From the Gwinnett Daily Post.
DULUTH - Gwinnett tourism officials are reaching out to local cities for help in hospitality efforts.
Recently, members of the Gwinnett Convention and Visitors Bureau have worked to convince leaders to create a uniform hotel/motel tax rate across the county, where 2 percent of the 7 percent tax would go to the county bureau….
The county’s hotel/motel tax rate is 7 percent, but hotels in cities pay rates determined by each City Council. The bureau is proposing a 7 percent charge so 2 percent could be dedicated to the bureau….
“We’re willing to talk,” Buford City Commission Chairman Phillip Beard said, adding that he understood the bureau’s need for additional revenues with the construction of a minor league baseball stadium planned for Buford Drive south of the city. [Emphasis added.]
Another example of the Gwinnett Braves stadium paying for itself from day one.
Posted by JC as Gwinnett Braves at 7:38 AM EDT
2 Comments »
For the second year in a row, home runs are down in baseball. It won’t be long until someone attributes this change to improved drug testing and the response to the the Mitchell Report. Here is a graph of March/April home runs (thanks to Baseball-Reference’s league splits).
Now, it is possible that testing might have had an effect, but it is not obvious in the data. MLB began random tests with sanctions for a first offense in 2005. Home runs were down in 2005, but they were not significantly different from prior years; and, in 2006 home runs returned to the 2004 level.
But still, there is no denying that home runs are down from recent historical highs. In fact, the home-run rate this year is the lowest it has been since 1993—the beginning of the modern home-run era. And this continues the decline from last season, when the home-run rate dropped below three percent for the first time since 1997. Are there any factors that could be causing this aside from a decline in drug use or random variation in the data?
It is easy to remember something very unique about last season’s first few weeks: it was unseasonably cool. Off the top of my head, I recall the Indians losing several games to snow and playing a home series with the Angels in Milwaukee. Chris Constancio looked at the impact of temperature on home runs and found strong positive relationship the two.
The average temperature for major league baseball games [in 2007], 58.2 degrees Farenheit, was over four degrees cooler than the average during the early part of the previous two seasons. This relationship seems relevant to understanding why home runs, and consequently run totals, are down this season….
Game-time temperature was a significant predictor (at the p [greater than] .001 level) of whether or not batted balls left the ballpark, but the day of the season was not statistically significant. A batted ball has a 4.0% chance of leaving the park during a game played in 70 degree conditions, but only a 3.5% chance of becoming a home run in a game played in 50 degree conditions. This relationship exists regardless of whether or not the game is being played during the first week of the season or in the middle of May.
In summary, it’s true that hitters gain an advantage in hitting home runs as the season progresses, but this advantage can be explained entirely by accounting for air temperature changes.
This year, I can only recall one snow-out (Braves–Rockies), and the early-season temperature hasn’t gotten as much press as it did last year. I decided to look at how the April temperature this season differs from previous seasons, and compare temperatures to home-run rates.
Over the past decade, early-season home runs and temperature have moved together. April 2008 was actually 0.3 degrees cooler than April 2007—sorry Al Gore*—and 5.12 degrees cooler than April 2006. This doesn’t mean drug testing has not affected hitting power, but we have have a decent alternative explanation for why home runs are down. So, make sure you point this out to the first person who claims drug testing is working.
*It’s a joke, no angry e-mails please.
Posted by JC as Hitting at 9:25 AM EDT
7 Comments »
I believe that Paul DePodesta is the first MLB front-office executive to operate a blog: It Might Be Dangerous. I’m curious as to what he has to say. It looks to be mostly about the Padres, but he welcomes questions. I suggest asking him your advice about how to get a job in baseball. People often ask me for this advice, but I really do not have much to offer.
Posted by JC as People at 12:17 PM EDT
No Comments »
Why not? Here’s a list of players with batting averages over .280 and OPS+ under 100.
