If you were the commish

[The Czech Republic 0]

Baseball:

 

1. Salary floor.  No salary cap.

Fill me in. What is a salary floor?

 

10. No more astroturf.  If you have a dome, fix it so you can grow grass in it.

 

I thought this was funny. That is all.

An Anglesault idea based on the fact that owners, either for lack of money or lack of want to spend it, do not invest in their team to make it competitive. So in contrast to the NFL limiting how much you can have on the payroll, a salary floor would mean you'd have a minimum amount of money you're putting into your team. He, as a fan of a baseball team that spends exorbitant amounts of money to win, supports it. I, as a fan hockey team that sits on exorbitant amounts of money because there's no incentive to win, supports it.

[Some Guy 0]

Baseball:

 

1. Salary floor.  No salary cap.

Fill me in. What is a salary floor?

 

10. No more astroturf.  If you have a dome, fix it so you can grow grass in it.

 

I thought this was funny. That is all.

An Anglesault idea based on the fact that owners, either for lack of money or lack of want to spend it, do not invest in their team to make it competitive. So in contrast to the NFL limiting how much you can have on the payroll, a salary floor would mean you'd have a minimum amount of money you're putting into your team. He, as a fan of a baseball team that spends exorbitant amounts of money to win, supports it. I, as a fan hockey team that sits on exorbitant amounts of money because there's no incentive to win, supports it.

OK, I suppose that's a good idea in theory. BUt what about teams that suck so bad that no one goos wants to go there and because they suck no one goes to teh games so they don't make enough money to make it worth their investment. They would be forced to overpay for inferior players and skew the salary structure in the game. I mean a team could go out and sign Derek Bell for millions....Oh wait the Pirates did that a few years ago.

[JHawk 0]

Baseball:

 

1. Salary floor.  No salary cap.

Fill me in. What is a salary floor?

 

10. No more astroturf.  If you have a dome, fix it so you can grow grass in it.

 

I thought this was funny. That is all.

An Anglesault idea based on the fact that owners, either for lack of money or lack of want to spend it, do not invest in their team to make it competitive. So in contrast to the NFL limiting how much you can have on the payroll, a salary floor would mean you'd have a minimum amount of money you're putting into your team. He, as a fan of a baseball team that spends exorbitant amounts of money to win, supports it. I, as a fan hockey team that sits on exorbitant amounts of money because there's no incentive to win, supports it.

I would support a floor if there was also a salary cap.

 

I understand the idea in theory that you need to spend so much money to be competitive. But when you start getting into instances where one player can make more money than some entire teams bring in every year, something has to be done to prevent that. The whole idea of "We need money to compete" is why a family of four has to pay over $100 to go to a baseball game if they don't want to sit in the upper deck.

 

But I'm also of the theory that people who do things like cure terminal diseases should make more money than a guy who can hit a round object with a three foot stick.

[Guest AllCanadian]

8. The overtime period will be 10 minutes. If the game is still tied at the end of that period, then the starting five skaters for each team beat the shit out of each other for the win. The team with the most men standing after 90 seconds wins the game.

 

I've always wanted to see a box off between the teams two tough guys as a way to settle ties. And why the hell is there not a fight tournament at the All Star game?? You want ratings well it's right in front of you.

[Some Guy 0]

But I'm also of the theory that people who do things like cure terminal diseases should make more money than a guy who can hit a round object with a three foot stick.

You act as thought those who can cure terminal diseases are poorly paid. It's a matter of economics, not emotion that ball players make more than doctors. Ball players, in theory put asses in seats and bring in more money for the team. Doctors can only perform so many operations in a year and the money they bring in is far less than the ball players. Plus when was the last time you heard baout a hot free agent doctor? I'm sure there actually are some, though.

[Dr. Tom 0]

3 Questions about the ones from Dr. Tom's list (skipping the ones that I'm guessing are entirely facetious) ...

I was serious about all of them.

 

Football, celebrations: (this actually goes out to everyone that's encouraging celebrations)  Why the fuck do you all want to see some guy dance just because he scored a touchdown?

It's not that I want to see it; it's that I don't think it should be discouraged. Football is a lot about momentum and emotion, so let a body celebrate if he scores a TD. The fans seem to like it, too, and the NFL doesn't need to be known as the "No Fun League," a label they're sensitive about.

 

Baseball, drug policy:  Who cares if a guy is so coked up that he wants to snort the baselines?

