We’re Asking for Your Help as We Navigate the Lockout
Here we are again. Just two years after a global pandemic led to the cancellation of part of spring training and a delayed Opening Day, the lockout has resulted in the loss of more baseball.
This time around, there are no PPP loans to help soften the blow. FanGraphs is in slightly better financial shape than we were in 2020 due to all of our Member support, but that doesn’t change the fact that the lockout is already starting to put the site at risk. Lost revenue is lost revenue, and the longer this goes on, the worse shape we’ll be in. It took us all of last year to climb out of the financial hole the pandemic put us in, and now we’re being dragged back into that uncertainty.
For those interested in the impact the lockout has already had on the site, in mid-January, we started to see a sharp drop in our traffic compared to what we’d usually expect:
In February alone, our traffic was down about 44% year-over-year. Despite the increased Membership support we’ve experienced, advertising is still a major source of revenue for us. A 44% decrease in traffic more or less translates to 44% less ad revenue than expected. With Opening Day on hold, and with our normal busy season coming up, I expect that we’ll see our year-over-year traffic (and accompanying revenue) decline substantially in the coming weeks.
So for the second time in three years, we’re asking for your assistance to keep FanGraphs, the baseball resource that you’ve come to rely on, alive and well.
If you’re already a FanGraphs Member, thank you so much for your support. We’re excited to continue to bring you great analysis and new site features, and hope you will renew your Membership when the time comes. Now and in the future, you make FanGraphs possible.
If you aren’t a Member and you value what we do, now is the time to sign up and help ensure that we’re here for you when baseball returns. Better yet, become an Ad-Free Member! You won’t regret it. It’s the best way to both experience the site and sustain its future.
You can support FanGraphs in the following ways:
Become a Member
You can become a Member or an Ad-Free Member. You’ll see all the same great content and have access to all of our tools. You’ll also be able to customize your view of the site with Dark and Classic mode, as well as the ability to toggle homepage photos on and off, and be able to download many of our most popular RosterResource pages as Excel workbooks. Ad-Free Members also enjoy the site with faster loading times and no ads — it’s the best way to experience FanGraphs.
Gift a Membership
You can send a coupon code for a one-year Ad-Free Membership to anyone you like. The code never expires, and no credit card or other form of payment is required when the recipient signs up. Their Membership begins when they use the coupon code.
Buy Some Merch
Buy some FanGraphs merch! We will be restocking soon, so keep an eye out for future announcements.
Donate to FanGraphs
We have a simple donation form you can use to donate to FanGraphs. Please note that donations to FanGraphs are not tax-deductible.
Thank you so much for your support.
David Appelman is the creator of FanGraphs.
how much do i have to donate for pitching projections to be sorted between starting pitchers and relief pitchers?
It’s pretty easy to do on the page … under “Pitchers” there’s a tab for All/Starters/Relievers. Maybe try opening your eyes before leaving rude comments on an earnest post
“I think this was a new feature that may have been added in response to my comment”
Nope, it’s been there for quite a while. After reading your comments here it just seems like you’re sort of slow.
Looks like I got my first fan boy. Welcome to the team, founding member Gregg. Looking forward to this journey together.
Donating to become a member helps the site, it does not allow everyone to push FG staff around based on one’s whims. If you don’t like the analysis, effort and table sorting choices made here, feel free to browse elsewhere.
If that comment pushes around Fangraphs staff (it didn’t) then the site should fold, plain and simple. Stop simping in the comments and read what my comment actually said. And, lighten up man – try enjoying life.
Life is great, thanks. I’m not the one mad about tables, though.
I’m not mad about tables, Lighten! I offered to donate for a small feature to be added and I got crucified like Jesus on the cross up there. The whole community must have given up on being empathetic for Lent because I don’t feel seen.
Well, I agree with you on the downvotes… 46+ is a bit much. It probably didn’t help that it was the first comment after a nice write up about the site’s status by DA. Suggestions are fine, of course, but the wording makes it sound like a demand (or at least hint of one). Maybe that wasn’t your intent, but it read like it was.
I think donations here are mainly an effort to keep the site and community going, but member perks are primarily built into the content (though we get the nifty green member rectangle… hurrah) and not through any particular site improvements. Maybe there’s a ‘suggestion box’ somewhere but I haven’t sought it out.
I think if it was the fourth comment it would have had half the downvotes.
Let’s do this then: Since the feature is already on the site, and this has now been pointed out to you, are planning on donating?
(Also, IDK that “empathy” is issue when you make a passive aggressive bitch baby comment requesting a feature that exists on a post pointing out potential existential problems the site might be facing. You get empathy when you don’t act like a dink and then get melodramatic because *checks notes* you got downvotes on a baseball fansite.)
TL;dr- Pay the man and be quiet.
It’s called filtering not sorting. Sorting orders the rows in a table by the values within a column. Filtering shows only the rows containing a certain value within a given column.
As I continue to enjoy the site and my current ongoing subscription, I would like to know if the site views the fact that the owners felt compelled to institute the lockout as a defensive mechanism to prevent a 1994/95 midseason strike debacle, and the current impasse status of negotiations, as being the equal blame of both sides.
I would like to know, as I attempt to inform myself as to the status of the ongoing labor situation, that I am going to get, if not unbiased (everyone has bias), then at least balanced and fair writing. Getting balanced information is important as my subscription comes up for renewal. Thanks for the site and your response.
Your membership is dependent upon FanGraphs telling you what you want to hear?
I will not be renewing my membership unless Fangraphs declares that the Braves have a top-15 farm system. I would prefer top-5, but, as the bigger person, I will accept top-15. You have one hour.
I will not renew my membership unless Fangraphs publishes a post declaring me the most handsome baseball fan in the world. Fangraphs has published many stories that do NOT state that I’m the most handsome baseball fan in the world, and getting fair and balanced information is important as my subscription comes up for renewal. Thanks for the site and your response.
Sure your mom thinks you’re the most handsome fan in baseball, so maybe she can write a community article and publish it on the site, unless you have a more attractive sibling. In which case better luck next time.
That’s not possible because I’M the most handsome baseball fan in the world!
I think Sporer did coverage on this for his “Handsome Baseball Fan league” draft. You’re all wrong, and Eno is once again the consensus #1 pick.
