2011 MLB Thread

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No it's not, because it takes money out of the owners' pockets by not playing the game.

Well there's a simple solution: the lower seeded team must cut a check to the higher seeded team to match the amount of profits recorded during "game 2" (audited GAAP statements provided). Oh, and also must cover all the stadium workers' daily wages.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I could do without fascinating car crashes (see 1918-2004). One thing I think they need to do a better job of is considering a player's mental make-up and their ability to thrive in one of the highest pressure environments in baseball. The Yankees seem to do a much better job of acquiring players who are comfortable with attention.

You mean like Vazquez, Burnett, Teixiera, Igawa and going back a ways, Irabu, Knoblauch, etc? The Yanks have signed their share of gems as well.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

I can understand that, but I have a harder time getting over a wild card team being put on almost equal footing to a division winner. It's emotionally unsatisfying for the 100-win team to have to prove itself again against a wild card team in a near-coin-flip 5 game series. At least if the wild card had to do a little something extra to even get there, and it was best of 7, it'd be easier to deal with.

So...let the 2nd best team face the wild card and deal with that chaos and let the 1st seed play the 3rd seed.

That way, if the 100-win team gets their apple cart upset, it's in the LCS, and the wild card team has 'proved' itself by then.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Great it's basically college football now. I think they should throw a WSS (like the BCS) rating system in there too...

At least in my scenario, everybody plays against everybody else approximately the same number of times. Sure, it might be a bummer at first when the Yankees and Red Sox only play each other 6 times a year, but people would get used to it. I mean, if we want to say that the 162 games are so important, then let those 162 games decide the champion.

In case it's not evident, I'm pretty much just ripping off the English soccer system. After every team played every other team twice last year, Manchester United had the most points, so they were declared the champions. They didn't have to play Chelsea or Manchester City or Arsenal again to prove they were the champions. They earned it by performing better against the exact same competition as everyone else.

So get rid of leagues and divisions and all the other stuff and just let these baseball teams play their 162 games. It seems like people are saying that if you don't perform well enough over 162 games, you shouldn't be in the playoffs anyway, and I tend to agree with that. I'm just taking it a step further. If you're not the best after that many games and against the same competition, how could you possibly be the champion of that organization?

[Ksyrup]

Playoffs make money. And Derek Jeters.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Playoffs make money. And Derek Jeters.

Evidently.

And I'm sure some smartass is waiting to put words in my mouth and assume that I'm also pushing for the same setup in the NFL or the NBA or some other league. Before anyone jumps on that off-kilter soapbox, no, I'm not. I just figure that it works in MLB since teams are playing so many games anyway, and they're playing these all of these games in 3- or 4-game series anyway, that it wouldn't be much more than shuffling the schedule around a bunch. You wouldn't be asking players to do something they're not already doing today.

Although I'm sure I didn't have to explicitly state that, you never know.

[Ksyrup]

Another issue with this is travel. The geography of divisions and playing more games against your division helps create geographic rivalries and keep travel costs down.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cartman

Rangers hold off the Halos, 4-3. This keeps Texas one game ahead of Detroit for 2nd seed, and eliminates Anaheim from the Wild Card.

Congrats to the Rangers on another terrific season. I hope you represent our division well in the playoffs.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Another issue with this is travel. The geography of divisions and playing more games against your division helps create geographic rivalries and keep travel costs down.

I've got to admit that I'm not really that sympathetic towards the travel costs of teams that can afford tens of millions of dollars in payroll.

As for the geographic rivalries, well, that's part of what's causing the whole mess in the first place. Sure, everybody's playing 162 games, but they're not playing the same 162 games. So if those games are supposed to be so important, let's get everyone on a level playing field.

[Suicane75]

I don't understand why the #1 division winner can't get a bye while the #2 & #3 division winners play a best of seven. You'd only be losing one or two games in that first round from the current set up.

Anyway, I hate arguing this cause it makes me sad.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

I don't understand why the #1 division winner can't get a bye while the #2 & #3 division winners play a best of seven. You'd only be losing one or two games in that first round from the current set up.

