Is there a better litmus test for baseball smarts right now than one’s opinion on the ideal role for Joba Chamberlain? I do love the new meme, though, that 14 big league starts constitute conclusive evidence of … something.
By the way, SI does have a great piece on Jeremy Tyler, a high school basketball star who’s going to go play in Europe for two years instead of enriching some undeserving US university for a season. The NBA’s age limit is an atrocity, anti-player and anti-capitalist, and anyone giving the finger to David Stern on this issue gets my applause.
Excellent post, Keith. Contains my two biggest peeves in sports – people who want to destroy the value Joba Chamberlain can attain (seriously, Tim Wakefield has been worth as many wins over the past seven years as Mariano Rivera), or people who continue to willfully ignore the NCAA treating its labor force like they’re the Lowell Spinsters.
I’d love to live in Europe (preferably Spain or Italy, maybe Germany) for a year or two while getting paid to do something I love and/or am really good at. I guess that makes me as despicable as Brandon Jennings, Jeremy Tyler, and any other American high school baller who will follow their lead.
I went to the Yankees-Sox game tonight and had the most infuriating argument with my friends (fellow Yankees fans) who kept saying Joba should be in the 8th inning. Even when I explained to them 150-200 innings of 3.0-3.5 ERA is much more valuable than 50-75 innings of 2 ERA they didn’t budge. They also didn’t budge at my suggestion that if Joba should be in the 8th, why don’t the Yankees also put CC and AJ Burnett in the bullpen. They also couldn’t explain why the 8th inning was so valuable yet set-up men make much less than starters. They stuck to old line that in the bullpen he would ‘affect’ 50 games and in the rotation he only ‘affects’ 25-30 games. Is there any way to convince them or is it a lost cause?
Who exactly is criticizing Tyler’s decision? In the three or four articles that I’ve read about Tyler including the one on SI.com, there have been references like “people will criticize the decision” but no one has been quoted criticizing him. In fact, I read where one NBA GM, whose name was withheld because his comments are against the league’s rules, thought it was the right move.
Agreed on the Tyler situation, as it pertains to whether he should be allowed to go to Europe/NBA/whatever.
Although, re: one of Staples’ points …
Granted it’s a sample of one, but Brandon Jennings (the highly ranked HS player who non-qualified in ’09 and went to Europe) hasn’t played much over there this season. He’ll still get drafted high, but that year glued to the bench (and not being tutored by coaches interested in actually making him better) might have set him back. It’s a case-by-case, sure — and some college coaches aren’t all that benevolent, either — but it could happen.
(And, by the way, Ricky Rubio is so coveted because scouts say he’s simply that good. A lot of players his age have potential, but need a higher level of development, and Europe has an iffy reputation for that. Consider: How many low-20s European players have entered the Association as polished pros?)
But all of this is not an argument *for* restrictions. It just means the market will set itself. If Jennings and Tyler fail, other players might be less inclined to join an establishment that, while it actually *pays* its employees, is sometimes less stable than college (Ex: Jennings has complained about missing paychecks).
The result: This whole “floodgates” and “setting a precedent” argument becomes pretty silly, and everyone’s precious college basketball would remain mostly untouched (but, IMO, still vastly inferior to the pro game … because, like, ya know, it’s more fun to watch better players). If it succeeds, then we all win, because some kids reach the NBA as more mature, more developed. And, like, ya know, it’s more fun to watch better players.
Elijah Dukes just muffed a pop up to let 2 runs score with 2 outs.
It’s very sunny here in NY today. Sunglasses? Dukes has em. On his hat, not his eyes.
I always wondered why LeBron James didn’t just get his GED after his Junior year in high school to play one year of professional ball in Europe (this was prior to the NBA’s one-and-done rule). Due to eligibility issues, I want to say he only played about 15 games as a Senior, against ridiculously overmatched high school kids in Ohio. While his development has obviously been phenomenal, I can’t imagine how much more valuable a full season of playing professionally in the Euroleague would have been for his development.
Not to mention – playing abroad would have aided his ultimate goal of becoming a global icon a la Michael Jordan.