Operating on the assumption that your username is a reference to Team Streak, I’m happy to donate my genuine* championship belt for Handsomest Baseball Fan in the World to another Milwaukeean.
That seals the deal. I am no longer a Frangraphs fan. I’ve been a fan since 2005 and a premium member since 2009. I officially will not be renewing my membership next year nor will I use the sight as a Guest. David Appelman is officially the worst site owner in the history of the Internet. I’m going over to ESPN.com, a site that REALLY knows how to write about baseball.
The site does not view the impasse having equal blame on both sides, primarily due to the fact that there is not equal blame shared on both sides. Anything else?
I completely agree. But if Indiana Cardinal thinks differently, then he has the membership privilege to articulate a case in support of his position. What’s wrong with a good debate? Nothing. Then again all he actually did was issue a threat if FanGraphs didn’t appease him. Hard to respect him for that.
Absolutely! I would be interested to read a well researched and thoughtful perspective attempting to cast an equal amount of blame all around. I think it would be erroneous and mistaken, but that viewpoint has every right to air their side of the debate. No one gains from pre-emptively shutting down legitimate discourse.
I’ll third the request for someone who thinks the owners are justified or that the blame is roughly equal to write a community article explaining why.
The owners were clearly justified in locking out rather than starting the season without a contract. Starting without a contract simply invites a last minute strike to get most of the pay for the season, and then deny the owners a big chunk of their profits.
But locking out and then not making any offers at all for six weeks, and then to make offers that are full of silly demands that the players would need to actively want (another) pay cut to take…. No, there is not equal blame here as far as I can see, I’d love to know how someone could think that there is.
<i>I’ll third the request for someone who thinks the owners are justified or that the blame is roughly equal to write a community article explaining why.</i>
But that’s a retrospective argument. Coverage that sought to slay the owners from the onset of the lockout is the issue. Human beings don’t move off of that kind of bias.
The fact that the owners are in the wrong now doesn’t change what came before it.
And the thing about my current stance, is that it’s a result of the owner’s actions to date. If you had asked me on December 2, 2021 who was in the wrong, I’d have said “beats me”.
But we now have additional information, and in light of that additional information, I can’t imagine an argument that the blame is roughly equal or that the players are the ones in the wrong.
But for the record, I doubt very many blame ownership for the lockout. Failing to bargain in a timely manner and being intransigent on the CBT is completely on ownership.
The owners locked out the players. MLB owns the lockout. The owners can lift it at any time.
I don’t think FanGraphs needs to have balanced reporting regarding the lockout. The website exists primarily to analyze players and what’s happening on the field, and news, especially regarding ownership, is secondary. If there is any mention of the owners, it’s with how it affects the organization or the players.
There is an undeniable fact that player salaries have not changed proportional to the revenues in MLB. I feel that arguing this is okay is blatantly ignoring evidence and that author would be rightfully called out for it.
When the majority of FanGraphs readers fall into the “worker” (players) category compared to the “owner” category with our own careers, it makes far more sense to support the players than owners regarding the lockout.
One can “support the players” in general while seeking journalistic integrity into how the topic is covered. The owners’ behavior right now is so gross that coverage doesn’t need to be biased.
That is to say, one can maintain their opinion while also seeking the truth. Seeking the truth requires looking at a problem from all angles and covering it as such so that the reader can inform their own opinion.
That said, kudos to Fangraphs on the recent Evan Drellich podcast, which was the greatest step towards fair coverage that I’ve seen in a very long time.
Thanks. Where is the Drellich podcast located on the site? I would like to listen to it.
“Effectively Wild Episode 1818: Smile, You’re on Manfred Camera”
Thanks.
“When the majority of FanGraphs readers fall into the “worker” (players) category compared to the “owner” category with our own careers, it makes far more sense to support the players than owners regarding the lockout.”
This doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not going to sympathize with someone simply based on their class, nor should you. If you want to make an argument on greed, a logical thought experiment on where the true fault of the the financial state of baseball, at least in terms of financial balance between players and owners, would probably take you to places you don’t want to go, but here’s a tip:
Fan demand > politicians responding to fans > MLB’s anti-trust exemption > artificially depressed player salaries > outsized MLB profits > rich owners.
Or a better way to think of it: imagine if politicians made baseball truly competitive and allowed new teams to enter the league at will. The profits for, say, the Atlanta Braves would likely drop. Some MLB teams would fold due to increased competition. Fans would essentially riot, and said politician(s) would be voted out of office. So who is really to blame here?
Likewise, your response makes no sense to me.
Ask yourself why MLB has an anti-trust exemption.
“I’m not going to sympathize with someone simply based on their class, nor should you.”
I’m going to sympathize with someone based on their class, and so should you. Equally valid statement and one that better comports with morality as I see it, but you do you.
Just out of curiosity: at what dollar amount do you draw the line? What about a player that owns his own business (which many likely do). Which class is the player in?
What a “best fans in baseball” type comment.
He’s from Indiana and doesn’t represent us. In fact Hoosier is used as a derogatory term in St Louis going back to the 1930s. It results from scabs being bussed in from Indiana in an attempt to break a strike (I believe at the AB brewery). This happened again in the late 60s or early 70s with a Chrysler plant.
I’m a Reds fan from Indiana and in my house growing up, Cardinals fan is used as a derogatory term going back to the 1990s.
The players happily played without a CBA for two entire seasons, 1995 and 1996, without using a strike as leverage. There was a 1994/1995 midseason strike debacle because the owners stiffed the MLBPA on their previously agreed to pension contributions and then negotiated in such bad faith that a federal court had to stop them.
That’s not a complete statement. And it’s a great example of selective facts.
On July 28, 1994, the players communicated a strike date of August 12, 1994. From the New York Times on July 29:
“Voting unanimously by telephone conference call yesterday, the 31 players who make up the Players Association executive board agreed that the players would strike games beginning with the Aug. 12 schedule. It would be baseball’s fifth strike and eighth work stoppage in the past 23 seasons.”
(link not posted because then my post would get held up in moderation)
A deal was not imminent. Then, on August 1, 1994, the owners did indeed fail to make a required pension plan contribution. But the players had already committed to strike on August 12. To say that the strike happened because “the owners stiffed the MLBPA” is really selective. And that’s exactly what this whole strong of comments is about. It’s a material fact in this discussion that the Players had already decided to strike and put it out in the press. I’m not saying the owners were justified for their failure to make the pension plan deposit. I’m saying that your portrayal of factual events above is incomplete at best and inaccurate at worst.
