<br />
<br />
And so with Ray Rice, whose pugilistic elevator exploits <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/08/ray-rice-elevator-knockout-fiancee-takes-crushing-punch-video/">had to be broken on <i>TMZ Sports</i></a>, of all places, presumably because ESPN owes the NFL a great deal. Certainly, the cable giant is not in a position to want to tarnish the NFL's brand; quite the opposite, as <a href="http://deadspin.com/espn-spent-the-past-24-hours-carrying-water-for-the-nfl-1610928027"><i>Deadspin</i> documented</a> amid <a href="http://deadspin.com/heres-every-edit-espn-has-made-to-its-otl-ray-rice-rave-1638729696">arched eyebrows</a>. This pattern of the league covering for an active player — and in the case of Vick, a former (and newly rising) star — seems nothing if not constant.<br />
<br />
Largely, the fans have been complicit with such efforts, provided enough time elapses between the observed complaints and the player's reinstatement. Vick continues to play unimpeded, most recently for the Pittsburgh Steelers, but previously for the Philadelphia Eagles a mere two years after his initial suspension due to occupying a jail cell. Ditto Rice, who didn't even have to wait that long after <i>TMZ's</i> release of the surveillance video, <a href="http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11949855/ray-rice-baltimore-ravens-wins-appeal-eligible-reinstatement">winning a reinstatement <i>the same year</i></a>. Protests have been muted, and have had little lasting effect. Particularly, the <a href="http://deadspin.com/so-whats-actually-new-about-the-nfls-new-domestic-viole-1628098179">league's mealy-mouthed domestic violence policy changes amounted to a nothingball</a>, something Roger Goodell could have implemented on his own had he chosen to do so. While Rice <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2015/11/05/ray-rice-staying-ready-waiting-for-nfl-opportunity/">remains for the moment sidelined</a>, it's hard to imagine this state of affairs will last beyond next year, and may not even survive the coming offseason.<br />
<br />
Why these things are as they are should be obvious, given the direction of incentives: <i>the player, the team who employs him, and the league more generally do not want bad press</i>. The player presumably is a valuable commodity, someone who can fill a limited number of open positions and do it creditably (or even well); the team is a part of the league, and has some say in its operation; and the league is the captive of its constituent teams. All of which is to say, <i>none</i> of these entities can be relied upon to manage the interests of third parties not subject to contract or for whom liability only weakly attaches. Expecting teams to adjudicate this liability in any way other than for their own benefit is, charitably, naive, and more realistically, a fool's errand. Ultimately, it becomes a test of the fan base's overall sense of disgust with the particular crimes at hand (itself a question of the nature and graphic detail of the publicly available evidence), and the distance in time to them. Those expecting otherwise are like Charlie Brown hoping Lucy will <i>really</i> hold that football this one time, despite all those other times.<br />
<br />
And so, I discharge sports leagues from enforcing the criminal laws on their contracted employees. Such work rightfully belongs to the police, and while the Rice case in particular made it evident that municipal <i>gendarmarie</i> are also not immune to the same forces that hushed up the video record of his offense, at least their paychecks come from a source not directly tied to the NFL. That much cannot be said for Roger Goodell or the Baltimore Ravens.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-34820173952475261442015-12-26T11:20:00.000-08:002015-12-26T11:21:34.812-08:00Some Great Koufax Stories From Wired<a href="http://www.wired.com/2012/04/the-cruel-reality-of-curveballs-the-beauty-of-sandy-koufax/">David Dobbs in <i>Wired</i> has some fantastic stories about Sandy Koufax</a>, one of the greatest left-handed pitchers ever to throw the ball (and until Randy Johnson, arguably the greatest). The whole story is worth your time (it also gets into why the curveball is so effective: it combines physical movement with an optical illusion), but I wanted to focus on this excerpt:<br />
