Since its launch last Thursday, I’ve been catching the MLB Network’s Hot Stove studio show whenever I can. Although the show follows the template used by ESPN’s Baseball Tonight pretty closely, the roster of talent they’ve assembled is promising. Anyone who’s read my Caribbean Series coverage knows I’m a pretty big fan of Victor Rojas; Al Leiter was the contrarian skeptic in the YES Network booth for the past few years, and it seems he’ll play the same role in the MLB studio, letting some of the air out of his comrades’ more bombastic assertions; and Harold Reynolds is likeable enough that even when he says the same kind of stuff that Joe Morgan does, you don’t get overwhelmed by the urge to go all Ken Tremendous on him.
However, there was a stray phrase in one segment of Tuesday’s Hot Stove that made me do a double-take, and risks dampening my enthusiasm for the network as a whole. The segment was about the Yankees‘ history of spending on high-profile free agents. In it, reporter Greg Amsinger divided the Steinbrenner era into four parts–1973-1981, when the team spent on premier free agents like Catfish Hunter, Reggie Jackson, Goose Gossage and Dave Winfield, and won championships; 1982-1995, when the team “join[ed] other franchises in self-restraint and a change of philosophy that led to a title drought in the 80s;” 1996-2000, when the team built from within and used mid-market signings to become a champion again; and 2001-present, when the Yankees have been on a fruitless spending spree with no end in sight.
If the quotes didn’t give it away, it’s the description of that second part that rubbed me the wrong way. Set aside that the description doesn’t quite fit the time period carved out–the Yankees spent freely on the market for all but a short part of that fourteen-year period–the fact is, there’s a very specific term for the “change in philosophy” that caused the Yankees to briefly join other franchises in “self restraint.” It was called collusion, a dark period when baseball’s owners brazenly violated their labor agreement with the players, and had to be ordered to pay nearly $300 million in damages as a result.
I’m hoping that the “c-word” just slipped Amsinger’s mind while preparing the segment. Otherwise, it’s a real unpromising sign of what we can expect from the MLB Network going forward. Collusion wasn’t self-restraint, it was an illegal agreement between baseball’s clubs to restrain each other. More importantly, the collusion era is old news–if the MLB Network is going to put a glossy pro-ownership spin on embarrassing events that happened over 20 years ago, how can we trust them to report reliably on current events?
As Jack points out, it's not "characterized" as collusion by anyone. It was repeatedly ruled to be collusion by arbitrators in legal proceedings. Oh, and it lasted three years, not two.
There's nothing wrong with "basic financial sanity," so long as you don't violate labor law and your own CBA to get there. We often take owners to task for wasting their resources on players who are bad bets to repeat their performances, and we often encourage the promotion of younger, less experienced and cheaper players. That's self-restraint and smart management. It's the part where you engage in conspiracy, bad-faith dealing and perjury to keep prices down that gets folks in trouble.
Just a wild guess here, but since "MLB" is in the name of the network, I don't expect many critical assessments of anything on this channel. That being said, I'll still enjoy it for what it is.
This 'MLB Network' sounds intriguing...too bad comcast in my area has no idea about a) What it is and b) when they might make available this network that they know nothing about.
Of course I can't say that I'm 'missing' HR either.
What area do you live in? I work for Comcast and can help you find the station if it's available to you. It should be one of your basic digital tiers, but again, it depends on the area.
I live just south of Springfield Illinois. My cable channel directory lists the MLB network as being on 516 and even is informing of what shows I'm missing. FWIW, I contacted CS reps both on the phone and on-line and neither were helpful. It's conceivable that I don't have the right package, but neither comcaster seemed that was the case----I have the upgraded DVR that can record two channels at once and have the HD package.
I'd certainly appreciate any help that you could provide. I do realize that Comcast is not the only cable system that has had issues delivering the channel either.
It's a great point and one MLB should answer. I'm all for baseball having a year 'round network; but if they're going to be sugar-coating everything, this channel is going to fall far short of the expectaions/wishes people who frequent places like this site have.
I won't get my hopes up that the MLB Network will be any more than 24/7 "Hooray baseball!", but that ain't all bad.
I don't watch the NFL Network much, but has anyone seen how they handle controversial NFL issues (past or present) that don't paint the NFL in a positive light?
Jason Stark in the most recent issue of Baseball America had these stats on the Yankees. Since 1976 the Yankees payroll has totaled 2,323,246,829 that's right 2.3 billion. They have had the highest payroll for 10 straight seasons, 12 of the past 13,17 of the past 25 and 21 of the last 33 in the free agent era.