Too bad the Yanks couldn’t use the same set of rules as the adult baseball league I play in uses… the starting pitcher can be removed and put back in later in the game (and is the only pitcher for which this can happen).
Doesn’t happen much, if at all, but then Joba could start AND pitch the 8th! Problem solved. Now all the Yanks need is a simple little rule change…
I understand your point that the age-limit is anti-player but is it really anti-capitalist. i think it is just a transfer of capital. The NBA is gaining at least a year of marketing and NCAA gains a at least year in production and the kid loses a year of paychecks. it produces value to the NCAA and NBA.
“150-200 innings of 3.0-3.5 ERA is much more valuable than 50-75 innings of 2 ERA”
That’s absolutely true. Now, which pitcher are we talking about here? Because Joba Chamberlain hasn’t come close to putting up those types of numbers, and his own catcher publicly questioned his ability to last 200 innings. Would I give him a chance to be a starter? Of course, it’s logical. But let’s be a little objective here too.
In my opinion, the age minimum is a financial boon for the NBA, and therefore isn’t anti-capitalist. If they thought high school to NBA helped them out financially, they would do it. It was a business decision. The players (barring injury) arguably gain more maturity and allows the NBA to further judge their talent. The NBA receives a better product and there is very low opportunity cost.
Re players…in many cases, it likely increases a player’s lifetime value with a higher draft pick even adjusting for an extra year of pay and time value of money. It also eliminates much of the fraud for players who probably don’t deserve to be in the NBA. Is this anti-player? Maybe. But how many institutions allow for non-college graduates to get sought after positions in the corporate world? Do we call this anti-non-graduate? How is this much different? College allows those companies another reference point to make a good hiring decision. As does an extra year of college for the NBA. They are a corporation and can do what they want and this decision is driven by the bottom line.
Bravo K.Law!
I agree that an age limit is as anti-capitalistic as it gets. How do you feel about anti-smoking laws for restaurants? I feel they are anti-cap as well. If an owner wants to cater towards the smoking clientele, go for it, if they don’t, don’t.
Bravo, also, keep the tweets coming, your the best on board!
The age restriction rule is pro-business, but that’s not the same as pro-capitalist. The labor market for basketball players (or baseball or football players) is already restricted by monopsony, but that is “natural” in the sense that one appears to be the optimal number of top-level leagues in any sport. The age restriction artificially restricts this market further. Limiting freedom in the labor market seems about as anti-capitalist as it gets, particularly since an 18-year-old in just about any other field (including baseball) is legally entitled to pursue full-time employment.
Art, I’m a big believer in consumer freedom and choice. Restaurants should be allowed to choose whether they wish to cater to the smoking market and lose people like me (I can’t stand the smell of cigarette smoke, period, but especially not when I’m eating) or wish to lose the smokers and cater to people like me. I also think that laws banning trans fats are an unnecessary intrusion into our kitchens – just label what foods contain them and let consumers choose – to say nothing of the number of times that the nutrition/health community has changed its tune on the health benefits and risks of certain foods.
I’m not convinced that “150-200 innings of 3.0-3.5 ERA is much more valuable than 50-75 innings of 2 ERA”. The leverage in most of those innings are different.
Nate Silver wrote an article a while back discussing the same argument about Jonathan Papelbon.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5471
I understand your point on restricting the labor market. However, the NBA is a private enterprise trying to maximize profits. Not allowing them to institute rules in hiring decisions decidedly cuts into profits, which in turn would limit productivity, hiring, etc… That seems more anti-capitalist to me. The NBA is just maximizing the value it receives versus the costs it pays it labor. That is capitalistic.
Not allowing the NBA to choose seems pro-labor. Similar to CBA’s and player unions. Decidedly, anti-capitalist.
The majority of writers have been pro-Europe for Tyler, but there have been a couple who have ridiculed the decision.
One is The Sporting News’ Mike DeCourcey who compares Derrick Rose to Danilo Gallinari and says point proven.
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=541677
The other is ESPN.com’s Doug Gottlieb, who says that Tyler is only after the money and not the wonderful experience that is college basketball:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4096202
My own take is on my linked blog: college basketball is nice but has little to do with preparing a player for the NBA.