<blockquote class="baq">
2. A <b>Koufax story I read a few years back</b>, either in
Leary’s bio of him or perhaps an Angell piece. Koufax, retired almost
20 years and in his 40s, was pitching batting practice to the Dodgers
(whom he often helped coach) between post-season series in the
mid-1980s. This was the great-hitting Dodger line-up with Sax, Garvey,
Baker, Cey, and others. Koufax is just throwing easy minor-league
45-year-old man fastballs for BP, letting the hitters groove their
swings. One of the hitters calls for the famous curveball. This Koufax
usually didn’t throw, lest it aggravate his elbow. But this hitter
wanted to see the thing, see if he could hit it, so Koufax indulges him.<br /><br />
This is a major league hitter who knows what pitch is coming, batting against a man in his mid-40s.<br /><br />
Curve comes in, drops like a stone — a swing and a miss.<br /><br />
Hitter calls for another. Same result.<br /><br />
Several more; the same.<br /><br />
By now the hitter’s teammates, watching, are in hysterics. They’re
howling. The batter gives up, walks off, tells his buddies, Fine then, <i>you</i> try it. And one by one they do. This great Dodger line-up comes up, every hitter knowing what pitch he’s getting, and <i>no one can connect</i>. Koufax is 45 or so — and with one pitch, pre-announced, he is unhittable.<br /><br />
...<br /><br />
As the story goes, manager Lasorda walked out to the mound and, using
the pretext he wanted to protect Koufax’s arm, asked him to stop — but
to Koufax he said, Cut it out already, I don’t want my hitters mentally
destroyed just before a post-season series because they can’t hit a
one-pitch man in his 40s.</blockquote>
Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-4347768630212003112015-10-14T07:21:00.001-07:002015-10-14T07:21:22.755-07:00The New Chaos: On Arte Moreno's Hyperactive OwnershipI read with no surprise, sadly, that the Angels had <a href="http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/10/04/angels-eliminated-from-playoffs-after-loss-to-rangers/">just barely missed the postseason</a> (old news), and that <a href="http://m.mlb.com/news/article/133963704/jerry-dipoto-resigns-stoneman-named-angels-gm">Jerry Dipoto resigned after years of arguing with Mike Scioscia</a> (even older news) to be replaced, temporarily, with Bill Stoneman, GM emeritus, <a href="http://m.mlb.com/news/article/134293782/bill-stoneman-returns-as-general-manager">returning to that role</a>. So when former also-ran and Yankee front office product <a href="http://m.mlb.com/news/article/153159832/angels-hire-billy-eppler-as-general-manager">Billy Eppler won the job</a>, it took me a bit to realize something fairly important: Eppler is now the <a href="http://www.baseballamerica.com/execdb/?show=franchise&fid=laa"><i>fifth</i> general manager the Angels have had in the Arte Moreno era</a> (fourth if you count Stoneman's two terms as one). You think the Gene Autry era was tumultuous, what with its loud personalities and poor decision-making skills? The worst they managed was three GMs in as many years, from 1991 through 1993. Arte's got a problem, and whether it's in the mirror, or the field manager having too much power, or both, the echoes of the old, bad teams from the early 1990's are impossible to ignore.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-48964957590224964492015-06-30T06:57:00.002-07:002015-06-30T07:00:15.422-07:00Cord Cutting Continues, Now Up To 8.2% Of The Subscriber BaseSomething I forgot to write about last week: <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/23/new-study-shows-a-rise-in-cord-cutting-8-2-percent-ditched-pay-tv-in-2014-up-1-3-yoy/#.kiyebb:4Fqp">a new study</a> by Digitalsmiths shows an 1.3% year-to-year decline in the number of people with cable TV, making 8.2% overall who are former cable customers, while "a much larger 45.2 percent said they reduced their cable or satellite TV service during the same time frame." This "cord shaving" suggests people are doing other things with their free time, and cable/satellite TV is increasingly irrelevant. Unclear how many of them are in the LA area, but this can't be a good sign for traditional cable.