Should Yasiel Puig Be An Allstar?

The man-child of the Los Angeles Dodgers, also known as Yasiel Puig has been the subject of intense debate over whether or not he should participate in this year's Allstar Game. Puig has been inhuman since being called up to the Dodgers batting .409 with 25 runs scored, 19 RBIs, 8 Home Runs and 5 stolen bases. Now I'm not here to talk about how great of a player he is or how great he is going to be because we just can't tell after only a month. However, has his performance over that single month warranted him a spot in one of the great honors that any player could hope to claim? 

Many Argue that Puig shouldn't be an Allstar, that he doesn't deserve it because he has only played a month and there are other players who show a greater body of work and are therefore more deserving. However, Puig's month hasn't just been a great month for a rookie. It has been one of the greatest months that the Major Leagues has ever seen. He has achieved 52 hits in only 32 games, he has had a multi-hit game in nearly half of those games, he has helped the Dodgers climb back into the race for the NL West and he has captured the attention of everyone around baseball.

Now Puig did not get selected by the fans or by the players in the initial voting for the Allstar Game, but there is still a chance for him to make it into the game. A final spot on the roster is voted for by the fans and Puig is on the 5 man ballot with Freddie Freeman, Hunter Pence, Ian Desmond, and teammate Adrian Gonzales. Even though many argue that it is not fair to other players if he makes it over them, that is not what the Allstar Game is about. The Allstar game is for the fans and they should be allowed to see what and who they want to see. If that includes Yasiel Puig, then there is a very good chance  that we see the Cuban Cannon-armed Puig at Citi Field next week. 

--Daniel Kolodin 

America's Pastime is Past its Cap TIme

In 1999 Royals’ fans proved they had enough. In a game against the New York Yankees on May, 1 fans at Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City donned T-shirts that read “$hare the Wealth.” They staged a protest against the financial disparity in Major League Baseball. That year, the Yankees had the highest team payroll in baseball at $188.13 million, compared to the Royals’ fourth-lowest team payroll of $16.53 million (The Daily Barometer). The Yankees were coming off their twenty-fourth World Series title; the Royals hadn’t made the playoffs since 1985. Royals’ fans turned their backs every time a Yankee hitter stepped up to bat and threw fake $100 bills into the outfield (The Daily Barometer). The group of 3,000 walked out of the stadium together in protest. In the next fourteen years, the Yankees won three more World Series titles and made the playoffs sixteen of the last seventeen years, and they still lead the league in team payroll at a whopping $197.96 million. The Royals still hold the fourth-lowest payroll, $60.92 million, and still haven’t been to the playoffs since 1985 (The Daily Barometer). The 27-year postseason drought is the longest in Major League Baseball.

The Royals are just one example of the many loyal fans crying for help because their team is hopeless; and if it doesn’t change their allegiance to baseball will be weakened. Fans have driven baseball to be known as America’s Pastime, they follow the players, buy the merchandise, attend the games and pass down their experiences to their kids. It’s not secret that fan attendance has a direct correlation with the team’s success, so it should be a priority to make sure all teams are on an equal playing field. However, that’s clearly not the case, many teams are suffering because of their financial predisposition, rich teams are taking advantage of their privileges and as a result the fan experience is effected. Baseball fans that follow poor, unsuccessful teams will lose hope in the sport, and baseball will eventually be “past its time.”

Even though there are many examples of organizations that are fighting the economic disparity in major league baseball, the implementation of a salary cap is still very controversial. The debate on how major league baseball should handle payroll regulations has created a schism between baseball executives because fiscal regulations are believed to have an effect on certain organization’s ability to succeed. Currently major league baseball has a luxury tax system, which is the softest cap of all of the major American sports. In result, small market organizations don’t have the financial means to compete for players in free agency with the economic superpowers of the Chicago Cubs, New York Yankees or Los Angeles Dodgers. Shorthanded organizations are subject to either accept their shortcomings, or create alternative non-monetary based philosophies in order to give themselves a chance to compete.

The only salary regulation in Major League Baseball is called a luxury tax, and it is a meager attempt to control the top spending organizations. Under the current system every organization is allowed to spend as much money as they want, but if they exceed 178 million dollar threshold, they will be fined. The Yankees have been fined for ten consecutive years, and they continue to pursue the most expensive players without a flinch. The Dodgers are currently fifty million dollars over the threshold, which is almost as much as the Padres entire payroll. The way a salary cap would work is once a team has reached the magic payroll number, they are forbidden to spend more, and as stated in an article on espn.com by Neil deMause, “This reduces salaries in two ways: Teams over the cap are taken out of the bidding for free agents (or for pricey trade targets), giving available players fewer options and reducing bidding pressure, and teams just below the cap will resist blowing their budget on a single player.” This would give small market teams a better chance of competing for free agents and celebrate meritocracy rather than purchasing power.

