PDA

View Full Version : Beltran Update


Lip Man 1
01-04-2005, 09:18 PM
For what it's worth:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-050103beltran,1,6825193.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

beckett21
01-04-2005, 09:54 PM
This would go against the Mets' organizational philosophy of throwing exhorbitant amounts of money at washed up players well past their prime.

Sosa is a much better fit for them. :redneck

MUsoxfan
01-04-2005, 09:57 PM
This would go against the Mets' organizational philosophy of throwing exhorbitant amounts of money at washed up players well past their prime.


I saw on Outside the Lines that Cecil Fielder is broke. He's alot like Mo Vaughn. I think that the Mets should revive Fielder's career. haha

beckett21
01-04-2005, 10:04 PM
I saw on Outside the Lines that Cecil Fielder is broke. He's alot like Mo Vaughn. I think that the Mets should revive Fielder's career. haha
Nothing they do would surprise me.

(No offense to the Mets fans who post here!) :redneck

NowBatting19
01-04-2005, 10:21 PM
Yeah, I saw that Outside the Lines with Cecil, it's a shame, but maybe his son will help him out in the end.


Although, last year I worked for the Kane County Cougars and came across Prince after he returned to the dugout from an at-bat in which he broke his bat. As he was throwing it away, I gave him a little what's up, but he pretty much looked at me like I was an idiot. Maybe it was his favorite bat.

doublem23
01-04-2005, 11:55 PM
Steinbrenner must be pocketing that $100 million instead of nabbing Beltran, right, Lip? :rolleyes:

FarWestChicago
01-05-2005, 12:06 AM
Steinbrenner must be pocketing that $100 million instead of nabbing Beltran, right, Lip? :rolleyes:LMAO!! :thumbsup:

crector
01-05-2005, 09:50 PM
Why all the hype about Beltran when he's had only one really good year?

Brian26
01-05-2005, 10:02 PM
Steinbrenner must be pocketing that $100 million instead of nabbing Beltran, right, Lip? :rolleyes:
Hahaha. Serious LOL.

Brian26
01-05-2005, 10:03 PM
Why all the hype about Beltran when he's had only one really good year?
You're joking, right? :?:

SoxFan76
01-06-2005, 12:12 AM
You're joking, right? :?:
I REEEEALLY hope so. haha. That man was unreal in the playoffs. Just about as good as Ortiz was, if not better.

We all wanted to see how Beltran would do in the playoffs, and did he ever come through.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2005, 01:20 PM
Let's play...'what's the difference...'

The Yankees with Beltran win 120 games and make the playoffs. The payroll is over 200 million.

The Yankees without Beltran win 110 games and make the playoffs. The payroll is over 190 million.

and the difference is?

When the Sox get a payroll that's even the league average come talk to me.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
01-06-2005, 01:25 PM
Let's play...'what's the difference...'

The Yankees with Beltran win 120 games and make the playoffs. The payroll is over 200 million.

The Yankees without Beltran win 110 games and make the playoffs. The payroll is over 190 million.

and the difference is?

When the Sox get a payroll that's even the league average come talk to me.

LipLike now?

fquaye149
01-06-2005, 02:37 PM
Like now?
no he means the selective league average which means, average among the dodgers, mets, cubs, yankees and red sox.

Unregistered
01-06-2005, 02:43 PM
Why all the hype about Beltran when he's had only one really good year?You're joking, right? :?:I dunno, crector kind of has a point. ESPN actually had a story on this very subject, basically saying that even though he was destined to sign a lucrative contract at the end of the season no matter what, his brilliant showing in the playoffs earned him about "$30 Million" more:


Entering the playoffs, Beltran had not hit a home run in his final 89 at-bats. In September, he drove in seven runs in 97 at-bats.

"What I don't understand,'' said one member of the Astros, "is how he only hit .267 this year. Shouldn't it have been higher?''

The 2004 season was Beltran's first 30-home run season. He has five, 100-RBI seasons, but none with as many as 110. His career slugging percentage is .490, which is 109 points lower than Manny Ramirez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5132)'s. His career on-base percentage is .353, 79 points lower than Todd Helton (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5870)'s.

Lip Man 1
01-06-2005, 06:32 PM
Fquaye:

Sorry to disappoint you. I think you are referring to Ol No. 2 in that regards who tried to convince PHG that it was fine to remove the Yankees from any discussion about average salaries.

As PHG said the Yankees are part of MLB they can't be 'removed,' in order to prove a point. That's like if I were to say let's remove the Devil Rays and Expos 30 million dollar payrolls in order to raise the league average to like 75 million.

Doesn't work that way. Also how many teams had payrolls last year above 90 million? Was it six, eight??? How many of the top ten payrolls made the playoffs?? Was it six or seven???

By the way No. 2 if you weren't the person in that discussion with PHG than I apologize.