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-21650553643008135772015-06-17T17:10:00.002-07:002015-06-17T17:48:45.066-07:00Why Sports Net LA Can't Sell A La CarteWith the <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2013/01/dodgers-form-new-cable-network.html">Dodgers' $8 billion/25 year TV deal</a> in the can but not <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-dodgers-board-sinking-rsn-revenues.html">realized</a> (<a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2015/01/dodgers-still-very-concerned-their-team.html">still</a>), Time Warner taking on water to the tune of a <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2015/03/time-warners-big-hit.html">$1 billion loss over the life of the contract</a>, and the <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2015/04/comcasttwc-deal-dead-sportsnet-la.html">proposed merger with Comcast dead</a>, it's been a terrible year for Dodger fans hoping to see their team on TV, and mostly without hope. Or it was, anyway, until <a href="http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/charter-to-offer-los-angeles-dodgers-sportsnet-la-1201504979/">Time Warner bid and won on the consolation prize of Charter Communications</a>, immediately expanding the reach of SportsNet LA. For customers on that network, nine innings of Vin Scully is a reality again.<br />
<br />
But the money drain continues for that channel; they still have less than half their projected audience, and there's no other sign of them getting to an agreement with the remaining cable and satellite carriers. It's interesting, then, to take a look at one of the more commonly suggested answers to the problem of rising cable costs, <i>a la carte</i> purchase. Despite a great deal of belief in the idea that live sports are the last redoubt of cable TV, the reality is somewhat more complicated; for instance, only <a href="http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/a-la-carte-these-are-the-tv-channels-people-would-actually-pay-for-1201520900/">35.7% of those polled said they would buy ESPN</a> if it were offered as a separate channel. Similarly, the economics become highly questionable, to say the least.<br />
<br />
Let's dig in by first taking a look at a recent <i>Times</i> story on the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-dodgers-channel-tv-ratings-charter-20150610-story.html">ratings boost provided by the Charter acquisition</a>. Charter serves 300,000 subscribers, while Time Warner has "four times" that number, making 1.2 million for that carrier, or 1.5 million in all. An earlier <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-charter-comcast-deal-to-buy-time-warner-cable-20140127-story.html#page=1">LAT story</a> suggests the total number is closer to two million, but it's unclear whether that includes San Diego County homes that would be in the Padres broadcast area and would not get SportsNet LA; for this discussion, I use the lower figure. If we take Time Warner's subscriber base and reverse the calculation that they're <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-time-warner-cable-says-talks-with-directv-for-dodger-channel-are-over-20140403-story.html#page=1">30% of the market</a>, the overall subscriber base should be 4 million.<br />
<br />
As a sanity check, let's look at the dollar figures from the contract to make sure we're not missing something. The first year of the deal required <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-dodgers-tv-standoff-20140718-story.html?track=rss#page=1">Time Warner to pay the Dodgers $210 million</a>, which means if we were to assume they merely broke even, that would be<br />
<br />
$210M/year / $5/subscriber*month / 12 months/year = 3.5M subscribers<br />
<br />
(For the purposes of simplicity, I round up the $4.90 per subscriber per month figure to $5.) So we know we're on the right side of these numbers; Time Warner has to make a profit somewhere (that's the extra 500,000 subscribers from our earlier calculation). Now that we know the size of the market, we can look at prior years' ratings to give us an indication of the number of people willing to fork over their hard-earned dough so they can root for the Dodgers.<br />
