Wainwright, along with a handful of other guys like Felix, Hamels, and Jon Lester, who feel like the bridge between the old generation of being a workhorse in your peak and then getting to hang around for an extra five years to put up counting stats that make you a Hall of Famer. Now, though, as Joe mentioned in the article, teams would rather get five innings from a Cristopher Sanchez type and then roll with the bullpen rather than let a veteran grind through 6 or 7
Think Wainwright’s name will stay on the list for a loooong time. Game’s just different; most of these ‘record’ stats are kind of meaningless now and simply “clickbait” for writers. For example, last night Snell was pulled … after 7 no hit innings. Had there not been a 3 team WC race, & SD climbing into the thick of it, find a mgr. or a player who wouldn’t want to go the two extra innings. What’s more memorable these days in MLB? A no hitter or one more turn in rotation for 3rd WC spot? And post-game Snell may have offered the best quote of the Manfred era.: “This game will be forgotten about after tomorrow’s game,” Snell said. “I need to be healthy, I need to pitch and I need to be accountable to throw when it’s my turn to pitch. That’s what’s most important.” Snell might as well have been talking about most of the pitcher ‘records’. Put this under, ‘one reason why we don’t love baseball anymore.”
After reading your story my first thought was: In 15, 20 or 25 years from now what will it take for a starting pitcher to attract enough votes for Hall of Fame nomination?
Hey Joe, Just finishing up my signed copy of “Why We Love Baseball,” and surprised that the heartwarming story about Cleveland’s Addie Joss didn’t make cut. Ty Cobb led a who’s who of baseball greats at League Park in the first “MLB All-Star Game,” played in Cleveland as a fundraiser for Joss’ widow and family. C’mon where’s the love for the hometown?
I made this proposal on another forum several years ago and it was highly received, and I'd love to get your thoughts. You own an MLB franchise; what if you could extend your homegrown players (players YOUR TEAM drafted and have kept in the system their entire careers) but only HALF the money would go against the salary cap?
At the time I posted this, I was using Mookie Betts as an example. Boston loved Mookie, and Mookie loved Boston. What if the Red Sox had the opportunity to sign him for $30 million/year but only $15 million/year would fall under the cap? They would have been able to keep Mookie in Boston for the same amount he signed an extension in LA for.
Or maybe they would have made a real effort to re-sign Xander Boegarts last off season.
This would allow home grown stars to potentially spend their entire careers with one team - remember when that used to happen? It rocked, but it's so rare nowadays.
Some might argue that this would be unfair to smaller market teams, but I ask, "How so?" There is nothing stopping them from doing the same with their homegrown players, and they would still be part of the same bidding process for free agents.
Sure, they lose out on some of the money they get in subsidy from the big markets, but honestly, this would not be something the big markets would be doing with every player. I mean, look at the Mets. What homegrown Met would you sign to a long-term deal? Alonso yes, but anyone else?
Plus it would be a huge win for the players. Imagine if the Yankees could have taken half of the salary off of Judge's new contract; they'd be spending those "savings" on a free agent pitcher.
One additional point would be that if the player WERE to be traded AFTER signing said contract, the team trading for him would have to put the ENTIRE salary toward their cap. Of course, there would still be nothing precluding the team trading away it's homegrown player from eating some of that salary if they really want to make that deal happen.
I like the intent of your idea of incentivizing keeping homegrown stars. To Khazad's point, most teams don't reach the salary cap. Unless it saves teams actual dollars regardless of the cap, it won't mean much to most teams.
One possible approach* is to have a pooled amount of money that can pay actual salaries of homegrown players, but I'm not sure that's any different than distributing the TV revenue or any other revenue sharing approach. Cheap clubs will find some way to pocket the new funds, and they'll never acquire a non-homegrown player.
*-Of course, this is completely implausible and the rich owners would never approve it.
It is an interesting idea in an alternate universe, but there is no cap in baseball and never will be. There is a luxury tax threshold, and really all this would do would be to help out a few haves to save then luxury tax money. I think the haves are already helped enough.
You're right, poor phrasing on my part. Luxury tax thresholds. Look, the big market teams are always going to work around the LTT's, right? Look at Boston now. The point of this idea is for the fans. It matters to the fans if you can keep your homegrown players. And if you see my response to nightfly below, there are positive ways to compensate the small market teams.
