MLB 2015 - SEPT/OCT

[EdA]

Yeah, the point with the divisions were to cut down on travel and to balance the schedule.  Teams in the same geographic area had their schedules stacked heavily so, say, the Cubs didn't have to play San Diego 19 times.

 

If the Cubs fans want to bitch about getting the WC, they should instead bitch about how slow Theo was to call up Bryant and Addison Russell, for example.  Yeah-yeah, money, etc.  But if the Cubs started the season with Bryant and Russell in the line-up, then maybe they are up on the Cards and Pirates and the rest of the world wouldn't have to hear your whining.

 

And this year is a rare example where the WC teams aren't just barely getting in.  Look at the dogpile in the AL this year for the 2nd WC spot between teams that are basically fading - THAT'S the general way the WC has gone since it's inception.  

 

Yeah-yeah, Addison Russell.  Meh.

Edited September 22, 2015 by EdA

[Craig H]

And I say all of that knowing full well what the implications would be for past seasons. That's still not a good reason, in the 21st century, to not attempt to improve baseball.

 

I would prefer 2 divisions for each league and sort out the best of the rest by record when it comes to determining the playoffs, even if it means the West or the East only wind up with one representative. Then when it comes to the playoffs, seed according to regular season record.

[Kuetsar]

Most of the changes made haven't been for the better anyway. I'd go back to the higher mound, deeper fences and the like.  And if Selig hadn't had his idiotic idea to have season long inter league play, the Astros would still be in the NL central to make that division even more of a clusterfuck. Shit like this happens occasionally, and the sport is better for it. Its not like everyone didn't know the rules(as bad as they are) before the season. . .

[RIPPA]

Again - all of this stuff was Bud's pet projects and Rob Manfred is a Bud disciple so it's not gonna get better.

 

It's gonna get worse

[Joe Lucia]

Two divisions? Cool, you're either completely eliminating a round of playoffs (which is never happening), rewarding the second best team in each division (no matter how good they are in respect to the rest of the league), or you're setting yourself up for a situation where the third-best team in the division gets in...which is the exact situation you're trying to avoid by realigning into two divisions?

 

Reseeding after the WC game is something I'd actually be in favor of. You still get rewarded for winning the division, but if you win a shitty division, you're losing HFA.

[Craig H]

If the Cubs fans want to bitch about getting the WC, they should instead bitch about how slow Theo was to call up Bryant and Addison Reed, for example.  Yeah-yeah, money, etc.  But if the Cubs started the season with Bryant and Reed in the line-up, then maybe they are up on the Cards and Pirates and the rest of the world wouldn't have to hear your whining.

 

They wouldn't be. Those numbers have already been run and the impact was negligible based on factors like how well Castro played at the start of the season. What would have made a significant impact was better pitching out of the bullpen and from Lester. Even then, the two or three games the Cubs win in the month of April gets them marginally closer to the Cardinals, but it would mean that the WC goes through Chicago, and even, how much does that matter considering the Cubs away record this season?

[The Man Known as Dan]

Yeah, the point with the divisions were to cut down on travel and to balance the schedule.  Teams in the same geographic area had their schedules stacked heavily so, say, the Cubs didn't have to play San Diego 19 times.

 

If the Cubs fans want to bitch about getting the WC, they should instead bitch about how slow Theo was to call up Bryant and Addison Reed, for example.  Yeah-yeah, money, etc.  But if the Cubs started the season with Bryant and Reed in the line-up, then maybe they are up on the Cards and Pirates and the rest of the world wouldn't have to hear your whining.

 

And this year is a rare example where the WC teams aren't just barely getting in.  Look at the dogpile in the AL this year for the 2nd WC spot between teams that are basically fading - THAT'S the general way the WC has gone since it's inception.  

 

A: The Cubs didn't have Bryant for a whopping total of 8 games. There record in those 8 games was 5-3. So the exact max games that could have cost us in theory is 3. Still not enough to catch the Cards, even in this dream scenario that we won all 3 of those games.

 

B: Russell (At least get his name right) is a 21 year old who we didn't think would be ready for the majors until after the All-Star break at the earliest. The only reason why he got called up when he did is because Alcantara (who was supposed to be our starter) shit the bed, LaStella got hurt, and Baez still looked completely off. He was thought to be our 4th best 2B option. But go ahead and say that we should have called up the guy who has a 88 wRC+ and nobody expected to be as good on defense as he is and say it was us being cheap or whatever.