Player Team AVG OBP SLG OPS OPS+
#Erick Aybar LAA 0.298 0.311 0.397 0.708 94
Yadier Molina STL 0.296 0.354 0.400 0.754 99
Jason Kendall MIL 0.293 0.376 0.379 0.755 99
#Randy Winn SFG 0.287 0.326 0.364 0.690 82
*Adam Kennedy STL 0.287 0.342 0.337 0.679 81
Billy Butler KCR 0.286 0.351 0.368 0.719 97
Julio Lugo BOS 0.285 0.348 0.341 0.689 87
*Juan Pierre LAD 0.281 0.360 0.326 0.686 80
*Left-handed
#Switch-hitter
Minimum 100 plate appearances
Posted by JC as Hitting at 12:11 PM EDT
2 Comments »
Here is a list of players batting under .250 but have an OPS+ of 100 or more.
Player Team AVG OBP SLG OPS OPS+
*Nick Johnson WSN 0.226 0.420 0.443 0.863 128
*Jack Hannahan OAK 0.244 0.402 0.372 0.774 123
#Carlos Beltran NYM 0.246 0.377 0.444 0.821 118
*Jason Giambi NYY 0.177 0.333 0.458 0.791 117
*Jim Thome CHW 0.214 0.353 0.429 0.782 112
*David Ortiz BOS 0.240 0.341 0.427 0.768 106
Evan Longoria TBR 0.223 0.324 0.415 0.739 105
Chris Young ARI 0.238 0.335 0.470 0.805 105
Mark Ellis OAK 0.242 0.328 0.379 0.707 101
Brandon Inge DET 0.227 0.340 0.386 0.726 100
*Left-handed
#Switch-hitter
Minimum 100 plate appearances
It’s interesting that a majority of the players can bat from the left side.
Posted by JC as Hitting at 7:32 AM EDT
No Comments »
I’ve been thinking about blogging—the activity—lately, with the Costas-Bissinger incident and the demise of Capital Punishment.
About the former, Buzz Bissinger is a jackass: this isn’t news. To take his commentary seriously is to think that Michael Moore and Bill O’Reilly have something interesting to say. (If I have insulted one of your intellectual heroes, I’m not sorry.) The real issue was Costas allowing Bissinger to behave that way on his show and not moderate the discussion. I don’t watch his show—I don’t have HBO for fear of stumbling across pornography—but if this is how he normally hosts discussions the show must be awful. Anyway, my point is that this was a set-up by Costas, and he deserves most of the blame for allowing Bissinger to behave like that. All Will Leitch could do was stare in awe at the spectacle like the rest of us. The proper response would have been to turn to Costas and say, “are you going to allow this?” If he then acknowledged that Bissinger’s commentary was worthwhile, he would have been justified in walking off the set.
As for Capital Punishment leaving the blogoshpere, I know how Chris feels.
I’ve done plenty of writing these last few years. Lord knows how many books I’ve essentially written. And finding new things to say is tough. (I’d say ‘interesting’ things, too, but that’d imply that half my posts were!)
It’s time to move on.
First, congrats to Chris on a great run. One of the things I like about blogs is that it is easy to get highly-specific commentary. I often get asked what blogs I read. Aside from a few big ones, I’m normally bouncing around to get local commentary. When the Nats make a trade, Capital Punishment would be one of my first stops.
Second, I get this same feeling every so often. Normally, it comes when I’ve got a lot of other distractions in my life. I have considered shutting down at times, but I can’t bring myself to do it. Right now, I’m having one of those slow times. But, I can’t walk away. I fear that the day I commit to stopping, something will happen that I will want to comment on. This is why I love blogging: you’re not required to say anything, but you always have an outlet say something that you want to be said. Some people run their blogs like regular publications, with commitments to post every day. I can’t do this, or if I did, then I would have to stop. It’s the lack of requirement or deadline that keeps it enjoyable. I know this might be frustrating to readers, but I just cannot worry about that. It’s like my father-in-law who refinishes furniture as a hobby. He won’t accept payment for valuable work, because the activity loses the fun.
Now, if someone paid me to do this regularly, I might not be so turned off by a schedule—I might actually feel the need to do a better job at proof-reading. But, right now, I’ll just ride out the slow times like I normally do. When inspiration strikes, I blog; otherwise, I’ve got plenty of other stuff I need to be doing. And thanks to those of you who stick around. Just because I don’t write all the time, doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you.
Posted by JC as General at 8:07 AM EDT
8 Comments »
Via MetsBlog, according to speculation reported by John Delcos, Scott Boras is seeking a big payday for Oliver Perez after the 2008 season.
Speculation has the starting parameters at five years and $60 million, but whatever it turns out to be, Boras said it is not weighing on Perez.