Errr, let's not forget why Harold Reynolds was available for the MLB Network to sign. I don't mean to be antagonistically critical, but it's a little odd to take the MLB Network to task in this way but gloss over HR's failings. (And btw, FJM had no love for him, rightly so in my opinion.)
If this were HR's first job after ESPN sacked him, or even his first major assignment, maybe it'd be worth mentioning. But he's worked for MLB.com and TBS since then, and given the prominent place they've given him on the new network, it appears that MLB has confidence that he won't embarass them.
Also, regardless of any Morganesque moments or rumors about inappropriate relations, I believe HR was up for a new contract. I have a feeling it would take more than a few instances to take a generally well-liked TV personality off the air. Money is often the root of these types of divorces.
I have also been watching "Hot Stove" as much as possible since the network started. While in the past I have been annoyed by Harold Reynolds' Morgan-like tendencies, I've been extremely impressed with him on "Hot Stove". He really does a great job of getting the other hosts and guests on the show to explain the game in a way the casual fan can understand, and is able to do it without dumbing down the broadcast or being condesending (unlike 95% of football announcers, and Tim McCarver). On last night's episode they were asking Justin Upton to describe his swing and at one point Upton said he "loads up" in his stance. Reynolds stopped him and asked him to explain what he means by then in case some "younger viewers" at home didn't understand what he meant and wanted to learn. It was a very subtle touch, but one I appeciated knowing that most fans probably don't know as much about the game as we all do (by "we" I mean BP readers).
I 100% agree on that part. But when they are offering analysis on baseball moves it seems he wants to butt in too much and dominate the topic. Some of his analysis seems to be shooting from the hip and not really thought out. While Magrane seems like he has actually researched the topic pre show, I dont get that feeling from HR.
For example he says Joba should stay in the pen b/c he doesnt throw enough strikes. Well, in his last 5 starts he had 4 walks and 37 K's.
Also he said Livan Hernandez would be a good fit in Petco. Well he wasnt in RFK (huge park) or Metro Dome (27th in Park Factor last season).
But i do agree, he does a great job when demonstrating the "how to's".
I don't think anyone would dispute that Reynolds has the ability to explain the mechanical elements of playing baseball, but understanding team building, player value and other similar elements are an entirely different ball game, with which he hasn't demonstrated much of an understanding.
Without having seen the segment its hard to say, but since his point was about the Yankees and their spending - and a mention of collusion would have required a lengthy explanation - it seems like he easily could have made that choice for the sake of brevity.
Well said. It's hard to believe that the MLB network will be anything other than a mouthpiece for the club owners. I'll believe otherwise the day they run a long glowing piece on what Marvin Miller did for the players. And thanks for the links to Doug Pappas' work on the marginal cost of a win in light of collusion. That is really great stuff and only serves to remind us all of what a big loss his death was.
Im a big Marvin Miller fan... but if I ran a network going for ratings Im not sure labor law makes the best documentary for drawing in fans to a new network.
could not agree more... I think we only have to look to the NFL network for a template of how this is going to be, a self serving, occassionally relevant window into MLB.
I'm not hoping it was a slip of the tongue. On a Hot Stove last week they talked about the greatest free agent signings ever, and put Andre Dawson for the Cubs high on the list, because he "surprisingly received only one good-faith offer". I almost did a spit take when I heard that.
I've enjoyed the MLB Network for the most part, partly for the giggles my wife and I get when they're covering any rumors or successful team building, but mostly for the player interviews and demonstrations of play on Studio 42. For someone who didn't/doesn't play baseball past a most basic level, I frequently come away with the feeling I learned something, which is sadly a rarity in mainstream oriented sports coverage.
I have been very disappointed in Hot Stove myself. Any show that purports that Mitch Williams and Joe Magrane know bupkus about anything is highly suspect. And their insiders don't seem to have the inside skinny on anything. Granted once the teams and players get more comfortable with them that could change. Reynolds does have a better style of palaver than the others, but he is the most experienced of the group. He is also a big fan of "locker room chemistry" over performance analysis.
Considering the MLB network is created by MLB itself why would you expect then you bare their dirty laundry on air?? However, consistent with BP's non-stop "Go Union" attitude, I guess someone had to bring it up.
I am not sure what the future holds for the MLB Network. It has the possibility of being a viable alternative BB2N which is desperately needed. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because of the resounding success MLB has had with its MLBAM offerings.
Nobody asked them to "air their dirty laundry"--they brought it up, unbidden. While I don't expect a miniseries based on "Lords of the Realm," or encomiums to Marvin Miller, it's strange to hear someone trying to spin a 20-year-old fight. Even the most extreme political partisans don't waste their time trying to defend Watergate these days--they know that to do so would cost them their credibility, right off the bat.
