Jump to content
  • Create Account

5 Phillies test postive for COVID-19, they and 3 other teams shut down camps


Nine of twelve
 Share

If I was going to be paid anywhere between $200k and $10M, yes I absolutely would.

The players making that range in 2020 MLB have made at least a million previously. Do they need that additional $200k this year? I can see players taking the risk if they haven’t made significant money before playing pro baseball, like Randy Dobnak. I can’t see why a player who has made life changing money taking that risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I got that figure directly from Jon Heyman.

https://twitter.com/jonheyman/status/1275457676944670721?s=21

 

Interesting.  528 divided by .42 comes out to 1,257 players, or about 42 per team.  Given that the 40 man roster is still a thing, and not every player on it is on a big league deal, I have to assume his database of players includes quite a few players who would not have made more than $100k from an MLB team even if there wasn't a pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The players making that range in 2020 MLB have made at least a million previously. Do they need that additional $200k this year? I hope they’re not living check to check.

 

Untrue.  If Luis Arraez is on the Twins roster for all 60 games, he will be paid $208k.  His career earnings are not even $500k.  Ditto for Dobnak, Smeltzer, Thorpe, Alcala, and a bunch more, including any of the Twins top prospects who find their way onto an expanded roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High risk players will be able to sit out and still make their prorated salary. No definition of high risk yet but I'm guessing that most non-injury related, pre-existing conditions will be included.

 

If the player is deemed healthy and still doesn't feel comfortable playing then it sounds like they will forfeit their salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The players making that range in 2020 MLB have made at least a million previously. Do they need that additional $200k this year? I can see players taking the risk if they haven’t made significant money before playing pro baseball, like Randy Dobnak. I can’t see why a player who has made life changing money taking that risk.

If you don't have the underlying conditions, what is really the risk you are talking about?

It looks like 98.4% chance you won't end of in the hospital, not trying to downplay the virus, but if people are making life decisions on a 1.6% chance of ending up in the hospital things are going to get weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do know that the mumps vaccine was the fastest to market at 4 years?

Will a vaccine be necessary at 4 years or even 2 years?  I don't think we are looking at this still being a big issue by then.  We are never going to stop the spread of the virus no matter how isolated the government forces us to be.  By this time next year I think a huge portion of the nation will have been exposed to it already.

 

I think the number of cases is massively underestimated. With the Asymptomatic nature of the virus I believe thousands of Americans (probably well over 100k) have no idea they already had it.  I think if you tested every American as often as these athletes are and will be tested you will see the same results.  Testing is at an all time high so it probably isn't a "second outbreak" as much as it is catching a larger percentage of cases.

 

We seem to have forgotten the original goal of the lockdowns which was to slow the spread so hospitals had the open beds and equipment to deal with the incoming patients. Somewhere along the way we developed this false theory that zero new cases can be a reality.

 

3 Rockies tested positive and only 1 showed any symptoms at all.  In one week the Rockies, Phillies, Astros, Yankees, Angels, Giants, Blue Jays, and a few unnamed clubs have had positive test results. As far as I can tell there are 2 confirmed to have shown symptoms and zero hospitalizations.

 

 

(Personal beliefs from an unqualified individual)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you don't have the underlying conditions, what is really the risk you are talking about?

It looks like 98.4% chance you won't end of in the hospital, not trying to downplay the virus, but if people are making life decisions on a 1.6% chance of ending up in the hospital things are going to get weird.

 

It's not just the players, though ... it's everyone around them ... families, trainers, on-field staff, equipment managers, etc ... I don't think players are that high risk for getting seriously ill because they are young and in good shape; however, even that isn't a guarantee, but everyone else around them, though ... hopefully teams are as careful about that as they are about the players themselves. I don't know all the 'rules, regs and protocols' baseball is implementing, but i'm skeptical of how this will play out. From my perspective being in a performance industry, and the guidelines we are faced with ... it just makes me skeptical that baseball is all that different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will a vaccine be necessary at 4 years or even 2 years? I don't think we are looking at this still being a big issue by then. We are never going to stop the spread of the virus no matter how isolated the government forces us to be. By this time next year I think a huge portion of the nation will have been exposed to it already.

 

I think the number of cases is massively underestimated. With the Asymptomatic nature of the virus I believe thousands of Americans (probably well over 100k) have no idea they already had it. I think if you tested every American as often as these athletes are and will be tested you will see the same results. Testing is at an all time high so it probably isn't a "second outbreak" as much as it is catching a larger percentage of cases.

