Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Free Agency Market


santini1

Recommended Posts

Ruth: 4yr/$100m. Teams will be nervous giving a player a long term deal because of his weight.

Williams: 5yr/$125m. He will be criticized for "calling out" the fans and media will label him "Not a team player".

Koufax: He would sign a 12 yr/$325m at the age of 25. He will then retire and walk away from the money at the age of 30.

Ty Cobb: Banned for life for beating a fan in a wheelchair who kept yelling "TY COBB SKUS!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mancini you have a great list but this is how it would play out.

Ruth- because of his weight should only get 4 years $100 million but owners make tons of money so he would get an Albert type of contract.

Williams- Exactly what you said but he would still get the $250 million.

Koufax-would get the richest pitching contract ever, when he gets hurt no one believes he would walk away from the money.

Ty Cobb- banned for being a prick.

The only sure thing is if we signed any of these players the second they declined Claude would hate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mancini you have a great list but this is how it would play out.

Ruth- because of his weight should only get 4 years $100 million but owners make tons of money so he would get an Albert type of contract.

Williams- Exactly what you said but he would still get the $250 million.

Koufax-would get the richest pitching contract ever, when he gets hurt no one believes he would walk away from the money.

Ty Cobb- banned for being a prick.

The only sure thing is if we signed any of these players the second they declined signed Claude would hate them.

 

fixed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruth: 4yr/$100m. Teams will be nervous giving a player a long term deal because of his weight.

Williams: 5yr/$125m. He will be criticized for "calling out" the fans and media will label him "Not a team player".

Koufax: He would sign a 12 yr/$325m at the age of 25. He will then retire and walk away from the money at the age of 30.

Ty Cobb: Banned for life for beating a fan in a wheelchair who kept yelling "TY COBB SKUS!".

Gold haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what now?

Which part do you disagree with?

 

1. Fielder was much wider as a Brewer and has slimmed down quite a bit. Yes, he's chubby, but this isn't the body of a sedentary slob:

 

Screen-Shot-2014-06-25-at-10.20.26-AM.pn

 

 

and have you seen the photos of his beautiful nude chocolate body? 

 

2. Ruth would probably be Billy Butler in today's game, not some Bonds-Rodriguez hybrid. The same goes for a lot of the greats of the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of side with flute on this one. IMO, a lot of the greats have to be considered in the era of baseball players not being 'true' athletes. Not to mention how much more scouting is done now.

The biggest difference, IMO, is international signinga, the breaking of the color barrier etc. The pool of players was far thinner in those days. And ive always kind of wondered....how much thinner was the pool of players in the 20's, 40's, 50's........after those two little events in europe, africa and asia?

That being said, the same argumwnt could be made that todays players may not have been anywhere near as good without the enhancements, personal trainers, dieticians, scouting etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were all the top performers of their time and would be payed accordingly.

 

Unless this thread wants to devolve into a "How would old greats play in today's game" conversation. 

 

That being said, Ruth would be in peak physical shape if he played today. Just like every other player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those things that I think could be measured with economic models, a little theory crafting and some alternative approaches to see where they all overlap.

 

Maybe one day when somehow I have absolutely nothing important to do I'll mess around with it. I think we could definitely make some assumptions about the quality of talent in the leagues based on the number of men growing up with the option of baseball, the financial reward of such a move in comparison to alternatives and the number of job openings in pro leagues. We could then compare those numbers to variances in the mean player performance and player age of the league. There probably needs to be some consideration for increases in technology and our understanding of health and fitness.

 

I would theorize that higher populations increase the talent pool, limited rosters increase the talent level, higher salaries increase the talent pool, and competing sports decrease the talent pool. It's hard to see how there hasn't been dramatic increases in the level of player over time.

 

I imagine we can see evidence of these disparities by looking at variance. In times of lower talent levels it makes sense that the elite players would be able to more easily separate themselves from the pack (Ruth), and that the opposite would be true in times of higher talent levels. I'd also think player ages could be evidence as well. In lower talent leagues elite players are likely to be ablate stick around to later ages, and make their first team at a younger age. The more competitive a league, the closer to peak age most players would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd also have to account for park differences and conditions.  teams in the 20's would make 200+ errors in a season.  Also, they played only seven different teams every year for the whole season.  Each team would use about 6-8 pitchers per year and it's not like there were closers or lefty/lefty matchups.  Mean's you are getting 100PA per year vs. each team.

 

this is the polo ground where the yanks played their home games when ruth was on the team :

 

PoloGrounds.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd also have to account for park differences and conditions.  teams in the 20's would make 200+ errors in a season.  Also, they played only seven different teams every year for the whole season.  Each team would use about 6-8 pitchers per year and it's not like there were closers or lefty/lefty matchups.  Mean's you are getting 100PA per year vs. each team.

 

this is the polo ground where the yanks played their home games when ruth was on the team :

 

PoloGrounds.gif

 

I think relative value measurements, like WAR, or even simple context neutral offensive stats would work fine on their own for measuring the general talent level. The changes in the game are not so significant that you need to look beyond simple value above replacement, or value above average. Changes to the game have altered the way we play it, but not necessarily the skills behind it.

 

Now if we were to try to estimate a modern stat line with any accuracy from these old stats then yes, there is a lot more work needed along the lines you mention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...