Agreed about fans rallying around homegrown stars… but I don’t see how luxury threshold discounts do that if the team can’t afford the real dollars involved. There would have to be some salary offset incentives - reward a team for retaining their guy by throwing in a percentage of the salary from the revenue sharing pot; reduce the amount a team gets if they aren’t meeting bottom thresholds. And similar to docking free spenders draft picks, add supplemental bonus picks to retaining teams.
I think this would also lead to more interesting trade scenarios. If you have a guy playing his final arb year, you can tell contenders that you’re happy signing the guy with the discount and the comp pick - could lead to better trade compensation.
(I also think teams should be allowed to trade draft picks like every other league, but one hurdle at a time.)
I feel like this is the kernel of a sound idea. The NBA makes it work, for example. But I see a few issues: for one, small-market teams don’t usually shell out major cash because they don’t have it, not because of luxury tax considerations. If (say) Ke’Bryan Hayes wants $30 mil per, the Pirates may have to pass even if it only counts 50% for any cap threshold - thirty million bucks is still thirty million bucks.
The whole thing sets up a big feedback loop. Big teams can retain more players who might otherwise hit the market while their contributions to revenue sharing go down; smaller clubs have less money and fewer players they can find on the open market… not only major stars (who pretty much always get theirs absent collusion) but midmarket guys whom their original teams can hold onto at half-off instead of replacing them with cost-controlled rookies while they pursue greener infields.
I’m not saying it couldn’t work, just that it needs tweaks.
But there is a glaring contradiction in your reply: you said yourself the small market teams won't spend money, so how does that affect them regarding high-value players on the open market? I mean, it's not like teams are going to lock up mediocre players to long term deals to save a little cap space.
And I did acknowledge that there would be fewer dollars moving from big-to-small markets.
One option would be to allow a maximum of these contracts per team, say 3. If you have Mookie, Bogie, and Devers locked in, you can't do the same deal with Casas. You can sign him, of course, but all the salary goes toward the cap.
Second option could revolve around draft picks - which would be great for small markets. If a team signs a homegrown player to one of these deals, they lose their second round draft pick. MLB could then pool the lost picks each year and do a lottery draw for which small market teams get those picks.
My understanding is that the luxury tax thresholds eventually punish overspenders by taking draft picks from them and that for some teams the loss of picks is a bigger disincentive than the financial tax. If those two points are correct (and they may not be) the second option likely wouldn’t change any behavior.
Seems like a dream ending to what has been mostly a nightmare season for Wainwright. Seven scoreless innings to win 1-0 at home. Hopefully they give someone else his last couple starts and let his next pitch from a big league mound be the fist pitch before some big game in St. Louis.
Okay, crazy thought: What if it became "illegal" to throw a pitch over 95mph? Like I said, crazy. But hear me out. I think there would be two major benefits.
First, I truly believe pitchers would remain healthier. If they're not reaching back and pushing to the limit their muscles and ligaments and every other element that keeps them from flying apart, it can only help, right?
Second, it would likely increase offence. I say likely because with any change, adaptation occurs; pitchers would likely start to emphasize movement even more than they do now so they could continue to compete.
And yes, 95 is an arbitrary number. So make it 97 if you prefer. But any pitch that comes in over the plate ABOVE whatever the mandated speed limit is, is automatically called a ball.
Historically, it has been fastball pitchers who have aged best rather than those who change speeds and rely on breaking pitches. Sure, there have been exceptions in both directions, but it is a general rule that has held true for decades.
I would have to say that is untrue. There are dozens of hard-throwing phenoms who got injured and were never able to really comeback - the ashheep of baseball history are littered with their names. Very few pitchers have been able to keep thriving off their fastballs - Ryan, Clemens, Johnson. But what about all those pitchers who started out as fastball pitchers but had to transition due to injury / loss of fastball? Walter Johnson, Frank Tanana, Greg Maddux, even my all-time fave Pedro - they lost the FB dominance but continued to be successful because they were PITCHERS, not throwers.