<br />
Ratings vary quite a lot depending on whether a team is winning or not, and the Dodgers are no exception. Their successful <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/2013.shtml">92-70 2013 season</a> resulted in <a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/07/14/Media/MLB-RSNs.aspx">average per-game ratings of 154,000 viewers</a>, where the <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/2011.shtml">mediocre 82-79 2011 season</a> yielded an average of 65,000, less than half. While the <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/2014.shtml">94-68 2014 season</a> was even more successful than the prior year, the cable TV impasse sent ratings even lower, to an average of 40,000 viewers per game, the lowest figures in nearly two decades. So let us assume that the Dodgers are capable of averaging around 100,000 viewers per game, even though we know the variance is quite large. Let us also assume that each and every one of those viewers will be willing to pay for a subscription to see the Dodgers. In an <i>a la carte</i> scenario, that means we're going to divide the expected revenue by the number of viewers.<br />
<br />
Get ready.<br />
<br />
$210M/year / 12 months/year / 100,000 subscribers = $175/month*subscriber<br />
<br />
<i>One hundred seventy five dollars per month per subscriber</i>. This <i>monthly</i> figure is more than the price of MLB.TV for the <i>year</i>. <i>Nobody's</i> going to pay that, and hardly anyone could afford it. In short, this isn't happening, now, or ever, unless the Dodgers give up their current salary structure.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-49883433669680260832015-06-16T11:38:00.000-07:002015-06-16T11:38:29.251-07:00Bombshell: FBI Investigating Cardinals Hacking Of Astros Front OfficeThe <i>New York Times</i> uncorked a doozy today when they broke the story that the FBI is investigating the St. Louis Cardinals for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/sports/baseball/st-louis-cardinals-hack-astros-fbi.html?smid%3D=tw-nytsports">hacking into the Astros' network</a> and stealing proprietary player data.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The
Astros hired Mr. Luhnow as general manager in December 2011, and he
quickly began applying his unconventional approach to running a baseball
team. In an exploration of the team’s radical transformation, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-08-28/extreme-moneyball-houston-astros-jeff-luhnow-lets-data-reign">Bloomberg Business called it</a> “a project unlike anything baseball has seen before.”
<br />
<br />
Under
Mr. Luhnow, the Astros have accomplished a striking turnaround; they
are in first place in the American League West division. But in 2013,
before their revival at the major league level, their internal
deliberations about statistics and players were compromised, law
enforcement officials said.
<br />
<br />
The
intrusion did not appear to be sophisticated, the law enforcement
officials said. When Mr. Luhnow was with the Cardinals, the organization
built a computer network, called Redbird, to house all of their
baseball operations information — including scouting reports and player
personnel information. After leaving to join the Astros, and bringing
some front-office personnel with him from the Cardinals, Houston created
a similar program known as Ground Control.
</blockquote>
Which suggests that Luhnow and others in the Houston front office <i>didn't bother to change their passwords</i> from their time at St. Louis. It also suggests that the Cardinals store their passwords in plaintext, which, why?<br />
<br />
<i>Fangraphs</i> has a fine <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-legal-implications-of-the-cardinals-alleged-hacking/">piece on the legal ramifications</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The primary law implicated by the Cardinals’ alleged hacking would appear to be the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</a>.
