Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 527
  1. #481

    wild card

    I actually like new the wild card format.

    Of course, if I had my druthers, I'd rther have no wild cards at all -- just division winners. But the new format is a million times better than the one wild card format. So the wild cards have to play a one-game, sudden death game -- boo hoo -- they're lucky to be playing anything at all. The should be out when they finish 2nd in their dcivision. What's really unfair is a playoff setup that treats wild cards equally with division winners -- negating a 162 game schedule.

    Great action tonight -- the Tigers and Nats clinch their divisions. The Braves are locked into the first NL wild card and get a home game Friday. The Cards reduce their magic number to one -- if the Dodgers lose to the Giants tonight (LA is up 2-1 in the 7th) then the Cards lock up the second wild card and the only thing left to play for in the NL is the race between the Nats and the Reds for the best record in the league.

    The Yankees beatup on the Red Sox while the Orioles were losing to the Rays, giving the Yankee a one-game lead with two to play. The A's are up 4-2 in the 7th on the Rangers ... if they hold on, it eliminates the Rays and the Angels. It would also leave the A's just one game behind the Rangers for the division with two head-to-head games in Oakland to play.

    Also, great race for the AL triple crown. Cabrera hit No. 44 tonight and went 3-5, giving him a lead over Hamilton in HRs and upping his BA to .329. But Trout opened 4-for-4 and got his average up to .325.
    Going to be a great last two days.

  2. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    As for my assumption that the Cards would pitch Lynn in Friday's playoff, you could be right that they use Lohse or Wainwright. Of the three, Lohse has had the best season (but Lynn has been better than Wainwright). But I was assuming that Lynn would get the start because he has been the hottest St. Louis pitcher for the last month (before Sunday) and it would be his regular 4-day rest. But I see that Lohse is not scheduled to pitch in these final three days and that Wainright is only scheduled for Wednesday (when the Cards could have it wrapped up), so I guess there are options,
    Dave O'Brien, the Braves beatwriter for the AJC, has been tweeting that he was told Lohse would start the WC game.

  3. #483

    Tie-breaker question

    Does anyone know if a potential division tie-breaking game between the yankees and orioles would count towards their regular season record for the purpose of determining home-field advantage in subsequent playoff matchups? The yankees, orioles and rangers could all end up tied for the best record in the AL. But then the yanks and O's would have to play a tie-breaker for the division. Such games have always been considered part of the regular season and included in teams' regular season records, which would leave the winner with a better record than Texas, and thus the #1 seed and home field throughout the AL playoffs. But absent any extra games, Texas would otherwise get the top seed over baltimore (though not the yanks) in the case of a tie, and it doesn't seem fair to penalize them because of an extra game someone else got to play. Especially with the new wildcard format, being #1 vs #2 is a pretty meaningful difference. I haven't found anything which addresses this specific scenario, so I'm just curious if anyone knows.
    Demented and sad, but social, right?

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue in the Face View Post
    Does anyone know if a potential division tie-breaking game between the yankees and orioles would count towards their regular season record for the purpose of determining home-field advantage in subsequent playoff matchups? The yankees, orioles and rangers could all end up tied for the best record in the AL. But then the yanks and O's would have to play a tie-breaker for the division. Such games have always been considered part of the regular season and included in teams' regular season records, which would leave the winner with a better record than Texas, and thus the #1 seed and home field throughout the AL playoffs. But absent any extra games, Texas would otherwise get the top seed over baltimore (though not the yanks) in the case of a tie, and it doesn't seem fair to penalize them because of an extra game someone else got to play. Especially with the new wildcard format, being #1 vs #2 is a pretty meaningful difference. I haven't found anything which addresses this specific scenario, so I'm just curious if anyone knows.
    Hey, hey, hey. Texas hasn't won its division, yet. The A's are 1 behind, with two to play. If the A's take the last two, they will have 94 wins, Texas 93. Your Texas reference is premature today. The other points re the AL East are good ones, though.

  5. #485

    The AL MVP

    Real interesting debate about the American League MVP race. Is Miguel Cabrera a lock if he wins (or just misses) the triple crown?

    Or does Mike Trout rate the edge with his superiority in many of the new stats -- especially WAR, which supposedly measures all-around value?

