Arenado and Freeman back to back - bet that's never happened for any major counting stat milestone

I'd bet it has. Not trying to diminish their accomplishments, but 300 homers and 1000 rbi's are relatively minor milestones that usually don't get much attention. Luckily for Freeman and Arenado, they have bigger milestones on the horizon; it looks likely they'll both finish their careers with 400+ homers, 1500+ rbi, and 2500+ hits (Freeman has a decent shot at 3000).

Jermaine Dye and Paul Konerko each hit their 300th homer not just in the same game but in back-to-back plate appearances.

Not the same milestone (then again, Arenado and Freeman really weren't reaching the same milestone either), but on May 1, 1991 Rickey broke Brock's all-time stolen base record and Nolan Ryan threw his record seventh no-hitter.

3. That's pretty cool. I don't remember them being such prolific HR hitters for so long

There are only ten players with 300 HR and less than 1000 RBI. Mike Trout (919 RBI) has the fewest RBI for 300-HR guys for now.

Why doesn't that surprise me, the Trout would be low on RBI per HR. One of the by-products of being on a team that never makes the playoffs. Now he bats before Ohtani so he creates RBI chances but doesn't get as many (Angels lead off hitters have a 319 OBP so far this year).

Mike Trout (919 RBI) has the fewest RBI for 300-HR guys for now.

Harper is bound to overtake him, at least temporarily.

Trout is 11th all time in ab per hr, that limits his rbi chances also (McGwire got his 300th hr and had less than 830 rbi at the time, Judge is 4th all time in ab per homerun and currently sits at 232 hr, 525 rbi he'll cross the 300 barrier with probably less than 700 rbi.

The headline makes it sound like he's in a panic. "Dad, I'm in the 300/1,000 club--what do I do???"

I think it was the very first guy to win a million on "...Millionaire" ... still had his phone-a-friend on the last question, went through the whole rigamarole, called his Dad or Mom and said "wanted you to know I'm about to win a million dollars" then answered the question. That of course was as cool as a show like that can be yet people jumped on the guy for being arrogant.

#9 is an interesting factoid. I suspect that technically it's more HRs as % of a player's hits rather than strictly speaking as a % of PA/AB although the two are obviously correlated.

Basically, for eras of similar OBP, older era player A should have PAs with men on base at about the same rate as new era player B. A picks up RBIs on singles and dboules and HRs while B picks them up mainly just on HRs (striking out the other 95% of the time).

At the end of his age 28 season, Aaron had 298 HRs with another 1399 hits ... and 991 RBI.** Freeman has 1659 non-HR hits. (Calm down, he's got 1700 more PA than Hank through 28). Trout conveniently had 302 HRs through his age 28 season but just 1078 non-HR hits.

Cool, B-R does have what I'm looking for ... RBI on HRs

Trout 541 on 360 ... that's a bit under 60% of his RBI
Aaron 1237 on 755 ... about 54% of his RBI
Freeman 473 on 300 ... about 44% of his RBI
Brett 503 on 317 ... about 32% of his RBI

So to get RBIs, you need men on base. The more PAs you have, the more PAs with men on base you have, the more RBIs you have. The slower you hit HRs, the more PA by HR 300, the more RBI by HR 300. High HR/PA picks up some ground on all those solo HRs but if we're looking at "most RBI by HR 300" or similar then those solo HRs are adding too fast to the denominator while not adding that much to the numerator, even though obviously a HR with the bases empty is a lot better than a single.

Now, RBI/hit for those guys (dependent on opportunities of course)

Trout 919 on 1589 = .578
Aaron 2297 on 3771 = .609
Freeman 1068 on 1959 = .545
Brett 1596 on 3154 = .506

** Of course that sent me checking Aaron's 1963 game logs. Looks like 998 RBI by his 300th HR game. So Freeman ahead of Hank. As noted, Freeman is closing in on 2,000 hits. By the time of his 2000th hit, Aaron had about 1150 RBI, Freeman closer than I would have guessed.

Nowadays your best hitter hits 2nd (or sometimes 1st), in the old days they'd bat 3rd or 4th. That would make all the difference I imagine.

I think it was the very first guy to win a million on "...Millionaire" ... still had his phone-a-friend on the last question, went through the whole rigamarole, called his Dad or Mom and said "wanted you to know I'm about to win a million dollars" then answered the question. That of course was as cool as a show like that can be yet people jumped on the guy for being arrogant.

correct.