So, I decided to estimate Perez’s future worth. Assuming that 2007 represents his accurate level of talent for his age-25 season, from 2009–2013 Perez can be expected to generate $54.7 million in revenue.
Five years and $60 million? I don’t think so. Even with the ridiculous assumption that 2007 represents Perez’s true ability, he is still not worth that much. In 2005 and 2006, he was worth about $1.5 million and $2.5 million, respectively. Five years and $30 million is more like it.
Addendum: Thanks to Baseball Musings for the initial pointer.
Posted by JC as Moneyball at 12:59 PM EDT
5 Comments »
Dennis Coates (Professor of Economics at University of Maryland, Baltimore County and President-Elect of the North American Association of Sports Economists) provides a nice survey of the academic literature on the economic impact of sports stadiums in The American.
The most basic question about stadiums, arenas, and sports franchises is the extent to which they contribute to the vitality of the local economy. Supporters of publicly financed stadiums argue that the benefits are substantial, while opponents say they are small and highly concentrated among the wealthiest citizens. To buttress their case, supporters mostly use economic impact studies that predict how the local economy will be affected by the stadium, while opponents compare the economy before and after the facility is constructed. Supporters tend to imply that redistribution of economic activity from the suburbs or outlying areas of a city to the downtown is desirable, while opponents generally oppose this sort of redistribution and focus instead on job and income creation.
The typical economic impact study gathers data on all aspects of spending related to a stadium, including the money spent to build it and the money spent by fans in connection with the stadium (including on tickets, at restaurants, and at hotels). The impact of this spending ripples outward into other areas of the economy through a multiplier. By linking spending to employment, the study then calculates how many jobs a stadium has created. It does not perform a cost-benefit analysis, which would address the opportunity costs of raising taxes to pay for a stadium and consider alternative uses of those funds.
Academic researchers have examined the prospective economic impact studies and found a variety of methodological errors in them, all of which raise doubts about the magnitude of the predicted spending and job increases. Other scholars use data from multiple years before and after stadium construction to measure the impact of the stadium. These ex post studies reject stadium subsidies as an effective tool for generating local economic development.
My own research, conducted with economist Brad Humphreys (who is now at the University of Alberta), has used perhaps the most extensive data, incorporating yearly observations on per capita personal income, employment, and wages in each of the metropolitan areas that was home to a professional football, basketball, or baseball team between 1969 and the late 1990s. Our analysis tried to determine the consequences of stadium construction and franchise relocations while controlling for other circumstances in the local economy. Scholars Robert Baade, Allen Sanderson, Victor Matheson, and others have taken slightly different approaches, but the results are fairly constant from one analysis to another. There is little evidence of large increases in income or employment associated with the introduction of professional sports or the construction of new stadiums. (Emphasis added)
Posted by JC as Economics, Gwinnett Braves at 8:25 AM EDT
3 Comments »
With the end of April, we are half-way to the first part of the Jeff Francoeur walks contest. In March and April, Francoeur amassed a total of five walks in 27 games, putting him on pace for 30 walks this season and 10 by the end of May. Unless something changes, it looks like he’s going to fall well short of his goal of 60 walks for the season.
But, there is also some very good news regarding Francoeur’s performance at the plate. His strikeouts are way down. Last year, he struck out in 18.5% of his plate appearances. In March and April of this season he struck out in only 7.5% of his plate appearances.
Posted by JC as Braves, Contests at 7:26 AM EDT
4 Comments »
Looks like some new development near the new Gwinnett Braves stadium will be happening soon.
A six-story hotel on Financial Center Way, part of a large complex that will include a conference center, offices and restaurants, has received permission to begin construction.
Panorama Hospitality will be building the Hilton Garden Inn on the street near the Mall of Georgia, across Interstate 85 from where the new Gwinnett Braves AAA stadium will be constructed in time for opening day next spring.
But, before you get too excited that this is the product of development policy…
Previously, developers said they had not known about the stadium when they decided to put two six-story hotels on Financial Center Way’s 3100 block, but that they were excited by the additional source of guests.
Remember this when the numbers from the project are included in estimates of the Gwinnett Braves’ economic impact.
Posted by JC as Gwinnett Braves at 6:39 AM EDT
Comments Off
