Well, I just saw the play and it looks like a very legitimate hit by Erstad. Estrada would have put him out if there had been no contact, and as a runner, you don't have much time to decide: slide around or into the catcher. The hands first slide at home is one of the most riskiest plays for any runner, many injuries have happened that way.... your safest bet is to lower your shoulder and go right into the catcher.... I'm sorry, but that's baseball, and it's in no means dirty, specially if the catcher is on your running lane. Now you can see that Erstad makes his decision to tackle toward the very end, when he notices he will be out otherwise, a good heads-up play. I love that type of playing style.
Yo, ...fat.., I think we're talking about two different things here. I agree with your maximum revenue theory. But, regardless of that, if owners pay higher salaries, they by definition will realize less profit. Agree? I'll agree to that, but there is an important distinction to make. The difference isn't between "no profit" and "some profit", it's between "some profit" and "more profit". There is obviously a minimum price they have to charge for tickets in order to help cover their expenses. They have other revenue streams to do this as well (like concessions, tv/radio rights, advertising, parking, merchandise, "revenue sharing"), but we'll just ignore that for the sake of this discussion. Let's assume that in order to make ANY profit at all ($1), their accountants calculate a ticket price of $10 would do the job. This would guarantee the revenue (ticket price * tickets sold) would give them the minimum profit ($1). Obviously, they aren't looking to make the smallest amount of profit, they are looking to make the biggest amount of profit. That's when their accountants say that the best ticket price (the one that guarantees the highest revenue stream = price * sold) is $33. They calculate this based on how the DEMAND for the tickets. This DEMAND has (99% of the time) NOTHING to do with the team's payroll. How many times have you heard someone's primary reason to refuse to buy a ticket to a baseball game because the team's payroll was too high (or too low)? It's simply not a factor, and therefore it's a scam for the owners to say "We need to raise the price of tickets because our payroll is too high." When is the last time you saw a team lower their ticket prices and tell the public it was because their payroll was so low? They lower the ticket prices because the demand for the tickets isn't there anymore and they can't sell enough of them at the higher price. It had nothing to do with the payroll. If payroll was really an important factor in determining ticket prices, how come a team doesn't jack up the price of tickets in the middle of the season when they acquire a high-priced rent-a-player for the playoffs? The hands first slide at home is one of the most riskiest plays for any runner, many injuries have happened that way.... your safest bet is to lower your shoulder and go right into the catcher.... I'm sorry, but that's baseball, and it's in no means dirty, specially if the catcher is on your running lane. Hold up. You're telling me that it's safer (less likely to cause injury) to run into another human being (wearing padding and plastic shin guards) at full tilt, head first, than it is to slide on the ground? And I'll remind you, there is no way the catcher is in the "running lane" in this instance. That is, unless Erstad was intending on running to first base or the dugout after touching home. He hits him IN FRONT of the plate. Now you can see that Erstad makes his decision to tackle toward the very end, when he notices he will be out otherwise, a good heads-up play. I love that type of playing style. Tackle? I'm pretty sure "tackling" isn't allowed in baseball. If Estrada was in the way (which I'm saying he wasn't), then he can run into him. But "tackling" ain't allowed. (just like trying to slap the ball from a glove with your open hand) And I repeat, he wouldn't have been out if he simply went for the back part of the plate (which is where the normal path after rounding third would take you anyways). Estrada was too far forward to be able to beat Erstad to that part of the plate and apply the tag. All in all, it's not an illegal play in anyway, but that still doesn't make it "clean" in my books. If I was the Braves, I'd have plunked him on the ass the next time he faced them in the batters box.
grum, they tried to knock Erstad on his ass the next time he came to the plate. Erstad ducked and any more of that would have led to an ejection for the pitcher.
but with today's inflated ticket prices needed to support the player's high salaries, I'd like to see more intensity and passion for the game like Erstad shows. Side note: Erstad's "intensity and passion" are costing the Angels over $7,750,000 for .765 OPS at 1B. That's good enough for 22nd place among regular 1Bmen in the majors this year. His contract is one of the biggest albatrosses in MLB this year.
I love this game!
Funny thing is, almost any other player in that situation that has a true passion for the game would have done the same thing. That is one of the things they teach young catchers. "If your going to block or intend to block the plate, HOLD ON TO THE BALL BECAUSE YOUR GOING TO GET YOUR BELL RUNG!!"
The Erstad-Estrada dust-up was a clean play. You'd expect the Braves to bark. After all, it was their man who was sent to the cleaners. If it was a Braves player pounding into the Angels catcher with the same results, the Angels would yell. The runner's goal is to score. It doesn't matter where the catcher is if he is able to tag him out. If the catcher has or is getting the ball ahead of the runner, the runner plows into him to score and hopes that he hit that catcher hard enough to make him drop the ball. That's just good baseball. And every catcher knows it, Estrada included. Sure, the catcher's teammates will call it a dirty play or whatever. But bashing into the catcher in that situation has always been part of baseball. Not dancing around him or executing the proper slide so as not to hurt him.
