2018 Baseball Thread (MLB and whatever)

[Armory]

My Cubs squandered a chance to win the division.  Argh.  I hate the one-game wild card.

[slikmar]

7 hours ago, Armory said:

My Cubs squandered a chance to win the division.  Argh.  I hate the one-game wild card.

I actually like it, because it puts back the impetus to win the division. We don't get nearly as many teams cruising the last month of the season we used too.

[Pariah]

Three time zones in three days. Yikes. Good luck, Rockies!

[Badger]

17 hours ago, Armory said:

My Cubs squandered a chance to win the division.  Argh.  I hate the one-game wild card.

 

What I hate is Game 163, especially since it meant nothing on who made the playoffs, just positioning.  Should go HtH to decide division, and the 2 losers play the WC.  Between Game 163, the WC, and now going into extra innings, the winner will already have a thoroughly shredded pitching staff.

[Grailknight]

So win your division outright and avoid all this. 

[Pariah]

ROCKIES WIN!!

[Badger]

3 hours ago, Grailknight said:

So win your division outright and avoid all this. 

 

I'm just saying being forced to play the WC gives the proper disadvantage. Which I want.  But, with the extra playoffs that have been stacked on, a Game 163 is kind of overboard, nowadays.  If it was a case where you had to play just to get one of the 5 spots, I'd understand a little more.

 

Edit: Pretty sure this is the first time we have had an extra game purely to decide playoff position, rather than to make playoff.

[Grailknight]

The extra game was to decide the division winners. losers got to be wildcards. 

[Badger]

I know, but I was thinking you could just say the team who won more head to head would be the division winner, and the one who didn't would be the wildcard.

 

Then, again it would be an interesting (and incredibly gutsy) move for a manager knowing he'll have to use his ace either way to just throw whoever on Game 163 and hope for the best, and if lose still have his best pitcher to go in the Wildcard.  (though the big risk of that is an extra 1 or 2 days before he can be used in the divisional. though even at 2 days it will just mean pitching Game 3 instead of Game 2 in the divisional.  Unlikely to pitch a second time in the divisional unless on short rest).  

[unclevlad]

I agree with Badger.  The refusal to use a tiebreaker is a severe penalty, UNLESS it's for the 2nd tiebreaker.  Then you can argue it's needed.  The refusal to use tiebreakers also leads to 3- and 4-game scenarios that become SERIOUSLY confusing, and may need a team to play 2 games to advance to the WC.  

 

Another aspect that I strongly dislike is, these games are counted as regular season games.  Christian Yelich came within 1 swing of winning a triple crown...he'd won the batting title, and was 1 HR and 2 RBI short.  AND he came up, in the game against the Cubs, in a situation to do that.  Nothing against Yelich at all, but it woulda been totally undeserved.  These tiebreak games are *not* "regular season" games, they're playoff games.

 

Another negative:  Rockies played in Colorado Sunday, then LA Monday, then Chicago Tuesday.  NOT fun, and could have been a lot worse.  OK, it didn't ultimately hurt as they beat the Cubs (YESSS!!!  Chicago can now revert to its normal state...reveling in their teams' failures) but it's not fair.  And the loss of some downtime is nothing to ignore.  Rockies, as it turned out, had 1 rest day since Sept. 7th.  And to a point, that's gonna be more the norm than the rule, because scheduled off days tend to become the rain-out makeup days.

[slikmar]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I agree with Badger.  The refusal to use a tiebreaker is a severe penalty, UNLESS it's for the 2nd tiebreaker.  Then you can argue it's needed.  The refusal to use tiebreakers also leads to 3- and 4-game scenarios that become SERIOUSLY confusing, and may need a team to play 2 games to advance to the WC.  

 

Another aspect that I strongly dislike is, these games are counted as regular season games.  Christian Yelich came within 1 swing of winning a triple crown...he'd won the batting title, and was 1 HR and 2 RBI short.  AND he came up, in the game against the Cubs, in a situation to do that.  Nothing against Yelich at all, but it woulda been totally undeserved.  These tiebreak games are *not* "regular season" games, they're playoff games.