Regis Philbin was unnerved that the guy had not used any of his "lifelines" - including phone-a-friend - and thought it was nuts for anyone to have a shot $1 million and not at least get their planned answer confirmed.

so the guy agreed to call his father. but he didn't ask the question - he just said he called to say that in a few seconds, he would be a millionaire.

I like it.

I think it was the very first guy to win a million on "...Millionaire" ... still had his phone-a-friend on the last question, went through the whole rigamarole, called his Dad or Mom and said "wanted you to know I'm about to win a million dollars" then answered the question. That of course was as cool as a show like that can be yet people jumped on the guy for being arrogant.

Six years ago my cousin was a "Millionaire" contestant and won 100K. Her husband was her lifeline, and correctly told her to select Larry Doby as an answer.

Re 13: The question was about this guy, who shows up at the 21 second mark. (I remember being surprised that the million-dollar question was so easy.)

EDIT: Here's the question in question! (This is one of the greatest moments in TV history. Legend!)

My memory is that the first few months of Millionaire, the questions were surprisingly easy. I think the producers thought "we need to make it as easy to answer as Jeopardy or the average Joes and Janes won't watch" maybe not thinking through that the key to winning on Jeopardy is more speed than deep trivia knowledge. After a few winners, the questions got a lot harder. Note, I don't recall any set of questions being easy enough that I got through unscathed ... but weren't you almost guaranteed to get up to $50,000 or so in those early days?

15. I had no idea anyone thought that moment was anything but fantastic.

maybe not thinking through that the key to winning on Jeopardy is more speed than deep trivia knowledge.

also true of Mensa tests. seems like anyone could do well, if given enough time.
speed is the actual skill being tested.

Back to this ... you'll notice that all of these are pretty close on the RBI per HR scale. I assume that's a fairly stable number pretty much regardless of era or the power of the hitter. Obviously some variation on offense quality (poor Trout), maybe lineup position, etc.

Trout 541 on 360 ... 1.5 RBI per HR
Aaron 1237 on 755 ... 1.64
Freeman 473 on 300 ... 1.58
Brett 503 on 317 ... 1.59
Kuiper 1 on 1 ... 1.00 :-)

Somewhat more serious extension ...

Campaneris 109/79 = 1.38
Campaneris not first PA of game ... 1.45 (96/66)
Rickey 416/297 = 1.40
Rickey not first PA of game ... 1.55 (315/216)

I think that's kinda interesting -- it's a small sample obviously but looks like you an expect about 1.55 to 1.60 RBI/HR unless you're a leadoff hitter. It might drop a bit for #8 and #9 hitters too. But my stat-y point is that, on their 300 HRs, batters A and B will have a roughly equal number of RBI. The guy who takes longer to get to 300 HR will have more non-HR RBI due to more opportunities (counting, not rate). Not a major revelation that comparing career RBIs between a guy like Brett (300 HR in about 11,000 PA) to Trout (300 HR in 4700 PA) may not be a useful comparison (but a fine bit of trivia).

Can't really think of any guys who "always" batted 2nd other than Glenn Beckert but he had only 22 career HR. But that speculation leads to this ... AL splits for hitting 2nd ... tOPS+ ... i.e. in comparison to overall which is 100

2022 114
2017 107
2012 93
2007 101
2002 96
1997 97
1987 101
1977 94

It is still though that best hitter tends to go #3 -- 125 OPS+ in 2022. And 2022 was something of a high-water mark for #2. #2 did barely beat out #3 in 2019 but for the last half-dozen seasons has been well behind. #4 has topped it sometimes as well and I think there was a season in there where #1 did too. 2019 was Trout's most recent full season. :-) I assume that if we had something like ISO+ we might see an even more dramatic shift in power at the #2 spot but I ain't got that.

My point was that guys who hit homeruns at a very good pace, just won't have enough chances to accumulate rbi before they reach the 300 range, if you look at guys who were slower at the 300 rate (to grab a couple of Cubs) Santo and Billy Williams) both were just at 1000 rbi when they hit their 300th hr, while a more prolific hr hitter was at around 860 rbi when he got his 300th. Neither Arenado or Freeman are elite power hitters, they are good even for their era, but not in the range that the more elite guys where, and both hit 300 and 1000 around the same time, I'm trying to think who probably has the most rbi when they reached their 300 hr. I'm going to ignore guys who had careers before Babe Ruth.. as Rogers Hornsby would probably be the answer then. (Brett does look like a good bet for that title)

15. I had no idea anyone thought that moment was anything but fantastic.

I was only offended by the lameness of the final question -- everybody of a certain age in 2000 knew which president did a LAUGH-IN cameo.