I know this is not the meat of the thread, but I am extremely discouraged by the disparity in salaries across the franchises. Pointing out illegal collusion is fine, but that still does not leave us with a vibrant system. I am not some owner-lover, and am not looking for deals that will hurt players for owner benefit, but I would welcome the smart minds of BP to start writing about a system that would allow access to the same or at least similar resources across the franchises.
I have heard reference to some writing about it a few years ago, but clearly this is not a front and center topic when I think it should be.
My quick thought would be % of baseball revenues creates the pot for players, allocated to franchises more or less equally (some adjustment for performance/good mgmt incentives). If a team does not spend their allocation, it goes into trust for future salaries or, after some period, paid into player pensions or something.
I would especially welcome the perspective from fans of smaller value metro-regions who think the system is working.
I have read enough of large market fans saying how well it works and is the free-market and all. MLB is no free market. The wealthy franchises were bestowed their market power (some have improved it or hurt more than others) not earned it and it remains protected.
Too much of the variation in performance is explained by variation in the economic value of the franchises' metropolitan region. Not all of it, but my analysis suggests 40-50%, which is way too much if you are not on the good end of that market value spectrum.
If your response is "sucks to be you; live with it..." consider if the bottom 20 teams broke off to form their own league while the upper 10 had their own. Not so much fun suddenly. You need all 30 teams for an interest league; you need the fans for all 30 to be a similar chance, controlling for management quality (which would improve with better balance).
Yes, it is good to be the Yankees, true enough.
Money typically buys past performance, combine that with the random nature of the playoffs punctuated by the inclusion of 'the hottest team in September' (wildcard) and you have opportunity for any decently run team out there. Why has Minnesota been competitive for years while the Pirates have stunk up the better part of two decades??
I'd hardly call the Rockies, the Rays, the Astros, the Cardinals, the Tigers or the White Sox as 'big market monsters'...revenue inequality might yet become an issue, but it isn't now. Bowie Kuhn is still wrong.
My analysis below. The highest r-squared I got was .55. It does not explain all the performance, but if it is indeed half, then all the other smarts, dumbs, drafting choices, luck, injuries, etc all explain only half of the performance and where a franchise happens to be from explains the other half. Hardly fair. But neither the owners nor the players really care. The players want their money and the owners want their money and both are making it under the current systemm, though one side will make more of it than another but both make it, so little will change. Which is why I may have to stop following.
It's been awhile since I studied statistics, so if these points are wrong, please forgive.
IIRC, correlation is not causation. Is a .55 correlation co-efficient strong enough to support a conclusion that payroll determines a particular level of Win %age? Also, you said that .55 is the "highest" you got - would be valuable to know what the lowest and median values are, too.
Assuming .55 justifies a conclusion, are some underlying effects not being considered? Take the Yankees: Given the general state of mismanagement in the AL East during your time frame (particularly BAL and TB), a decent team should be expected to win more games. It seems the point that needs to be proven is how many more games the Yankees won than, say, the Orioles, strictly because of payroll disparity; and I don't see how your data answers that (though it might and I just can't see it).
Also, many key players during the Yankees' championship seasons were home-grown, not high-priced mercs. Just because the Yanks spent a lot of money on FAs doesn't mean those FAs contributed anything to team success (think Carl Pavano or the last 2 years of Jason Giambi). I don't know if that's reflected in your analysis.
In any event, thanks for the link - some interesting reading there.
Yes, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but I think a strong case that team payroll does influece team payroll. We are not talking about team mascots to team performance.
The data says that 55% of the variation in franchise performance can be explained by the variation in team payroll, given the way I transformed the data. .55 r-squared is pretty strong, but not overwhelming. Clearly other factors influence winning, including chance. But over half comes from payroll. BTW, I did not cherry-pick this and try a bunch of ways and just show the highest.
Your concerns about details impacting the data set seem rather subjective. It is like someone showing a correlation between quality of universities to starting salaries and then saying "Yeah, but Harvard had a really good career guidance counselor for awhile, so that probably explains a bunch of the correlation." It might be true, but I challenge you to show the data to support it.
I think you would have to show a systematic bias in the data to say that the conclusions are inaccurate.
The collusion era was only 1985-1987 - and in that last year players did again flow readily to other teams - only at colluded prices. As I recall, right after that free agent costs resumed their exponential tragectory.
I don't remember a time in history that the Steinbrenner Yankees were not the biggest spending team in baseball - even when Steibrenner was forced out of baseball for a few years in there. Perhaps, the degree to which they were the biggest spenders in the '81-'95 era was lower, but I think we all need have our facts checked.
Caribbean Series: Day Six
42 comments have been left for this post.
damn straight!!!!!!!!