The thing that gets me is it's illegal for the catcher to block the plate, but that's a call that never gets made (and good thing too: Varitek is one of the best in the league at that).
"tackle? I'm pretty sure "tackling" By tacklin I just meant lowering the shoulder before the collision, not wrapping his arms around him like in football :)! As for going for the back of the plate, in my opinion, that would have been an easy out! Good call by the runner.
There is very little corrolation between ticket prices and payroll. Especially in baseball, where tickets are one of many revenue streams. Teams make these calculations every year - In order to maximize stadium revenue, do I charge less and get more people, or charge more for less people? Payroll, really doesn't factor into it on any level - it's not about how much money the team needs to make, but how much they can make given their market. The Yankees can afford to charge exorbinant rates (like the Red Sox) because the demand for their tickets is high. The Reds, cannot. If the Yankees had 100 million less on their payroll, would ticket prices go down?
If the Yankees had 100million less on their payroll would their prices lower, hell yes they would. They would have to to get people in the stands. Take the Angles for example. The new owner lowered the prices on beer and upper level tickes to get more people in the standa so he could get big free angents like Colon and Vlad. Simple business peeople. Baseball is a game for kids and weekend hackers. It is a business first and a game second to these filthy rich owners. Mark my word, they will never loose money, only trade the money makers away to keep their pockets filled. Again, not making as much as the year before is not loosing money........
If the Yankees had 100million less on their payroll would their prices lower, hell yes they would. so long as the yankees (or any team for that matter) put a team on the field that people want to see, they'll continue to average 45,000+ a game no matter is their payroll is $200 million or $100 million or $50 million. and if that many people continue to go there's no reason for ticket prices to go down. if their current state of play continues for another year or 2 i could see attendance going down. then they may lower prices. they would probably have to pull less than 3 million a year though before that happens. but with only another 4 seasons or so left at this stadium before they build the new one i don't see that happening. i'd say there's a good chance for them to break 4 million tickets sold soon. the yankees make their money from merchandising and cable deals and things of that nature. (they have their own network fer chrissakes.) i would think that most of the money brought in from tickets and concessions goes to operational costs, not player payroll. if you have to decrease ticket prices just to draw those 45,000 per game, you still have to pay the operational costs but now you have a smaller pool of money to use.
The new owner lowered the prices on beer and upper level tickes to get more people in the standa so he could get big free angents like Colon and Vlad. He lowered prices on beer and upper-level tickets under the assumption the corresponding rise in sales at a lower price would offset or exceed sales x the higher price. Which is to say, he maximized revenue. It had nothing to do with who he wanted to sign. He would have tried to maximize revenue regardless. If I visit your lemonade stand and tell you I'd be willing to pay twice the price and so would everyone else, would you continue to sell at the lower price? Keep in mind, as goddam suggested above, ticket sales are a small percentage of overall team revenue, especially for the large-market teams like the Sox, Cubs, Braves and Yankees who own their own tv channels (or are owned by one). A 5% change in ticket prices isn't going to affect who they can sign. It is a business first and a game second to these filthy rich owners. And it would be for anyone else who owned a team. Otherwise there'd be a decent chance you'd go out of business. As for "filthy", which side are you on, the side of filthy business or filthy anarchists?
Maybe you mis understood what I meant about lowering the costs of things at the stadium. Buy doing so, more people would come to the games and buy more beer and seats. You are %100 right about that, it is a BUSINESS move and that is it. I am on the side of the guy who wants to take his kids to a ball game but has to pay $250 bucks for a family of four to go. I am a season ticket holder 3 seasons now and luckly I can afford to do that. By lowering beer prices, more drunk fans will buy beer because "its cheeper so we can by more" that is brilliant marketing, but that is how he made most of his money.
As far as the Yankees having their own network, if their product was not that good, or that of the Royals, people would not come to the games and thus no money to get these things. But if you spend the money, you get the players. The yankees are known for buying the best team they can. It is noce to see it blow up in their face. Now if only those Red Sox can play strong for a whole season the crumble will be complete. :0)
But if you spend the money, you get the players. Show me that this is true, that there is a 1:1 correlation between payroll and performance. Used wisely, a high payroll makes things easier, but there are plenty of recent examples of expensive teams that sucked. Think Peter Angelos and the Os of the late 90s to early Aughts. if their product was not that good, or that of the Royals, people would not come to the games and thus no money to get these things. Again, this is not accurate. The teams with TV networks receive hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenues. Yes those revenues rise and fall depending on team performance, but the variance isn't as great as you'd think. Additionally, all teams get a piece of the national TV contract regardless of their performance. And they get 20% of road gate receipts. So there's plenty of income for any team, no matter how they play.
So there's plenty of income for any team, no matter how they play... For the best evidence of this reasoning see Donald Sterling and his Clippers.
This post started as a testament to Darin Erstad and look what you guys did to it!!!
Well, we were going to talk Dodgers . . .
That's a different post, isn't it?
Tommy you are %100 correct, and I am sorry about that. Coming from an ex hardcore player, I saw the play coming a mile away and so should have the Braves catcher.
