2014 MLB Season Thread

[crownking30]

A classic game I'm watching. Cardinals-Dodgers 7/18 LIVE from St. Louis on MLB Network. Both teams are classic, great teams. Potential playoff preview?

Classic means the potential to be an exciting game. Last night, it was pretty exciting.

[DCarp1231]

A classic game I'm watching. Cardinals-Dodgers 7/18 LIVE from St. Louis on MLB Network. Both teams are classic, great teams. Potential playoff preview?

Classic means the potential to be an exciting game. Last night, it was pretty exciting.

in this sense... Classic means a game to remember

[Kramerica Industries]

I have...a few assorted ramblings. I'll just compile them here.

From the A’s SB Nation blog and an interview with Billy Beane in October 2012, this particular quote really speaks to me (and not just because Billy Beane is speaking great of the Yankees):

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2012/10/25/3553788/still-playing-moneyball-an-exclusive-interview-with-billy-beane

“Any team can win this tournament. The template doesn’t change based on who wins that tournament. The Yankees have won more games than any team in baseball the last decade. They’ve consistently been the best team in baseball. Whether they won the tournament or not is irrelevant when you’re talking about the best team in baseball.”

Billy Beane is rather infamous for his “my doesn’t work in the playoffs” thing, but that quote is entirely on target. I said it the other day; Yankees 96 wins on average between 2004-2013 with eight appearances, while the Red Sox have averaged 91 wins and six appearances. Probability favors the Yankees there; the fact that Boston has three titles to New York’s one? Well, tough luck. I’ll take my chances with the Yankees results on that one.

I never used to agree with Billy Beane’s thinking; thought it was kind of the sour grapes of a frequently-bitten by the playoffs GM, but as the years have gone I’ve sided more and more with him on this.

The best-of-5 first round after a 162 game season will always be the height of stupidity, however. MLB should not be embracing a concept where 100+ win teams are routinely knocked out in the opening round of the playoffs (it has happened to eight of the 14 teams in this century that won 100 games or more; more than half, and only one has won a World Series title).

I hate the three-tier format. At a bare minimum, scrap the divisions, take the top four teams, and make all three rounds a best-of-7. That would at least eliminate some of the piss-weak 80′s win teams from the playoffs.

Furthering this a little…

I know that the argument exists that the wild card play-in game format helps to make it tougher for wild card teams, but the stupid thing is that the wild card teams aren’t the problem here. That is, unless you want to tell me the 98-win Red Sox of 2004 didn’t deserve the playoffs while the 92-win Angels did, for instance. Most of the 80-89 win playoff teams in the wild card era have been division winning teams.

Anaheim is 8.5 games ahead of Seattle and another 2.5 games out in front of all the other 2nd wild card hopefuls, so they’re 11 games clear of a playoff spot. Oakland is 12.5 games clear, I believe. One of those teams is likely going to post 95+ wins and the 2nd best record in the AL, and be reduced to the wild card play-in game where, yes, they’ll be at home, but anything can happen in one isolated game. (Frankly, the winner-take-all play-in game makes the best-of-5 LDS look genius by comparison; that isn’t a compliment.) It’s entirely possible the wild card gap will be ~10 games or more, and one bad day could mean a 95+ win team misses the playoffs because…9/28/2011 or something.

I love this sport, but damn does it operate in abject stupidity.

The Tigers are like an NBA team. They’re on pace to win 91 games right now, which would be indicative of another underachievement relative to their top-end

talent on that roster. They’re built perfectly to dominate in the small sample size that is the playoffs, but at the same rate are a 25-25 team at home on the season, which is pretty poor given what they are capable of.

It annoys me how this team will still be favored to win the AL once the playoffs roll around even though they’ll probably be 10 games or so worse than the best record in the AL (and, as mentioned above, several games worse than a team that might just miss the playoffs because of Bud Selig one game randomness).

Even in 2012, there was never any doubt that they would be well equipped for a long playoff run if they made it to the playoffs, and, with all due respect to the Chicago White Sox, I don’t think anyone gave them a chance at outlasting the Tigers that season, under any circumstances. When push came to shove, if the Tigers were in danger of missing the playoffs, they would turn the after burners on and get in. The fact that every :censored:ing thing in the world fell in their favor once they made it into that postseason is just nauseating nonsense that I have no clue how they end up getting rewarded for it.

Everything about what the Detroit Tigers represent, I hate it.

Hey, I have no clue when I'll be able to get back here. Chew on this if you want; if not, that's also fine.

[HedleyLamarr]

Want a "Fact of the Day"?

In World Series history, there are two players that share the all-time homeruns record by a DH (three, by the way. Seems a bit low to me). One is pretty obvious: David Ortiz. One will absolutely stun you. For a bucket of pride, want to take a stab at this?