The CFAA was originally passed back in 1984 to protect both the
government and the financial industry from electronic espionage. The law
was later expanded in 1996, however, to cover any unauthorized, remote
access of another’s computer.<br />
Under Section (a)(4) of the CFAA, anyone who “<span class="ptext-"><em>knowingly … accesses a protected computer without authorization</em>” in order to “<em>obtain[] anything of value</em>” is subject to potential criminal liability for the hacking. Similarly, Section (a)(5)(B) of the law prohibits “<span class="ptext-"><em>intentionally access[ing] a protected computer without authorization,</em>” should it result in any damage being inflicted on the computer’s owner.</span></span></blockquote>
The act provides for a five year sentence <i>per instance of access</i>, which could mean life imprisonment for ongoing spying. Also, the Electronic Espionage Act of 1996 makes the entire Cardinals organization possibly complicit in criminal activity, but only if the government can show high-level Cardinals knew or should have known about the matter.<br />
<br />
But is that likely? As one of the commenters at a Facebook group observed, commissioner Rob Manfred has been <a href="http://nypost.com/2013/11/15/report-mlb-knew-documents-were-stolen-team-a-rod-giddy/">pleased to use stolen evidence</a> when it suited him; how hard can he <i>really</i> come down on the Cards? (Ignoring for the moment the consequence of criminal investigations, and assuming that there will be repercussions at the MLB commissioner's office.) One thing's for sure, there'll be a lot of billable hours among all parties.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-9756169844934451042015-06-15T10:42:00.002-07:002015-06-15T10:42:48.091-07:00Wid Matthews' Matchless Track RecordJon Weisman has a brief story up about <a href="http://dodgers.mlblogs.com/2015/06/15/jackie-robinson-explains-how-the-dodgers-missed-out-on-willie-mays/#comment-3518">how the Dodgers missed out on Willie Mays</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Jackie [Robinson] says the Dodgers blew a chance to land Willie Mays when he was a
16-year-old phenom with the Birmingham Black Barons. “The Dodger players
were much impressed with Mays when we played an exhibition game with
the Barons,” said Jackie. “The front office in Brooklyn was contracted,
but Wid Mathews, Mr. Rickey’s assistant, turned down Willie because Wid
said he couldn’t hit a curve ball.”</blockquote>
This is genuinely incredible, because <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2008/06/book-review-glenn-stouts-dodgers-and.html">Wid Mathews also wrote off Jackie Robinson</a> as "strictly the showboat type". It's one thing to be wrong about a player, but to clank so impressively on <i>two</i> Hall of Famers is something like a reverse Midas touch.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-7754307773220037272015-06-12T07:32:00.003-07:002015-06-12T07:32:59.726-07:00Nancy Bea Hefley Nearly RetiresI was unaware of this, but Dodgers organist <a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-organist-plaschke-20150612-column.html">Nancy Bea Hefley handed in her resignation</a> in sorrow at her diminished role (she only plays "Take Me Out To The Ballgams" now, and perhaps three or four other numbers, a total of five minutes a night) — but was talked out of it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"They said I had a job as long as I want the job, the job would not be
open for anybody else," Hefley said. "I will be signing a new contract
at the end of the year."</blockquote>
<i>Whew</i>. Bullet dodged. Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-48877786917222441542015-05-02T17:10:00.000-07:002015-05-02T17:10:26.169-07:00How The Luxury Tax Threatens Labor PeaceA great couple of posts by Nathaniel Grow at <i>Fangraphs</i> about <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlbs-evolving-luxury-tax/">MLB's luxury tax</a> and its <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-mlbpa-has-a-problem/">erosive consequences for player salary</a>. Salaries as a percentage of league revenue have been in dramatic decline since the inception of the luxury tax in 1996, particularly since peaking in 2003:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/mlb-player-share-1994-20141.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/mlb-player-share-1994-20141.png" height="301" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Overall, however, it appears that the luxury tax threshold has
effectively become a de facto salary cap for many of MLB’s larger market
teams, and thus represents an important contributing factor to the
players’ declining share of MLB’s overall league revenues.</blockquote>
This is not insignificant. One of Bud Selig's signal achievements is two decades of labor peace, bought mostly on increasing revenue for the clubs and climbing salaries for free agents.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In hindsight, then, the MLBPA likely made a mistake by agreeing to a
more restrictive luxury tax framework in the last several CBAs. And to
the extent the union intends to address the players’ declining share of
overall league revenues in the 2016 collective bargaining negotiations,
modifying the luxury tax will likely prove to be an important piece of
the puzzle.</blockquote>
Counteracting this, to some degree, is the willingness of teams to sign their young stars to extended deals that buy out not only remaining arbitration years, but their early free agency terms. This has the side effect of raising the cost of the few players who do actually reach free agency <i>despite</i> being on the wrong side of 30, precisely because there are fewer of them. But in the main, the benefits adhere to owners, who now nab the lion's share of revenues. The explosion in TV deal revenues is largely going unshared with the players, for a curious reason:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Unlike ticket sales – which generally <a href="http://www.hardballtimes.com/how-are-wins-attendance-and-payroll-all-related/">rise as a team improves on the field</a> – television revenue is fixed via <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-could-be-last-team-to-strike-gold-with-local-tv-deal/">long-term broadcasting agreements</a>.