I could also argue with the assertion that the players “happily played without a CBA” in 1995 and 1996; though neither you nor I know their frame of mind, I don’t personally think “happily played” would cover the situation. But that’s question of opinion.
Here’s the link to the NYT in case it comes through:
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/29/sports/baseball-players-association-sets-strike-date-of-aug-12.html
Dan, as I thought about your comment last night, it troubled me. Do I have the facts wrong below? If so, I’ll gladly recant. But you posted a comment with such certainty about the 1994 strike. Were there earlier missed pension plan contributions before the August 1 date? I’m not trying to be snarky here. I’m a longtime reader and commenter and former member and podcast subscriber who has been quite literally begging in the comments for two years for Fangraphs writers to actively consider whether they are being objective in labor and economic discussions and complete in telling the important facts accurately. So is this an example of considering that, or do I have the facts wrong?
TL;dr – do you believe that the failed Aug 1 pension plan contribution resulted in the players strike, or do you believe that the failed pension plan contribution was an ill-conceived response to the players association 31-man committee’s unanimous decision to strike two days earlier?
It’s a baseball site that needs eyeballs to make money. Do you really think the writers are going to take the owners’ side, or even acknowledge that there is some gray area?
What rival site did you come from?
The point here is that fangraphs does have to pay for their professional writers, as well as the site. The professional writers need to be paid, there are costs inherent to hosting this website, etc.. When I compare what I receive here to paid sites that cost
about 50 dollars a year and up and the quality articles on this site this week, it is a pretty easy decision to support the site in difficult times. It is easy to see why advertising dollars fell just looking at my own behavior. My disgust from the lockout (which is the owner and players, not fangraphs) has led me to not going to the site daily, as I usually do. Between the pandemic and this lockout, if the folks like myself that use this site constantly don’t step up if they are financially able to, it is pretty easy to see the handwriting on the wall that fangraphs will eventually be forced to fold.
Agreed. I am more than happy to have an ad-free membership.
Just want to say this finally got me to buy a membership. 44% is a lot. It struck me I’d be bummed to not have this site to visit and I really want everyone who works on it to be able to keep their jobs. Better late to the party than never joining I suppose. Maybe there is a whiff of existential threat in the air…
I sadly say that I was right there with you eastman, until the pandemic hit. It isn’t always about being in agreement with all articles and assessments, but it is hard to argue with the overall quality and depth of what the site provides. I now see my modest membership not so much as a payment for service, but as an investment.
I subscribe to multiple writing mediums (newspapers, websites) and I don’t always read them daily, but I like to have the access. Even if I don’t utilize my subscriptions enough, I at least know that my money is hopefully keeping the medium afloat as long as it can.
Not trying to troll, but maybe if less writers took the “There is nothing to write about” stance during the lockout, the readership might be up? Just don’t think that’s a good mentality to have, from writers or readers. I.e. fantasy traffic shouldn’t be down whatsoever – maybe beef up RG for now. The frequency of new content seems to have really slowed down, though I can’t tell for sure given the new website layout. Either way, telling us readers there is nothing worthwhile to read isn’t great messaging. I only say this because I care about this site, not because I want to set a record for downvotes…
I do think, during the initial shutdown, there was more of a “let’s try these things!” (I loved FG school), but it’s also possible they weren’t successful? Also that the season may startup at any moment (whereas the pandemic shutdown was never “about to end”).
I think the larger point about attitude is good, but also, you risk alienating people if you end up coming across with a “let them eat cake” statement, too, and that this might be harder to manage from a content production POV, in very specific ways, than the situation 2 years ago (also because lots of people don’t wanna give anymore/have anything left to offer).
Has there been a writer(s) that has declared that there’s nothing to write about, or is it the lack of non-fantasy list articles that seems to imply that there is nothing to write about? For an offseason that hasn’t really eaten into the missing lockout dates yet, I haven’t noticed a terrible decline of content. It doesn’t help that teams can’t take shape with rosters and trades locked out, otherwise there’d be tons of articles about those usually, so less content should be expected. I know that when the minor leaguers get into their season at least David Laurila will have more to write about.
I am referring to declarative statements. Ben Clemens made one on the Aaron Nola 2 Fastballs article. I only remember that one because I left a comment about it on that article. I thought the article was fascinating and didn’t need to be reduced to ‘because I’ll write about anything in the middle of a lockout’. It’s been said other times, in other articles and especially chats as well.
Huh! That’s a surprise, as I always thought there was some long list of topics somewhere that writers everywhere could draw from or at least creatively think of. Hopefully there’s been some brainstorming sessions going on amongst the staff now that it looks like the lockdown isn’t going away soon enough.
My comment was directed to Mr. Appleman. I already know what all of you who are on the union side (and I also know the opinion of those on the side of the owners). As maybe one of the few subscribers who honestly believe both sides are both right and wrong as to why things are at the current impasse, I was asking Mr. Appleman if site intended to attempt to provide balance information. There is plenty of free information out there that is biased to one side or the other. Fangraphs is a site for people that want to think about baseball matters, not just receive confirmation of preconceived notions.
As a person who participated in about a half dozen CBA negotiations (and a couple of short strikes) for three much smaller bargaining units, I am just attempting to get information on the positions, and the reasons therefore, of both sides so that I can give that information thought from my own perspective of trying figure out a possible outcome. The baseball collective bargaining negotiations have been so interesting and frustrating for all fans because they are one of the very few labor negotiations where the two sides have pretty equal bargaining power (as least through the Miller, Fehr and Weiner years, not so much recently under Tony Clark, who never has had professional labor negotiating skills, and should not have his position).
To Pepper: Give consideration that in labor negotiations, whether there is a lockout or a strike (after 94/95 the owners will never allow negotiations to get to a point that allows the union to strike during a season that has begun), and whether there is “timely bargaining” are all strategies that both sides have and use to their advantage. Did you ever give consideration that the “intransigence on the CBT” is a “red herring” to get all the other negotiating points that the owners want out of this negotiation, or that the CBT (as well as the “revenue sharing” issue) are negotiating points that the owners themselves cannot get their required two thirds voting consensus, and thus “cannot” negotiate without splitting the owners apart, and really delaying any successful CBA (that occurred in previous negotiations). The owners are split into basically 3 groups, 10 big markets, 10 small markets and 10 that are in the middle. They need 20 to agree, not just half plus one for the players.