Because cokeheads, crackheads, and heroin fiends tend to do great harm to themselves and others. Potheads don't. If you don't want your players OD'ing and dropping dead, then you have to ban things that might kill them. Dead players are bad for business, after all, and the game suffers a huge blackmark if a couple cokeheads die during the season.

 

Hockey, ten minute OT: Can you imagine how shitty the ice conditions will be after 30 minutes of play, with no zamboni?

Use a zamboni, then. I never said one wouldn't be used. Shrug.

[JHawk 0]

But I'm also of the theory that people who do things like cure terminal diseases should make more money than a guy who can hit a round object with a three foot stick.

You act as thought those who can cure terminal diseases are poorly paid. It's a matter of economics, not emotion that ball players make more than doctors. Ball players, in theory put asses in seats and bring in more money for the team. Doctors can only perform so many operations in a year and the money they bring in is far less than the ball players. Plus when was the last time you heard baout a hot free agent doctor? I'm sure there actually are some, though.

Figure that the president of the United States, as much as some people (including myself) hate him, makes around $240,000 a year for running one of the largest nations in the country.

 

ARod makes something like 200 times that much to swing a stick. Not that it's easy to do, but somehow I think George W. Bush has the more difficult job.

 

Anyway, my point is more based on economics anyway. Of course New York has more money than anybody else...they have a larger population to draw from. The Yankees could sell out even if they suck because even without the fair weather fan, there are so many people in the area that the diehards are bound to still outnumber some markets' entire populations.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Anyway, my point is more based on economics anyway.

It's economics that dictates ballplayers make more money than doctors, surgeons, and the President. People will pay any amount of money to be entertained, and advertisers will pay to be associated with something entertaining. These factors allow athletes to earn a lot of money. It's a sign of societal priorities and the free market.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

it should be mentioned that there actually is a real salary floor, in the NBA. It's the reason the Clippers kept Elton Brand, actually.

[Guest Redhawk]

Why do I want to see NFL players dance?

 

If you've ever played football, you would know that a lot of it is based on emotion. Guys celebrate after "simple" plays (midfield tackle, 10-yard catch, special teams tackle) because it's like you survived. ESPECIALLY on special teams. You have to be half-crazy to play football anyway, and special teams takes an extra bit of craziness. Just play on kickoff coverage team one time and you'll see why guys get amped after making a tackle.

 

Should a pro athlete make more than the President?

 

Perhaps not, but keep in mind that the President doesn't have to pay for anything. I'm pretty sure he gets everything free and pockets every dime of the $240,000.

 

Will an NBA minor league kill college basketball?

 

No. Remember, there will only be 29 NBA Minor League teams, with 12-15 roster spots per team. It's not like EVERY good high school player will be able to make one of the rosters, as those spots will be taken by NBA veterans and young guys from previous year's drafts. So the majority of the good high school players will still go to college, just like they do now. For example, Delonte West is a guy who would not have gone to the NBA or the NBA Minor League right out of H.S., yet he is still a great college player. And not every top high schooler wants to go pro right away. Some of them actually like college, like Emeka Okafor.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

I think I speak for many people when I say I hope that a minor league would kill College Basketball

[nl5xsk1 0]

3 Questions about the ones from Dr. Tom's list (skipping the ones that I'm guessing are entirely facetious) ...

I was serious about all of them.

The ones that I presumed were facetious were:

 

Killing Tags ... as bad as a comissioner as he's been, I don't think that he's earned a death sentence. He's certainly done better than Bettman, Selig or anything the NBA guy has done in the last 10 years.

 

Official decree about Pete Rose ... somehow I don't see any offical releasing mandated namecalling.

 

Women's tennis ... you didn't address the fugly ones. I have no desire to see Lindsey Davenport or Jennifer Capriati in lingerie, and it would be unfair if only one girl in a match wore something that could be potentially restrictive.

 

NASCAR ... while I hate the 'sport' as well, indicating that they should occasionally drive into a wall seems a bit, ahem, sarcastic.

 

And lastly ...

Use a zamboni, then. I never said one wouldn't be used. Shrug.

This would never work ... they'd have to take another 15 minute intermission after the third and before the OT. The game, which is already played at around 2.5 hours, would be back to the 3 hour games it was a few years ago that the league declared was too long.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Killing Tags ... as bad as a comissioner as he's been, I don't think that he's earned a death sentence.

It's not for his success or failure as a commissioner, but his callous dislike of Baltimore. I was hoping Art Modell would have flipped him off, punched him in the fact, and spat on him when taking the Lombardi Trophy from him.

