2017 baseball thread

[Hot Pepsi]

In 2007, the Giants drew 3.2 million with Bonds making $15.3 million. You think they draw anywhere near that without him? And they won the World Series three years later, they weren't exactly hampered by his salary. Or Barry Zito's far higher salary. It's funny thinking back to how people thought in 2008 that the Giants would be rebuilding for years when they had a pennant contender in 12 months (the 2009 team went 88-74).

That's a good point.

I'm projecting my own feelings on this. The Reds are on track to be the first team in NL history to have six players hit 25 home runs. They're in last place. Home runs aren't really that interesting.

[Flynnie]

But, at least according to Jonah Keri, is why the Devil Rays came into existence with a shitty owner.

Vince Naimoli and/or his group or some other people - I forget who, exactly - were going to sue MLB over blocking the Giants move. MLB and the other owners did not want to go to court where it would have to open its books. So to stop that from happening, they agreed to give one of the American League expansion team to St Petersburg, even though Naimoli was a bad owner and the Trop is a bad park.

Before that, the White Sox came very close to moving to the Tampa Bay, but last second politics gave them public money for the "new" Comiskey.

Naimoli and Vince Piazza (and a third Italian-American Vince was in the ownership group - really) seemed to both head the TB Giants group, although Piazza was ruled out by baseball for "failing a security check", which sure as fuck sounds like they thought he was connected.

[Hot Pepsi]

Naimoli and Vince Piazza (and a third Italian-American Vince was in the ownership group - really) seemed to both head the TB Giants group, although Piazza was ruled out by baseball for "failing a security check", which sure as fuck sounds like they thought he was connected.

Connected to what?

[ursus arctos]

The Mob

Sometimes Flynnie and I don’t realise that not everyone understands terms that we learned as small children.

[Hot Pepsi]

I thought maybe that was it, but just in case it wasn't I didn't want to guess that lest it be seen as a nasty stereotype. That's one of the unflattering stereotypes that people in my neck of the woods feel they can through around shamelessly.

Not sure I've ever heard "connected" used without a preposition or object like that. In movies and what not, "a friend of ours" is usually the way guys in the mob describe associates or somebody in on the racket, but not made or even part of their crew.

"He knows a guy" is one of my favorite innuendos in this genre.


For his part, Naimoli was ever suspected of anything outright criminal, as far as I know. He was just really tight, terrible at public and employee relations, terrible at running a baseball team, and knew nothing about how to build a fan base.

[ursus arctos]

So, on the penultimate day of the season, the post-season lineup has finally been finalised

National League
Wild Card Game: Colorado at Arizona, with winner to play Los Angeles in the Division Series
Other Division Series pits the Cubs against Washington

American League
Wild Card Game: Minnesota at the Yankees, with winner to play Cleveland in the Division Series
Other Division Series pits Boston against Houston

[Cal Alamein]

And reason to cheer that for yet another year, no St. Louis Cards in the post season.

[Patrick Thistle]

So the wild card is now a play off to get into the post season instead of just the fourth best team? Did MLB feel there weren't enough baseball games in a season?

[ursus arctos]

Short answer is yes (though we are talking about a total of two games, one in each league).

The slightly longer answer is that adding a second wild card has prolonged interest in the season by giving more teams "something to play for" in the final weeks.

[Patrick Thistle]

How long has this been happening?

[Southport Zeb]

The second wild card was adopted in 2012

[Hot Pepsi]

I'd like to see them extend it to a best out of three. Do all three games at the higher seed and make games two and three a double-header if necessary. Like in college.

[Gerontophile]

Just watched the highlights of the 2016 World Series (official film). Even as a Yankee fan, it was tough not to cry. The close up of Bryant smiling as the roller came to him, his foot slipping as he threw, and Rizzo blowing a big breath as the ball flew at him, straight to his glove.

[ursus arctos]

I will take that image to the grave

[Ginger Yellow]

I think I've watched it more than 200 times at this point. i made a gif of it. I love Bryant's goofy grin so much.