[The Six]

A classic game I'm watching. Cardinals-Dodgers 7/18 LIVE from St. Louis on MLB Network. Both teams are classic, great teams. Potential playoff preview?

[dbadefense1990]

I have...a few assorted ramblings. I'll just compile them here.

From the As SB Nation blog and an interview with Billy Beane in October 2012, this particular quote really speaks to me (and not just because Billy Beane is speaking great of the Yankees):

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2012/10/25/3553788/still-playing-moneyball-an-exclusive-interview-with-billy-beane

Any team can win this tournament. The template doesnt change based on who wins that tournament. The Yankees have won more games than any team in baseball the last decade. Theyve consistently been the best team in baseball. Whether they won the tournament or not is irrelevant when youre talking about the best team in baseball.

Billy Beane is rather infamous for his my doesnt work in the playoffs thing, but that quote is entirely on target. I said it the other day; Yankees 96 wins on average between 2004-2013 with eight appearances, while the Red Sox have averaged 91 wins and six appearances. Probability favors the Yankees there; the fact that Boston has three titles to New Yorks one? Well, tough luck. Ill take my chances with the Yankees results on that one.

I never used to agree with Billy Beanes thinking; thought it was kind of the sour grapes of a frequently-bitten by the playoffs GM, but as the years have gone Ive sided more and more with him on this.

The best-of-5 first round after a 162 game season will always be the height of stupidity, however. MLB should not be embracing a concept where 100+ win teams are routinely knocked out in the opening round of the playoffs (it has happened to eight of the 14 teams in this century that won 100 games or more; more than half, and only one has won a World Series title).

I hate the three-tier format. At a bare minimum, scrap the divisions, take the top four teams, and make all three rounds a best-of-7. That would at least eliminate some of the piss-weak 80′s win teams from the playoffs.

Furthering this a little

I know that the argument exists that the wild card play-in game format helps to make it tougher for wild card teams, but the stupid thing is that the wild card teams arent the problem here. That is, unless you want to tell me the 98-win Red Sox of 2004 didnt deserve the playoffs while the 92-win Angels did, for instance. Most of the 80-89 win playoff teams in the wild card era have been division winning teams.

Anaheim is 8.5 games ahead of Seattle and another 2.5 games out in front of all the other 2nd wild card hopefuls, so theyre 11 games clear of a playoff spot. Oakland is 12.5 games clear, I believe. One of those teams is likely going to post 95+ wins and the 2nd best record in the AL, and be reduced to the wild card play-in game where, yes, theyll be at home, but anything can happen in one isolated game. (Frankly, the winner-take-all play-in game makes the best-of-5 LDS look genius by comparison; that isnt a compliment.) Its entirely possible the wild card gap will be ~10 games or more, and one bad day could mean a 95+ win team misses the playoffs because9/28/2011 or something.

I love this sport, but damn does it operate in abject stupidity.

The Tigers are like an NBA team. Theyre on pace to win 91 games right now, which would be indicative of another underachievement relative to their top-end

talent on that roster. Theyre built perfectly to dominate in the small sample size that is the playoffs, but at the same rate are a 25-25 team at home on the season, which is pretty poor given what they are capable of.

It annoys me how this team will still be favored to win the AL once the playoffs roll around even though theyll probably be 10 games or so worse than the best record in the AL (and, as mentioned above, several games worse than a team that might just miss the playoffs because of Bud Selig one game randomness).

Even in 2012, there was never any doubt that they would be well equipped for a long playoff run if they made it to the playoffs, and, with all due respect to the Chicago White Sox, I dont think anyone gave them a chance at outlasting the Tigers that season, under any circumstances. When push came to shove, if the Tigers were in danger of missing the playoffs, they would turn the after burners on and get in. The fact that every :censored:ing thing in the world fell in their favor once they made it into that postseason is just nauseating nonsense that I have no clue how they end up getting rewarded for it.

Everything about what the Detroit Tigers represent, I hate it.

Hey, I have no clue when I'll be able to get back here. Chew on this if you want; if not, that's also fine.

So what's there to suggest?

Revert back to the single-wildcard era (1995-2011)? Because teams like the Marlins and the 2006 Cardinals will be guaranteed to piss people off.

Revert back to the EastWest division era (1969-1993)? Because teams like the 1987 Twins and 1988 Dodgers will be guaranteed to piss people off.

Revert back to regular season league champions prior to the World Series (pre-1969)? I'm pretty sure people are still bitter about an inferior league champion besting the other's league winner in stunning fashion.

Revert to an EPL-style regular season table? Well that gives a big disadvantage towards teams with long three or four-city roadtrips, along with teams whose games are affected by inclement weather.

The point? No playoff system out there in any sport is perfect and free from flaws. And in some years, there are teams who do derp their regular season, sneak into the postseason and then game the playoffs to be champions, to the annoyance of everyone. You can't really reform a playoff system because a new set of potential problems always arises with the change. You really can't.