 

Official decree about Pete Rose ... somehow I don't see any offical releasing mandated namecalling. 

I would. But that's because I think Pete Rose is a condom his father should have worn. Remember, this is what I would do as the commish of the sport, and if I were the commish of baseball, I'd totally issue that decree. If he sued, I'd write him a check from all the steroid fines I'd be collecting.

 

Women's tennis ... you didn't address the fugly ones.

Sure I did. Attractive ones in lingerie. Ugly ones wear whatever they'd normally wear.

 

NASCAR ... while I hate the 'sport' as well, indicating that they should occasionally drive into a wall seems a bit, ahem, sarcastic.

Actually, I meant build some right turns into the tracks. It's a bunch of cars driving in a circle, and unless someone wrecks, it's barely preferable to watching flies fuck.

 

This would never work ... they'd have to take another 15 minute intermission after the third and before the OT.

Ah, BUT! If the game is tied, then a big fucking fight decides the outcome. That's worth sticking around for.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I understand the idea in theory that you need to spend so much money to be competitive. But when you start getting into instances where one player can make more money than some entire teams bring in every year, something has to be done to prevent that. The whole idea of "We need money to compete" is why a family of four has to pay over $100 to go to a baseball game if they don't want to sit in the upper deck.

 

Nonsense. Teams do not set ticket prices to match their payroll. They set ticket prices to attain the maximum income possible, and THEN they figure out expenses. You would pay no less for a baseball ticket if players were paid the minimum wage.

 

Figure that the president of the United States, as much as some people (including myself) hate him, makes around $240,000 a year for running one of the largest nations in the country.

 

ARod makes something like 200 times that much to swing a stick. Not that it's easy to do, but somehow I think George W. Bush has the more difficult job.

 

Here's why athletes are paid so much. There are literally thousands of people who have the skills necessary to govern our nation. I'm talking basic educational requirements. There are far less people capable of playing shortstop and hitting 50+ home runs a year. One, by my count. More than any other factor, scarcity determines value and salary.

 

Anyway, my point is more based on economics anyway. Of course New York has more money than anybody else...they have a larger population to draw from. The Yankees could sell out even if they suck because even without the fair weather fan, there are so many people in the area that the diehards are bound to still outnumber some markets' entire populations

 

When the Yankees did suck, they drew less than two million fans. link Hell, the Mets do not draw well, and they play in New York. More than any factor, wins determine a team's attendance.

[Some Guy 0]

But I'm also of the theory that people who do things like cure terminal diseases should make more money than a guy who can hit a round object with a three foot stick.

You act as thought those who can cure terminal diseases are poorly paid. It's a matter of economics, not emotion that ball players make more than doctors. Ball players, in theory put asses in seats and bring in more money for the team. Doctors can only perform so many operations in a year and the money they bring in is far less than the ball players. Plus when was the last time you heard baout a hot free agent doctor? I'm sure there actually are some, though.

Figure that the president of the United States, as much as some people (including myself) hate him, makes around $240,000 a year for running one of the largest nations in the country.

 

ARod makes something like 200 times that much to swing a stick. Not that it's easy to do, but somehow I think George W. Bush has the more difficult job.

 

Anyway, my point is more based on economics anyway. Of course New York has more money than anybody else...they have a larger population to draw from. The Yankees could sell out even if they suck because even without the fair weather fan, there are so many people in the area that the diehards are bound to still outnumber some markets' entire populations.

The President make $400,000, up from the $250,000 that Clinton made. Congress passed the bill during Clinton's administration but an incumbant can't recieve a pay raise because he signs the bill and it would be a conflict of interest to say the very least.

 

But that not with standing, the President doesn't put asses in seats for up to $250 a pop (fund raisers are diferent) and he's a public servant.

 

Sure New York can out reforce anyone in the game. Bill Gates has a bigger house than I do, I'm not crying about it. I'm a Red Sox fan and I don't cry about NYY's money. Them having more money isn't "fair" in that they can vastly outspend everyone else but is fair in that they play the same game everyone does, they can just play it on a higher level economically. If Georgie wants to spend $1 Billion on his team then more power to him. It is within the rules of MLB for him to do so.

 

Your point really wasn't based on economics, you're point was based on emotion and nothing more. You went from "why are ballplayers paid more than doctors" to "the Yankees haev more money than everyone."