Look, I get the idea of considering the site’s overall editorial direction in deciding whether to support it. And honestly, there have been some choices in that regard that made me question my own membership. But… the lockout is a short-term issue, and the coverage here is a small portion of FanGraphs’ content even while it’s going on. Six months from now I sincerely hope none of us will care what side anybody took during this mess. Life’s too short, man.
I’m gonna respectfully disagree and know I’ll get all the downvotes for it. I let my membership lapse over what I felt was a repeated bias in coverage. I still read the site so I still contribute to the ad dollars, but I’m not going to pay for a membership to something that consistently believes that only one side of most arguments has merit, *even when I agree with that side of the argument.* That’s what gets lost in all of this. There are readers who agree with some of the conclusions but disagree with the constant bias in the means of coverage. Having Craig Edwards, Eugene Friedman, etc. without engaging any opposing viewpoints defines that bias when it comes to labor issues.
Bias OF ALL KINDS is bad… including a bias so hard that one assumes that there is no merit to a question that is legitimately asked. Somehow in 2022 we’ve conflated “engaging contrary viewpoints” with “endorsing contrary viewpoints.” I only spend membership dollars on platforms that engage topics from 360-degrees and actively seek contrary viewpoints for presentation. That doesn’t mean I expect anyone to endorse those viewpoints. Just present them.
Standard caveats apply, and while I’ve been accused of being a bootlicker and a shill for the owners in prior comment threads, let me say unequivocally that the current moment-in-time in the labor situation is about 99% on the owners’ backs, IMHO. But to something that I think I’m reading into the original comment from Indiana Cardinal, it’s disingenuous to “fault” the owners for the lockout de facto – as many commentaries on this site do – without acknowledging that the primary reason the owners locked the players out is because the players went on strike in 1994. The lockout itself is not without merit given the history, even if the owners bargaining position is pretty grotesque at this point.
My comment isn’t adding to the discussion but I’m honestly curious what the membership platforms are you subscribe to (baseball/sports mostly, but also interested in other memberships) that engage topics from 360 degrees and actively seek contrary viewpoints?
Super, super super hard (impossible?) to find in sports which is why I’ve canceled or lapsed all of my subscriptions. The Athletic and Fangraphs were the last two to go. I’ll still read public content and pay with page clicks and advertising dollars, but not subscription dollars until (or if) some degree of objective coverage returns.
In other walks of life, The Economist is, for my dollars, the best global “newspaper” and I read it daily for straight take on world and national events. They do the best job that I’ve seen in presenting rational arguments even when they disagree with the conclusion. They also still espouse the ability to credit the “part” even when discrediting the “whole”; that is to say, they often concede that a point in an argument has merit without ceding the entire argument.
While it is not what it once was, The Wall Street Journal still does a good job of separating their op-ed page from their newsroom. Their news coverage to me does a good (not perfect) job of presenting all sides of an argument, and not cherry-picking viewpoints that meet their purported end-bias. But many discredit the WSJ solely for some of the op-ed space they’ve granted over the last five years.
I love research from the Brookings Insitute… the left claims that it’s too conservative and the right claims that’s it’s too progressive. That speaks to me, like the day that I realized that I might not be completely failing as a parent because both of my kids claimed that I obviously loved the other child more.
I also turn to podcasts where the medium really lends itself to debate and discussion. Anything on the Freakanomics Network… Stephen Dubner is brilliant at engaging contrary viewpoints. His episode during COVID on government stimulus that drew on viewpoints from reps of the Bush and Obama White Houses was a masterclass in presenting viewpoints and letting the audience decide.
Just came here to RT the love for Stephen Dubner. Any podcast that guy touches, I’m instantly a fan and it’s partially BECAUSE he respectfully presents an alternate view that he might not necessarily agree with.
There are numerous writers on this site that present a view and then mock an alternative view; and we’re not talking about life or death viewpoints here or ones where 99% of decent human-beings are in full agreement.
If you think The Economist is giving you a “straight take” on the world, the rest of your position is garbage. It’s as biased as any other medium. What you’re discussing here isn’t bias, it’s your ability (and sometimes inability) to perceive it.
Please take your high horse elsewhere. It stinks in here.
Please don’t invent a straw man. I’ve written actual words that you can comment on if you desire.
Nothing and no one is free from bias.
My original point still stands: I only spend membership dollars on platforms that engage topics from 360-degrees and actively seek contrary viewpoints for presentation. That doesn’t mean I expect anyone to endorse those viewpoints. Just present them.
For me, the Economist does the best job of this. Your mileage may vary. That’s what makes the world wonderful.
Which media site would you recommend over the Economist?
No single site, because as tomerafan notes everything is biased even if it’s trying not to be.
The Economist is a capitalist-boosting source, and everything is viewed through a business-first lens. It’s fine for what it’s worth, I just don’t think it’s worth much. And it’s nonsense to claim that it’s unbiased, or even close to it.
You criticize someone else’s choice of media, but when asked what sites we should be visiting to get relatively unbiased news, your answer is “no single site”. Great answer!
+1 on the Economist.
If there is a legitimate case to be made that ownership has been and is negotiating in good faith, and has made reasonable and fair offers that grows the pie for all involved, I think we would all be willing and open to see that, even if most of the readership does not agree. But sometimes you can’t find folks willing to pen a particular article just because it’s hard to make that case, you know?
You talk about the theoretical existence of those columnists, articles, and unbiased (or opposing) “coverage,” but you can’t point to any of them. Who’s writing these incredibly insightful columns pointing out what we’re all missing? You wrote a lot of words about how you wished something existed that doesn’t but seem to blame FG for not producing something that no one else does, either.
Jon Heyman and Jim Bowden, I guess, are out there. But consider that they’re the most “reputable,” “pro-owner” voices out there. Sometimes both sides aren’t right, and asking someone to pretend they are is far less sincere and helpful than trying to explain why things are so broken.