There might be a comparison there to the idea of a batter with "old player skills". The batters with the best careers aren't necessarily the ones who come up slow and with a super batting eye, because once those skills fade they have nothing to fall back on. Often it is the batters who rely on speed and talent to make up for flaws early on, then learn the "old" skills as they age and can't mask the flaws anymore.
Really enjoying the book. Katie was thrilled that the one you inscribed at the SF even was for her. She is going to read it for school. Currently, she is reading a book on Mary Tudor. Why We Love Baseball will be a bit of a change of pace from that, I suspect.
Joe, longtime reader, first time commenter. Two things: Since 1990, did you know there are two and only two pure relievers (0 starts) with seasons of 5 bWAR? One of course is Mariano Rivera. In 1996 he achieved this while pitching 107.2 IP. The other did it IN SIXTY-EIGHT POINT ONE! And I'm wondering if you can name him. Hint: He did it in 2006.
Second: I'd love to see you do the All Johnny Manziel team - for baseball. And if Super Joe isn't on that team, well, I may never comment here again!
I tried looking up the old "Roland's Reliever of the Year" but this guy didn't win it. I finally had to Google "ERA+ 517," which gave me an entire page of Levi's 517 jeans crap before I got to the answer. He only gave up 7 ERs all year and still took 2 losses? Brutal.
I had someone else in mind. Had to look it up. Makes some sense given how good he was early in his career, but you have to really be near perfect in fewer than 70 innings to reach 5 WAR.
There will be a pendulum swing back to more innings from pitchers once powers that be see that the all-out approach leads to injuries.
Wainwright, along with a handful of other guys like Felix, Hamels, and Jon Lester, who feel like the bridge between the old generation of being a workhorse in your peak and then getting to hang around for an extra five years to put up counting stats that make you a Hall of Famer. Now, though, as Joe mentioned in the article, teams would rather get five innings from a Cristopher Sanchez type and then roll with the bullpen rather than let a veteran grind through 6 or 7
Think Wainwright’s name will stay on the list for a loooong time. Game’s just different; most of these ‘record’ stats are kind of meaningless now and simply “clickbait” for writers. For example, last night Snell was pulled … after 7 no hit innings. Had there not been a 3 team WC race, & SD climbing into the thick of it, find a mgr. or a player who wouldn’t want to go the two extra innings. What’s more memorable these days in MLB? A no hitter or one more turn in rotation for 3rd WC spot? And post-game Snell may have offered the best quote of the Manfred era.: “This game will be forgotten about after tomorrow’s game,” Snell said. “I need to be healthy, I need to pitch and I need to be accountable to throw when it’s my turn to pitch. That’s what’s most important.” Snell might as well have been talking about most of the pitcher ‘records’. Put this under, ‘one reason why we don’t love baseball anymore.”
After reading your story my first thought was: In 15, 20 or 25 years from now what will it take for a starting pitcher to attract enough votes for Hall of Fame nomination?
Thanks for the story.
Is Waino and every pitcher who won more games than him happy that they will never have anyone pass them in wins again? I think so
Never heard of CBS Mornings but it is now on my DVR program.
it's rather sad to think of all the pitching milestones that will no longer be reached in this modern game...
Hey Joe, Just finishing up my signed copy of “Why We Love Baseball,” and surprised that the heartwarming story about Cleveland’s Addie Joss didn’t make cut. Ty Cobb led a who’s who of baseball greats at League Park in the first “MLB All-Star Game,” played in Cleveland as a fundraiser for Joss’ widow and family. C’mon where’s the love for the hometown?
Two words: Eddie Gaedel
Or ANY Bill Veeck story?
Pos can attach the entirety of “Veeck As In Wreck” as a Posterisk.
My only beef is that Fernandomania didn't appear anywhere in the book, even as a side story or Posterisk. That was huge nationally.
I expect The Onion will update this classic with a 200-win version:
https://www.theonion.com/tom-glavine-ominously-announces-he-will-be-last-300-gam-1819569263
Wow. Taking a bite and just in time for a new one. And thanks for the snack reminder of Cliff Lee, GREAT pitcher.
One last post and I'll leave you alone - for now.
I made this proposal on another forum several years ago and it was highly received, and I'd love to get your thoughts. You own an MLB franchise; what if you could extend your homegrown players (players YOUR TEAM drafted and have kept in the system their entire careers) but only HALF the money would go against the salary cap?