Dupe post

Freddie Freeman has already made almost 40 million more than Paul Goldschmidt, and will end up having earned 120 million more when both careers are over.

Freddie came up younger, got a better extension deal from Braves than Goldy got from D-backs, then signed a bigger FA deal with Dodgers than the Extension Goldy signed with St. Louis

120 million dollars though. That's a lot. Goldy and his agent left way too much money on the table.



Provided by Stathead.com: View Stathead Tool Used
Generated 5/20/2023.

I don't recall any set of questions being easy enough that I got through unscathed

I remember playing the online version for a little bit. I must have made it to a million a few times out of however many dozen rounds I played, but IRL you only get one shot.

Freddie's LA deal is better nominally but the tax bite in LA is much worse than Stl. Goldy was also doing better in arizona. Now, I know they pay taxes in each state they play in but the majority of the taxes will be in the home state. I don't think this makes up a $40 million nominal difference but it closes the gap quite a bit.

California also levies a 1% mental health services tax on income exceeding $1 million, making the state's highest tax rate 13.3%. California sales tax is 7.25%. Many municipalities add on local tax as well, which can bring the total sales tax in some areas up to 10.75%.

Missouri recently lowered its top income tax rate from 5.4% to 5.3% for 2022, and it's dropping again to 4.95% in 2023. Missouri has a 4.225 percent state sales tax rate, a max local sales tax rate of 5.763 percent, an average combined state and local sales tax rate of 8.33 percent.

Arizona has a flat 2.50 percent individual income tax. Arizona has a 4.90 percent corporate income tax rate, a 5.60 percent state sales tax rate, a max local sales tax rate of 5.30 percent, and a 8.37 percent combined state and local sales tax rate.

Income tax: 1 percent to 5.75 percent Georgia has six state income tax brackets, ranging from 1 percent to 5.75 percent, but most people are taxed at the highest rate. The state is moving to a flat tax rate of 5.49 percent in 2024.


For instance, equalizing for tax rates Freeman's $27 million is more like $25 million which makes his salary comparable to Goldys

Finally Goldy's deal expires next year and barring a major decline will probably add on multiple years at the current rate or more.

Goldschmidt and Arenado are both looking like hall of famers who will never smell the World Series. Arenado is a bit younger so he has some time but it's looking bleak for both. This iteration of the Cards doesn't have the pitching and next year most of the staff will be gone (not a bad thing ) and there's almost no hope they can cobble together a decent staff with the money they will allocate to the acquisition process.

Is that a common phenomenon? What % of modern hall of famers haven't played in a World Series. Lots of Cubs I guess, maybe some mariners. With so many teams now I guess this will become more common

The Phillies won 87 games last year and they made the world series, making the playoffs, means your team has a chance to make the world series. Bb-ref lists the Cardinals chances of making the playoffs as 63.2%. Get through round one and two and they are in the series, the Cardinals have enough offense that they will probably be a top 5 offensive team in the NL most of the time the next five years, getting league average pitching isn't too difficult. And if you look at the pitchers that were developed by the Cardinals over the past decade, you will see a Cy Young winner(Alcantara) the current leading candidate for the Cy in Gallen, and others who have received votes for other teams, that you have to think they'll develop another one that they'll keep. Add in the surplus of hitters and logjams at positions and a trade for a pitcher is very likely sometime before next season.

Mikolas is better than he's pitched this year, but probably not an ace level talent, we'll list him as a number three (which is roughly slightly above average according to Dag Nabbit's research) Libetore had a good game, but it's too early to make a call on him, but he's only 23 years old, and seems to be on the path to becoming a true major league pitcher, I would grade him as a number 3.5 this season, maybe a 3 next and probably a 2 after that while being under team control for another 4 (roughly) seasons) Woodford also feels like a 3.5 right now, a little bit of luck to make his numbers look better than they really are, as his results are a solid number 3. but he's not what anyone would call young, so he's probably done developing other than improving in control a bit so a 100 era+ pitcher is about what you expect... so without any outside acquisitions, you are looking at three starters who in the aggregate are slightly above average pitchers.