Him not replying to a comment immediately is no where near the same as he “can’t point to any of them”. You gave him less than a half hour in the middle of a Monday workday. Hold judgement.
Wow. Sorry to not reply fast enough to the question that was asked. Geez.
1.Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. After the union stuck during the 94 season which resulted in the cancelation of the World Series, there will never be another strike in baseball. The owners will never be put in that position, and because of the historical bad blood, the owners are striking against the players by canceling games to drive home the negotiations to get what they want. I realize that is really “hard ball” (no pun intended) negotiation but, because of all the bad history, that is what happens.
2.The owners and union couldn’t even agree on starting the season in the 2020 Pandemic. Why do you expect there to be good and nice negotiations now? The union filed a $500,000,000 (that’s a half a billion folks) unfair labor practice in 2021 over that, saying that only playing 60 games starting when they did late in the summer was an unfair labor practice. I have read that Bruce Meyer of the union say that they did that in part to create leverage for the current negotiations. Is that something that leads to good and nice negotiations? Have you read anywhere on this site that that half a billion dollar unfair labor practice is still pending, to be decided by one arbitrator’s sole vote? That unfair labor practice, as well as the unfair labor practice against the A’s, the Marlins and Pirates very possibly be negotiated away, magically for an easing of the CBT. That is just manipulative hard ball labor negotiations. It is also the type of reporting that I was asking whether this site would provide when I made my first post above. I want ALL the information so that I can make a good decision about what is happening. Right now I still believe both sides are both wrong and right, but again that is just how labor negotiations transpire.
3.Lastly my entire concern about whether we were receiving balanced reporting on this site was raised by when Ben Clemens in response to a questioner in his February 14 Chat told the questioner, “if you’re looking for someone to just automatically say that both sides are equally to blame, go elsewhere.” I happen to think both sides are equally at fault, which was the reason for my initial question to Mr. Appleman. Mr. Clemens’ directive made me question what I was paying to get.
The weird thing about complaining about FanGraphs’ lockout coverage being biased in favor of the MLBPA is that FG would benefit massively if the MLBPA agreed to any deal as fast as possible, even if it reinstated the reserve clause. If their coverage works ends up arguing against their own interest, that’s probably a stronger indicator of intellectual honesty than balance for balance’s sake.
Ben Clemens comment in a chat. FanGraphs has done multiple articles laying out the lockout negotiations status and both sides positions. That meets any reasonable ask for fairness and balance. Cherry picking out one sentence of a fantasy chat and extrapolating that out to represent the entire FanGraphs website is completely unreasonable on your part.
Reasonable minds can disagree with Ben Clemens while still appreciating his writings on the sport of baseball.
That’s true and nonresponsive to my comment. One snarky snippet in the middle of a fantasy column doesn’t represent the entirety of Fangraphs position on the lockout and doesn’t represent anything other than Clemens personal opinion on the topic. There has been a ton of analysis done by Fangraphs that more than meets the standard for fair and balanced coverage.
Merely restating the financial ups and downs of the negotiations and stating what each side currently “says” that they want is not balance and fairness. Articles from both sides perspectives as to WHY and to what end they are negotiating for what is balance and fairness.
Yes, I cherry picked one response in a chat, but I think you have to be honest neither Clemens nor Jaffe have written anything that attempts to explain why the owners are taking the positions they are, and whether those positions (on the CBT for example) are ploys to get what they really want from the negotiations and/or why the owners, as a 30 vote unit that requires 2/3rds (20) agreeing, maybe can’t agree on certain things without a much longer lockout to get 20 owner votes (CBT and revenue sharing).
The only writer that has presented balance and fairness is Kevin Goldstein, and that is largely because he was on the inside of the owners side and thus knows things that he can’t completely report without burning his information sources. I don’t feel Goldstein’s reporting reflects any bias in favor of the owners. He just give insights that others are too lazy or biased to find out.
Your first paragraph: yes, you cherry-picked. Your third paragraph: you are entitled to your opinion and I can respect that.
your second paragraph: The owners have stated their “WHY”. They have spoken in terms of the long term good of the game and fairness. You have sent up an impossible standard when you want a writer, any writer, to determine and speak on if the owners are engaging in a ploy. That’s not being lazy. the owners are never going to tell anyone: “ah, we ain’t serious on that issue. We are just engaging in a negotatiating ploy.” However, I have to take exception to the idea that Fangraphs has ignored the concept of which issues the owners will give on and which they are less likely to give on. That cuts to the heart of what is and isn’t a ploy. Let me give you a second angle there. The OWNERS have said that the Super 2 and CBT are 100% off the table. Is that a ploy? How could any writer determine that beyond their opinion? Let’s say we take the owners’ public statements at face value. Is it really all that unreasonable to reach the conclusion that the owners are not negotiating in good faith when they refuse to consider the top two issues for the players that are driving down the players’ share of baseball revenues? I don’t call that bias on the part of a writer to see that and condemn the owners. But you are free to take a different view.
Second paragraph again: You wanted Clemens/Jaffe and I assume others to address the issue that the owners themselves are split. Well, my brother, that has been addressed. The WHY of that has also been addressed multiple times. The smaller markets have a locked in profit from revenue sharing and they don’t want to spend. In addition, the small markets really don’t want anyone else to spend either in the name of “competition”. As in, we are too cheap to spend but we want to have a fair shot to win anyway. That’s been addressed. Multiple times. The things you are asking for…. you have been given. Multiple times.
Have you actually read any of Ben Clemens’ articles on this topic? They are more or less what you’re asking for.
Agreed. Ask me about any assortment of topics and I can try to give you an angle from both sides. Ask me about something that emotionally concerns me, in a quickfire environment, with a beer or two in my system and you might get a pithy “go elsewhere” comment. Look at the big picture and the entire content on the website, IC, not one person’s moment during a very casual setting.
Fair but my guess is Meg and Dave do not advocate or casual chats with a beer or two in your system. They run a professional business, after all.
“my guess is Meg and Dave do not advocate or casual chats with a beer or two in your system.”
Lightweights!
I dunno… I think I’ve read a chat or two here where there’s been some casual back and forth about how one is enjoying the hour+. It’d be interesting to know what Meg and Dave’s policy truly is, if any.