 

We seem to have forgotten the original goal of the lockdowns which was to slow the spread so hospitals had the open beds and equipment to deal with the incoming patients. Somewhere along the way we developed this false theory that zero new cases can be a reality.

 

3 Rockies tested positive and only 1 showed any symptoms at all. In one week the Rockies, Phillies, Astros, Yankees, Angels, Giants, Blue Jays, and a few unnamed clubs have had positive test results. As far as I can tell there are 2 confirmed to have shown symptoms and zero hospitalizations.

 

 

(Personal beliefs from an unqualified individual)

You are absolutely correct that flattening the curve does not mean no new cases however we haven’t yet flattened the curve. the rate of positive tests to negative is still rising, so no, it’s not due only to increased testing that we are seeing rising positive test results.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1271641396257021952

 

The link above is a couple weeks old, but from what I gather is still relevant. In the thread the doctor cites several articles/journals describing how Herd Immunity isn’t the solution. The gist of it, is Hammer and Dance is the way to go. The issue is the US never “Hammered” all the way, and then gave up.

 

The broad context is relevant to our current baseball discussion, because we’re still in the first wave, putting 900 baseball players in close proximity and traveling extensively.

 

The risk is real and the impact is significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Record number of new cases today.  There has been COVID discovered at the Phillies facility, an exhibition tennis match, and the PGA.  I would love to see baseball, but is it really worth it to try to start the season at this time, esp. when it in some ways it is going to feel like like watching a series of exhibition games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not just the players, though ... it's everyone around them ... families, trainers, on-field staff, equipment managers, etc ... I don't think players are that high risk for getting seriously ill because they are young and in good shape; however, even that isn't a guarantee, but everyone else around them, though ... hopefully teams are as careful about that as they are about the players themselves. I don't know all the 'rules, regs and protocols' baseball is implementing, but i'm skeptical of how this will play out. From my perspective being in a performance industry, and the guidelines we are faced with ... it just makes me skeptical that baseball is all that different.

I understand what you are saying, I guess I was pointing out there is no real risk to the person with no underlying conditions.

And the risks you speak of which are real and serious are the same risks (maybe elevated a bit) that people take everyday going shopping, hanging out with family, working out, etc..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand what you are saying, I guess I was pointing out there is no real risk to the person with no underlying conditions.

And the risks you speak of which are real and serious are the same risks (maybe elevated a bit) that people take everyday going shopping, hanging out with family, working out, etc..

it's more like a daily business conference. Keep in mind, the catalytic event for this, was a business conference in Singapore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting.  528 divided by .42 comes out to 1,257 players, or about 42 per team.  Given that the 40 man roster is still a thing, and not every player on it is on a big league deal, I have to assume his database of players includes quite a few players who would not have made more than $100k from an MLB team even if there wasn't a pandemic.

 

Multiple players were already put on 60-man DL this spring. There's no reason to be pedantic about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's not just the players, though ... it's everyone around them ... families, trainers, on-field staff, equipment managers, etc ... I don't think players are that high risk for getting seriously ill because they are young and in good shape; however, even that isn't a guarantee, but everyone else around them, though ... hopefully teams are as careful about that as they are about the players themselves. I don't know all the 'rules, regs and protocols' baseball is implementing, but i'm skeptical of how this will play out. From my perspective being in a performance industry, and the guidelines we are faced with ... it just makes me skeptical that baseball is all that different.

 

Exactly. Albert Pujols' daughter is considered high-risk. Should he just not see her for 3 months? That's just one child off the top of my head among dozens that are high-risk among players in the league, let alone spouses or family members who reside with the players. It's beyond just the high-risk players. It's beyond taking healthy players and asking them to isolate for the season, it's quarantine time even once the season is done, and in potential cases, it's taking players away from pregnant wives and disabled children for months.

 

To play a game.

 

For your entertainment.

 

The CONSTANT argument against playing minor league players more or the whine for backing owners in every labor dispute is that players should just shut up because it's just a game. So when players are trying to protect their families, due to health risks...suddenly your entertainment is more valid than their familial situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I understand what you are saying, I guess I was pointing out there is no real risk to the person with no underlying conditions.