And before anyone can claim that the Sox have now reached the league average payroll we have to wait and see what the 2005 average is don't we?

The Sox apparently have reached the 2004 league average... for now. Big difference. Plus we still have to see if any more deals are done that may reduce the payroll.

In other words the jury is still out.

However I must congratulate the Sox for at least closing the gap...just a few seasons ago they were something like eight to ten million below it.

Lip

fquaye149
01-06-2005, 06:48 PM
Fquaye:

Sorry to disappoint you. I think you are referring to Ol No. 2 in that regards who tried to convince PHG that it was fine to remove the Yankees from any discussion about average salaries.

As PHG said the Yankees are part of MLB they can't be 'removed,' in order to prove a point. That's like if I were to say let's remove the Devil Rays and Expos 30 million dollar payrolls in order to raise the league average to like 75 million.

Doesn't work that way. Also how many teams had payrolls last year above 90 million? Was it six, eight??? How many of the top ten payrolls made the playoffs?? Was it six or seven???

By the way No. 2 if you weren't the person in that discussion with PHG than I apologize.

And before anyone can claim that the Sox have now reached the league average payroll we have to wait and see what the 2005 average is don't we?

The Sox apparently have reached the 2004 league average... for now. Big difference. Plus we still have to see if any more deals are done that may reduce the payroll.

In other words the jury is still out.

However I must congratulate the Sox for at least closing the gap...just a few seasons ago they were something like eight to ten million below it.

Lip
So what you're saying is that statisticians never remove radical outliers?

Randar68
01-07-2005, 10:59 AM
So what you're saying is that statisticians never remove radical outliers?

Bwaaaaahhhaaaaahhaaaaaa!!!!!

What's the mean and what is within 3 std deviations of it?

Go back to journalism class Lip, no need to tell people about statistics like you're an adjunct mathematics professor at MIT...

:dtroll:


Here's a little refresher for you, Lip:

Rules for normally distributed data

In practice, one often assumes that the data are approximately normally distributed. If that assumption is justified, then about 68% of the values are at within 1 standard deviation away from the mean, about 95% of the values are within two standard deviations and about 99.7% lie within 3 standard deviations. This is known as the "68-95-99.7 rule".

Ol' No. 2
01-07-2005, 11:13 AM
Fquaye:

Sorry to disappoint you. I think you are referring to Ol No. 2 in that regards who tried to convince PHG that it was fine to remove the Yankees from any discussion about average salaries.

As PHG said the Yankees are part of MLB they can't be 'removed,' in order to prove a point. That's like if I were to say let's remove the Devil Rays and Expos 30 million dollar payrolls in order to raise the league average to like 75 million.

Doesn't work that way. Also how many teams had payrolls last year above 90 million? Was it six, eight??? How many of the top ten payrolls made the playoffs?? Was it six or seven???

By the way No. 2 if you weren't the person in that discussion with PHG than I apologize.

And before anyone can claim that the Sox have now reached the league average payroll we have to wait and see what the 2005 average is don't we?

The Sox apparently have reached the 2004 league average... for now. Big difference. Plus we still have to see if any more deals are done that may reduce the payroll.

In other words the jury is still out.

However I must congratulate the Sox for at least closing the gap...just a few seasons ago they were something like eight to ten million below it.

LipI was the person in the discussion, but you've seriously mischaracterized what I said. The point I was trying to make was that because the Yankees were such an extreme example, it had little relevance to the relationship of payroll vs. winning for the average team. Let's look at it this way. The Yankees won 101 games in 2004, or 20 more than the mean of 81. Their payroll was about 3 times the mean. So spending 200% above the mean "bought" them 20 additional wins. But who else can spend 3X the mean? Realistically, most teams can't spend even 50% above the mean. Translating the Yankees' results back, that 50% above the mean buys you 5 additional wins, for a record of 86-77, which is not going to win any division. Not that it doesn't help, but other factors are a lot more important.

Pointing to the Yankees as an example of how spending huge sums of money can increase a teams' success is one thing. But using that to imply that an average team can significantly improve their chances by smaller increases in payroll is false. That's why the Yankees are "irrelevant".

(Still working on that article. It's almost done.)

Paulwny
01-07-2005, 01:58 PM
I doubt many of us think of tax liability as a reason a player chooses where he plays. An article in Newsday concerning Beltran and his tax liability in NYS vs Texas.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-sptax074106749jan07,0,5065949.story?coll=ny-mets-bigpix

samram
01-07-2005, 02:03 PM
I doubt many of us think of tax liability as a reason a player chooses where he plays. An article in Newsday concerning Beltran and his tax liability in NYS vs Texas.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-sptax074106749jan07,0,5065949.story?coll=ny-mets-bigpix
I think that was a reason the Magic were a popular destination when TMac and Grant Hill were free agents.