Despite the economic disparity, there are people satisfied with the existing fiscal policies. The biggest naysayers are the executives representing the player’s union. Adding a hard salary cap would decrease competition over free agents, and the player’s union will not let their players take a pay cut. Disregarding their monetary bias, the players’ union also makes the argument that Baseball is by far the most stable of the American professional sports, and it is the only one without a salary cap. In just the past few years, fans of the other major sports have experienced shortened seasons, lockouts, and a divide between players and owners only paralleled by the political parties in Washington. Using that alone as evidence, it seems a salary cap is the worst thing baseball could have happen to its player and owner relationship. There are other people who argue that the economic disparity has not created a competitive imbalance. David Schoenfield, from ESPN analyzed how baseball’s current system has effected the competitive sphere of the game and he concluded that, “Major League Baseball playoffs are actually far less predictable than the other sports. While the NFL has had just three Super Bowl winners that didn't have the best or second-best record in the league, the '05 Steelers were tied for fifth, the '01 Patriots sixth, and the '97 Broncos fourth, and the NBA has had just one champ that didn't have one of the two best records the '04 Pistons were sixth, baseball has had just two World Series champs which did have the best or second-best record, '05 White Sox and '98 Yankees” (Schoenfield). Schoenfield went on to conclude that adding a salary cap is unnecessary because baseball does not have a competitive balance issue. Jayson Stark of ESPN.com also makes the argument that baseball is the most competitive of all the major sports. “Even though the Cardinals had won the World Series as recently as 2006, baseball has still had nine different champions in the last 11 years. Nine. Had Neftali Feliz been able to get one more out in Game 6, it would have been 10 different champs in 11 years, for just the second time in the history of the sport. The only stretch in baseball history that can top the current run of nine winners in 11 years was 1982-92, when 10 different teams won. How 'bout that?, So where does the NFL stand? Glad you asked. The almighty NFL has had eight winners in the last 11 years. And when was the last time it had nine champs in 11 seasons? How about never. Ever. Not in the Super Bowl era. Not prior to the Super Bowl era.” (Jayson Stark). In conclusion, if baseball is the most stable and the most competitive of the major sports, the current system should remain the same.

The debate begins with the discussion of the competitive imbalance in baseball. If the competitive imbalance is insignificant, then there is no need to change to a system that has proven to be sketchy in other major sports leagues and associations. David Schoenfield and Jayson Stark make their argument by comparing championships in baseball to other professional leagues. Just because there is parity in the World Series winners, doesn’t mean there’s parity among all thirty teams. Of the eleven teams to which Stark refers, only the Florida Marlins in 2003 were not in the top half in the MLB in team payroll. The last seven champions have been in the top 11 in team payroll, with at least $98 million to spend. Stark and Schoenfield failed to recognize that baseball is the least star-player driven league of the three major sports. Basketball only has five players on the court at a time, and a great player like Kobe Bryant has the opportunity to touch the ball every time on offense. Football is a quarterback driven league, and the team with the best quarterback gives themselves the best chance of winning. In each respective sports league, there are select few star-players in the league that can single handedly propel their team into playoff contention. Therefore, if a team is able to retain a star player, give themselves a great chance of winning. Baseball is completely different; a star pitcher only affects one out of every five games and a star hitter typically only gets four at bats during a game, meaning it is more of a team-oriented sport so its playoffs have a lot more parody.