Anyway, I hate arguing this cause it makes me sad.

If everyone on the planet would just agree with me, there wouldn't be any more arguing. I'm not saying I'm always right, but I'm right more often than everybody else. If I screw up every now and then, eh, live and learn.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

I don't understand why the #1 division winner can't get a bye while the #2 & #3 division winners play a best of seven.

Beyond the lost revenue issue, a long layoff can create a considerable disadvantage for the team you're trying to reward.

[Jas_lov]

There are quite a few instances where the wildcard doesn't have the worst record among the 4 playoff teams. I don't think it's fair to do a 1 game playoff with the current unbalanced schedule. They would need to get rid of divisions and play a balanced schedule and then make the two worst playoff teams play in the 1 game playoff.

[molson]

Fun little graphic on the 538 (election) blog putting the red sox collapse in perspective. Sure, they've cherry-picked the "last 25 games" in the first graph to make them look as bad as possible, but it's still kind of amazing. ("best-case scenario" = they win their last two games, "worst case scenario" = they lose their last two games).





Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

There are quite a few instances where the wildcard doesn't have the worst record among the 4 playoff teams. I don't think it's fair to do a 1 game playoff with the current unbalanced schedule. They would need to get rid of divisions and play a balanced schedule and then make the two worst playoff teams play in the 1 game playoff.

That's not too bad either, small divisions are silly and can lead to insane imbalances. You could just have two big leagues. Teams #1 and #2 could get spots in the divisional round and get 5 out of 7 at home, Team #3 could play #2 and the winner of #4 and #5 (1 game playoff) could play #1. Sure, you don't have intense races at the top, but, you don't now either. #1 and #2 in the new format would just be runway division leaders in the old format (or clear division winner/wild card if they were in the same division).

Edit: Of course, where this would really make the most sense to get rid of divisions is the NBA and NHL. When you seed playoff teams by conference standings it makes no sense to have divisions. And it makes it annoying to see, at a glance, where all the teams stand when you're comparing the winning % of teams across divisions.

[Dutch]

Wow,

The Red Sox have 10 guys on their payroll that make more money than Johnny Damon, the Rays top paid player.

After you pay for starting pitchers Beckett and Lackey and Carl Crawford, the Red Sox have busted the entire Rays payroll by almost $7 million dollars.

I'm honestly stunned why 1.) The Rays are still in this and 2.) Why the Red Sox can't go undefeated.

[EagleFan]

The NL Wildcard race has now turned into who doesn't want it the most?

[Jas_lov]

The Rays better start scoring some runs soon. Girardi is going to use Soriano, Robertson, and Rivera at the end regardless of score. Markakis just made a great catch to keep the Os within two runs.

[Crapshoot]

I thought the Red Sox would lose these last 2 games, but sometimes stuff doesn't fit into the narrative. Selfishly, I'm hoping it comes down to the games tomorrow.

[stevew]

Triple play with the bases loaded. Then a 3run jack off of Soriano who has been so good of late. God loves the Rays.

[kingfc22]

It all comes down to 162...

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

If everyone on the planet would just agree with me, there wouldn't be any more arguing. I'm not saying I'm always right, but I'm right more often than everybody else. If I screw up every now and then, eh, live and learn.

You just blew my mind. Where did you get that from?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by stevew

Triple play with the bases loaded. Then a 3run jack off of Soriano who has been so good of late. God loves the Rays.

If He loved them that much, I'm fairly sure He wouldn't have allowed a philosophy major from Yale to save Boston's season with a couple of homers, though.

[Ksyrup]

Boston was trying so hard to lose that game, it was difficult to watch. That is one hell of a shaky team.

If the Tigers could finish with the second seed (and I believe they can if they win and Texas loses - I think), then I'd want Boston to win. If not, I hope the Rays get it because they'd have a far better chance of knocking Texas out than Boston. In fact, Texas could set offensive playoff records if they hit against Boston's pitching, the way both have trended this month.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Boston was trying so hard to lose that game, it was difficult to watch. That is one hell of a shaky team.