 

Another negative:  Rockies played in Colorado Sunday, then LA Monday, then Chicago Tuesday.  NOT fun, and could have been a lot worse.  OK, it didn't ultimately hurt as they beat the Cubs (YESSS!!!  Chicago can now revert to its normal state...reveling in their teams' failures) but it's not fair.  And the loss of some downtime is nothing to ignore.  Rockies, as it turned out, had 1 rest day since Sept. 7th.  And to a point, that's gonna be more the norm than the rule, because scheduled off days tend to become the rain-out makeup days.

It actually is even worse, unless they have fixed it at some point, which they may have. Back, I think in 1995, Seattle and Anaheim were tied with New York on the final day for 1st/wild card. Because of the way it worked, that meant the Yankees (much to the delight of the channels showing the playoffs, I am sure) automatically qualified as the lone wild card because they don't actually call it a tie breaker, but game 163, which is stupid also as you said, because that means stats count from it for regular season also.

[unclevlad]

I believe they fixed that particular obscenity.  IIRC, and I was reviewing the tiebreaker points online earlier...SEA/ANA would play, winner is the division winner.  Loser would play the Yanks.  Now, of course, that's ALSO unfair, as SEA/ANA have 2 chances to win 1 game to advance.  

 

On a more pleasant note...who else is watching Braves/Dodgers?  Not a contest at this point;  Dodgers scored early, pitching's been shutdown.  The point worth noting...the shots of Sandy Koufax in a very nice, almost certainly comp'd seat.   He's 82!!!  DAYUM he looks amazingly good!  Best.  Lefty.  Ever.  At least for a 4-5 year span.  Funny thing?  He would've had Tommy John EARLY in his career had it been available.  And...who knows how things would've turned out?  And a sick point?  Most he ever made in a season was.........$125,000.  For the year.  Not for an inning...and yes, CC Sabathia (and probably a few others) made that much (and actually a lot more) per inning pitched in 2017.

[Badger]

Yeah, I was gonna have to stop you.  Koufax was probably the best peak ever, but effectively he had a 6 year career.  Among predominantly starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame he is actually 2nd lowest in wins (Dizzy Dean).  I like Koufax, but greatest lefty ever would probably be Warren Spahn.  (with possibly some argument for Carlton and Grove)

 

And yeah, I hadn't even thought of the crazy travel they had to go through thanks to the tiebreaking.  

[Armory]

13 hours ago, unclevlad said:

(YESSS!!!  Chicago can now revert to its normal state...reveling in their teams' failures)

 

Actually a Cubs fan's normal state now is to expect a playoff appearance, so...that's how far we've come.  Five years ago a single-game playoff appearance would've been good enough, now we have been conditioned by success to view anything other than another WS win as a disappointment.  Times have changed.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the animus toward game 163s.  Since it's to determine the division winner it is nice that the season record reflects a clear winner and not a statistical tie.  OTOH, I wouldn't mind if they used head-to-head record instead because that one game screws up the playoff rotations and schedules of the teams involved.

 

Also, in 1962 $125k was the 2018 equivalent of just over $1 million so while that still means Koufax was underpaid, we don't have to feel all that sorry for him.

[L. Marcus]

Do we like the Astros ...?

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

I don't hate them

[Pariah]

They should still be in the NL.

 

(Of course, I also think Milwaukee should move back to the AL, so there's that.)

[Cancer]

Yeah, Astros --> NL, Brewers --> AL.

[unclevlad]

Astros are fun as a team.  They're one of the teams crammed down my throat by geography;  I'm considered to be in their home market.  Well...probably.  They're likely the closest AL team to me.  It's all the NL teams that assert their home market to contain my area that *really* chaps me.  

 

But back to my point...like the team, dislike the announcers and on-field.  Postgame morons are horrendous, albeit not the worst...that's Padres, of the ones I'm stuck with.

 

On swapping them back to their old leagues...where they are now, makes a LOT!! more sense geographically, and therefore, for travel.  Where ya gonna put Milwaukee, AL West again?  Like that fits???  Almost as bad as when Atlanta was in the NL West.  Plus, Texas-Houston and Milw-Chicago are nice, natural rivalries.  That's something MLB wants to foster.

 

If baseball goes to 32 teams, then *maybe* reconsider shifting some things around, but I don't personally see it as a goal in itself.  And remember, we haven't had a baseball team move in quite a long time...which just means we're overdue.  