None of the prospects we have are really 2024 ready, and I'm only excited about Hence, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Hjerpe move through the minor ranks quickly even if at best he tops out a number two for a few seasons. So yes, obviously the Cardinals are going to have to refresh their pitching depth through trades and signings. The track record on signings for pitchers hasn't been great, but I doubt many teams can make that claim, trades has been good, but most of the time it was short term acquisitions so we'll have to see if they can identify a long term acquisition and pull the trigger.

Is that a common phenomenon? What % of modern hall of famers haven't played in a World Series. Lots of Cubs I guess, maybe some mariners. With so many teams now I guess this will become more common

Curious question, making the playoffs is easy, I doubt there will be any hofers who debut after 2010 who go a whole career without making the playoffs, but limiting to world series is a bit tougher, so much luck is involved there, currently the biggest name on that list is obviously Trout, but Bonds was on that list until his age 37 season. There is always a possibility of a one team player who gets locked into a sad sack franchise (Pirates last visited the world series in 1979---so McCutchen never saw the world series even after bouncing around a couple of teams. (not saying he's a hofer, but he is a guy with 15 seasons in the league)

Ernie, Williams, Santo, Fergie all famously never made the WS. Neither did Sandberg or Dawson. The most recent BBWAA inductee to never play in a WS is Edgar in 2019.

I don't think it would ba a shock if Trout, Ohtani, Vlad jr, Franco never see a WS. I'm not sure which I consider more likely, Corey Seager in the HoF or in the WS ... I suppose I have to go with the second one but I might rather bet on neither. (The team is playing awfully well though and, if Hou is on the decline a bit, the ALW becomes a pretty weak division the next few years unless LAA gets their act together.)

If the Cards' chances are as hopeless over the next several years as suggested (I don't think the team thinks they are), then it will make sense to trade Arendado and Goldschmidt, either because they've got the best trade value (i.e. soon while holding onto the kids) or because they're nearing the end and they'd like a shot at playing in a WS (in a few years). Those deals probably don't work out for the player all that often but you never know. For example, Larry Walker (2020 inductee) didn't make the WS until age 37 with the Cards.

It really is amazing how similar Goldschmidt's and Freeman's stat lines are. Goldschmidt is just a hair better at batting, base running, and fielding and that's reflected (accurately IMO) in their 10 WAR difference.

If Goldy is hit by a bus tomorrow I'd say he belongs in the Hall of Fame/Merit. Freddy has some ways to get there but he's also two years younger.

I'm not sure which I consider more likely, Corey Seager in the HoF or in the WS ...

Not only did Corey Seager play in (and win) the 2020 WS with the Dodgers, he was also named MVP.

As I tried to allude to, it's not about guessing if they'll be in the world series, the simple fact, is if the team makes the post season, there is a chance to be in the world series, so the real discussion is a player who might never even make the post season or second round etc. And you look for guys who are more than likely one team players for a franchise that is likely to be non-competitive a vast majority of their career. Angels fit that bill, Pirates, Rays, Marlins etc all fit that bill, but whether they are teams who will spend enough and be enjoyable enough to play for, that they have a career player is also a different conversation.


A hof player is someone who has at a minimum (with a Koufax like exception) 15-20 year career, in today's age being with one team is not a common thing, and when a player does stick with one team, it's usually going to be a team that is somewhat successful, so their chances of a world series appearance is pretty decent just because of odds.


There isn't a hof player for the Yankees, Cardinals or Braves of the past 30 years that would have missed out of an world series performance, you can probably add the Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox to that list.

It really is amazing how similar Goldschmidt's and Freeman's stat lines are. Goldschmidt is just a hair better at batting, base running, and fielding and that's reflected (accurately IMO) in their 10 WAR difference.

If Goldy is hit by a bus tomorrow I'd say he belongs in the Hall of Fame/Merit. Freddy has some ways to get there but he's also two years younger.