And the risks you speak of which are real and serious are the same risks (maybe elevated a bit) that people take everyday going shopping, hanging out with family, working out, etc..

 

There are risks, though. The first case of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was announced in South Dakota. This is striking normally healthy CHILDREN who had COVID. It's one of several post-COVID conditions that are being discussed now as survivors are finding long-term effects from their survival of the virus.

 

Many low-risk, athletic persons with no underlying conditions have been critically hospitalized or even died from this virus. To say there is no risk shows exactly the laissez faire attitude to the virus that has allowed for recent resurgence in the country, IMO.

 

All star, superstar players are getting ill. That's a big deal. What it does to them for the rest of their lives is unknown. Perhaps they recover and are fine going forward, but it's hard to fathom an owner that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into a player's future being willing to gamble that his/her (let's be honest, in baseball, it's all HIS right now) player is going to avoid any potential long-term side effects from the virus. That's what is making all this absolutely incredible to watch from where I sit, having covered this virus every day for four months now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Many low-risk, athletic persons with no underlying conditions have been critically hospitalized or even died from this virus. To say there is no risk shows exactly the laissez faire attitude to the virus that has allowed for recent resurgence in the country, IMO.

 

There are risks, though. The first case of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was announced in South Dakota. This is striking normally healthy CHILDREN who had COVID. It's one of several post-COVID conditions that are being discussed now as survivors are finding long-term effects from their survival of the virus.

 

I used CDC stats from the CDC site, for you say to using stats is laissez faire is ridiculous, since I have pointed out that Covid is real and serious.

 

Your second paragraph is just a scare tactic, bad, horrible, sad and tragic crap happens all the time at way higher percentages then what you speak (as of now)

 

I don't think MLB should play this year, but not because these is a 98.4% that if they a player gets the virus they won't end up in the hospital, but because they will be doing things that us normal citizens aren't allowed to do.

Like how are players and everybody going to social distance in the locker for example?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So "a few" Twins players have already tested positive recently? Who’d a thunk it? Speaking of baseball, MN Amateur Baseball Board has voted to move ahead, play a few games, and have the State Tourney despite the Covid. But, if you enter a park at the tourney for ANY reason, whether municipal grounds keeping employee all the way to umpire, you need to sign a waiver. Nothing says, "don’t worry folks" like a waiver! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are absolutely correct that flattening the curve does not mean no new cases however we haven’t yet flattened the curve. the rate of positive tests to negative is still rising, so no, it’s not due only to increased testing that we are seeing rising positive test results.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1271641396257021952

The link above is a couple weeks old, but from what I gather is still relevant. In the thread the doctor cites several articles/journals describing how Herd Immunity isn’t the solution. The gist of it, is Hammer and Dance is the way to go. The issue is the US never “Hammered” all the way, and then gave up.

The broad context is relevant to our current baseball discussion, because we’re still in the first wave, putting 900 baseball players in close proximity and traveling extensively.

The risk is real and the impact is significant.

There is a downward trend in new cases, hospitalizations and deaths. The curve has flattened. The only graph in the link below that is trending upward is tests per day. Baseball players are not the only people seeing regular testing.  Now that I am back at the office, I get tested weekly. I am sure thousands of other people are now getting tested as they return to work that never would have without showing symptoms. Even with the tests catching more of the symptom less people the trend still points down. Daily deaths n MN were in the single digits the last 4 consecutive days, something that hasn't been done since the beginning.

 

https://www.minnpost.com/health/2020/03/tracking-the-minnesota-covid-19-numbers/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So "a few" Twins players have already tested positive recently? Who’d a thunk it? Speaking of baseball, MN Amateur Baseball Board has voted to move ahead, play a few games, and have the State Tourney despite the Covid. But, if you enter a park at the tourney for ANY reason, whether municipal grounds keeping employee all the way to umpire, you need to sign a waiver. Nothing says, "don’t worry folks" like a waiver! :(

Either we need to stop hoping these sports will come back, or stop caring about the number of people testing positive. I lean towards the former, because I don’t want to anything in 2020 to be normalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is a downward trend in new cases, hospitalizations and deaths. The curve has flattened. The only graph in the link below that is trending upward is tests per day. Baseball players are not the only people seeing regular testing.  Now that I am back at the office, I get tested weekly. I am sure thousands of other people are now getting tested as they return to work that never would have without showing symptoms. Even with the tests catching more of the symptom less people the trend still points down. Daily deaths n MN were in the single digits the last 4 consecutive days, something that hasn't been done since the beginning.