    I admit that I'm conflicted. There are so many aspects to this debate:

    -- Do you credit Cabrera because he helped his team into the playoffs, while Trout's team missed. But Trout helped the Angels to 89 wins, while Cabrera helped the Tigers to just 87 wins ... does Cabrera get extra credit because his team is in a weaker division?

    -- Do you penalize Trout because he missed the first three weeks of the season ... or give him extra credit because he clearly energized the Angels when he joined the team. They have the best record in the AL West since he's joined the team.

    -- Personally, I don't give much credence to the so-called triple crown stats. I mean, RBIs are largely a function of how many teammates you have on base in front of you (no coincidence that Don Mattingly topped 150 RBIs in the year Rickey Henderson was in front of him). And why are RBIs more important than run scored? If you give Cabrera and edge for his RBIs, while not give Trout, a leadoff hitter without the opportunity to drive in as many runs, an edge in that he's scored 129 runs in 137 games -- far more than the 109 Cabrera has scored in 159 games.

    -- Do the real stats -- at least the ones I believe in -- favor Trout or Cabrera? Well, Trout has a slightly better OBP (.398 to .393); Cabrera has a better SLUG (.608 to .564) . Cabrera has the better OPS (1.001 to .963). BUT -- and it's a huge but -- Cabrera played half his games in a home stadium that is four percent more favorable offensively than average. Trout played his home games in a stadium that his eight percent worse than average offensively. That's why Trout's OPS-plus of 170 is better than Cabrera's 166.

    --How much credit do you give for baserunning. I happen to think that stolen bases are usually overrated, but Trout's 48 of 52 steals is clearly more valuable that Cabrera's 4 of 5 stolen bases. And his ability to take the extra base has got to be worth a few runs.

    -- Then there is defense. Trout is acknowledged as one of the best centerfielders in baseball. Maybe he is -- but it's interesting that the Angels frequently (37 times this season) make a late-inning defensive replacement, moving Trout to left field and using Peter Bourjas in center. And Bourjas does have a far better range per nine innings and a better arm. On the other hand, there's little doubt that Cabrera is a below average third baseman, at least defensively. I want to address that, but I'll do it with WAR.

    -- Of all the new stats, the one I like least is WAR. Unlike OBP and OPS -- which can be directly translated into runs -- I'm not sure that WAR (Wins Above Replacement) is a viable stat. It's supposed to balance offensive, defensive and baserunning contribution and translate them into one number. But here's my problem -- WAR gives Cabrera a negative value 0.3 for his defense at third base. But he's only playing third base so that the Tigers could sign Prince Fielder, who can only play first. By playing third, Cabrera is allowing the Tigers to have a far better first/third combination than if he stayed at his best position, first base, I see the same thing with Derek Jeter -- WAR would rate him a better player if he were a DH ... but his ability to play shortstop is clearly more valuable by opening up the DH position for sluggers who can't play any position ... or banged up players who can't play defense. Yet, he's penalized (by WAR) for playing shortstop -- I won't even get into the question of giving him negative defensive value in multiple years when the managers voted him the gold glove -- not that they are always right, but if he were so inferior defensively to cost him team runs (as WAR claims) would a majority of managers still rate him the best defensive shortstop in the league?

    So anyway, I give very little weight to the idea that Trout should be the MVP because he has the highest WAR in the AL. But I do have a hard time getting past the fact that he has a higher OPS-plus ... added to his value as a baserunner and the fact that he is a clearly superior defender,

    I still haven't made up my mind ... but I see the arguments on both sides -- except I don't agree that the Triple Crown or the WAR title are definitive.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    I'm obviously biased as a Tigers fan (Keep the MVP in the D!) but one thing I don't agree with is the use of WAR as a stat that, in some Trout fans' minds, supercedes all others. WAR is not even a stat that has an agreed-upon formula.

    There's also the fact that a year ago, Matt Kemp was flirting with the Triple Crown in the NL. There was talk that all he had to do, even if the Dodgers didn't make the playoffs, was get the TC and he'd win MVP over Braun. He didn't, the Dodgers didn't, and Braun gets the MVP. Now, that Cabrera has the lead in all 3 categories alone with 2 games left, a lot of people are diminishing the fact that Cabrera is on verge of completing a task that no one has done (or come this close to doing) since 1967. And, he took his team to the playoffs. You can't fault him for being in a weaker division...it's not like he told the other teams in his division to be terrible.