No chance there is any policy about having a beer while chatting, nor should there be. Eno used to say exactly what he was drinking while in chat.
Can I take your comment just a bit further. A fantasy chat’s purpose really isn’t to take on the lockout. It really is just one guy shooting the shit with the Fangraphs readers. It’s not an appropriate place to require “fair and balanced” sort of commenting.
To be clear, I’m neither defending nor criticizing the lockout coverage here. I’m not even reading half of it, because reading about the lockout doesn’t appeal to me. My point is that all of the lockout coverage is a very small part of the site and one that’s going to be rendered moot sometime soon. IMO, “how the lockout is being covered” is of very minor significance in deciding whether FanGraphs deserves your money.
If you think the lockout coverage is indicative of generally poor quality work at FanGraphs overall or a pervasive bias that bothers you, that’s different. If you were on the fence anyway and this made up your mind, that’s different. Or if… you know, it’s not my money or my website, so I don’t really care who renews and who doesn’t. I’m just arguing for some perspective beyond the issue of the moment.
IMO, I think members get to say whatever they want. So I’m not bothered by you saying this.
That said, asking for “balanced” information is a strange thing to say because a balanced analysis shows the owners are seriously at fault here. There really is no needs to “both sides” it. And yes, the lockout was strategic on their part and helped avoid a strike, but the union has more or less given MLB the structural changes to the playoffs it wants and in return just wants normal cost of living stuff that you would normally get in a new contract. And MLB isn’t taking it. It’s insane.
The amusing thing is that one other poster (tomerafan) is also calling for more balanced coverage/lack of bias, while also directly stating that the owners are 99% at fault. I concur that a reasonable analysis, which Fangraphs has provided, would correctly identify the owners as the problem. I pay for ANALYSIS and opinions based on that analysis. Reaching a conclusion is just fine.
They’re not the same thing.
I think the owners are 99% at fault right now, based on what I know. I also think that there are material facts in the discussion that are simply not presented here at Fangraphs and that Fangraphs writes about ownership from a presumption of fault rather than an analysis of the facts at play.
For example, numerous Fangraphs posts and podcasts have found the owners to be 99% at fault from the beginning of the lockout based on the concept of a lockout itself. I don’t believe that to be true. The lockout is, in part, a result of the 1994 strike and of the MLBPA’s very public comments during the 2020 labor disagreements. The owners had very little practical choice but to lock out the players. Acknowledging that point doesn’t weaken the argument that the owners have acted grotesquely in these faux-negotiations.
In addition, it is a fact that the owners believe that the MLBPA reneged on an agreement in 2020. I am not saying it is a fact that the MLBPA reneged – that’s a complicated issue, and there’s at least one hyper-specific instance where I believe the MLBPA operated in bad faith at best and reneged at worst. But it is a fact that the owners are operating from the belief that the MLBPA reneged. That doesn’t justify the owners’ actions but it adds context, and the context ALWAYS explains the story.
<i>I pay for ANALYSIS and opinions based on that analysis. </i>
But here’s the thing… if the statistical analysis on this site were as biased as the current-events coverage… e.g. if the statistical analysis routinely discarded facts that were relevant but did not support the hypothesis… then this site would have no value in the analysis of statistics and performance.
Again, you don’t have to agree with a fact to include it and consider it. That’s all I’m asking. That’s all I think many reasonable folks are asking. I’m not alone in having let my membership lapse. Fangraphs has chosen to pursue bias over considering and acknowledging other views. That’s a business decision.
My frustration with the bias goes back a long way, and is not confined to just this round of CBA negotiations. It persists. That is Fangraphs’ right. I never demanded the site change. I simply said that I’m not going to pay my hard-earned dollars to support a membership charge.
I support your right to spend your dollars however you see fit and for whatever reasons you see fit. I don’t think my opinion is the only opinion possible and you are completely free to hold a different opinion and act on your opinion. As to your statement…. “that Fangraphs writes about ownership from a presumption of fault rather than an analysis of the facts at play.” My opinion is you have absolutely no basis to hold this belief. There is nothing that I have read that indicates any of the writers has some sort of an inherent bias against ownership. what you have is a number of writers that follow baseball very closely, have observed the behavior of the two groups, has also looked closely at the current offers/counteroffers and reach a conclusion that the owners are about 99% at fault. I don’t see that as supporting bias, particularly an inherent bias.
Lockout. You are ascribing a position to me that I have directly refuted earlier and I don’t think anyone holds. the LOCKOUT is not the abuse. the manner in which the owners conducted NEGOTIATIONS after the lockout is the abuse. Clear?
Clear. I was not intent on ascribing a position to you specifically. I’m talking about the last 24 months of Fangraphs’ coverage of economic issues in the sport, where the comments section has seen fact-checking comments skewered for fact-checking, and site-hosted podcasts that have freely admitted an anchoring bias for the MLBPA. I don’t believe the coverage has been fair and objective in questioning that bias and considering all facts.
I respect and appreciate that your mileage may vary.
As I have noted in previous threads, the reason I am arguing my point about bias so fervently is because I care about Fangraphs. But I care more about completeness and informational integrity. I’m not asking any of the writers or editors to change their minds. I’m asking them to question their objectivity and make sure they are including all of the relevant facts, and not just the ones that support their bias or conclusion.
So there is not another side to the following, the reporting and analysis of which would be “balanced” information:
1.Tony Clark and his crew screwed up the previous CBA negotiations. The agents and players have been crying and badmouthing the previous CBA since day one of the previous negotiations. First, Marvin Miller and Donald Fehr didn’t let the agents (Boras) bad mouth their negotiations. Last Monday, after there were reports of significant progress, the union didn’t continue to sit at the table to hammer out a deal. They stopped and let Boras and other agents say what was wrong about where the union had negotiated to that point.
2.Whose fault is it that the previous CBA has been a disaster for the players? It is the fault of Tony Clark and his poor negotiating crew. The MLBPA has only been successful in negotiating when they had professional union attorneys standing down the owners. Prior to Miller and Fehr the owners completely took advantage of the players when players such as Robin Roberts tried to play nice with the owners. Tony Clark should never have been made the head of the MLBPA. That is why Bruce Meyer was brought in and why I think Clark will be “retired” within a year after the upcoming CBA. Players are great at baseball and bad at representing themselves. That is why they all have agents. Labor attorneys are great at negotiating and bad at playing, or really even caring about, baseball.
