Rosenthal: teams "probably" colluded against the players, but it's a tough case to make

Leave a comment

Rosenthal pretty much sums up my exact thinking when it comes to the collusion stuff from the past couple of days when he says:

Do I think baseball teams engaged in collusion to hold down free-agent
salaries? Probably. Do I think the players’ union
can prove that the teams engaged in such an illegal conspiracy? Not
easily.

The key here is that there are two kinds of evidence that can make a collusion case: (1) data evidence, such as how much are people making now compared to last year and whether that makes rational sense; and (2) gumshoe evidence, such as incriminating emails, testimony from someone about how so-and-so talked to so-and-so about manipulating the market and things of that nature.

Based on what some smart people like J.C. Bradbury have pointed out there may not be much to the data case, and as I mentioned yesterday, simply being smarter and analytical about it all can led to teams valuing players at similar levels.

But based on what Rosenthal points out — and the stuff I’m hearing — there may be more to this than a mere data case, however.  All it takes is a couple of people to pull back the curtain and a collusion conspiracy — like the ones in the past — would be revealed.  It’s being suggested that such gumshoe evidence exists. Whether that’s true and whether it’s enough to make a case is still an open question.

Rosenthal, by the way, also provides a nice collusion history lesson.  The famous cases from the 1980s weren’t the only times ownership colluded to keep salaries down. The league gave the players a lump some payment in 2002 to settle threatened-but-unfiled collusion claims. Between that, the three 80s cases and the entire century of pre-free agency baseball, teams not acting in concert to keep player salaries down is far and away the exception, not the rule.

Like I said yesterday: worth watching.

Joe Maddon: “I have a defensive foot fetish.”

Getty Images
5 Comments

The Cubs’ defense — or lack thereof this year — has been a topic of conversation as it could help explain why the team hasn’t played at the elite level it played at last year.

Manager Joe Maddon tried to go into detail about that but ended up channeling his inner Rex Ryan. Via CSN Chicago’s Patrick Mooney.

Well then.

The Nationals have scored 62 runs during four Joe Ross starts

Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
1 Comment

If, in the future, Joe Ross ever complains about a lack of run support, point to his first four starts of the 2017 season.

Ross started on April 19 in Atlanta against the Braves, on April 25 in Colorado against the Rockies, on April 30 at home against the Mets, and on May 23 at home against the Mariners. In those games, the Nats’ offense scored 14, 15, 23, and 10 runs respectively for a total of 62 runs, or an average of 15.5 per start. Ross was the pitcher of record for seven, eight, 10, and 10 runs for a total of 35 runs (8.75 runs per start), which would still make him the major league leader in run support by that restrictive standard.

Among qualified starters — Ross did not qualify — entering Tuesday’s action, the Rockies’ Antonio Senzatela led the way according to ESPN, averaging 7.11 runs of support in nine starts. The Rockies scored double-digit runs in only three of those starts, oddly enough.

Per the Nationals, the 62 runs of support for Ross is a major league record in a pitcher’s first four starts of a season.