So while franchises can increase their in-stadium profits to some
degree by spending more on payroll – thereby improving the quality of
their team – the same is generally not true for television revenue. As a
result, teams have <a href="http://www.hardballtimes.com/predicting-major-league-baseball-salary-growth/">little incentive to spend any added broadcasting profits on payroll</a> (because, in economic terms, the added television revenue has not adjusted the team’s marginal revenue product).</blockquote>
The Dodgers are in some ways an anomaly in that regard, and we shall see just how much of that actually pans out in a deal that appears largely doomed. If the MLBPA has been content to let ownership gradually but dramatically increase its revenue stream without sharing, that may not last past the next round of negotiations. On the other hand, I have to believe that negotiators for both sides remember the crippling 1994 strike, how much it soured fans on the game, and how nobody wants that again.<br />
Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-67732148111880711422015-04-30T17:34:00.000-07:002015-04-30T17:34:09.860-07:00Administrivia: Link CleanupCleaned up a ton of stale links, including the minor league links, which I hadn't fixed in a couple years (and shamefully pointed to pre-2014 affiliations in some cases). A few blogs that haven't been updated recently got the axe, as well some various sites I haven't used in a great long while. I've fixed a few other links; the sidebar post references are, after a couple years of breakage, now semi-functional, at least through 2007. I hope to fix that shortly.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6427507.post-32791376929270343552015-04-29T14:11:00.002-07:002015-04-29T17:06:32.665-07:00The O's Lose The Fans, And Why The Dodgers Should: Orioles 8, White Sox 2You would be hard pressed to find a more remarked-upon or remarkable game than today's White Sox/Orioles tilt at <a href="http://m.orioles.mlb.com/news/article/121011784/white-sox-orioles-to-play-wednesday-in-private">an entirely empty Camden Yards</a>, due to the rioting in Baltimore. The game itself was mostly noteworthy for its astonishing speed, completing nine innings in a barely-recognizable 2:03 despite the high-scoring offense. If MLB rules people want to figure out how best to accelerate the pace of play, this game might well be a good place to start, an experiment otherwise impossible that yields an interesting result, just as shutting down all air traffic on September 11, 2001 yielded some <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020808/full/news020805-7.html">interesting</a> (or <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335.html">not</a>) results. Taking the fans out of the park might be the most radical idea yet advanced to this end, but is it too much to imagine that showboating batters, the staged drama of walkup music, the endless preening of the pitcher between pitches might be considerably lowered in such an environment?<br />
<br />
If any team can achieve such a thing, it's the Dodgers, who have staked what appears to be the vast majority of their revenue streams to television contracts, rather than seats in the park. While it might be overkill to suggest the team could play entirely without fans in the stadium, it could certainly operate financially without them, although their current TV contract's viability is in <a href="http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2015/04/comcasttwc-deal-dead-sportsnet-la.html">grave peril</a>. Think of the advantages for the team: no parking hassles (or revenue), no more Brian Stows, no fan interference, no need for concessions or staffing. Security could be reduced by no less than two-thirds. This begins to sound better all the time.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=350429101">ESPN Box</a> • <a href="http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2015_04_29_chamlb_balmlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=bal">Recap</a>
<p>
<b>Update:</b> Apparently the <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/orioles-players-sign-autographs--toss-balls-to-fans-that-aren-t-there-235350320.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter">Orioles signed autographs for and tossed balls to fans that weren't there</a>.Robhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18015219452269186971noreply@blogger.com1