3.Labor negotiations for CBA’s are a continuum. They progress from one negotiation to another 2-5 years later. You negotiate incremental gains and gives in each negotiations. When one side does a poor contract, they don’t automatically regain what they lost, plus all the new things they want in the next contract. One agent apparently has said that the losses for the union in the prior negotiations will take 3 CBA negotiations to get back, unless the players are willing to take a one year or longer shutdown.
4.The union has filed two “unfair labor practices” since the last CBA. One is against the A’s, Pirates and Marlins for not using the revenue sharing properly. Even if the union is correct, the current revenue sharing set up and its use by the small market teams are one of the things that the owners can’t easily touch without the owners not being able to get 20 votes of 30 amongst themselves. The second “unfair labor practice” is over how many games the Commissioner should have said was the schedule in the 2020 pandemic season. They played 60 and the union said in its filing in 2021 (not 2020) that it should have been 85 games. The union said the commissioner could set the schedule and then cried when he said 60 games (again thank you, Tony Clark).They are demanding the salary for 25 more games, approximately half a BILLION DOLLARS. When the new labor attorney, Bruce Meyer, filed that unfair labor practice he admitted it would be used as leverage in the current negotiations. Last point on this, do all of you remember how almost all the teams were on fumes after only 60 games.
There are other things that should be discussed
Sorry, I hit the post button.
My point is that reporting on these things is what creates “balance” information. That is not being done. When it is you can still say only the owners are at fault. I will continue to say that both sides are at fault, and what is happening is what normally happens in labor negotiations when both sides are strong (after Tony Clark is gone, and someone like Miller or Fehr is repping the union.
When the unfair labor practices are dismissed, and the pre-arbitration money pool is massaged, the players will get 100% of their service time and a percentage of the pay for lost games depending upon how long this takes maybe 100%, and there will be no Matt Scherzer “ghost” playoff wins in a 14 team playoff seeding. That’s when the CBT will be massaged to the liking of the union, or at least to the level that they can claim a win.
I agree with you, so we can take the downvotes together.
Again, I think Rob Manfred is a clown and the owners are doing the bare minimum that can be done without a stalemate. It’s grotesque.
However, the owners are responding to what I thought was terrible tactics from the MLBA during the 2020 pandemic discussions. Tony Clark has been an ineffective union leader, and Bruce Mayer came in with the flaming napalm. The conduct of the MLBPA executive leadership in 2020 is a big part of why the owners aren’t actually negotiating. Acknowledging that fact doesn’t justify the owners’ behavior but it adds context.
Shoot, how many of us commenters could negotiate in good faith with a counterparty that you believe acted in bad faith, welched on a deal, and then fired an unfair labor practice against you for half a billion bucks? I don’t think the owners are trying to break the union… they’re refusing to “lose” to Tony Clark and Bruce Meyer.
The fact that Clark did poorly in prior negotiations has been discussed. It also emboldens the owners to hang tough now and emboldens players to not let it happen again. This issue has not been missed
“Did I consider….”. Why, yes. I did consider and thanks for asking! But let’s look at your comment. You start with by implying that the owners will consider budging on CBT if they get concessions on other more important issues. Then you end with the owners are totally split and the owners cannot agree internally. How you draw the players are equally responsible from those two statements escapes me. As to the give and take of negotiations, sure. Most sides will start high and work back. but on the players side, they have given up on the super 2 already. that’s a big one. Players have agreed to both expanded playoffs and uniform advertising. Players have worked downwards on the numbers involved on bonus pools and the draft lottery size. Maybe it’s time for the owners to say something along the lines of “we’ll move X far on the CBT if the players move Y far on your other hypothetical issue.” I would call that bargaining in good faith.
Sorry, I was trying to indicate that the two things were alternative possibilities, neither of which gets any discussion by the writers at this site. I did not explain that well. I also was not intending to sound condescending as you apparently took it. It was intended to be a rhetorical, not a personal, question.
I think your idea about a hypothetical offer by the owners is a good one. However I ALSO think the union saying we will drop our two unfair labor practices, and compromise in the middle on the pre arbitration pool if you, the owners go to X on the CBT and give us service time (and x% pay) for missed/rescheduled game would be called bargaining in good faith.
The fact that neither side seems to be as creative as you and me, is why I feel that both sides are at fault. I do however understand that they are not our teams nor our salaries and CBA to be negotiating for. It is our game as fans, but it not our game to negotiate the terms of. I have just been arguing for more balanced information from which all of us can decide what we think. Everyone can then make their own more informed decisions. Information is power. More information creates more decision making power.
Fangraphs is so good at providing information about playing the game, but I think they are only providing one side of the information on this issue.
I was not taking anything you said as sarcasm. I was attempting to seriously discuss a topic, but also be entertaining at same time. probably not the best idea on my part. I don’t agree with you that Fangraphs is providing information on only one side of the issue, but you certainly can have a different take than mine. Thanks for the conversation.
Thanks and good. I was not trying to be sarcastic. We are both just talking about things….which unfortunately is all we can do at the current time. I, too, appreciate our conversation. Good luck to all of us fans.
I think two things can be true:
Owners can be nearly entirely at fault now
Tony Clark should not have represented the union, and by doing so he created an environment where the owners are doing what they are doing now
You’re not nearly as important as you seem to think that you are.
He has every right to post a contrarian view and that has nothing to do with his ego.
Yes, folks should do this.
I like this website, and I’m glad that it exists in its current form. That’s why I’m a member.
“I am not only the President but also a client.”
–Sy Sperling, Hair Club for Men (RIP) and also Dave Appleman
I would be much more likely to support the site if it provided more neutral coverage of the labor dispute.
Coverage shouldn’t be decided in advance of news; rather, it should be honest about what’s happening. Whether or not that makes us happy is not the same thing as whether we’re getting high quality reports. I think FG makes me a better thinker and consumer, and I encourage you to subscribe. Cable TV/the internet has several free channels and sites for instant gratification/enragement, and I understand the appeal, but our community is better because our goals are more sincere and transparent.