If the Tigers could finish with the second seed (and I believe they can if they win and Texas loses - I think), then I'd want Boston to win. If not, I hope the Rays get it because they'd have a far better chance of knocking Texas out than Boston. In fact, Texas could set offensive playoff records if they hit against Boston's pitching, the way both have trended this month.

Texas is probably going to win tonight. Angels scratched Weaver for a rookie who's 0-2 with a 9.53 ERA.

[cartman]

Yep, if Detroit wins and Texas loses, then the Tigers get the #2 seed. The tie breaker is head-to-head, and Detroit won the season series against Texas.

[ISiddiqui]

Boston v. Baltimore - Lester v. Simon
NYY v. Tampa Bay - TBD v. Price (I'm thinking the Yanks bring up a rookie to pitch here )

Philadelphia v. Atlanta - Blanton v. Hudson
St. Louis v. Houston - Carpenter v. Myers

Should be super fun .

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by stevew

Triple play with the bases loaded. Then a 3run jack off of Soriano who has been so good of late. God loves the Rays.

Soriano grooves a meatball for a 3 run go-ahead homerun to his former team? Then easily gets the next out, which all hurts the Red Sox. Conspiracy theory anyone?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

NYY v. Tampa Bay - TBD v. Price (I'm thinking the Yanks bring up a rookie to pitch here )

I keep seeing the suggestion that New York should tank to face the Rays in the playoffs, but why wouldn't they prefer to face a clearly slumping Red Sox (and the suddenly shaky Daniel Bard in the 8th) over the Rays and their pitching?

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I keep seeing the suggestion that New York should tank to face the Rays in the playoffs, but why wouldn't they prefer to face a clearly slumping Red Sox (and the suddenly shaky Daniel Bard in the 8th) over the Rays and their pitching?

I don't think they care, since they wouldn't be playing either until they've won a playoff series.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I would much rather face the Sox than the Rays. The Sox are toast.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by bronconick

I don't think they care, since they wouldn't be playing either until they've won a playoff series.

True dat. And if the Red Sox won a series against either Detroit or Texas, they are clearly not slumping anymore.

[Easy Mac]

As a Braves fan, you'd think I'd be in meltdown mode. But even when we had like a 9 game lead, I told everyone that no, this was not over. You had to know the bats were going to go cold at some point, then out starters started dropping like flies.

And I don't really agree with the whole "bullpen is overworked" idea. Did they pitch way too much to sustain their production? Yes. Did the Braves have an alternative to trotting out O'Flaherty, Venters and Kimbrel every other game? Not really. Linebrink, Proctor and Martinez were arguably as bad as the big 3 were good. Add to that, Moylan and "The Lesbian" Kris Medlen came back too late to be useful (Kris Medlen looks like a lesbian).

That being said, did anyone else notice that Eric O'Flaherty has the 5th lowest ERA of all time for anyone pitching over 70 innings?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by bronconick

I don't think they care, since they wouldn't be playing either until they've won a playoff series.

Exactly.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

And I don't really agree with the whole "bullpen is overworked" idea. Did they pitch way too much to sustain their production? Yes. Did the Braves have an alternative to trotting out O'Flaherty, Venters and Kimbrel every other game? Not really.

I'm not following... is that not the definition of overworked? They pitched more than they should have because there were no other alternatives. They don't stop being "overworked" simply because they didn't have anyone else to pitch. That's simply the cause for why they were overworked.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

..."The Lesbian" Kris Medlen came back too late to be useful (Kris Medlen looks like a lesbian).

I don't even know who Kris Medlen is, but

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not following... is that not the definition of overworked? They pitched more than they should have because there were no other alternatives. They don't stop being "overworked" simply because they didn't have anyone else to pitch. That's simply the cause for why they were overworked.

Yeah, I can recall Venters pitching in a lot of games with more than 3 run differences and even Kimbrel in a few. I would say that definitely leads to those two blowing up these last several weeks.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Boston v. Baltimore - Lester v. Simon
NYY v. Tampa Bay - TBD v. Price (I'm thinking the Yanks bring up a rookie .

THAT'S ANDREW BRACKMAN's MUSIC!