[danielmak]

The journalists are all in agreement with HP. They want more wild card games because 162 shouldn't be followed by 1 game. My response in the vernacular of old school baseball managers: horsesh*t. If you want more options than 1 game to enter the rest of the playoffs, it's easy: win your division. I don't understand why a team that couldn't win their division should get more games. One game is good. And the whole marketing rationale for the wild card games was to repeat the excitement surrounding a win and you're in experience that happened a few years back when Boston and the Rays were battling for the wild card spot. Three games is not exciting when played between two losers who couldn't win their division.

The one argument that has made sense is that it's not fair if one wild card team has way more wins than another division winner and loses in this one game. Again, win your division. But I'd rather see the elimination of divisions than more wild card games. So, the top 4 from each league are in the playoffs.

In other news, I'm so glad I picked the Twins as a wild card team when I made my annual picks at the beginning of the baseball thread. Haha. Not even close. Here were my picks:

AL Wild card: Blue Jays at Royals
AL Pennant: Indians beat the Red Sox
NL Wild card: Giants at Nationals
NL Pennant: Dodgers beat the Cubs

World Series: Dodgers beat the Indians

I'm standing by the NL and AL pennant predictions and the WS prediction, although the Dodgers have looked pretty bad in the past month.

[ursus arctos]

A. Issue with eliminating divisions is that it would make the schedules even more unbalanced than they already are

The fairest way to address that would be to go to four leagues of eight teams each playing old school, fully balanced 154 game schedule (22 games against each of the other seven teams, 11 at home and 11 away), but MLB’s obsession with intra league play means that will never happen.

The Twins are the first team ever to qualify for the postseason after losing 100+ games the season before.

[Flynnie]

I'm broadly pretty happy with the current system, which has actually worked out the way it was intended to for once. It really has bought back the pennant race, since the penalty for finishing second is now substantial. Teams don't want to be in a one and done game.

The wild card games themselves have also been really good, with last year's Jays-Orioles and the 2014 A's-Royals games standing out. I'd be opposed to extending it to a best of three. For one thing, the season already ends in November now and that's not a good idea.

[Flynnie]

Also, the best moment of Game 7 was Rajai Davis going deep. One of the most unbelievable moments I've ever seen. Maybe the least likely person in either team to go deep, much less off Aroldis Chapman.

[ursus arctos]

Also, the best moment of Game 7 was Rajai Davis going deep.

This is not a unanimously-held opinion.

I also don't find the current system to be broken. Teams that win their divisions get an advantage; the second wild card has extended interest in the season for a surprising number of teams; and the wild card winner is not unduly penalised (as I think it would be by a best of 3 game series, which could destroy their starting rotation for the Division Series)

[Flynnie]

Watch Matt Vasgersian's call on YouTube and you'll understand, ursus.

[Hot Pepsi]

The journalists are all in agreement with HP. They want more wild card games because 162 shouldn't be followed by 1 game. My response in the vernacular of old school baseball managers: horsesh*t. If you want more options than 1 game to enter the rest of the playoffs, it's easy: win your division. I don't understand why a team that couldn't win their division should get more games. One game is good. And the whole marketing rationale for the wild card games was to repeat the excitement surrounding a win and you're in experience that happened a few years back when Boston and the Rays were battling for the wild card spot. Three games is not exciting when played between two losers who couldn't win their division.

The one argument that has made sense is that it's not fair if one wild card team has way more wins than another division winner and loses in this one game. Again, win your division. But I'd rather see the elimination of divisions than more wild card games. So, the top 4 from each league are in the playoffs.

In other news, I'm so glad I picked the Twins as a wild card team when I made my annual picks at the beginning of the baseball thread. Haha. Not even close. Here were my picks:

AL Wild card: Blue Jays at Royals
AL Pennant: Indians beat the Red Sox
NL Wild card: Giants at Nationals
NL Pennant: Dodgers beat the Cubs

World Series: Dodgers beat the Indians

I'm standing by the NL and AL pennant predictions and the WS prediction, although the Dodgers have looked pretty bad in the past month.