 

https://www.minnpost.com/health/2020/03/tracking-the-minnesota-covid-19-numbers/

That link and graph is Minnesota only. MN is trending down in positive tests while the total number of tests is increasing. That is good and means the curve is flattening in MN.

 

The thing with baseball, it's a traveling sport. 28 states have upward trend as does the US as a whole.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That link and graph is Minnesota only. MN is trending down in positive tests while the total number of tests is increasing. That is good and means the curve is flattening in MN.

 

The thing with baseball, it's a traveling sport. 28 states have upward trend as does the US as a whole.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

Which is again attributed to an increase in testing.  If the cases were increasing due to an outbreak then the deaths would follow at the same rate. People like Charlie Blackmon would not have been a positive test a month ago because he does not show symptoms. We are casting a wider net and counting healthy people as "positives" when they have never shown symptoms

 

Baseball does not need to be a traveling sport. If you want seclusion pick a state and play the games there.

 

US deaths per day still shows a downward trend. What changed over the last month that deaths slowed way down? Protests, rallies, open states, deaths are still trending way down. The only change is an increase in testing as healthy people head back to their daily lives.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_coronavirus_deaths_per_day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is again attributed to an increase in testing. If the cases were increasing due to an outbreak then the deaths would follow at the same rate. People like Charlie Blackmon would not have been a positive test a month ago because he does not show symptoms. We are casting a wider net and counting healthy people as "positives" when they have never shown symptoms

 

Baseball does not need to be a traveling sport. If you want seclusion pick a state and play the games there.

 

US deaths per day still shows a downward trend.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_coronavirus_deaths_per_day

as stated earlier positive test as a rate of negative test is trending up, meaning growth in positive tests are attributed to spread of the virus, once growth of negative tests outpace positive tests, you can attribute positive test growth only to increased testing, not spread of the virus. That came from one of the imbedded articles quoted in the twitter thread, reposted here:

 

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-should-we-aim-for-herd-immunity-like-sweden-b1de3348e88b

 

Deaths as a rate of infection is trending down, partially due to increased testing, and partially due to improved treatment, and also due to younger people being diagnosed. As quoted up thread by Ben, there are questions about potential impacts after recovery that we don’t yet have answers to. I think it’s great that fatality rate is down, however at current fatality rate (120k at 20 million assumed infections in the US) Herd immunity (70% population infection) means .6% x 220,000,000 is 1.3 million deaths to reach herd immunity.

 

To reach perspective 8,000 to 20,000 people die of the flu per year.

 

 

And Baseball doesn’t “have to be” a traveling sport, it’s true, but that isn’t an option for the current proposal is it?

 

I just want to remind, the business conference in Singapore with just a couple hundred people was the catslyst, 900 baseball players... just wait and see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

as stated earlier positive test as a rate of negative test is trending up, meaning growth in positive tests are attributed to spread of the virus, once growth of negative tests outpace positive tests, you can attribute positive test growth only to increased testing, not spread of the virus. That came from one of the imbedded articles quoted in the twitter thread, reposted here:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-should-we-aim-for-herd-immunity-like-sweden-b1de3348e88b

You cant compare testing today to testing of the past when a large majority of the new cases would not have been allowed a test.  One of the 5 Phillies showed symptoms that's 80% that they would not bother testing earlier during quarantine.  Of course it will look like a "spike" in new cases when you change the parameters.  Deaths continue to plunge nation wide as more people interact with society.  This is great news, the virus is not nearly as deadly as we thought.  We are finding a big chunk of the cases don't even notice they contracted the virus.  Had the testing been the same throughout the whole process we would be seeing a downward trend in new cases.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

as stated earlier positive test as a rate of negative test is trending up, meaning growth in positive tests are attributed to spread of the virus, once growth of negative tests outpace positive tests, you can attribute positive test growth only to increased testing, not spread of the virus. That came from one of the imbedded articles quoted in the twitter thread, reposted here:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-should-we-aim-for-herd-immunity-like-sweden-b1de3348e88b

Deaths as a rate of infection is trending down, partially due to increased testing, and partially due to improved treatment, and also due to younger people being diagnosed. As quoted up thread by Ben, there are questions about potential impacts after recovery that we don’t yet have answers to. I think it’s great that fatality rate is down, however at current fatality rate (120k at 20 million assumed infections in the US) Herd immunity (70% population infection) means .6% x 220,000,000 is 1.3 million deaths to reach herd immunity.