Neutral news coverage doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s either fair or accurate
I pay Fangraphs to provide analysis and opinions based on that analysis. I don’t see much value in Fangraphs posting a statement from the owners and then a statement from the players in the name of neutrality. I get value from Fangraphs determining the facts and what the facts support.
Another one, huh? I am beginning to wonder if one or both sides are sending in agents to stomp their feet around.
While I would prefer it dump the owner shills from its comment section, but we don’t all get what we want.
Unpopular views are usually the most interesting as long as the poster makes a good support
I’m in this camp too, but based on the up/down votes, it seems like most of the membership prefers the writing as is.
Thanks so much for everything you do at Fangraphs! Even during these lean years of baseball, this site adds so much dimension to being a fan. I just became a new member.
As the proud owner of a FG mug (it’s nice to pair dark mode screen with dark mode cup), I can say that it’s stylish, dishwasher safe, and has survived numerous small drops without a scratch or crack
Just re-upped!
Just made a small donation, in addition to my ad-free membership. Thanks to all the writers for the terrific content, and let’s hope for a swift and equitable resolution to the MLB imbroglio.
I continued my paid subscription because I look forward each year to the write-ups on each prospect. Can’t get that at baseball-reference.com.
Fangraphs has been pushing for a player’s strike/lockout for years in their biased articles and then acts all surprised Pikachu face when it actually happens and impacts their revenue. And then they want to be bailed out like the owners the second there’s an inconvenience to their business.
So you would respect them more if they argued that the players should fold quickly so that they’re financially better off?
Well, that’s a position.
@Joe Panik: I would be curious to hear the writers of Fangraphs present their positions on whether they think the MLB anti-trust exemption is “fair”.
“then they want to be bailed out like the owners the second there’s an inconvenience to their business.”
Wanting to stay in business sucks, I know. (Wait…you’re a non-subscriber? Shocked “Pikachu face!”)
Not sure if creating a custom team is a members only feature but I found it quite fun to see my fantasy teams projections all compiled there
This I 100% agree with!
Well worth it
Are the black mugs gonna be back in stock any time soon or is that just a pipe dream at this point?
The pandemic did something to me as a baseball (stat) fan, I can’t put my finger on it but maybe not getting a full year’s worth of stats decreases the predictive nature for the “amateur analyst” and sapped a lot of the fun. It took away the constant that is baseball, spring prep, and 162 games of good, meaningful statistics. It left a void during a time where the world needed baseball, instead we got squabbles that were just a pre-cursor for this year’s dispute. Maybe its the affect sticky substances, constant ball changes and small sample sizes have wreaked on the predictive nature of forecasting. 2021 was a step in the right direction, but this conflict has been brewing in the background and felt like a FA walk year. Now, we just need to watch the crash in slow motion and hope its not totaled. Losing games again this year just sucks. It’s not FG’s fault, but MLB continuing to alienate its diehard fans is going to have a major impact on their business.
There’s a hole in my heart that can only be filled by fantasy baseball.
If you ever need an owner to fill in your fantasy baseball league(s), let me know. It is my hobby.
Is there anyway to get a membership where our contributions go directly to specific site contributors? I was a member for 3 years, but declined to renew because I only think a couple writers/editors (Dan and Eric) are worth paying money to support while there’s so much free and similar or better content on the internet.
Like if I were to sign up for a $50 ad-free membership, could I verify specifically that Dan and Eric’s salaries went up $25 each? Thanks.
Is it possible to donate or purchase items with cryptocurrency? If not, please enable that option!
This is the market speaking out against the liberal bias of the site. Replace the liberals and you’ll get more support.
Admit you’re a paid owner shill and stop being a Trump-level coward.
This is correct.
Looking at the downvotes, FG’s paying members like the boo-owners content. So the question is whether discussing the CBA with more nuance will lose more current members than are gained.
Gracias, soy miembro y disfruto mucho todo de este portal. ¡Quiero colaborar a la comunidad en español!
Article idea: If I had to take the Owners side, here is their argument.
Szym answered one of these this way in a chat last week, I think.
I think it would have to go something like:
– we’ve offered a 20+% increase in the minimum salary with annual escalators thereafter
-we’ve offered 10’s of millions for the prearb bonus pool
-we’re holding firm on the CBT because we believe increasing it exacerbates the “haves and have-nots” problem baseball has – this will just add another $30m player onto the dodgers and Yankees rosters while the pirates and guardians fall ever further behind
-the players want more money of course, just as we want to pay less – that’s the nature of a negotiation like this. But we feel we’ve offered a fair deal that addresses some of the players concerns and some out ours, with no one getting everything they want.
Holes can be poked in the above, of course, but I think that would have to be the bones of it.
“We make a lot of money and we want to keep making a lot of money, and this is a good way to do it.”
Well, this comment section did NOT disappoint.
Stunning the amount of whining this polite and modest request produces.
The nerve of writers wanting to get paid for the work they produce, smdh
A membership drive is no time for feedback about content.
FanGraphs has such intrusive ads now that they’ve started doing full screen pop ups on mobile. Back when y’all first announced the ad-free membership you said “ We will remain completely committed to having a non-intrusive advertising experience for those who would prefer not to become Ad Free Members.” But now the strategy seems to annoy us into becoming ad free members.
This is a great site and I’m happy to pay for it. I don’t understand why a paid membership isn’t a requirement for access.
Restock the scorebook tshirt please David!!
The crowd here is hostile to different viewpoints. Anyone who says they will support a politically neutral site gets attacked. What a brilliant way to drive potential customers away, tell them they are stupid for disagreeing with you. No donation from me. Not now.
Sorry you don’t get to write nonsensical complaints without pushback. Sorry you don’t just get your way. Sorry Fangraphs isn’t writing articles about how CRT is ruining baseball. Sorry that you’re so incapable of seeing you’re own bias that you don’t realize your request is not for neutrality but rather for obsequiousness to your stupid positions.
Fangraphs core audience is baseball fans who like data-driven, logical, and well-reasoned takes on baseball. If they started writing nonsense articles to get clicks from morons, then I’m out and I’m guessing others would be, too.
Wouldnt a well-reasoned take on “owners are bad because they are greedy and rich” start with a serious discussion on MLBs anti-trust exemption?
Can we get a “collapse comment” feature or something so we can easily skip through the bad comments and the many, many replies to the bad comments?