Baseball 2017 Season Thread

[dps]

the worst team will win 60 games.

Tell that to fans in Baltimore or Detroit.  Or Miami, if the Marlins actually have any fans.

I do mostly agree with you, but I couldn't resist the dig at the Orioles, and it wouldn't have been fair to do that without mentioning the Tigers and Marlins, too.

[Valmy]

I would like to think the Orioles are tanking to follow the Astros' model to glory...but how they actually got to this position proves that to be false and they just suck ass

They are kind of entertaining just in a "I cannot believe that guy gets paid so much to be so bad at baseball" sort of way.

Anyway I agree sort of with Dorsey's claim. It is kind of funny that the Marlins have won two World Series despite never finishing the regular season in first place. However the Wild Card was pretty much made for the Nats who have been the best team in baseball after their disastrous start. It is hard to really seriously argue they were not the best team in their division come September.

[Valmy]

Anyway without Seedy around the baseball thread just wasn't the same. I think having just a permanent baseball thread instead of a new one for each season probably fits our current forum status anyway.

I don't think the Os have much of a chance next season anyway.

That turned out to be a massive understatement

[alfred russel]

I would like to think the Orioles are tanking to follow the Astros' model to glory...but how they actually got to this position proves that to be false and they just suck ass

I get tanking in basketball, where there are like a dozen stars in the sport and you need a couple of them to win a title, and only a couple guys in the draft are realistically likely to become one of those guys.

I get it in football to a lesser extent.

I don't get it in baseball at all. Talent takes forever to develop, some of the guys are right out of high school, and the first few rounds do not produce predictable stars the way they do in other sports. Plus tanking turns off fans, and with less revenue sharing than in other sports and much more dependence on your own TV contracts and attendance, means less money to spend. (I know the Astros are an obvious counterargument.)

[Valmy]

I don't get it in baseball at all.

It works very well. Both the Royals and Astros tanked to win the World Series. Sure it takes a little while, but it is a proven pathway to success for the teams that lack the payrolls of the Red Sox and Yankees.

It is why most teams will intentionally strip themselves down to barebones from time to time.

The Orioles did not do that though, they just collapsed and are still carrying big salaries.

[The Minsky Moment]

The nationals didn't win their division. They weren't the best team in the division, but results in a 1, 5, or 7 game series are a lot more random. I find it annoying that I'm supposed to follow a season for 162 games only to see the result overturned in a short series (I'd definitely bet on the dodgers over the nationals in a rematch, but in a 5 game series anything can happen...).

The Nationals were the best team in the division.  No question they were and are a stronger team then the Braves - their run differential was considerably better and their record reflects a troubled start of the year, which was overcome.  As of October 1, 2019, they were easily the best team in the division.

The Dodgers are a stronger team but in a short series the Nationals have equal top of rotation strength to match them.  So it's crapshoot who wins.  I don't see how the Dodgers have a right to complain.

Because each league has 3 divisions, there has to be some system to allow a 4th qualifier - the WC system as it presently exists seems eminently fair.  Qualifying as a Division Champ is still very meaningful as it doubles the chance of getting the WS as opposed to being the WC. 

The old 2 division system would not work well in the expanded league and historically had problematic results.  In 73 a Mets team went to the World Series that barely had a winning record. (in the 3 division system the Padres won their division 05 despite allowing far more runs they scored) The WC ameliorates the potentially skewing effects of unbalanced divisions. 

Going to 4 divisions would only heighten the risk of unbalanced results

EDIT almost forgot the 94 season where the Rangers were "winning" their division with a 52-62 record until the strike wiped out the season.  I don't think winning a division is really meaningful in  that context other than as a statement of lack of divisional balance.

[alfred russel]

I don't get it in baseball at all.

It works very well. Both the Royals and Astros tanked to win the World Series. Sure it takes a little while, but it is a proven pathway to success for the teams that lack the payrolls of the Red Sox and Yankees.

Did the Royals really intentionally tank or are they a small market team that just sucked?

[Barrister]

I don't get it in baseball at all.

It works very well. Both the Royals and Astros tanked to win the World Series. Sure it takes a little while, but it is a proven pathway to success for the teams that lack the payrolls of the Red Sox and Yankees.

Did the Royals really intentionally tank or are they a small market team that just sucked?

For a lot of years they just sucked, but then they intentionally tanked.

[Valmy]

Did the Royals really intentionally tank or are they a small market team that just sucked?

Yes. They burned it all down in 2004 and rebuilt...and had to do so a few more times after that

But it eventually worked out. The Astros copied them intentionally.

[alfred russel]

The Nationals were the best team in the division.  No question they were and are a stronger team then the Braves - their run differential was considerably better and their record reflects a troubled start of the year, which was overcome. 

Over the length of the season, the Braves had a record of 97-65 and the Nationals a record of 93-69. The Braves had the head to head edge of 11-8. The Nationals had a better run differential but then that isn't what teams are targeting and the Braves didn't push hard at the wire (because the division was wrapped up, while the Nationals were competing for the wild card).

If you are discounting "a troubled start of the year", that is an argument for shortening the season perhaps, but the beginning of the season should also count.

[Valmy]

The Nationals were the best team in the division.  No question they were and are a stronger team then the Braves - their run differential was considerably better and their record reflects a troubled start of the year, which was overcome. 

Over the length of the season, the Braves had a record of 97-65 and the Nationals a record of 93-69. The Braves had the head to head edge of 11-8. The Nationals had a better run differential but then that isn't what teams are targeting and the Braves didn't push hard at the wire (because the division was wrapped up, while the Nationals were competing for the wild card).

If you are discounting "a troubled start of the year", that is an argument for shortening the season perhaps, but the beginning of the season should also count.

Over the length of the season, the best team in the NL was the Dodgers. It makes absolutely no logical sense at all to split the league into arbitrary divisions and decide the whole thing by by a few five and seven game series when the Dodgers already won the league during the regular season.

But it is more fun. And that is the same reason the Wild Card's existence. I get what you are saying but that ship sailed after 1968.

[frunk]

If all you care about is the regular season you can pretty easily ignore the postseason.  I almost succeed at it every year without trying.

[Valmy]

I mean I went through that angst in 1997 when the Orioles were the best team in the AL all damn season and won 98 games. Then they lost to the fucking Indians, who only won something like 85 games and were shitty but got lucky because the Orioles star reliever sucked shit in one stupid game and blew the whole thing. FUCK!!!111

But that is just how it goes. They were the best for 162 games but not in the six that counted most.

[Valmy]

If all you care about is the regular season you can pretty easily ignore the postseason.  I almost succeed at it every year without trying.

How? Because your team is usually not in it?

[frunk]

If all you care about is the regular season you can pretty easily ignore the postseason.  I almost succeed at it every year without trying.

How? Because your team is usually not in it?

I don't really care about baseball, and the Languish Fantasy League is no more.