The competitive imbalance in baseball clearly exists in the bottom tier of teams. Brad Pitt may have said it best while he was portraying the Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane in the movie Moneyball, “the problem we're trying to solve is that there are rich teams and there are poor teams. Then there's fifty feet of crap, and then there's us.” Successful baseball teams are competitive in many facets, which requires organizations to sign multiple players with a variety of skills. If baseball were like basketball or football, organizations could build around one or two players and find a way to win. Instead baseball organizations must build an entire team of worthy competitors. The more players a team needs, the more expensive it costs, which is why there are many baseball organizations who have trouble sifting through the “crap.” The Kansas City Royals have missed the playoffs twenty seven years in a row, in fourty-four years the Padres have only made the playoffs five times, the Pirates have missed the playoffs for twenty one straight years, the Milwaukee Brewers have made it to the playoffs twice in the last thirty years, the Cleveland Indians have been hopeless the past decade, the Toronto Blue Jays haven’t sniffed the playoffs since they won the World Series in 1992 and all of these organizations are in the bottom ten in total player salary (Baseball-Reference.com). Of the 82 teams that made the playoffs since 2003, forty-three have come from the top-third in team payroll, and only twelve have come from the bottom-third (The DePaulia). If Major League Baseball executives analyze the competitive balance from the bottom up, there are clearly many organizations suffering. Baseball fans shouldn’t be subjected to a team with no chance of winning, especially when it’s caused by an uncontrollable predisposition.

In order to fix the competitive imbalance action needs to be taken. There are two different types of caps that baseball can use, one is the "hard salary cap," in which the sports league sets the maximum amount of money a team can spend on player salaries and flatly declares that no team can exceed it, period. The other, more reasonable form of payroll regulation is the "soft salary cap," in which the established limit can be exceeded under a small and specific list of circumstances, chiefly in situations when teams want to hold onto franchise players or iconic players that would sustain the value of their franchise

and, by extension, maintain the popularity of that sport in all of its league markets (The DePaulia). The soft cap makes more sense for a sports league, because it is in the best interest of a league to do what it can to ensure that beloved players can more easily stay with the teams that value them, and by extension, with the fan bases that love them. In the NBA this is called the Larry Bird Exception, and according to Jorge Castillo of The Washington Post, “encourages players to re-sign with their current teams in hopes of providing loyalty and stability with fans” (The Daily Barometer). Baseball also needs to implement a salary floor (The Daily Barometer). In the NFL, as a part of its salary floor, teams are required to spend nearly ninety percent of the cap on player compensation. This would allow for players in small markets to make more money, because their team would need to spend the money or face penalties. This would make profit focused owners hesitant to own a team, and encourage owners to strive for victories. The players union would never agree to a salary cap because it would decrease the competition over players and lower the average player’s income. To combat with this, adding a salary cap would allow Major League Baseball to get rid of arbitration. All players are under team control on the league-minimum salary of $480,000 during their first six years. After three years of service, players are eligible for arbitration (The Daily Barometer). If teams and players can’t come to an agreement, they go to an arbitration hearing. After three years, players could be eligible for free agency. The best young players often deal with arbitration for three straight years before they hit free agency. This would cut through the red tape and allow players to make money on the open market three years sooner.

Large market teams will always have an inherent advantage, but changing the economic structure will give smaller markets like Milwaukee and Toronto a fighting chance. The New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers will still be able to attract players because of their big spotlight, great living areas and storied success (HubPages). However, they wont dominate free agency, giving smaller market teams a smaller hill to climb.

Baseball has never been about money; it is special in this country, has been since its invention and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The game is nuance, romance and passion all rolled into one. Let’s fix the financial woes and get down to what baseball is all about. 

-Blake Dale Lepire

Jose Who?

The Xbox game MLB the Show 2012 has a mode where you can create a player and develop his skills. My player’s name is Dale Lepire and he is a 6’5” switch-hitting shortstop from Vista, California. I’m proud to say all of his skills have the maximum rating making him the only legitimate six-tool player, speed, power, contact, arm strength, glove, the ability to hit a homerun off of Chuck Norris. In his rookie year he hit .415 with 75 homeruns and a .550 on base percentage, won the MVP and led the Los Angeles Dodgers to a World Series Championship. Every time I turn off my Xbox I appreciate that I have created the best player of all time. However recently I came across a stat line that was better than my avatar. Someone created a player that hit .453 with a .597 on base percentage and 33 homeruns in 212 at bats (on pace for 90 homeruns in 580 at bats, a typical 162 game season). I didn’t understand how this was possible; my guy had no room for improvement. According to MLB the Show there was no way anyone could create a player better than mine. Then I was dumbfounded to learn the most astronomical, outrageous thing about this new player….. he actually exists.

His name is Jose Abreu, and he hails from the great baseball country of Cuba. He is a great example of why Cuba may be the last refuge for baseball’s unknown. It is well documented that Cuba’s current political state makes it difficult for Cubans to immigrate to other countries. Unfortunately for baseball fans, this means that the great baseball players that hail from Cuba are hidden by its borders, which is why we need to appreciate the World Baseball Classic as a rare opportunity to watch an unexplored pool of talent.