And I'd also want to call out the article's author who says that a 5-game playoff series is a "small-enough sample size" for a great team to be quickly eliminated by a derp team. OK, I do see validation on the Wildcard Game being frustratingly small for a 90-win team to have its season end by a sub-80-win team on a hot streak. But the Division Series being a small size also? I don't think so, because I believe in teams affording two losses to learn all their lessons, and then return back to win three in a row against their playoff opponent. Best-of-3's are too small because teams frequently lose two in a row during the regular season but in some instances, two consecutive losses means a team's season ends. And how does the author defend a best-of-seven when the series is tied 1-1? It turns to the same small sample-size the author criticizes but begins from a large sample-size the author praises.

At the end of the day, if you're the favorite team, just win the games in front of you, in whatever postseason format is it in, and all these "illegitimate postseason system" talks will be rendered moot.

[Kramerica Industries]

There have been fourteen teams in this century to win over 100 games in the regular season. More than half of them have been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. Only one of those 14 teams has gone on to win the World Series.

Why is that supposed to be something we embrace? MLB plays 162 games over 183 days; it's a grind of a season to deal with. As far as the question of a best-of-5 not being a small sample size? You damned well better bet that it is. Relative to a 162 game season? I can't see how it isn't. But, even then, the 1969-1984 format with the best-of-5 LCS round didn't bother me as much because those were the two best teams in their league, generally speaking. That's not the case here. The best teams in the regular season are routinely knocked out early with a hand to small sample size randomness.

Watching European domestic club football in the past couple years has also given me a newer appreciation for regular season accolades, there is no doubt about that.

--

I'll say this much:

I'm not fan of the three-tier format with four playoff teams, but eschew the divisions, balance the schedules, and make all three rounds a best-of-7? You know, I could tolerate that. The four playoff teams are not always the four best teams in their league in the regular season. It wouldn't be my favorite format, but it would accomplish the very basic of erasing those 80-89 win teams from the playoff picture, at the very least. What happened with the 1973 Mets and 1987 Twins is all-time fluke kind of stuff; it only happened twice in 48 league seasons under that format. It's happening with much more regularity since 1995.

[rams80]

The problem is you're running out of days to fit the postseason in with 3 best of sevens. Personally, I like the one and done game for the wildcards because it helps winnow out those "playoff-optimized" teams. My one adjustment would be to remove the travel day for the winner.

[waltere]

Want a "Fact of the Day"?

In World Series history, there are two players that share the all-time homeruns record by a DH (three, by the way. Seems a bit low to me). One is pretty obvious: David Ortiz. One will absolutely stun you. For a bucket of pride, want to take a stab at this?

Ryan Klesko, all with the Braves in '95

[Still MIGHTY]

Now that the Angels are in the thick of the scenario, I've been thinking over the exact thing Kramerica is talking about. (Hell, we mentioned it on another action-packed episode of Basically A Sports Show, available on iTunes )

Say things finish up as they currently stand. A's win the division with the best record in baseball, the Angels slide into the #1 WC with the second best record in baseball, and the Mariners in the #2 WC. The Angels with the second best record in baseball and a 7.5 game lead over the Mariners, would host a one-game playoff against Felix freaking Hernandez. Gives the Mariners one hell of a shot in a one game scenario. And then if the Angels do survive the best pitcher in baseball, they get to play the best record in baseball in a LDS match-up in Oakland, because remember there's no more rules against divisional match-ups anymore.

Now, of course, if the Angels truly are up to snuff, they should win a one-game playoff against a team 7.5 the worser, and Oakland hasn't ever been a playoff juggernaut (though the Angels are only 3-6 against them this season). But it's not exactly a great reward for amassing the second-best record, is it?

[rams80]

To be the best you have to get through the best. The Angels would have (probably) had to face Oakland at some point.

[dbadefense1990]

How frustrating must it be to be in Seattle's spot? Their 52 wins would have been at or near the top spot in either the AL East or Central. But Anaheim's pitching has finally been great, Albert Pujols has found the fountain of youth, and the Athletics are being the A's. If this were prior to 2011, then the best Seattle season in over a decade would have gone for naught. But thanks to that 2nd wildcard slot, Felix Hernandez can go to Anaheim and lead the Mariners to victory and an ALDS matchup with Oakland (because as Mighty said, there are no intra-divisional restrictions anymore for the Division Series).

[LMU]

We now know what the Cardinal Way is, ladies and gentlemen! The Cardinal Way is beaning Hanley Ramirez!

[zpqmaowl]

[dbadefense1990]

Gee. How will Cardinals fans blame Hanley for getting in the way again defend this hit by pitch?

[McCall]

You're not seriously implying that that was intentional with 2 strikes, 2 outs and a runner on 2nd in the top of the ninth of a tied game are you?