That is a strong line, not that I disagree with it, but it does kinda point out the "hit by bus" line when talking about two similar players. To me Goldy might just be a tad short, but then when you factor in waa, and a covid season, I kinda lean over. And considering how much I consider health to be a factor and the fact that he qualifies as an elite healthy player 9 out of 10 seasons (His first two and current one isn't in the discussion as there is probably more involved in that story) I don't have a problem listening to the argument he's over the line. (heck I have Edmonds over the line, and using war/waa as the starting point in the discussion, Goldy has the stronger case)

@32: The Giants have played in 4 World Series in the past 30 years, but I'm pretty sure that no HOF'er played for any of those teams. Posey stands a decent chance, of course, and there's Bonds.... The Dodgers are similar -- just 3 World Series in that time and no HOF'ers in any of them. Kershaw and Betts have excellent chances.

Not only did Corey Seager play in (and win) the 2020 WS with the Dodgers, he was also named MVP.

Details, details.

Goldy vs Freeman and money ... partly/largely a tale of how arbitrary baseball rules and age interact. But first let me point out/remind that these guys were considered to be very different levels of talent early on. Goldschmidt was a 49th round pick out of HS, didn't sign, was an 8th round pick 3 years later (2009) and signed. Freeman was a 2nd round pick out of HS in 2007 (one year after Goldschmidt) and signed. Goldschmidt making it to the level he has is a big development success.

And that plays out throughout their careers. Freeman makes the majors 3 years after being drafted out of HS, at age 20. Three years after being drafted out of HS, Goldschmidt is an 8th-round pick. At this point, Freeman is (almost exactly) 2 years younger and is miles ahead in terms of baseball talent.

Full-time in the majors at 21 (1+ service time) puts Freeman on the max money train. He'll hit FA for the first time at 27, the start of his prime. He's either gonna get a nice extension or he's gonna get one very big or multiple smaller bites at the FA apple. Now Freddie gave Atlanta a very nice long0term buyout (5 FA years) but it still let him become FA at age 32 which, if he was doing well, would give him a shot at another 5+ contract.

Goldschmidt is the opposite end of the service time spectrum. He's past one service year after age 24, so 3 age-years worse off than Freeman. He'll be FA at age 30, giving him just one bit at the FA/extension apple. Arizona used their leverage to buy out 1 pre, 3 arb and 1 FA plus an option. He was probably wise to take this deal but did trade $ for security. The Cards acquired that option and gave him the 5/$130 extension after that.

You can compare them this way:

Freeman pre-FA: about $30 M total (through age 26 ... "pre-FA" as in <6 years service time at season's start)
Goldschmidt pre-FA: about $20 M total (through age 29)

Freeman ages 30-36: about $179 (2 extension years, 5 LAD years)
Goldschmidt ages 30-36: about $155 (1 extension year, 1 option year, 5 STL extension years)

Freeman age 37: $27
Goldschmidt age 37: ??

Viewed that way, nothing very exciting going on here. The DBacks had a lot of leverage over Goldschmidt in that first deal, they already had control of his age 27-29 years at what would be discounted prices. Goldschmidt might have been overly risk averse to sign that deal but the $10 M gap I think is mostly explained that Freeman had much more leverage. The gap for ages 30-36 is probably bigger than it should be but it's just $3.5 M per year and most of the gap is in those original extension contracts. The big FA difference is that age 37 year that Freeman got, but again leverage -- Freeman took the risk of becoming an FA and had at least two serious bidders. Goldschmidt decided not to ride out that first extension.

For the rest of the overall gap, that's because the above doesn't account for Freeman's age 27-29 seasons which are (financially speaking) the difference between being full-time at 21 rather than 24. Freeman made $63 M in those years.

So I'd guesstimate that $120 M difference in earnings breaks down roughly this way:

Freeman's 3-"service-time-age" advantage (full-time at 21 rather than 24): $60 M (ages 27-29)
Freeman's greater leverage (which is due to age): $45 M (less whatever Goldschmidt gets at 37)
Goldschmidt's risk-aversion (possibly wise): $10-15 M

In short, I don't think Goldschmidt really left that much on the table. If he's true to form, I won't be surprised if he and the Cards work out an age 37-38 extension (he's FA at the end of next year). But, to pound the point home:

Age 21
FF 282/346/448, 116 OPS+, 1.5 WAR at MLB
PG ??? at Texas State, 335/408/638 at rookie ball

Age 22
FF 259/340/456, 113 OPS+, 2.4 WAR
PG 314/384/606 at A+

Age 23
FF 319/396/501, 147 OPS+, 5.3 WAR
PG 306/435/626 at AA; 250/333/474, 113 OPS+, 0.4 WAR at MLB 177 PAs

Age 24
FF 288/386/461, 139 OPS+, 3.0 WAR (4.2 oWAR, he got whacked for -10 in the field ??)
PG 286/359/490, 126 OPS+, 3.4 WAR (3.2 oWAR)

$120 M might not be the right figure but are you really surprised that FF was gonna make a LOT more money than PG? Goldschmidt had the big breakout at 25 (6 WAR, 160 OPS+) and the DBacks pounced and got that buyout. The Braves pounced after Freeman's age-23 breakout but Freeman was entering arb at that point.