    Trout's had a heck of a season and I won't be surprised or disappointed if he gets MVP, but I'll bring up something that was mentioned last year in debating over Justin Verlander (not that I agree with it completely, but it's an argument that was pulled last year and has been mentioned many times when pitchers were up for MVP): the league has an award for him...it's the Rookie of the Year. To get both that and MVP, his season had to be so much more exceptional than everyone else. Sorry, but while he's had an exceptional season, Cabrera (in my biased opinion) has had a year that no player except for Carl Yastremski can compare to in the last 45 years. We're talking something that only 14 players in the history of baseball have ever done. Has Trout done that? In my mind, respectfully, he hasn't.
    Check out the Duke Basketball Roundup!

    2003-2004 HLM
    Duke | Mirecourt | Detroit| The U | USA

  7. #487
    Quote Originally Posted by blazindw View Post
    I'll bring up something that was mentioned last year in debating over Justin Verlander (not that I agree with it completely, but it's an argument that was pulled last year and has been mentioned many times when pitchers were up for MVP): the league has an award for him...it's the Rookie of the Year. To get both that and MVP, his season had to be so much more exceptional than everyone else.
    I think Trout should win it, and to me he seems like a pretty clear choice (though I'll be surprised if he does win it, and obviously Cabrera has had a truly wonderful year). But regardless of whoever most deserves it, this makes no sense to me. How does the existence of the rookie of the year award somehow place an extra burden on a rookie to be not just the most valuable, but some kind of super-exceptionally most valuable. That really seems non-sensical to me. What does "most valuable" mean if not most valuable?
    Demented and sad, but social, right?

  8. #488
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    ESPN user poll, 108K responses: is Chipper a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer? 82% yes.

    Obviously he's in, but I thought the poll question about first ballot was interesting.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue in the Face View Post
    I think Trout should win it, and to me he seems like a pretty clear choice (though I'll be surprised if he does win it, and obviously Cabrera has had a truly wonderful year). But regardless of whoever most deserves it, this makes no sense to me. How does the existence of the rookie of the year award somehow place an extra burden on a rookie to be not just the most valuable, but some kind of super-exceptionally most valuable. That really seems non-sensical to me. What does "most valuable" mean if not most valuable?
    Like I said, I didn't agree with the theory, but it was brought up last year and is usually brought up whenever a pitcher is in the hunt for the MVP. It was also brought up by some of the commentators on the MLB Network last night when they were debating it (I was watching it for updates on all the games).
    Check out the Duke Basketball Roundup!

    2003-2004 HLM
    Duke | Mirecourt | Detroit| The U | USA

  10. #490
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    ESPN user poll, 108K responses: is Chipper a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer? 82% yes.

    Obviously he's in, but I thought the poll question about first ballot was interesting.
    I think the questioning is that a lot of people think that 1st ballot means sure-fire, no-doubt-about-it Hall of Famer. Some people may question whether Chipper fits into that category, though I agree that most would believe he's in. Also, players that played during the "Steroid Era" are not going to be voted on 1st ballot by certain writers, regardless of whether they were linked to 'roids. Do I think that's right? No...but it's going to happen.
    Check out the Duke Basketball Roundup!

    2003-2004 HLM
    Duke | Mirecourt | Detroit| The U | USA

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by blazindw View Post
    I think the questioning is that a lot of people think that 1st ballot means sure-fire, no-doubt-about-it Hall of Famer. Some people may question whether Chipper fits into that category, though I agree that most would believe he's in. Also, players that played during the "Steroid Era" are not going to be voted on 1st ballot by certain writers, regardless of whether they were linked to 'roids. Do I think that's right? No...but it's going to happen.
    OK, but he's one of those guys like Jeter and Griffey Jr whose name almost never seems to come up in steroid implications. Does that count for something?