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not following... is that not the definition of overworked? They pitched more than they should have because there were no other alternatives. They don't stop being "overworked" simply because they didn't have anyone else to pitch. That's simply the cause for why they were overworked.

Its more the idea that Gonzalez focused on the big 3 to pitch when he shouldn't have, when he really had no other option.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah, I can recall Venters pitching in a lot of games with more than 3 run differences and even Kimbrel in a few. I would say that definitely leads to those two blowing up these last several weeks.

I counted 5 where Venters came in with a lead/deficit greater than 3. One was .1 IP w/ 2 on and a lead of 5. 1 was a loss, down 4-0 in the bottom of the 8th. He hadn't pitched for 4 days. The other 3 were near the beginning of the season when he hadn't pitched for at least 3 games.

For Kimbrel, there were about 4 games where it wasn't what would be described as a useful appearance, and all of those came after he hadn't been used for at least 3-4 games.

[Ksyrup]

Interesting discussion of the Red Sox going after a SP to trade for tomorrow's start. Whoever it is would be ineligible for the postseason, but presumably a tiebreaker game is still regular season. Name that keeps surfacing is Bruce Chen - starts tonight (would be scratched), has been (surprisingly) good, and is LH, which TB struggles with.

[ISiddiqui]

That'd be one Hell of a risk to take, though.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

As would be Wakefield.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I think the issue is someone else is better than internal options.

[JediKooter]

Well, today should be one of the more interesting final days of the season in a long while.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Interesting discussion of the Red Sox going after a SP to trade for tomorrow's start. Whoever it is would be ineligible for the postseason, but presumably a tiebreaker game is still regular season. Name that keeps surfacing is Bruce Chen - starts tonight (would be scratched), has been (surprisingly) good, and is LH, which TB struggles with.

[molson]

Chen would have been a nice pickup about a month ago.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Good stuff.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

Management had no backup plan for the starting rotation. And they weren't even that ravaged by injuries or surprising bad performance. Nobody expected much from Dice-K or Lackey. They only real tough loss was Buchholz for 1/2 a season, but a good team with those resources should figure out how to replace 15 starts.

I know that's the media narrative, but I don't really see it. The Rays had their 5 starters start 147 of 161 games, with the other 14 from Alex Cobb (9), Andy Sonnanstine (4) and Matt Moore (1). Not counting the two bullpen games in the last week that Hector Noesi started, the Yankees had 157 of 159 from their top 6, with the other 2 from Brian Gordon in June. The Red Sox meanwhile are down to at least #10 on their preseason depth chart.

1. Beckett
2. Lester
3. Buchholz
3a. Bedard (acquired post-Buchholz injury)
4. Lackey
5. Dice-K
6. Wakefield
7. Miller
8. Doubront
9. Tazawa
10. Weiland

It's not like you can stockpile competent veteran starting pitching - the preseason talk was that Wakefield (again) didn't want to come out of the bullpen, and if Miller improved we wouldn't be able to call him up this year. And, unfortunately, we (and 28 other teams) don't have a prospect like Matt Moore in the minor leagues right now. Overall, yes, Lackey was a shitty signing and Dice-K's problems clearly weren't a surprise by now, but I don't see how our starting pitching had any more questions than the Yankees 2-6 of Burnett, Nova, Colon, Garcia and Hughes coming into the year. There's also the minor point that that rotation got us to 30 games over .500 at the waiver trading deadline, and we'd still be fine if the 2 healthy aces hadn't shit the bed in September.

[DaddyTorgo]

This Red Sox Front Office has continually done this though. Seems like every year we're down this far on starting pitching depth. That and/or the guys that they pick up as "reclamation projects" don't pan out (what do they have...like a 0% success rate with that? Versus other teams that at least get some success). They're historically bad in their ability to plan for starting pitching depth, and also to keep their pitchers (and position players for that matter) healthy. More fucking games lost to injury over the past couple years, I swear.

Never thought the team physican was all that important, but ever since they switched...man...I tell ya. It's a fucking MASH unit over there on Yawkey Way.