Jose Abreu is a great example of the great talent that very little people know about. The first basemen began playing in the Cuban Professional League at the age of 17 and has been tearing it up ever since. His stats are downright unbelievable, posting over a .390 batting average and over a 1.300 OPS in the past three seasons.   

There’s no telling how those stats would translate in the MLB but there are people who try to make the case that he is the best hitter on the planet. Jose Abreu’s talent may be world class, but the only way we’ll ever find how he compares to the Miguel Cabreras of the world is to put him against the best competition. So let’s pray that Aroldis Chapman can send him his defect plan because right now he is just a great “what if” debate.

Here's him hitting a mamo to center \/\/\/\/

-Blake Dale Lepire

MPH Equivalency Chart

Recently my college coach asked me to calculate this for him and I figure it could help the coaches out there get their hitters ready for game day. Enjoy!

MPH Equivalency Chart

Assumptions: A pitcher throws off a mound that is 60.5 feet away from home plate, but after the pitchers stride the ball is released at 55 feet. Therefore, the “equivalency” section is the MPH when the time of a ball thrown from 55 feet crosses the plate and the time a pitch from the “controlled distance” is the same.

MPH = Miles/Hours     MPH = (x/5280)/(y/3600)      

x=Feet      y= Seconds

MPH	Distance	Equivalency
69 mph	40 feet	95 mph
68 mph	40 feet	93.5 mph
67 mph	40 feet	92.1 mph
66 mph	40 feet	90.8 mph
65.45 mph	40 feet	90 mph
65 mph	40 feet	89.4 mph
64 mph	40 feet	88 mph
63 mph	40 feet	86.8 mph
62 mph	40 feet	85.3 mph

·      

      The equivalency mph from 55 feet increases by about 1.55 mph for every one mph increase from a throw from 35 feet. Equivalency mph is rounded off to the nearest tenth.

MPH	Distance	Equivalency
61 mph	35 feet	95.9 mph
60 mph	35 feet	94.3 mph
59 mph	35 feet	92.7 mph
58 mph	35 feet	91.2 mph
57.27 mph	35 feet	90 mph
57 mph	35 feet	89.6 mph
56 mph	35 feet	88 mph
55 mph	35 feet	86.5 mph
54 mph	35 feet	84.9 mph

·      The equivalency mph from 55 feet increases by about 1.4 for every one mph increase from a throw from 35 feet. Equivalency mph is rounded off to the nearest tenth.

Between 54-69 MPH on average moving back 5 feet makes a 12.1 mph difference

The range is from 10.7 mph to 13.4 mph, the difference increasing by .155 for every one mph harder

*Any error is due to round off

-Blake Dale Lepire

It's Not All About the Benjamins

Kobe Bryant

Being a Lakers fan has not been easy on anyone this year. Extremely high expectations, a superstar-filled lineup, and the largest payroll in the NBA illustrate the storylines that surround the Lakers. The Lakers front office spent the offseason bringing in Dwight Howard and Steve Nash, and increasing the team payroll to about $100 Million for the 2012-2013 season. Throw Howard and Nash into a lineup that includes Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol and Metta World Peace, and you’re bound to have a legitimate NBA Finals contender, right? Well, actually it makes the Lakers into a 15-20 team after tonight’s 108-105 loss to the San Antonio Spurs. So what does this have to do with baseball? The Lakers' disappointing season ties in perfectly with how a handful of MLB teams spent millions of dollars in the offseason, but did not see results in 2012.

The prime example of how spending money does not always translate into wins is the Miami Marlins. Prior to the 2012 season in which the Marlins were moving into a brand new stadium, Miami increased their payroll from $56.9 million to $118 million and brought in high-profile players, such as Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle and Heath Bell. While the Marlins also brought in Ozzie Guillen to manage the team, Miami was suddenly a World Series contender and was burdened with championship-or-bust expectations. The team had all-stars at almost every position, but finished in last place in the NL East and would eventually trade almost every decent player they had on their roster before the year was over. So why weren't the Marlins successful?