[EdA]

Two divisions? Cool, you're either completely eliminating a round of playoffs (which is never happening), rewarding the second best team in each division (no matter how good they are in respect to the rest of the league), or you're setting yourself up for a situation where the third-best team in the division gets in...which is the exact situation you're trying to avoid by realigning into two divisions?

 

Reseeding after the WC game is something I'd actually be in favor of. You still get rewarded for winning the division, but if you win a shitty division, you're losing HFA.

 

Yeah, theoretically, re-seeding makes the most sense. But nothing is going to make everyone happy.  I mean, you will still have the potential factor of a team in a shitty division with a bloated record from beating down weak sisters getting HFA when maybe-possibly-probably-better teams in a strong division scrape to get in - this is called the Big 10+ effect.  Shrug.  

 

Probably the best solution for now is making the wild card play in a 3 game set.  How you squeeze 3 games in and not infuriate a team that won its division and is chomping at the bit to get rolling with the playoffs is beyond me.

[The Man Known as Dan]

wildcard teams play a double header for games 1 and 2, with a game 3 (if there is one needed) the next day?

[RIPPA]

wildcard teams play a double header for games 1 and 2, with a game 3 (if there is one needed) the next day?

 

3 playoff baseball games in the span of 36 hours will never ever be agreed upon by basically... anyone

[The Man Known as Dan]

Figuring the Cubs actually suggested it pre-season, there are some that were very for the idea. And it's a better idea then "1 game to get in where any sort of weird bullshit can happen"

[EdA]

I can't see the networks being thrilled with a double headers given that one game would have to be in the afternoon, thus loss of revenue.

 

And players HATE double headers.  So good luck getting that by the union.

 

And generally double headers are splits so...you are back to a 1 game play in most of the time.

 

And god forbid there is rain.

[The Man Known as Dan]

I can't see the networks being thrilled with a double headers given that one game would have to be in the afternoon, thus loss of revenue.

 

And players HATE double headers.  So good luck getting that by the union.

 

And generally double headers are splits so...you are back to a 1 game play in most of the time.

 

And god forbid there is rain.

 

You can basically say that for the one game playoff too.

[Craig H]

Two divisions? Cool, you're either completely eliminating a round of playoffs (which is never happening), rewarding the second best team in each division (no matter how good they are in respect to the rest of the league), or you're setting yourself up for a situation where the third-best team in the division gets in...which is the exact situation you're trying to avoid by realigning into two divisions?

 

Reseeding after the WC game is something I'd actually be in favor of. You still get rewarded for winning the division, but if you win a shitty division, you're losing HFA.

 

Except I'm fine with the best team in each division making it in, then determining the rest via record, even if it means 4 teams make it from the East and 1 team from the West. You can either seed all of those teams by record, leading to a potential West winner, in this scenario, in a one-game playoff, or have something like this:

 

Move the Astros back to the NL and have even East and West divisions for each league. You keep a one game or 2/3 games WC playoff. If you look at the NL, you're left with the Cardinals (West winner), Pirates (East winner), Cubs (Playoff spot #3), Dodgers (Playoff spot #4), and Mets (Playoff spot #5). Dodgers and Mets would be the WC game. In the AL, you would have Royals (West winner), Blue Jays (East winner), Yankees (Playoff spot #3), Rangers (Playoff spot #4), and Twins (Playoff spot #5). Rangers and Twins play each other in the WC. Then you seed by record. In each case, the WC is played between two teams with worse records than the teams in front of them. Could you get a season where you have a division won by a team with a record worse than a WC team? It's certainly possible, but even if that's the case, you're at least not rewarding the second best team in that division.

 

I don't know, there's no perfect solution for this, but the current system is shit compared to many other solutions. 

[The Man Known as Dan]

If we go back to 2 leagues with 2 divisions each, then we have the division winners + 2 wild card teams, it could make sense. The biggest problem there is you'd want each division to have 8 teams. So you'd probably want 2 teams expanded in, and I don't think there are markets for that.

[EdA]

 

I can't see the networks being thrilled with a double headers given that one game would have to be in the afternoon, thus loss of revenue.

 

And players HATE double headers.  So good luck getting that by the union.

 

And generally double headers are splits so...you are back to a 1 game play in most of the time.

 

And god forbid there is rain.

 

You can basically say that for the one game playoff too.

 

 

Well, You can say that about October in general.  It only takes a couple of days of rain to make everything all itchy.

 

I don't see anyone jumping on board with a double header in that situation even if it makes more logistic sense.