 

And New York won't sel out if they suck, they have the most fickle and spoiled fans in the country. They didn;t sell out when they sucked in the late 80s and early 90s and they still don't sell out every game. Their revenue comes from the TV deal and merchanidse. A lot of people wear Yankees caps. Why someone would want a navy blue hat with what looks like bird shit on the front of it is beyond me, but that's New Yorkers for you.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Baseball:

 

1. Salary floor.  No salary cap.

 

2. Full revenue sharing based on market size and attendance.  If you can't get people to show up and watch your team, then you don't deserve as much revenue-sharing money as someone who can.

 

3. Eliminate interleague play.

 

4. Speed up the game.  Enforce the time limit between pitches.  If a pitcher is going slow, call a ball; make it a balk with runners on base.  If it's the hitter's fault, call a strike.  If that was strike three, hurry your ass up next time.

 

5. An actual drug testing policy will be instituted.  I couldn't give a shit less if a baseball player is smoking pot, but harder drugs and performance-enhancing drugs will be flagged.  The first offense will carry a fine equal to 5% of the player's annual salary.  The second offense is a month off without pay, a 10%-of-salary fine, and mandatory rehab.  The third offense is a ban without pay for one calendar year, mandatory rehab, and the player must apply for reinstatement.

 

6. A seven-day DL, retroactive to a max of two days.

 

7. The strike zone will be from the knees to the bottom of the chest.  Umpires who have trouble calling this strike zone will be fined until they get it right.

 

8. Create an award for Player of the Year in each league.  This will be separate from the MVP, and simply go to the player who had the most impressive statistical season.  The MVP Award will have its rules changed so that the player has to come from a team with a winning record.

 

9. The commissioner cannot be a current or past owner of any MLB team.

 

10. No more astroturf.  If you have a dome, fix it so you can grow grass in it.

 

11. No more body armor for batters.

 

12. Any batter who has any part of his body on or over the plate before the pitch is delivered will be called out.

 

13. Pete Rose will be permanently banned from baseball.  An official decree will be issued, call him a "cocksucker," a "lying, worthless piece of shit," and a "waste of sperm and egg."

1. Salary Floor. I worry this will encourage teams to pick up mediocre free agents and play them over their young kids, thus lowering the quality of play. Agree with no salary cap.

 

2. Revenue Sharing based on market and attendance. Attendance is the #1 stream of revenue for most clubs. If you base revenue sharing on attendance, you have a system where successful clubs get more, and un-successful clubs get less, and the chasm grows each year. High attendance clubs don't NEED more money. If there is revenue sharing, it should go equally, regardless of W/L records, market siz, etc. Each team gets 1/30th of the pool. Either that, or no revenue sharing at all. The Yankees weren't an issue until revenue sharing was created in the first place.

 

3. Eliminate Interleague play. Agreed. As a budding analyst, it really fucks with the numbers.

 

4. Speed up the game. If you impose a time limit, the players will take the maximum time alloted. I would simply like to see the umpires not grant time out to hitters every time they request it. Reduce stepping out of the box as much as possible.

 

5. I'd like to see once-a-month testing. Just something where you can assure the public the players are clean.

 

6. I don't see the need for a 7 day DL. Honestly, you can make it through the game with just 23-24 players.

 

7. I see no issue with the current strike-zone. I do think Quistec is a good idea, and umpires should be encouraged to call a consistant zone.

 

8. Player of the Year Award. This one I'm taking aim at. First off, its ridiculous to exclude individuals due to the performance of their teams. Besides, the best player usually comes from a winning team anyway. A-Rod was the exception, not the rule. Using Bill James' Win Shares, I looked up the best players in the league for each year, for the last 25 years. 20% of the time a player on a losing team was AMONG the best, and only 10% of the time was a player on a losing team THE best player in the league. So that's 80-90% of the time where a player of the year award and an MVP award would go to the same player. If we combine the top ten in Win Shares from last year, 3 of the 20 players listed (A-Rod, Todd Helton, Richie Sexson) came from losing teams. That's just 15%.

 

Should the MVP be about more than stats? I don't think so. Creating subjective parameters to the award gives writers leeway to create some utterly stupid MVP candidates, such as Shannon Stewart. These selections lower the quality of the award in general. The Player of the Year award would come to recognize the best player, and no one would give a crap about the MVP anymore. You've now fucked up a system which had only a small problem, if that. A player from a losing team deserves the MVP about 10% of the time. Is it really that hard to recognize their performance?