#34 -

Giants - Even if Bonds continues to be snubbed, Posey will make the HOF pretty easily IMO (3 ballots or less), and I suspect Kent will get in via the VC at the first opportunity.

Dodgers - Well, of course teams who played in the 2017, 2018, and 2020 World Series don't have any HOFers yet. ;-) But Kershaw doesn't only have an "excellent chance"; he's a stone cold first ballot lock absent PED or other poor character revelations. And yeah, Betts is highly probable.

On the topic of Bus vs 1B ... Maybe things have already changed but for now, I'm going to assume that career length (and milestones) will cntinue to be an important factor for voters. With <7200 PA, Goldschmidt is not in bus territory yet; he's more in Larry Walker territory. Now there's no reason to think he'll be standing in front of a bus anytime soon and he should make it in the neighborhood of 9000 PAs at least. Which probably also means 65-70 WAR, 400ish HRs. I'm still not sure that's the sort of certain first ballot that I equate with "bus" but that guy is a "lock" to be elected by the writers. (Edgar is really an excellent comp for that version of Goldschmidt. Of coursse, PG has a MVP.)

When I think Freeman, I think Eddie Murray. But boy Freeman is a long way from 3,000 hits and seems even farther away from 500 HRs. How could he have only 300 to this point? Doesn't he know it's a HR era? Still they are pretty close -- and both full-time at 21.

EM thru 32: 7800 PA, 2021 H, 333 HR, 141 OPS+, 56 WAR, 31 WAA
FF thru 32: 7400 PA, 1903 H, 292 HR, 140 OPS+, 49 WAR, 26 WAA (the WAR/WAA gap bigger than I'd have expected)

Murray had to play to 39 to reach 3,000 and every bit of age 40 to reach 500 HRs but (other than age 34) he started his average 1B period starting at 33. Freeman doesn't appear to be doing that. I don't expect Freeman to quite make 3,000/500 but he'll give it a pretty good shot.

BBWAA HOFers elected in the last 50 years who never played in a World Series:

2019 - Edgar Martinez, Roy Halladay

2016 - Ken Griffey Jr

2014 - Frank Thomas (not sure if you want to count him; he was on the 2005 White Sox but was injured and didn't play in the postseason)

2010 - Andre Dawson

2005 - Ryne Sandberg

1997 - Phil Niekro

1991 - Rod Carew, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry

1987 - Billy Williams

1977 - Ernie Banks

1975 - Ralph Kiner

Edit : The next HOFers without a World Series appearance the BBWAA looks likely to elect are Billy Wagner (probably next year) and Ichiro in 2025.

On that list, I would also include those deserving but missing out due to roid hysteria, meaning Palmeiro, Sosa, ???

Another way to think about the PG-FF $ difference ... sorry to keep on but it seems a classic example of how age, service time, leverage, etc work.

The difference is about $120 M. In their current contracts, Freeman makes $27 AAV and Goldschmidt $26 so call that even and we can say the total $ difference is the equivalent of about 4.5 FA years for these two.

Three of those 4.5 years are due to the age 21 full-time vs age 24 full-time difference
One of those years is due to Freeman's age 37 already being guaranteed ... Goldschmidt will make at least some of that back
That leaves just half a year that Goldschmidt left on the table. Conveniently in line with my earlier guesstimate.

Finally (??) this way, FF vs PG in $s by age

21-23: $1.5 vs $0
24-26: $28.5 (arb buyout) vs $2.5 (pre-arb, incl signing bonus and first year of buyout)
27-29: $63 (FA buyout) vs $17.5 (arb buyout)
30-31: $44 (FA buyout) vs $25.5 (FA buyout + option)
32-36: $135 (FA) vs $130 (FA extension, slightly front-loaded might make them equal)
37: $27 vs ???