[RIPPA]

Figuring the Cubs actually suggested it pre-season, there are some that were very for the idea. And it's a better idea then "1 game to get in where any sort of weird bullshit can happen"

 

 

“We threw out something a few years ago about making it a two out of three, but with a doubleheader the first day because days are at a premium that time of year, and you don’t want the teams that win the division to have to wait too long and then get cold. It’s not fair to them. That didn’t pass. It got rejected.

 

That isn't Theo suggesting it this preseason.

 

And people suggest a lot of crazy shit that will never ever pass

 

And from the same Theo interview where he said the suggestion was made

 

 

“It depends on whatever our self-interest is, honestly,”

 

“It’s fine the way it is now. You can never come up with a scenario that’s perfectly fair to everybody. In a year like this, theoretically, teams might want to be re-seeded, but in another year that might be a benefit to you. You’ve just got to kind of play the hand you’re dealt.”

[Craig H]

I would prefer starting the season a week earlier instead of relying on double-headers to fit in a best 2 out of 3 games playoff.

 

I would also like to see best out of 7 for anything that isn't the WC game and that seems even less likely to happen.

[Craig H]

If we go back to 2 leagues with 2 divisions each, then we have the division winners + 2 wild card teams, it could make sense. The biggest problem there is you'd want each division to have 8 teams. So you'd probably want 2 teams expanded in, and I don't think there are markets for that.

 

Well, like I said, either move the Astros back to the NL or move the Brewers back to the AL. 14 in one, 16 in the other.

[EdA]

Well, starting earlier is all fine and dandy.  But you'd basically have to put at least the Rockies and the Twins (if not EVERY Midwest and Northern city team that does not have a dome) on the road in for 2-3 weeks to start the season since...March weather, man.

[The Man Known as Dan]

 

If we go back to 2 leagues with 2 divisions each, then we have the division winners + 2 wild card teams, it could make sense. The biggest problem there is you'd want each division to have 8 teams. So you'd probably want 2 teams expanded in, and I don't think there are markets for that.

 

Well, like I said, either move the Astros back to the NL or move the Brewers back to the AL. 14 in one, 16 in the other.

 

 

 

That would make it harder to make the playoffs in one then the other. I think if you do that, you just go one division with 7 and one with 8 and this is a pointless discussion we should let it die.

[Craig H]

April weather is shit as well and weather is just going to get even crazier. I would prefer teams deal with the weather in late March and April, instead of November.

 

That brings to mind another issue, which is scheduling. The way seasons are scheduled now is awful.

[EdA]

April weather is shit as well and weather is just going to get even crazier. I would prefer teams deal with the weather in late March and April, instead of November.

 

That brings to mind another issue, which is scheduling. The way seasons are scheduled now is awful.

 

Yeah.  Weather is always a crapshoot.  But I don't know if starting earlier is going to not end up creating tons of more double headers - which makes the players and teams all sorts of angry.  Shrug.  

 

And you can blame most of the crazy scheduling on all the interleague play.  Sooner or later, interleague play is really going to screw up rescheduling a really important game and that might scale back the interleague craziness.  Maybe.  

 

Or else Bud will die, the leagues will get realigned and interleague will die.  

 

Let's not poop on that last thought.

[Joe Lucia]

re: expansion. I personally don't think there are any more viable US markets. Plus, considering the ugly situations in Oakland and Tampa, bringing in two *more* teams could get ugly.

 

The largest market in the country without a team is Orlando, and that's not happening. Next up is Sacramento, which also isn't happening because the Giants are assholes. After that, you get into the Portland/Charlotte/Raleigh crop, which are all smaller markets than Pittsburgh.

 

If MLB does end up considering expansion, it would be outside the borders. They've talked Mexico for years. They always flirt with Puerto Rico. Montreal is getting more looks. I think they're all more realistic options than like, San Antonio.

[odessasteps]

re: expansion. I personally don't think there are any more viable US markets. Plus, considering the ugly situations in Oakland and Tampa, bringing in two *more* teams could get ugly.

The largest market in the country without a team is Orlando, and that's not happening. Next up is Sacramento, which also isn't happening because the Giants are assholes. After that, you get into the Portland/Charlotte/Raleigh crop, which are all smaller markets than Pittsburgh.

If MLB does end up considering expansion, it would be outside the borders. They've talked Mexico for years. They always flirt with Puerto Rico. Montreal is getting more looks. I think they're all more realistic options than like, San Antonio.