2019 MLB Season

[AustinFromBoston]

Personally I think Oakland is a dark horse this year. They've beaten both Astros & Yankees pretty handily recently. 

Twins....History just isn't on their side when it comes to facing the Yankees in the playoffs. 

Would love to see Billy Beane finally make it to the World Series. 

 

NL I still think is the Dodgers to lose.  

[Kramerica Industries]

You kinda have to think the Twins are eventually going to get the better of the Yankees at some point. 0-4 in playoff series', 2-12 record in those games and 0-7 at home is just too ridiculous to continue on forever. If nothing else, there's no player or coaching overlap between the 2002-'10 Twins and these Twins (same with the Yankees, of course) so none of the previous results have any bearing on what is to come. Given the alternatives, I'll still take my chances with the Twins in the first round than what most of the alternatives were; the two teams are stylistically similar, whereas teams like the Rays and Indians could('ve) posed some real pitching problems. 

 

To that end, I'm hoping the Rays win the wild card game. I don't think either team will beat the Astros, but the Rays pitching staff is close to being at full strength again, and you only need to look at their record in April to see what they can do with a full strength pitching staff. If the Yankees had finished #1 in the AL, a pitching staff of Morton/Snell/Glasnow would've been about the last thing I wanted to see in a best-of-5 series. Not that I care much to see it in a best-of-7 series either, but a) lets get there before worrying about the best-of-7 and b) I'll still take those three with the offense backing it compared to facing, you know, Verlander/Cole/Greinke and the Astros having the HFA. Part of me wants to get even for what happened in 2017, the other part of me won't care one bit how the road to the World Series looks if they win the World Series at the end of it. 

 

As for the Dodgers, it's a similar story with them, and regardless of how the NL Central and, thus, wild card game shapes up, I have to imagine they're rooting for the road team on Tuesday. They would be favored to beat the Nats, don't get me wrong, but would you rather face the Brewers without their best player, or face a rotation with Scherzer/Corbin/Strasburg? 

 

I wrote five years ago about how much I dislike the best-of-5. Just never made any sense to me why MLB has not only an unequal playoff structure (a best-of-5 round followed by two best-of-7 rounds) but also makes their best teams most vulnerable to an upset in the earliest round of the playoffs. Obviously, I stand by all of that. I won't complain if this happens, but if a pair of 105-win teams go down in the first round potentially, then I don't see how that's good for the sport. I guess cross the budge once we get there.

[AustinFromBoston]

Yeah, I guess it is a bit hypocritical to think the Twins have no chance against NY when there was a point you could have said the exact same with the Red Sox. 

 

If there ever ever was a season for the Twins to finally conquer the evil empire, it’s this year.

 

[Brass]

By the way, do people go to baseball games anymore to...you know...watch baseball? I was at Fenway yesterday, and while I understand it was a meaningless game standings-wise, it seemed as if most people were entirely disconnected from the game.

 

Plus, the extinction of basic fan etiquette at a baseball game is official. Yes, I am a little irritated you keep needing to get up for food during an at-bat.

[AnPheitseog]

12 minutes ago, Brass said:

By the way, do people go to baseball games anymore to...you know...watch baseball? I was at Fenway yesterday, and while I understand it was a meaningless game standings-wise, it seemed as if most people were entirely disconnected from the game.

 

Plus, the extinction of basic fan etiquette at a baseball game is official. Yes, I am a little irritated you keep needing to get up for food during an at-bat.

I see the same at nba games and nhl games. People just getting up and moving during  play. It’s ridiculous 

[SFGiants58]

2 hours ago, Kramerica Industries said:

I wrote five years ago about how much I dislike the best-of-5. Just never made any sense to me why MLB has not only an unequal playoff structure (a best-of-5 round followed by two best-of-7 rounds) but also makes their best teams most vulnerable to an upset in the earliest round of the playoffs. Obviously, I stand by all of that. I won't complain if this happens, but if a pair of 105-win teams go down in the first round potentially, then I don't see how that's good for the sport. I guess cross the budge once we get there.

 

It's not as bad as a limited playoff field. I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but fan engagement would be much higher if it was 12 teams making it than the current 8/10 teams. Maybe it would help a bunch of fringe teams get in and beat the higher-seeded clubs. Heck, the Mariners might finally make it back and the Angels could show off Trout in the postseason! More stars in the postseason is a better way to market your stars.

 

We always complain about how football just has the same teams at the top, as well as basketball. With teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, and Astros constantly at the top with the budgets to back things up, it can get boring. Giving more teams a shot and enforcing some randomness makes things more exciting and tells teams not to rest on the laurels of their regular season. That's why I wish we had real league playoffs going back to the original 16 days. Maybe it would have saved the AL from turning into the Yankee league. 

 

I want it to be more like the NHL's previous format, basically. 