So through age 29, it's $93 to $20 but that's nearly all service-time-age differences. Maybe the $28.5 vs $17.5 arb years is money Goldschmidt left on the table (I think it's a mix of that with leverage/age). The same could be said for the $44 vs $25.5 gap. Ages 32-37 are essentially equal, probably some additional gap at age 37. I think getting a full age 37 was a big win for Freeman more than Goldschmidt making a mistake in not being able to get one.

In short, "make the majors full-time at 21" is great financial advice. (Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.)

#39 - Yeah, Palmeiro and Sosa should be on there too. I think they're the only other ones though. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, ARod, Manny, Sheffield, and Cano all played in at least 1 World Series.

The "let's make the playoffs and we'll see what happens" boat has sailed. It's the big payroll teams making the World Series now:

*. From 2010 through 2016, only three of the 14 World Series spots were filled by top 10 payroll teams. That’s 21.4 percent.

* From 2017 through 2022, 10 of the 12 World Series spots were filled by top 10 payroll teams. That’s 83.3 percent.

* From 2017 through 2022, the dollars-spent rankings for teams that made it to the World Series looked like this: an average payroll rank of 7.3 for the World Series winner, and 8.3 for the loser.

There are exceptions. Tampa seems to have the golden ticket for spending nothing and making World Series runs. No one else can do that. Can the Cardinals make the World Series ? Sure, anything's possible but their chances of getting through powerhouses like the Mets, Phillies, Braves, Padres and Dodgers seems remote.

There are exceptions. Tampa seems to have the golden ticket for spending nothing and making World Series runs. No one else can do that. Can the Cardinals make the World Series ? Sure, anything's possible but their chances of getting through powerhouses like the Mets, Phillies, Braves, Padres and Dodgers seems remote.

Cardinals have the fifth highest payroll in the NL, they are spending plenty, especially when you consider that in their starting lineup they have six starting players(covering 4.5 positions position pre-arbitration in Gorman, Donovan, Burleson, Carlson, Edman, Nootbaar, and I'm not sure why you think the Padres are a power house, they spend, and have made the playoffs twice since 2007, the Mets made the series in 2015, just two years after the Cardinals were last in it, and have made the post season twice since then. Phillies have made the post season just once since 2011, and got lucky in the playoffs. Braves have made the series once since 1999. I'm not really seeing any legit historical evidence to support the claim that these are powerhouse teams that routinely make it through multiple rounds of the playoff to a degree that someone can make an argument that the Cardinals have any more to overcome to make the later rounds.

It's still very much a crapshoot once you make the post season, yes the Astros and Dodgers do fairly well at going deep, as they are clearly the best teams in their respective league, meanwhile a relatively poor team like the Giants also managed to go deep while not being considered remotely the quality of team at the time. (that was in the early 2010 where they were a wild card team, and most wins they had in a season was 94)

edit: and I know that technically the Cardinals are 6th in payroll if you focus on what they are actually spending, but they do have a roster that is 5th highest in payroll.

From 2010 through 2016, only three of the 14 World Series spots were filled by top 10 payroll teams. That’s 21.4 percent.

From 1996 to 2002 12 out of 14 spots were filled with top ten payroll. That is the relative nature of the system, you are going to have groupings either way. Generally having a high payroll means you have a good team. I don't think anyone denies that, at the same time, it's not a guarantee you are going to succeed in the post season. And again the Cardinals are right there with the other big spenders. You are focusing that they are 11th in payroll in the majors, but when talking about the playoffs and just making it to the series, all that matters is payroll in the league. And again, the Cardinals are putting a more expensive roster out there than the Braves or Cubs or Giants, or Brewers etc..

Re 13: The question was about this guy, who shows up at the 21 second mark. (I remember being surprised that the million-dollar question was so easy.)

That was great. How could anyone not like that showmanship? And yes, the question was incredibly easy. I knew it instantly.

Millionaire ... as you can tell from the clip, the audience loved it, Regis loved it, I think "everybody" loved it watching at home. But you know, people nitpick later. My memory is just that there was isolated griping about "what a show off" and it being disrespectful of -- god only knows what -- Regis, his dad, the format, who knows? Most likely it's that a good portion of the viewers didn't know the answers and felt a bid belittled themselves.

It was a viral moment and people wanted in on the spotlight. You do that by being contrary.

It was a brilliant bit of improvisation from that contestant.

and like they say - "It ain't braggin' if you can back it up!"