It takes more than a compilation of superstars and a lot of money to build a winning team. Although talent is important for success, a team’s chemistry and working together as a team are what turns a good team into a great team. For example, the Oakland A’s; a team that won a division expected to be won by the Texas Rangers or the LA Angels. If you watched them play in that final series against Texas that ultimately won them the AL West, those three games summed up how the A’s played the whole year. They played with passion and a never-say-die attitude, something the Rangers lacked. Oakland disregarded the fact that they had the 2^nd lowest payroll in baseball and came together as a team. The Oakland A’s did what the Miami Marlins failed to do; they threw away individual goals and put the team first. Because the A’s had such strong team chemistry and had one common goal, they were able to be successful for the entirety of the 2012 season.

Albert Pujols

Both the Angels and Dodgers are other examples of how money isn’t the solution to winning championships. The Angels brought in the greatest player in baseball, Albert Pujols, and failed to make the playoffs while possessing the most dangerous lineup in baseball. The Dodgers seemed to buy every good player throughout the league (Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, Carl Crawford, Shane Victorino, Hanley Ramirez and Brandon League), but failed to reach the postseason. It just reiterates the fact that there is more to a winning team than just superstar players.

It’s been a frustrating year for Los Angeles sports fans and you can’t blame these teams for trying to put together winning teams by bringing in talented players. But, until these teams learn to play with chemistry and a team-first mindset, there won’t be any championship parades riding through downtown Los Angeles anytime soon.

-Hayden Carter

Sports Writers Snub Hall Candidates: My take on their huge mistake

The hottest topic in baseball today is the controversial Hall of Fame ballot that includes many players that have been linked to performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Due to the incompetence of the sports writers, no players were voted in. The sports writers are allowed to vote for as many players as they deem appropriate, but the only way you get the nod into Cooperstown is if you get over 75% of the vote. The sports writers came together and looked at a ballot that contains a former all time saves leader, a few 3000 hit club members, a couple guys who have hit more than 500 homeruns, the third best catcher of all time, a bunch of Cy Youngs, a couple of world series MVPs and decided that no one was worthy enough to put on the yellow blazer.

The sports writer made two huge mistakes. First, is the ludicrous idea of the “first ballot hall of famer.” The difference between Duke Snider, who took eleven ballots to get voted in, and Tony Gwynn, a first ballot hall of famer, is a mythical distinction recognized only by the sports writers. Their talents and accomplishments can be argued, but in Cooperstown their plaques can rest next to each other both appreciated as one of the best players of their era. If you believe someone deserves to be in the hall of fame, you should vote for him on the first ballot and every one succeeding.

My second problem with the sports writers coincidentally has been the main topic on sports center all morning. The Hall of Fame is a representation of the best players of their era. Unfortunately, the era representing the new players on the ballot is filled with controversy over the use of performance enhancing drugs. Players like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds can statistically be considered the best players of all time, but because of their link to steroids it’s unlikely that they will ever be voted in.

I disagree with the premise that if you have been linked to performance enhancing drugs you should be excluded from the hall of fame, for a few reasons. A former major leaguer, who is close a close family friend, told me that he estimates that 95% of the players he encountered were on PEDs during that era. There is no telling who was on what, and in my personal experience being around steroid users, it doesn’t always make you bigger. It’s impossible to detect who was on what from the naked eye and I refuse to make every player guilty by association. I am comfortable accepting that it was simply apart of the game and I still appreciate the great players for what they were, even if they had a little help. If the sports writers maintain the stance that they are not voting for anyone linked to steroids then many great players will be left out and the fans will be left with a bunch of Pete Rose like travesties. The sports writers should have enough confidence in the fans to be able to form their own opinions and let history define the player’s legacies. Their job as voters is to vote for the players who are deserving of baseball immortality, not shield a club from potential character issues. If they only allowed squeaky-clean backgrounds then Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb (just to name a few) would be sitting in baseball purgatory with Pete Rose.

How would I have voted this year if I had a say?

1.     Craig Biggio

2.     Jack Morris

3.     Mike Piazza

4.     Lee Smith

5.     Curt Schillings

6.     Roger Clemens

7.     Barry Bonds

8.     Fred McGriff

9.     Mark Mcgwire

10. Sammy Sosa

11. Rafael Palmero

That’s how wrong you got it sportswriters; there are still ten very worthy candidates on the ballot that you clearly missed. By the way, next year it doesn’t get easier, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas all jump in the waiting game.

I’ll be sure to keep a running list of all the Hall of Fame snubs, that way when I take my future kid to Cooperstown I’ll be able to explain to him that it’s not actually the best players of all time.

-Blake Dale Lepire

*I in no way condone PEDs I simply accept them as an aspect in history and I support any efforts to eliminate their use from America’s pastime.