[masterchaoss]

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

It's not as bad as a limited playoff field. I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but fan engagement would be much higher if it was 12 teams making it than the current 8/10 teams. Maybe it would help a bunch of fringe teams get in and beat the higher-seeded clubs. Heck, the Mariners might finally make it back and the Angels could show off Trout in the postseason! More stars in the postseason is a better way to market your stars.

 

We always complain about how football just has the same teams at the top, as well as basketball. With teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, and Astros constantly at the top with the budgets to back things up, it can get boring. Giving more teams a shot and enforcing some randomness makes things more exciting and tells teams not to rest on the laurels of their regular season. That's why I wish we had real league playoffs going back to the original 16 days. Maybe it would have saved the AL from turning into the Yankee league. 

 

I want it to be more like the NHL's previous format, basically. 

Yeah I wouldn't mind if more teams made the postseason with how random the sport is it'd definitely keep the season more interesting for more teams late in the year. I just want to make sure the world series stays in October, so if they can get that to work I'm game. 

[AnPheitseog]

I hate our fascination with playoffs. Why even play the regular season?

[Kramerica Industries]

1 hour ago, DiePerske said:

I hate our fascination with playoffs. Why even play the regular season?

 

So that arguably the best regular season hockey team in the last 15 years can have a spectacular playoff disaster.

 

I'm with you on this, for the most part.

[masterchaoss]

Because I know people are gonna bring it up and say the AL is the better league at some point becuse of the 3 100 win teams, but the NL won interleague 166-134. Take that you DH using savages! 

[FiddySicks]

This was a REALLY weird year, record wise. We had three AL steams with 100 or more wins, and one in the NL, giving us four total. That’s pretty unusual to see that many teams who are that good.

 

Even weirder though was that we got four teams with more than 100 losses, too. Same setup as the NL. There were TWO 100+ loss teams just in the AL central, and the Orioles had 114 total losses, which is downright historically inept. Damn that’s some bad baseball. 

 

Off the top of my head, I cant ever remember a year that had this many 100 win/loss teams. 

 

[Wings]

9 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

This was a REALLY weird year, record wise. We had three AL steams with 100 or more wins, and one in the NL, giving us four total. That’s pretty unusual to see that many teams who are that good.

 

Even weirder though was that we got four teams with more than 100 losses, too. Same setup as the NL. There were TWO 100+ loss teams just in the AL central, and the Orioles had 114 total losses, which is downright historically inept. Damn that’s some bad baseball. 

 

Off the top of my head, I cant ever remember a year that had this many 100 win/loss teams. 

 

 

I think this season is the only time it's ever happened. 

[SFGiants58]

I’m just happy that the Giants finished relatively close to .500 and netted Bochy his 2,000th win.

[FiddySicks]

19 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I’m just happy that the Giants finished relatively close to .500 and netted Bochy his 2,000th win.

 

Something that I didn't even know about until after the fact was that the RiverCats won the AAA Championship this season, too. That's the first title for them in more than a decade, and the first under the Giants. That's a pretty good sign considering how dreadful their farm system usually looks. 

[Wings]

1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Something that I didn't even know about until after the fact was that the RiverCats won the AAA Championship this season, too. That's the first title for them in more than a decade, and the first under the Giants. That's a pretty good sign considering how dreadful their farm system usually looks. 

 

Before this year the last time a Giants Triple A team won a championship: 1977 Phoenix Giants

[Maroon]

2 hours ago, Wings said:

 

I think this season is the only time it's ever happened. 

 

You're right. There have been quite a few seasons where there were three clubs with 100 or more wins each, but this is the first time in MLB history where there are four clubs to accomplish that milestone. Pretty amazing, actually. Going purely off of the number of 100+ win teams and the number of 100+ loss teams, this could arguably be the most top-heavy regular season in MLB history (but to make that argument you'd have to be looking purely at an arbitrary benchmark record rather than actual dominance of teams from game to game).

[Sport]

17 hours ago, DiePerske said:

I hate our fascination with playoffs. Why even play the regular season?

 

I used to think this, but there is a purpose to a baseball season beyond simply crowning a champion. My team, for example, only won 75 games, never sniffed the postseason, and was beyond frustrating, but I still had something to do and pay attention to every day and night throughout the summer.

 

 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

There shouldn't even be ten postseason teams, let alone twelve or fourteen. That's what the one-hundred-and-sixty-two games are for.

[SFGiants58]

16 minutes ago, the admiral said:

There shouldn't even be ten postseason teams, let alone twelve or fourteen. That's what the one-hundred-and-sixty-two games are for.

This is why I prefer the NHL playoffs. Randomness and a wide field produces the best results. Twelve teams would be best, if only to make it easier to market your stars.

[JayMac]

I only have a problem with the one-game playoff. If two teams are tied at the end of the regular season, then fine, play a 163rd game. But this is its own round of playoffs and baseball is a season of series. At least try to make it a best of 3 series.