lukethedrifter wrote:Who needs the runner on 2nd though. Info was coming from video ppl who were texting it to the trainer who read it on watch who then passed info on to batter via who?
-------------------------------------
Mel
12:03
What degree of moral turpitude do you assign the Red Sox for their electronic sign stealing? Do you believe that Farrell did not know it was happening?
Dave Cameron
12:04
No way Farrell didn't know. In terms of moral turpitude, they broke the rules, they knew they were breaking the rules, and they did it anyway, so there's some guilt here, but as far as infractions go, this isn't that big a deal. Sign stealing isn't even against the rules. It's just the method they used that is problematic.
Zock Jr.
12:12
As an ethical Red Sox fan, I'm bummed, Dave. Bummed.
Dave Cameron
12:14
Were you bummed when the team was signing international players to "package deals" to get around the signing bonuses?
It's not like it's really news that teams will do whatever they can to get an advantage if they think they can get away with it.
Last edited by Jocephus on September 6 17, 10:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
lukethedrifter wrote:Who needs the runner on 2nd though. Info was coming from video ppl who were texting it to the trainer who read it on watch who then passed info on to batter via who?
"Red Sox video replay employees were able to decode which signs corresponded with which pitches, and relayed that information to dugout via the trainer’s watch, which was then passed along to a runner on second base. That runner, now knowing what each sign means, could alert the batter to what was coming." -Deadspin
groucho
12:33
Obviously can't compare what the red sox did to the cardinals hacking scandal, but which of the two do you think their respective teams benefited most from?
lukethedrifter wrote:I see. I guess it's less obvious to get signs from the guy right in front of you.
Yeah. You can communicate the sign more covertly if you're on second base than if you're in the dugout.
The runner at second can make very subtle movements (turn his hand a certain direction, touch his knee, lean his head forward, etc.) to communicate with the batter. For the call to come from the dugout directly to the batter, you are relying on verbal cues, which can be spotted easier by the opposing team (or can be lost to crowd noise).
groucho
12:33
Obviously can't compare what the red sox did to the cardinals hacking scandal, but which of the two do you think their respective teams benefited most from?
Dave Cameron
12:33
Cardinals, easily.
What the Cardinals did was wrong and was wrong from a MLB standpoint and a legal standpoint so it's tough to compare the 2. The Cards had lots and lots of access to information - scouting reports, internal conversations, valuation information. All of that information has an extremely high ceiling of value - making the right draft pick can be work millions of potential value added to the organization. However, that information was all speculative. It is only valuable if the Astros scouts made the right assessment, if the projectable tools of a player actually develop, if the internal chatter of a player results in an actual trade. The Cardinals basically had another multi-million dollar scouting system that they didn't have to pay for, but I don't know if there is an exact win-loss value you can put on a scouting system - they still need to provide the right information and the players still need to develop.
The Red Sox however were likely able to get actual base hits on a major league level based on this cheating. Wins and losses at the major league level seem to have been effected based on the system they utilized.
Again the Cardinals likely will received millions of dollars of information that could have been used to create millions of dollars of value and potentially win baseball games if players were selected based on information that otherwise wouldn't have been available to them. The Red Sox might have won a few more actual baseball games (which in turn may lead to them making the playoffs and generating millions of additional revenue) based on their cheating.
groucho
12:33
Obviously can't compare what the red sox did to the cardinals hacking scandal, but which of the two do you think their respective teams benefited most from?
Dave Cameron
12:33
Cardinals, easily.
What the Cardinals did was wrong and was wrong from a MLB standpoint and a legal standpoint so it's tough to compare the 2. The Cards had lots and lots of access to information - scouting reports, internal conversations, valuation information. All of that information has an extremely high ceiling of value - making the right draft pick can be work millions of potential value added to the organization. However, that information was all speculative. It is only valuable if the Astros scouts made the right assessment, if the projectable tools of a player actually develop, if the internal chatter of a player results in an actual trade. The Cardinals basically had another multi-million dollar scouting system that they didn't have to pay for, but I don't know if there is an exact win-loss value you can put on a scouting system - they still need to provide the right information and the players still need to develop.
The Red Sox however were likely able to get actual base hits on a major league level based on this cheating. Wins and losses at the major league level seem to have been effected based on the system they utilized.
Again the Cardinals likely will received millions of dollars of information that could have been used to create millions of dollars of value and potentially win baseball games if players were selected based on information that otherwise wouldn't have been available to them. The Red Sox might have won a few more actual baseball games (which in turn may lead to them making the playoffs and generating millions of additional revenue) based on their cheating.
It's funny that Manfred is said, "it's just very hard to know what the actual impact in any particular game was of an alleged violation like this," using that as a potential defense for not having a strict punishment for the Red Sox.
The exact same defense could be used for the Cardinals' hacking situation. It's very had to know what the actual impact in any particular game was of a violation like the hacking.
groucho
12:33
Obviously can't compare what the red sox did to the cardinals hacking scandal, but which of the two do you think their respective teams benefited most from?
Dave Cameron
12:33
Cardinals, easily.
What the Cardinals did was wrong and was wrong from a MLB standpoint and a legal standpoint so it's tough to compare the 2. The Cards had lots and lots of access to information - scouting reports, internal conversations, valuation information. All of that information has an extremely high ceiling of value - making the right draft pick can be work millions of potential value added to the organization. However, that information was all speculative. It is only valuable if the Astros scouts made the right assessment, if the projectable tools of a player actually develop, if the internal chatter of a player results in an actual trade. The Cardinals basically had another multi-million dollar scouting system that they didn't have to pay for, but I don't know if there is an exact win-loss value you can put on a scouting system - they still need to provide the right information and the players still need to develop.
The Red Sox however were likely able to get actual base hits on a major league level based on this cheating. Wins and losses at the major league level seem to have been effected based on the system they utilized.
Again the Cardinals likely will received millions of dollars of information that could have been used to create millions of dollars of value and potentially win baseball games if players were selected based on information that otherwise wouldn't have been available to them. The Red Sox might have won a few more actual baseball games (which in turn may lead to them making the playoffs and generating millions of additional revenue) based on their cheating.
It's funny that Manfred is said, "it's just very hard to know what the actual impact in any particular game was of an alleged violation like this," using that as a potential defense for not having a strict punishment for the Red Sox.
The exact same defense could be used for the Cardinals' hacking situation. It's very had to know what the actual impact in any particular game was of a violation like the hacking.
Nothing like having absolute power. God Almighty, Dictators and the Commissioner of Baseball.