Horseshit.
The divisions are wildly uneven. There are wild card teams that have won more/are clearly better than division winners. And given the big disparities in resources, giving division non-winners a chance helps offset that imbalance.

And it cuts both ways. One non-division winner is being eliminated in one game, but then one non-division winner is getting a chance to play in full seven-game series. They don't deserve to be there just as much as the loser doesn't deserve not to be there.
Three games in one city would be better.
Why would we want *less* playoff baseball?

I agree eliminating divisions would be more interesting, but that would create a lot more travel and reduce the number of rivalry games that fans like. I like UA's proposal, but interleague play seems to be here to stay. Maybe a version of his 154-game proposal could be supplemented with 8 interleague games. Somehow.

[Hot Pepsi]

I'm broadly pretty happy with the current system, which has actually worked out the way it was intended to for once. It really has bought back the pennant race, since the penalty for finishing second is now substantial. Teams don't want to be in a one and done game.

The wild card games themselves have also been really good, with last year's Jays-Orioles and the 2014 A's-Royals games standing out. I'd be opposed to extending it to a best of three. For one thing, the season already ends in November now and that's not a good idea.

My proposal would not extend the season more than a day, at most. The three day series I propose would happen in two days, at most. And it would give the division winner even more of an advantage by giving them another day.
I used to agree that going into November is bad, but now I don't. I'd rather have baseball all the time as long as it's compelling and playoffs are compelling. It's not practical, but I'm going against my football-loving brethren who think baseball should end on Labor Day.
I'd rather see them somehow get rid of September regular-season baseball. Once the kids are back in school and football starts dominating everything, it just feels superfluous - especially for the teams not in it. Indeed, for us it's just painful. Reducing the number of regular season games won't happen, though and I don't think starting the season in May would work out well in northern cities. Though, with climate change..?? The pre-season is certainly way longer than it needs to be.

[ursus arctos]

Ken Rosenthal has a piece in The Athletic today that addresses the Wild Card, starting from the premise that the Yankees and Diamondbacks have significantly better than their opponents, and that the gap between the wild card opponents is the widest it has ever been.

Travis Sawchik of The Athletic recently wrote on Fangraphs about the two-game, wild-card round used by the Korea Baseball Organization (KBO); the higher seed needs to win only one game to advance, while the lower seed must win two. Joel Sherman of the New York Post expanded the concept, arguing for the wild-card round to remain one game only if the participants finished within four games of each other; otherwise, the round would follow the Korean format, giving the superior team the edge yet preserving drama for the networks.

Neither concept would extend the postseason, particularly if baseball employed a doubleheader and play the two games in one day. Smoltz, FOX’s lead analyst, offers additional suggestions—a best-of-three with a doubleheader on the second day or a best-of-three played on consecutive days. Either way, the off-day before the start of the Division Series would be removed, putting the wild-card winner at a major disadvantage with its pitching for the next round.

I like the idea that a team finishing more than a set number of games back would need to win twice, though I might put that gap at five instead of four.

One way to add interleague play onto my balanced 154 game schedule would be to allow each team eight interleague games split into series of four against two different opponents*, but doing that loses the inherent balance of everyone playing the same schedule.

* having two series allows for both "natural rivalries" and giving teams that don't have them a chance to play "big" teams every few years.

[Hot Pepsi]

Ken Rosenthal has a piece in The Athletic today that addresses the Wild Card, starting from the premise that the Yankees and Diamondbacks have significantly better than their opponents, and that the gap between the wild card opponents is the widest it has ever been.



I like the idea that a team finishing more than a set number of games back would need to win twice, though I might put that gap at five instead of four.

One way to add interleague play onto my balanced 154 game schedule would be to allow each team eight interleague games split into series of four against two different opponents*, but doing that loses the inherent balance of everyone playing the same schedule.

* having two series allows for both "natural rivalries" and giving teams that don't have them a chance to play "big" teams every few years.

Yeah.
A way to keep the "balance" would be to say that only division/league games count for the purposes of figuring out the standings and the results of the eight interleague games would only matter as a tie-breaker and for the purposes of figuring out home-field in the playoffs.