[slikmar]

I was just discussing today with someone who I would want to win, as my team isn't in it:

Teams I would like to see win - Brewers, Rockies, Indians (cause been a while for all three if ever)

I don't mind Houston or Braves winning, they both earned their way by being horrendous for a few years.

Let the world end before the Red Sox or Yankees win and please have a survivor camera going in the TV executives rooms when they lose, just for the looks on the faces(I am hoping one team sweeps, then gets killed against Indians or Houston).

I wouldn't mind Dodgers either, I grew up with them and it has been awhile, but more then anything, I really would like to see Kershaw have a great playoffs (last year he was good, but not as good when you look as people give credit, not for a guy who might is in the discussions for best of our generation).

[Badger]

15 hours ago, Armory said:

 

Actually a Cubs fan's normal state now is to expect a playoff appearance, so...that's how far we've come.  Five years ago a single-game playoff appearance would've been good enough, now we have been conditioned by success to view anything other than another WS win as a disappointment.  Times have changed.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the animus toward game 163s.  Since it's to determine the division winner it is nice that the season record reflects a clear winner and not a statistical tie.  OTOH, I wouldn't mind if they used head-to-head record instead because that one game screws up the playoff rotations and schedules of the teams involved.

 

Also, in 1962 $125k was the 2018 equivalent of just over $1 million so while that still means Koufax was underpaid, we don't have to feel all that sorry for him.

 

And wouldn't taking the head to head, have made the CUbs division winners?  But, I will re-iterate if Game 163, makes a difference on making the playoffs I am more for it (don't know if I am or not, but it is legit).  But, if it merely makes a difference on playoff positioning, it is redundant.  (I would be against run differential deciding, because pitching-oriented teams tend to have closer games, whereas the good-hitting team would have a few blowouts skewing their results.  No reason to punish a team who is built on pitching-admittedly, due to being a pitcher in high school, I think in favor of pitching/defense, so they likely skews my opinion)

 

For the Wildcard itself, it is supposed to be a tougher road to travel, so no mercy.

[unclevlad]

Who do I want to win?

 

Dodgers are my team from when I was a kid.  For quite a while, tho...Frank McCort didn't deserve any support at all, and right after they booted him, the new owners were trying to buy their way through.  NOT something I like.  And I'm not a Puig fan, altho he's gotten a little better.  Generally, tho...no, not gonna root for them.

 

Sox and Yanks...please, not again.  NEVER again with the ultra-arrogant Yankees and Yankee fans...but hey, the Boston fans aren't much better.  

 

Cleveland...ehh.  I guess they're OK.  Think I'd rather have Houston, as they're a bit more fun.  And they've developed more of their team.  

 

NL...Brewers, I suppose.  It'd be novel at least.  Rockies would be fine, but I just don't think they can beat the Dodgers.

[Badger]

Hmm for me in order of preference

 

Colorado-closest thing to a team I like

Houston-don't hate them, could go for it

LA Dodgers-likewise, with my dad being a Yankee fan growing up in the 1950s, kind of ingrained not to like them in me, but since they haven't won since 1988

cant really feel the hatred

 

NY Yankees-I really don't hate the Yankees, and I really don't necessarily like them either.  My dad has been a fan since a kid late in DiMaggio's career.  And since he did have a bit

of a health scare this past winter, I wouldn't be too disappointed if they did got the win (honestly Hou, LA and NY are about even in my preference)

 

Atlanta-I still suffer from 1990s fatigue.  

Cleveland-Divisonal rival to my team (Royals, the only other team in the division I can even stand are the Twins)

Milwaukee-Selig hatred

Boston-I do not want them nor the Giants to win again until Cpt. Picard takes over the Enterprise, and probably not even then.  I pulled for

them to win in 2004, but since then "Red Sox Nation" has become as arrogant (if not more so) as the Yankee base with about 20 less championships to back it up.

 

Note: The WC losers, I have always (kind of) liked the Cubs. Whereas Oakland would be at least on Milwaukee level because of the insufferable Billy Beane.

[Cygnia]

For the husband, if it can't be the Indians, he roots for the team that hasn't won it yet,  So that means Rockies or Brewers.

[Cygnia]

Yankees, Dodgers or Red Sox aren't America's team this postseason, but guess who is?