To reach perspective 8,000 to 20,000 people die of the flu per year.


And Baseball doesn’t “have to be” a traveling sport, it’s true, but that isn’t an option for the current proposal is it?

I just want to remind, the business conference in Singapore with just a couple hundred people was the catslyst, 900 baseball players... just wait and see...

CDC on 6/25/20  "For every 1 case reported.  it is likely 10 cases went unreported."

 

We are finally catching some of those other 10 in the increased testing. According to the CDC it is likely that the 2.3M total US cases is more like 23M Americans.  Deaths are still trending downward while we get a better picture of how many people are actually getting and surviving this thing.

 

In a call with reporters on Thursday, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said, “In the past, we didn’t really aggressively pursue diagnostics in young asymptomatic individuals.”

 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/for-every-coronavirus-case-reported-10-went-unannounced-cdc-estimates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cant compare testing today to testing of the past when a large majority of the new cases would not have been allowed a test. One of the 5 Phillies showed symptoms that's 80% that they would not bother testing earlier during quarantine. Of course it will look like a "spike" in new cases when you change the parameters. Deaths continue to plunge nation wide as more people interact with society. This is great news, the virus is not nearly as deadly as we thought. We are finding a big chunk of the cases don't even notice they contracted the virus. Had the testing been the same throughout the whole process we would be seeing a downward trend in new cases.

except that negative test results are rising at the same rate as positive test results. That means the virus is spreading.

 

If the negative test rates were climbing at a faster rate than positive, you could make the claim that the virus isn’t spreading and the only reason for new test results is increased sample size.

 

The constant is the negative rate. If the constant never climbs relative to the result you are testing for, you account for sample size, directionally. Larger sample becomes more accurate, and will continue to get more accurate as the sample gets larger, but you can still make relative inferences compared to past if you maintain the constant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CDC chief is also predicting many schools will be opening in August, within 1 month of the baseball season starting.

 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield told lawmakers:

It is my expectation that many jurisdictions will be opening schools. We are going to try to give guidance to help them do it safely. I think we’re going to see progressive jurisdictions move to open schools in the fall.

 

 

 

Asked whether kids and young adults would be able to return to class in August, Dr. Redfield told the House panel Tuesday:
I anticipate that the states will begin to open up higher education and K-12. It is going to be based on jurisdiction to jurisdiction decisions. CDC will be issuing additional guidance on this topic in the days ahead as we continue to try to work and give guide … [on] how to open them up safely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W/ all the bitter taste I`ve had in my mouth since March, I`m happy that it`s finally starting. & that things will be better now that baseball will start than if it had not. I haven`t been following football, basketball or hockey, my question is, are these contact, primarily indoor sports been under the same assault as baseball? just curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If the negative test rates were climbing at a faster rate than positive, you could make the claim that the virus isn’t spreading and the only reason for new test results is increased sample size.
 

Covid is a virus that has no cure or vaccine, so of course it is spreading, there is NO way to stop the spread, we can only hope to slow it down until there is a vaccine or it just goes away.

The numbers now say it isn't a deadly as once thought (which is a wonderful thing) but the numbers also say it probably spreads pretty easy, which mean we need to keep the most vulnerable safe, but this idea that we can stop it is crazy talk and we can't shut down our society and hunker down in our houses for less than 1% of the population.

 

Baseball topic, sucks if the the Twins that tested positive get sick, but I am kind of hoping it is their best players, if the twins best players have/had it and didn't get sick, this should mean they will be around the whole season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Multiple players were already put on 60-man DL this spring. There's no reason to be pedantic about this.

 

It's IL, not DL.  I'm also not being pedantic, I'm pointing out an obvious flaw in the numerical logic--namely that even in a full 162 game season last year, probably only about 1500 to 1600 players were paid $100k by a major league team.  It's no surprise that when salaries are cut by 63% (which is less of a cut than the owners are taking in revenue, by the way), that the proportion of players making below $100k increases.  Last year to make $100k, a player only needed to be on a roster for about 1/6 of the season--this year it will be almost half.  The numbers simply don't add up, and at the end of the year, I am willing to bet that nowhere near 42% of players made less than $100k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...