At the time I posted this, I was using Mookie Betts as an example. Boston loved Mookie, and Mookie loved Boston. What if the Red Sox had the opportunity to sign him for $30 million/year but only $15 million/year would fall under the cap? They would have been able to keep Mookie in Boston for the same amount he signed an extension in LA for.
Or maybe they would have made a real effort to re-sign Xander Boegarts last off season.
This would allow home grown stars to potentially spend their entire careers with one team - remember when that used to happen? It rocked, but it's so rare nowadays.
Some might argue that this would be unfair to smaller market teams, but I ask, "How so?" There is nothing stopping them from doing the same with their homegrown players, and they would still be part of the same bidding process for free agents.
Sure, they lose out on some of the money they get in subsidy from the big markets, but honestly, this would not be something the big markets would be doing with every player. I mean, look at the Mets. What homegrown Met would you sign to a long-term deal? Alonso yes, but anyone else?
Plus it would be a huge win for the players. Imagine if the Yankees could have taken half of the salary off of Judge's new contract; they'd be spending those "savings" on a free agent pitcher.
One additional point would be that if the player WERE to be traded AFTER signing said contract, the team trading for him would have to put the ENTIRE salary toward their cap. Of course, there would still be nothing precluding the team trading away it's homegrown player from eating some of that salary if they really want to make that deal happen.
What do you think?
I like the intent of your idea of incentivizing keeping homegrown stars. To Khazad's point, most teams don't reach the salary cap. Unless it saves teams actual dollars regardless of the cap, it won't mean much to most teams.
One possible approach* is to have a pooled amount of money that can pay actual salaries of homegrown players, but I'm not sure that's any different than distributing the TV revenue or any other revenue sharing approach. Cheap clubs will find some way to pocket the new funds, and they'll never acquire a non-homegrown player.
*-Of course, this is completely implausible and the rich owners would never approve it.
I was just typing something similar. Brilliant Readers think alike!
It is an interesting idea in an alternate universe, but there is no cap in baseball and never will be. There is a luxury tax threshold, and really all this would do would be to help out a few haves to save then luxury tax money. I think the haves are already helped enough.
You're right, poor phrasing on my part. Luxury tax thresholds. Look, the big market teams are always going to work around the LTT's, right? Look at Boston now. The point of this idea is for the fans. It matters to the fans if you can keep your homegrown players. And if you see my response to nightfly below, there are positive ways to compensate the small market teams.
Agreed about fans rallying around homegrown stars… but I don’t see how luxury threshold discounts do that if the team can’t afford the real dollars involved. There would have to be some salary offset incentives - reward a team for retaining their guy by throwing in a percentage of the salary from the revenue sharing pot; reduce the amount a team gets if they aren’t meeting bottom thresholds. And similar to docking free spenders draft picks, add supplemental bonus picks to retaining teams.
I think this would also lead to more interesting trade scenarios. If you have a guy playing his final arb year, you can tell contenders that you’re happy signing the guy with the discount and the comp pick - could lead to better trade compensation.
(I also think teams should be allowed to trade draft picks like every other league, but one hurdle at a time.)
I feel like this is the kernel of a sound idea. The NBA makes it work, for example. But I see a few issues: for one, small-market teams don’t usually shell out major cash because they don’t have it, not because of luxury tax considerations. If (say) Ke’Bryan Hayes wants $30 mil per, the Pirates may have to pass even if it only counts 50% for any cap threshold - thirty million bucks is still thirty million bucks.
The whole thing sets up a big feedback loop. Big teams can retain more players who might otherwise hit the market while their contributions to revenue sharing go down; smaller clubs have less money and fewer players they can find on the open market… not only major stars (who pretty much always get theirs absent collusion) but midmarket guys whom their original teams can hold onto at half-off instead of replacing them with cost-controlled rookies while they pursue greener infields.
I’m not saying it couldn’t work, just that it needs tweaks.
Won't disagree that it needs tweaks.
But there is a glaring contradiction in your reply: you said yourself the small market teams won't spend money, so how does that affect them regarding high-value players on the open market? I mean, it's not like teams are going to lock up mediocre players to long term deals to save a little cap space.
And I did acknowledge that there would be fewer dollars moving from big-to-small markets.