Keith,
Have you considered political commentary here? I’ve been curious what you think of all the bailouts, nationalization, etc. with your economics degree and all.
Also am curious if you’re a Keynesian, Austrian schooler, Chicago schooler, or something different.
Another thing that Jermain O’Neal, who entered the league out of high school, pointed out is (somewhat haphazardly) is that there is a racial smell to the NBA’s age limit: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2035132
Now, this does not mean that the league or its fans are racist in the sense that the rule does not intentionally target black players … BUT the age limit DOES disproportionately affect them (yes the age limit applies to Europeans, but they are in professional leagues already). And with quite a few of those players coming from poverty ridden backgrounds, the race-class angles are hard to ignore.
The reason the age limit came in more than anything was marketing. When Dwight Howard was picked #1 overall, the average fan who pays the corporate rates the NBA slobbers over said “huh?” The NBA likes having the free pub that college gives. Also, the league is uniquely positioned in the marketplace in that they are selling a sport largely driven by african-americans (80% roughly) to a hoity toity corporate class of fan – and they are always grappling with that sort of conflict. Selling the hip-hop, “urban” angle without getting their hands dirty.
I apologize for the generalizations – but had to make a point somehow – bottom line is the rule is bad for many reasons, but the racial undertones should not be excluded among those reasons.
nflfootball has the similar limitations to their draft….seems like a willie williams (when he was a hs kid) could have jumped to nfl or a julio jones this year. why no chatter with that?
The double standard that applies to the NFL vs MLB is its own problem.
isn’t this an nba conversation though?
Well, the double standard is really the NFL vs. any other league. The lack of scrutiny of steroid/PED use in the NFL compared to the absurd scrutiny of same in other sports is probably the best example.
or racism! (*grins! – too soon?)
Why have scrutiny with something that’s beloved? That is silly.
Congressmen don’t want to risk their ‘Skins tickets.
It would be absurd for a small market team like the Indians to waste an asset like Joba in the pen. However, the yankees do operate under a different reality. If they can just go out and get another all star to take his place in the rotation, maybe it’s not completely absurd.
(And by the way, perhaps the Yankees should consider signing an excellent starter and throwing him in the pen. They have the resources, after all.)
“just label what foods contain them and let consumers choose”
BRAVO.
Label the GMO foods and let consumers choose. Let the market segment.
Or maybe the Yankees should sign an excellent starter and make said excellent starter go to the pen. Barring a true staff full of imported aces, something that’s likely beyond even the Yankees’ budget, Joba will be one of their five best starters. That means you start him and fill in the rest with the leftovers.
Isn’t usda organic non-gmo? Is this common knowledge or am I totally missing something?
@Tim
Silver found that on average that a 75 IP closer at 2.00 ERA is equal to a 200 IP starter at 3.69 ERA. Many people believe that Joba can post ERAs better than that.
The difference with Papelbon is that he only has two pitches (really one pitch) pitcher and Joba has four.
One point being missed is we don’t know what type of starter he is going to be. I guess we don’t really know what type of reliever he would be either, but we have a better idea. This shouldn’t discount him from being in the rotation; the Yankees should make every effort possible to see if he can dominate in the rotation in the same way he dominated in the bullpen. But, if he proves for some reason, to be significantly less productive as a starter than as a reliever, it makes sense (It looks like Adam hit on the threshold for this). The major problem is the rush to judgment based on such a small sample size for such a young guy.
Also, I absolutely agree that the NFL’s double-standard is absurd and that the double-standard between the NFL/NBA’s cutoff and the NHL/MLB’s has some basis in race. I think, as someone pointed out earlier, it has less to do with the perception of those running the league, and more to do with their understanding of their leagues’ perceptions, which unfortunately are colored by race. Young, tattooed black ballers are thugs. Young, gritty white outfiers are the salt of the earth!
Why do we have a better idea what type of reliever he is? He has 59 IP as a reliever, 81.1 IP as a starter. We can’t really draw conclusions from either sample, but 81.1 > 59. I think we have a slightly better idea of what he is as a starter.