 

9. Current owner yes, past owner no. I just don't see a reason to close off the hiring pool.

 

10. Make an exception for cold-weather cities, such as Toronto and Minneapolis. Besides, a handful of artificial-turf parks are good. It provides some variety.

 

11. Agreed in most part. Allow pads, but no more plastic. Especially on the upper body. Shins are ok.

 

12. No need. Just call the strike zone, regardless of where the batter stands.

 

13. He IS permanently banned. No decree, because that makes him look like a sympathetic character.

[Dr. Tom 0]

1. Salary Floor. I worry this will encourage teams to pick up mediocre free agents and play them over their young kids, thus lowering the quality of play. Agree with no salary cap.

The market wouldn't support that for long if it happened, though. Scrubs getting a lot of money would mean stars would ask for bigger and bigger deals, and they wouldn't be there. Besides, baseball owners seem to have come back to earth with regard to salaries in the past few years. I wouldn't set the floor too high, but I think it needs to be there so that jackass owners don't spend $8.49 putting a team on the field, then pocket the millions in revenue sharing.

 

2.  Revenue Sharing based on market and attendance.  Attendance is the #1 stream of revenue for most clubs.  If you base revenue sharing on attendance, you have a system where successful clubs get more, and un-successful clubs get less, and the chasm grows each year

That's why market size would be considered, also. I want attendance in there to force teams to be creative and aggressively try to market themselves and get the fans to come see them. It's easy to sit back and wait for someone to hand you a check, but baseball should offer the most help to those who are willing to help themselves.

 

3.  Eliminate Interleague play.  Agreed.  As a budding analyst, it really fucks with the numbers.

I can see that. Personally, I just don't like it. I like the fact that the AL and NL have intrinsic differences, and the only time they should meet in a game that means something is at the World Series.

 

BTW, Al, if you need a collaborator or contributor for some stat geek analysis work, look a brotha up.

 

I would simply like to see the umpires not grant time out to hitters every time they request it.  Reduce stepping out of the box as much as possible.

Definitely. And I think the players would be mindful of the time limits if the penalties were enforced. Pitchers would be less likely to stroll around on the mound if they're looking at a ball or balk called in key situations. What if the umpire counts fast? What if he started his stopwatch a second before the pitcher thought he did? It's a risk that usually couldn't be afforded. Ditto for hitters, though I definitely think they get time-outs way too much. So do baserunners, for that matter.

 

5.  I'd like to see once-a-month testing.  Just something where you can assure the public the players are clean.

Once a month is fine. The interval's not really the issue with me; I just want there to BE a definitive policy, and one that has some real teeth to it if someone decides to stray from the path.

 

6.  I don't see the need for a 7 day DL.  Honestly, you can make it through the game with just 23-24 players.

You can, but I don't think you should have to. If a guy is going to miss 6-7 days, you either have to DL him for twice that time, or carry an unusable player for a week. Why not have a third option?

 

7.  I see no issue with the current strike-zone.  I do think Quistec is a good idea, and umpires should be encouraged to call a consistant zone.

I don't think I really mucked with the strike zone. Most teams' letters (the accepted upper level of the strike zone) are around the bottom of the chest, so that's no big switch. I just want to see all umpires call the same strike zone. There shouldn't be "hitters' umpires" and "pitchers' umpires." Barry Bonds shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt in the form of a ball called on a borderline pitch, nor should Roger Clemens get the benefit of the doubt as a strike. If it's a strike, call it a strike. If it's a ball, call it a ball. If anyone bitches, toss them out of the game.

 

8.  Player of the Year Award.  This one I'm taking aim at. 

I'm not getting into this one again. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on it.

 

BTW, A-Rod shouldn't have been the MVP.

 

9.  Current owner yes, past owner no.  I just don't see a reason to close off the hiring pool.

For past loyalties and friendships. The commissioner should be a neutral party with respect to individual owners, and have only the best interests of baseball in mind. Eliminating past owners also eliminates pre-existing biases.

 

10.  Make an exception for cold-weather cities, such as Toronto and Minneapolis.  Besides, a handful of artificial-turf parks are good.  It provides some variety.

No. No turf, no exceptions. It's a travesty painted green. Figure out how to grow natural grass in your ballpark or move to a city that's more conducive to it. I'm tired of too-fast groundballs getting thru for hits, stupidly big bounces making a mockery of good fielding fundamentals, and needless injuries resulting from running on goddamn concrete. Grass it is, and that's that.