One option would be to allow a maximum of these contracts per team, say 3. If you have Mookie, Bogie, and Devers locked in, you can't do the same deal with Casas. You can sign him, of course, but all the salary goes toward the cap.
Second option could revolve around draft picks - which would be great for small markets. If a team signs a homegrown player to one of these deals, they lose their second round draft pick. MLB could then pool the lost picks each year and do a lottery draw for which small market teams get those picks.
I think the second option is an excellent suggestion.
My understanding is that the luxury tax thresholds eventually punish overspenders by taking draft picks from them and that for some teams the loss of picks is a bigger disincentive than the financial tax. If those two points are correct (and they may not be) the second option likely wouldn’t change any behavior.
Note: Jose Berrios, age 29...as I type this, the article is showing age 20.
Just get out the Sharpie, Joe.
Yes, the 83 wins by age 20 really jumped off the page!
More like, Young Cy!
Seems like a dream ending to what has been mostly a nightmare season for Wainwright. Seven scoreless innings to win 1-0 at home. Hopefully they give someone else his last couple starts and let his next pitch from a big league mound be the fist pitch before some big game in St. Louis.
Okay, crazy thought: What if it became "illegal" to throw a pitch over 95mph? Like I said, crazy. But hear me out. I think there would be two major benefits.
First, I truly believe pitchers would remain healthier. If they're not reaching back and pushing to the limit their muscles and ligaments and every other element that keeps them from flying apart, it can only help, right?
Second, it would likely increase offence. I say likely because with any change, adaptation occurs; pitchers would likely start to emphasize movement even more than they do now so they could continue to compete.
And yes, 95 is an arbitrary number. So make it 97 if you prefer. But any pitch that comes in over the plate ABOVE whatever the mandated speed limit is, is automatically called a ball.
Thoughts?
Historically, it has been fastball pitchers who have aged best rather than those who change speeds and rely on breaking pitches. Sure, there have been exceptions in both directions, but it is a general rule that has held true for decades.
I would have to say that is untrue. There are dozens of hard-throwing phenoms who got injured and were never able to really comeback - the ashheep of baseball history are littered with their names. Very few pitchers have been able to keep thriving off their fastballs - Ryan, Clemens, Johnson. But what about all those pitchers who started out as fastball pitchers but had to transition due to injury / loss of fastball? Walter Johnson, Frank Tanana, Greg Maddux, even my all-time fave Pedro - they lost the FB dominance but continued to be successful because they were PITCHERS, not throwers.
There might be a comparison there to the idea of a batter with "old player skills". The batters with the best careers aren't necessarily the ones who come up slow and with a super batting eye, because once those skills fade they have nothing to fall back on. Often it is the batters who rely on speed and talent to make up for flaws early on, then learn the "old" skills as they age and can't mask the flaws anymore.
Really enjoying the book. Katie was thrilled that the one you inscribed at the SF even was for her. She is going to read it for school. Currently, she is reading a book on Mary Tudor. Why We Love Baseball will be a bit of a change of pace from that, I suspect.
Joe, longtime reader, first time commenter. Two things: Since 1990, did you know there are two and only two pure relievers (0 starts) with seasons of 5 bWAR? One of course is Mariano Rivera. In 1996 he achieved this while pitching 107.2 IP. The other did it IN SIXTY-EIGHT POINT ONE! And I'm wondering if you can name him. Hint: He did it in 2006.
Second: I'd love to see you do the All Johnny Manziel team - for baseball. And if Super Joe isn't on that team, well, I may never comment here again!
Cheers.
That 517 ERA+ sure stands out from the mystery man...
Did you know it was him or did you look it up? Pretty crazy, right? I'd never have guessed him.
I too was surprised by who this was. But in the meantime, what about Zach Britton’s ERA+ of 803 in 67 innings in 2016??
I tried looking up the old "Roland's Reliever of the Year" but this guy didn't win it. I finally had to Google "ERA+ 517," which gave me an entire page of Levi's 517 jeans crap before I got to the answer. He only gave up 7 ERs all year and still took 2 losses? Brutal.
I had someone else in mind. Had to look it up. Makes some sense given how good he was early in his career, but you have to really be near perfect in fewer than 70 innings to reach 5 WAR.