[monkeypower]

Some schadenfreude for the Angels.

http://m.mlb.com/laa/video/v34673361/sealaa-pujols-ties-game-does-rodney-impression/?tcid=mm_ana_vid&c_id=ana

Rodney ends up getting walked off on later in the 9th.

[Kramerica Industries]

Now that the Angels are in the thick of the scenario, I've been thinking over the exact thing Kramerica is talking about. (Hell, we mentioned it on another action-packed episode of Basically A Sports Show, available on iTunes )

Say things finish up as they currently stand. A's win the division with the best record in baseball, the Angels slide into the #1 WC with the second best record in baseball, and the Mariners in the #2 WC. The Angels with the second best record in baseball and a 7.5 game lead over the Mariners, would host a one-game playoff against Felix freaking Hernandez. Gives the Mariners one hell of a shot in a one game scenario. And then if the Angels do survive the best pitcher in baseball, they get to play the best record in baseball in a LDS match-up in Oakland, because remember there's no more rules against divisional match-ups anymore.

Now, of course, if the Angels truly are up to snuff, they should win a one-game playoff against a team 7.5 the worser, and Oakland hasn't ever been a playoff juggernaut (though the Angels are only 3-6 against them this season). But it's not exactly a great reward for amassing the second-best record, is it?

2010 is the perfect case example for the "what if" that you speak of in this scenario. I can see the parallels.

The Rays and Yankees were the two best teams in the East and the AL in that regular season. Both won 95+ games (Rays 96). The problem was, of course, being in the same division, thus fighting out for the division title and the loser would receive the wild card. (They also were both really bad at fighting out that division; both had losing records in September.)

Now, enter the Red Sox. They were at least five games back virtually the entire final four months of the season, but what they were was comfortably ahead of every other wild card challenger in the American League. If the proverbial 2nd wild card had existed in 2010, the surefire scenario that would've unfolded were the Yankees and Rays emptying their tanks to try and win the division and avoid the wild card game, while the team that was in 3rd place behind them the entire season would've been able to align their rotation, get Jon Lester in line to start that wild card game, and have already prepared mentally for it while the "first loser" in the AL East would've been relegated to that game and probably not had everything nearly as well set up as they would've hoped for.

If that game exists and 2010 and Jon Lester is starting at Yankee Stadium, odds are the Red Sox win that game. They would've essentially been rewarded at the end of the season for being the 3rd wheel for the entire 162. It smacks the wrong way. Thank God that game didn't exist yet.

--

We're eyeing a scenario where the Angels will finish with the 2nd best record in MLB, the 2nd best record in the American League, and yet only the 2nd best record in the AL West. The stupid thing about this format is that it penalizes the wild card teams, but the wild card teams are not the culprits here. The 2001 A's are not to be faulted for winning 102 games yet being 2nd to a team that won 116. The 2004 Red Sox are not to be faulted for winning 98 games while the Yankees won 103. The weak win total teams that make the playoffs tend to be division winners from poor divisions; 2000 Yankees (87), 2006 Cardinals (83), 2007 Cubs (85), 2012 Tigers (87), so on and so forth. Wild card teams could never get by with sub-90 win totals because there's no way only three teams in a league in a given season will post win totals in excess of 90 games. Even the piss-poor 2007 NL had a 90 win wild card recipient. There's inherent stupidity to penalizing the wild cards when it's having three divisions that's the bigger problem here.

Oddly enough, the wheels have turned and it's the AL East that will likely have the division winner who wins less than 90 games this year. I know who I'll be rooting to accomplish it (likely in vain) but it doesn't make the scenario's any less dumb.

--

Look, I can understand the ideology of "if you're the better team, you'll win that one game", but that's not what we should be reducing things to, because baseball is a random sport. 162 games exist so that the randomness can level out and the best teams can emerge. You could pit the 1962 Mets and the 1927 Yankees in a one game scenario, and the '62 Mets could theoretically win that game. Anything can happen on a given day. I can envision the Angels winning 98 games this season, losing one random game to the Mariners, and they could miss the playoffs while the M's reach winning, oh, lets say 91 games. The 2012 Atlanta Braves finished with a cumulative record of 94-69, and a 5-2 record head-to-head vs. St. Louis, while the Cardinals were 89-74 (or something) with a 2-5 head-to-head record vs. Atlanta, but because they had one of those two wins (.286 WP%) at a most fortuitous time, they reached the playoffs while the Braves didn't. You can't tell me that that isn't a completely ed up way of deciding the playoff teams in the league.

[DCarp1231]

Yankees acquire Chase Headley from Padres... It was bound to happen. They wanted him last year at the deadline and ended up getting him this year ahead of the deadline.

[FGM13]

Is Chase Headley still, you know, good? The Yankees would've done better to acquire him last year.