 

11.  Agreed in most part.  Allow pads, but no more plastic.  Especially on the upper body.  Shins are ok.

Sure, some padding is fine. But the Barry Bonds and Mo Vaughn models of body armor that some hitters are wearing shouldn't be allowed. Put a pad on your bloody elbow if that you're that worried about it getting hit. Either that, or don't stick it over the plate on every pitch.

 

12.  No need.  Just call the strike zone, regardless of where the batter stands.

Al, I can't tell you how many times I saw Chuck Knoblauch get hit on his elbow when it was sticking out over the plate. There were a bunch of times I saw him extend his arm a little farther, just so he'd get hit. Only once did I see him not get awarded first base, when the home plate umpire ruled he'd made no effort to get out of the way of the ball. I think I stood up and cheered. I despised Knoblauch for doing that; to me, it seems like cheating. Keep your entire body in the batter's box or suffer the consequences.

 

13.  He IS permanently banned.  No decree, because that makes him look like a sympathetic character.

I just want to pour salt in his wounds because I hate him that much.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

That's why market size would be considered, also. I want attendance in there to force teams to be creative and aggressively try to market themselves and get the fans to come see them. It's easy to sit back and wait for someone to hand you a check, but baseball should offer the most help to those who are willing to help themselves.

 

I just think the revenue from attendance is its own reward.

 

BTW, Al, if you need a collaborator or contributor for some stat geek analysis work, look a brotha up.

 

If you ever have anything worthwhile, I'd be glad to slide it into the column. Lord knows its hard enough to create something of respectable length in between college projects.

 

BTW, A-Rod shouldn't have been the MVP.

 

A small note. Next time, lay your cards with a worthwhile candidate. Your group could've made a serious push for Carlos Delgado, based on stats alone.

 

No. No turf, no exceptions. It's a travesty painted green. Figure out how to grow natural grass in your ballpark or move to a city that's more conducive to it. I'm tired of too-fast groundballs getting thru for hits, stupidly big bounces making a mockery of good fielding fundamentals, and needless injuries resulting from running on goddamn concrete. Grass it is, and that's that.

 

I don't think its all that big a problem in Minnesota or Toronto. Most artificial turf is not Veteran's Stadium, and NexTurf has gotten favorable reviews. I just think its one of those things that adds color to the game, like different dimensions in ballparks. As for fielding, Ozzie Smith managed okay on turf.

 

Al, I can't tell you how many times I saw Chuck Knoblauch get hit on his elbow when it was sticking out over the plate. There were a bunch of times I saw him extend his arm a little farther, just so he'd get hit. Only once did I see him not get awarded first base, when the home plate umpire ruled he'd made no effort to get out of the way of the ball. I think I stood up and cheered. I despised Knoblauch for doing that; to me, it seems like cheating. Keep your entire body in the batter's box or suffer the consequences.

 

My suggestion would work for that. Have the ump say "sorry, you were in the strike zone." I agree on the getting out of the way comment. Umpires should enforce that rule more often.

[Dr. Tom 0]

If you ever have anything worthwhile, I'd be glad to slide it into the column. Lord knows its hard enough to create something of respectable length in between college projects.

Maybe I will at some point. BTW, I should be posting your column for this week this evening. I meant to do it last night, but it got lost in the shuffle of a bunch of other things that ended up happening.

 

A small note.  Next time, lay your cards with a worthwhile candidate.  Your group could've made a serious push for Carlos Delgado, based on stats alone.

I know we've talked about this before, but I've always thought the MVP should not necessarily be the fellow who had the best season. Sometimes, they'll be one and the same, but that's the reason I wanted a Player of the Year Award. The POTY would be the player who put up the best numbers. The MVP would be the player judged most valuable to his team, and yes, I still think that means the team has to enjoy some level of success.

 

and NexTurf has gotten favorable reviews.  I just think its one of those things that adds color to the game

NexTurf seems OK so far, but I'll admit I haven't looked into it very much. I guess I'm a purist when it comes to things like grass. Baseball has such great aesthetics to it that I think they're ruined by playing the game on matted concrete. THere's just something wrong there that I can't get past, and it's totally personal bias. I like the asymmetrical ballparks that have a lot of flavor, as long as their surface is grass. As for Ozzie, he was a tremendous fielder onall surfaces, but I've seen balls take completely cartoonish bounces on turf that a fielder unaccustomed to them would get owned. Playing on concrete shouldn't give your fielders an unfair advantage.