From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Baseball - The 'ME' SPORT (was Re: Bobby Bonilla)
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:16:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.143407.27025@linus.mitre.org>
 mmcevill@mitre.org (Michael A. McEvilley) writes:
[and writes and writes and doesn't hit <cr>.  PLEASE watch your line
length!!!]
>In article <1992Apr7.211952.12129@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
>v083qpkr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Jeffrey C Toth) writes:
>> Well, I
>> think he was a needed change for the Mets.  The problem with the entire
>> organization is that all of them are individual minded.  

Now, I wonder how the hell someone can know this.  Have you interviewed
these players?  Listened to them talk in the clubhouse?  

Or have you just read the tripe the sportswriters continue to serve up?

>>Even in '86 they were
>> more individual minded but luckily had the talent to win. 

You must be a hell of a psychologist to be able to determine that
through a TV screen.

>Actually, the entire sport of baseball, not just the Mets, has gone from a 
>team oriented outlook, to a ME thing.  This point was brought out by Bob 
>Gibson and Tim McCarver during the opening METS broadcast from St Louis 
>Monday night. 

Yeah, sure.  Old ballplayers from every decade have said that about the
generation that followed.  This line makes predictions of the Second
Coming look reliable and soberly reasoned.

> Gibson has a new book coming out entitled "Stranger To The 
>Game", in which he talks about/compares todays play with his time.  When 
>you look around the league and see guys wanting renegotiations just 
>because so-and-so got a raise, it makes you wonder.

Which has happened, what, *once*?  When you look around the league, you
do NOT see that, unless you're a Rickey Henderson camp follower.

>  The classic example 
>is Canseco comparing himself to Wil Clark to justify his salary 
>(a joke cause Canseco just doesnt compare)!

Agreed.  Canseco is *definitely* better.

What?  Well, let's see.  Same age, Canseco has 400 more PA.  His
slugging is slgihtly above Clark's, his OBA a chunk below.  Canseco's
home park is a good deal *worse* than Clark's (which is no prize,
either).

As for that OBA, what's happened to Clark?  The last two years, he's
dropped substantially.  Over the last two years Canseco has left nothing
to prove; he's not fading the way the Thrill is.

> The ripple effect from this attitude will go on until......what...???

What attitude?  What ripple effect?

> Maybe pay per view for ALL TV broadcasts.  

Doubtful.  Why would they do this, when they make record bucks from FREE
TV?

> Where will the money come from otherwise????

Good question.  But do you suppose Pay-Per-View will actually produce
more revenue?  

If the revenue isn't there, the salaries will come down.  If it IS
there, they'll stay high.  That's all.

> I say go salary cap like basketball.  

Echh.  Make big-city owners richer still, eh?  Why not give the money to
the players? 

>Get the emphasis back on the team!  

How would a salary cap do that?  You'd have just as much infighting
about who gets what.

>Who in baseball today would reduce their salary for the better of the team (as 
>Magic and Isaiah did for their respective teams)???

Who in baseball today would go back to the disastrous labor situation of
20 years ago?   Would YOU accept the reserve clause?

Remember: basketball has far less free agency.  Most players NEVER get
to test teh salary market.  

Also, as Ted has pointed out, Michael Jordan's and Magic's and Isaiah's
salaries have precious little to do with what they earn.

In baseball, your salary is a far larger portion of total earnings.
Your selfless hoop heroes are being just as self-interested.

Roger


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball