Getty Images

Nationals haven’t played in a week. Is that a problem?

12 Comments

You’ll hear the question posed in the headline a lot in early going of tonight’s Game 1. If the Astros jump out to a lead and/or go on to win the game, it’ll likely transform from a question to an assertion. The “[Team] had too many days off between games” thing is often cited by commentators and fans as a reason for the team with a lot of time off after the LCS woofin’ it in the World Series.

Does more rest hurt a World Series team compared to a team that played more recently? Yes, at least in recent years.

The team with less time off before Game 1 of the World Series has won nine of the past ten World Series, with last year’s Red Sox team — which had four days off to the Dodgers’ three before Game 1 — being the exception. In the three years before that — 2006 through 2008 — the team with less time off won two of three. Ah ha! it’s settled then.

Or not. Because before that — from the advent of the Wild Card round, which was first played in 1995, through 2005 — the team with more rest won the World Series ten of eleven times.

Perhaps that doesn’t make a total wash — the current pattern is certainly interesting — but it does make it hard to be 100% confident that the rest factor is more than just somewhat oddly-ordered randomness.

But let’s look a bit more specifically. Let’s look at teams that not only had more rest, but which had an unusual amount of rest for a baseball team.

The Nationals have had six full days off before today. That doesn’t happen that often, at least not recently, especially since MLB stopped letting Fox arbitrarily set the start date of the World Series which often created longer wait times. Let’s look at how having six full days off or more before the Fall Classic begins helps or hurts a team.

Here’s everyone who has fit that description since 1995:

  • 1995 Braves: 6 days off: WON
  • 1996 Yankees: 6 days off: WON
  • 2006 Tigers: 6 days off: LOST
  • 2007 Rockies: 8 days off — EIGHT DAYS OFF?!! — LOST
  • 2008 Phillies: 6 days off — WON
  • 2009 Phillies: 6 days off — LOST

So, it’s three wins and three losses for the teams with six or more full days off. One of those wins and one of those losses came from basically the same team, the 08-09 Phillies. One of those losses came from a 2007 Rockies team that, most people would agree, was seriously out-classed by the Red Sox.

Which means that . . . it kinda doesn’t matter? Indeed, to the extent I think people think it does matter was because after it happened to the Tigers in 2006 manager Jim Leyland made a big point to say that the extra rest was a problem while most managers haven’t really cited it, at least with any amount of passion or definitiveness. If I remember correctly Leyland cited it again in 2012, and that year the Tigers only had five full days off. When someone like Leyland says something, narratives tend to be formed.

Anyway, just know that if/when someone mentions the Nats’ being rusty, the time, in and of itself, is probably not the whole story.

Rob Manfred explains reasoning behind proposal to cut 42 minor league teams

Cody Glenn/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images
6 Comments

As we learned earlier this week, Major League Baseball wants to contract 42 minor league teams, mostly in short-season and rookie ball. The proposal earned a lot of backlash, including from some of the teams on the chopping block and from Congress. MLB responded with its own letter to Congress, written by deputy commissioner Dan Halem, explaining the league’s reasoning.

In the letter, Halem complains about the lack of competition between minor league teams and independent teams. Halem wrote, “The lack of competition among operators of teams for an affiliation with a Major League Club has reduced the incentive for some affiliated Minor League teams to improve their facilities and player amenities.” It is an interesting thing to write as someone representing a $10 billion business that has benefited for a century from an antitrust exemption.

Halem also noted that MLB has several goals that are supposedly attained by cutting 26 percent of the minors: ensuring the quality of the facilities for the players, reducing the travel burden, improving the “compensation, accommodations, and amenities” for players, improving the affiliation process between minor league and major league teams.

Commissioner Rob Manfred essentially echoed that sentiment on Thursday, per Newsday’s Laura Albanese. He gave four reasons behind the proposal: inadequate facilities, travel, poor pay, drafting and signing players who don’t have a realistic shot to make it to the majors. The last reason is a new one, but let’s go over those four reasons in context.

It is true that some, perhaps even most, of the facilities of the 42 named teams are inadequate. It’s not all of them. As NECN’s Jack Thurston reports, the owner of the short-season Lowell Spinners, Dave Heller, said that his team’s stadium is “arguably the best facility in the New York-Penn League,” speaking highly of its lighting and field conditions. The Quad Cities River Bandits, the Astros’ Single-A affiliate and also on the chopping block, renovated their stadium a handful of times over the last 12 years. In fact, it earned an award from BallparkDigest.com for “Best Ballpark Improvement” in both 2008 and ’09, and finished third in the 2018 running for “Best View in the Minors.” At any rate, if facility quality is such a big issue, why did the Athletics continue to play in a stadium that repeatedly had its sewage system overflow in 2013?

Travel is certainly a big issue for minor leaguers because they mostly travel by bus, not plane. Having teams located closer to each other would be more beneficial in this regard. Or — and hear me out, here — major league teams could take on the extra expenditure of paying for their minor leaguers’ airfare. Several years ago, the Phillies took on the extra expenditure of making sure their minor leaguers ate healthy food and that has worked out well. The Blue Jays took on the extra expenditure of giving their minor leaguers a pay raise and that has worked out well. The Red Sox took on the extra expenditure of installing a sleep room at Fenway Park to ensure their players were well-rested and that has worked out well. No one is suggesting that Single-A players have to fly first class on every flight, but the travel issue is an easy fix that doesn’t require contracting 42 teams. Teams have individually chosen to improve their players’ quality of life and it has yielded positive results. Imagine it on a league-wide scale for thousands of players in their formative years.

Manfred citing minor league pay as a basis for the proposal is laughable. His own league successfully lobbied Congress to amend language in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, classifying minor league players as seasonal workers. That means they are not entitled to a minimum wage or overtime pay, among other worker protections. If the pay of minor league players was so important to Major League Baseball, it wouldn’t have pressured the government to legally ensure they didn’t have to pay them a living wage. Every baseball team is worth at least a billion dollars. The league has set year-over-year revenue records for 16 consecutive years, crossing $10 billion in 2018. Minor leaguers could be compensated well without robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Lastly, it is true that a majority of minor league players will never reach the major leagues. That doesn’t mean that their presence in the minor leagues or their effort to realize their dreams have zero value. Lopping off the bottom 26 percent of minor leaguers might nominally increase the level of skill on each roster, but it eliminates so many jobs — well over 1,000. Furthermore, there are few incentives for athletes to want to slog through several years of the minors as it is, as Kyler Murray recently showed, but there would be even fewer incentives by shrinking the minors (and, consequently, the draft). Shrinking the minors and the draft could lead to more minor league free agents, but if baseball is actually interested in a free market (it’s not) then it should abolish the draft entirely as well as the arbitration system.

These reasons, each uniquely fallacious, hide the real reason behind the proposal: shifting money around so Major League Baseball can say it will award pay raises to minor leaguers, ending a years-long stretch of bad P.R., without actually cutting into profits. MLB could have afforded to pay minor leaguers a living wage years ago and it chose not to. MLB could have chosen not to lobby Congress for the ability to continue underpaying minor leaguers years ago, but it chose to do so. Everything since has been the league trying to avoid lying in the bed it made for itself.