Comments on: The benefits of allowing payoffs by teams http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/05/21/the-benefits-of-allowing-payoffs-by-teams/ Baseball, Cheating, and Rules discussion at the author's blog for the Cheater's Guide to Baseball Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:29:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: DMZ http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/05/21/the-benefits-of-allowing-payoffs-by-teams/#comment-791 DMZ Thu, 31 May 2007 19:22:58 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/05/21/the-benefits-of-allowing-payoffs-by-teams/#comment-791 I disagree - here, it's offering to pay the Royals to play their veterans, say, instead of testing their kids. If you don't pay them, they go about their business. You only allow pro-win incentives, essentially, that have to be public. The Yankees can't say "play the rookies against us, or against another team with some wacky playoff implications, and we'll pay you if you lose." I think the real danger there is that the Royals threaten to lay down if they're not paid: they manage to say that they're going to put out a horrible team each time and the going rate for using their good players is $500k/game. In the end, though, I don't bring this up because I think it's workable, much less acceptable, but it's an interesting way to think about the problem: there's a whole other sport that deals with this issue in an entirely different way, and it works. That's fascintating to me. I disagree – here, it’s offering to pay the Royals to play their veterans, say, instead of testing their kids.

If you don’t pay them, they go about their business.

You only allow pro-win incentives, essentially, that have to be public. The Yankees can’t say “play the rookies against us, or against another team with some wacky playoff implications, and we’ll pay you if you lose.”

I think the real danger there is that the Royals threaten to lay down if they’re not paid: they manage to say that they’re going to put out a horrible team each time and the going rate for using their good players is $500k/game.

In the end, though, I don’t bring this up because I think it’s workable, much less acceptable, but it’s an interesting way to think about the problem: there’s a whole other sport that deals with this issue in an entirely different way, and it works.

That’s fascintating to me.

]]> By: Pablo http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/05/21/the-benefits-of-allowing-payoffs-by-teams/#comment-789 Pablo Thu, 31 May 2007 18:46:45 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/05/21/the-benefits-of-allowing-payoffs-by-teams/#comment-789 You wrote: "You’d have to work out a way to make it above-board and if not public, at least disclosed within baseball. You could file, for instance, with MLB, and say “We agree to pay the Twins $1,000,000 per win against the White Sox, with an additional $500,000 if they sweep the series.” That wouldn't work, because the obverse of paying a team to win is paying the other team to lose. That's exactly how Baseball's gambling problem started. This couldn't work and would destroy the integrity of the game. You wrote: “You’d have to work out a way to make it above-board and if not public, at least disclosed within baseball. You could file, for instance, with MLB, and say “We agree to pay the Twins $1,000,000 per win against the White Sox, with an additional $500,000 if they sweep the series.”

That wouldn’t work, because the obverse of paying a team to win is paying the other team to lose. That’s exactly how Baseball’s gambling problem started. This couldn’t work and would destroy the integrity of the game.

]]> By: joser http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/05/21/the-benefits-of-allowing-payoffs-by-teams/#comment-762 joser Thu, 24 May 2007 07:55:31 +0000 http://www.cheatersguidetobaseball.com/2007/05/21/the-benefits-of-allowing-payoffs-by-teams/#comment-762 Occasionally I've toyed with a different variation of this: suppose that after the July trading deadline (or 81 games, or the allstar break, or whatever) all teams that are under .500 can have their rosters expanded to 30 players -- and the rosters remain expanded until everyone gets enlarged in September, even if they climb above .500 Now, I suppose a team that is just bumping along at .500 might deliberately lose a game at the deadline just to get the free roster spave, but I don't think that would be too much of a problem. And it would be a rare season where such a team ended up in the postseason. But it would give teams where the season is already a lost cause a chance to get started early on rebuilding, trying out kids from the minors, etc. Occasionally I’ve toyed with a different variation of this: suppose that after the July trading deadline (or 81 games, or the allstar break, or whatever) all teams that are under .500 can have their rosters expanded to 30 players — and the rosters remain expanded until everyone gets enlarged in September, even if they climb above .500

Now, I suppose a team that is just bumping along at .500 might deliberately lose a game at the deadline just to get the free roster spave, but I don’t think that would be too much of a problem. And it would be a rare season where such a team ended up in the postseason. But it would give teams where the season is already a lost cause a chance to get started early on rebuilding, trying out kids from the minors, etc.

]]>