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  12. #492
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    OK, but he's one of those guys like Jeter and Griffey Jr whose name almost never seems to come up in steroid implications. Does that count for something?
    Absolutely. But many baseball writers are stubborn. A sizeable faction of them that have votes have gone on record as saying they would never vote in ANY player from the Steroid Era on the first ballot, which just isn't fair to those players like Chipper who have earned it.

    Now, Jeter and Griffey should get in first ballot and it shouldn't be a question. But, Chipper will get some that don't vote for him, and I wouldn't be shocked if he's not in on the first ballot (it all depends on who will still be on the ballot at that point).
    Check out the Duke Basketball Roundup!

    2003-2004 HLM
    Duke | Mirecourt | Detroit| The U | USA

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    I actually like new the wild card format.

    Of course, if I had my druthers, I'd rther have no wild cards at all -- just division winners. But the new format is a million times better than the one wild card format. So the wild cards have to play a one-game, sudden death game -- boo hoo -- they're lucky to be playing anything at all. The should be out when they finish 2nd in their dcivision. What's really unfair is a playoff setup that treats wild cards equally with division winners -- negating a 162 game schedule.
    So, here we are in the National League still with a one game sudden death playoff. How does that change anything? The Braves have a better 162 game result, up by six games over the the Cards, so you have negated that part of it for the Braves. It's a poor solution to the original problem that this new system tries to correct. What would have happened if the Braves and the Nats ended in a tie? Two single game playoffs, one followed the other on the next day? It was a distinct possibility up until last night when the Braves got whacked by the magic number with just two games left. So now they have to play the Cards to advance. Dumb move by MLB.

    A smarter move would have been to reorganize the leagues to four divisions thereby eliminating any need for a playoff of any kind. The National League is already at 16 teams, so no problem there. Just set up 4 divisions of four teams each. The American League is a slight problem, because they need two more teams to get four divisions with four teams each. Simple, isn't? Oh yeah, expansion time. They could go after two of the established AAA teams, some of which are better than some of MLB's lower ranked teams. Player contracts would need some review, but so? I'd love to see the Durham Bulls moved up to the majors. This has been the pipe dream part of my post.

    The fact remains that they replaced the one game playoff in each league with a one game playoff in each league. Dumb move by MLB.

  14. #494
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    So, here we are in the National League still with a one game sudden death playoff. How does that change anything? The Braves have a better 162 game result, up by six games over the the Cards, so you have negated that part of it for the Braves. It's a poor solution to the original problem that this new system tries to correct. What would have happened if the Braves and the Nats ended in a tie? Two single game playoffs, one followed the other on the next day? It was a distinct possibility up until last night when the Braves got whacked by the magic number with just two games left. So now they have to play the Cards to advance. Dumb move by MLB.

    A smarter move would have been to reorganize the leagues to four divisions thereby eliminating any need for a playoff of any kind. The National League is already at 16 teams, so no problem there. Just set up 4 divisions of four teams each. The American League is a slight problem, because they need two more teams to get four divisions with four teams each. Simple, isn't? Oh yeah, expansion time. They could go after two of the established AAA teams, some of which are better than some of MLB's lower ranked teams. Player contracts would need some review, but so? I'd love to see the Durham Bulls moved up to the majors. This has been the pipe dream part of my post.

    The fact remains that they replaced the one game playoff in each league with a one game playoff in each league. Dumb move by MLB.
    Well, next year, the Astros will move from the NL Central to the AL West...each division will then have 5 teams each. This also means that there will be at least one interleague series throughout the series, ending with the Tigers-Marlins for the last 3 games of the year.
    Check out the Duke Basketball Roundup!

    2003-2004 HLM
    Duke | Mirecourt | Detroit| The U | USA

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by blazindw View Post
    Well, next year, the Astros will move from the NL Central to the AL West...each division will then have 5 teams each. This also means that there will be at least one interleague series throughout the series, ending with the Tigers-Marlins for the last 3 games of the year.
    Yeah, I forgot all about that. So they'll still have a playoff problem. Maybe that'll be fixed in 2112, but I doubt it.

  16. #496
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    I actually like new the wild card format.

    Of course, if I had my druthers, I'd rther have no wild cards at all -- just division winners. But the new format is a million times better than the one wild card format. So the wild cards have to play a one-game, sudden death game -- boo hoo -- they're lucky to be playing anything at all. The should be out when they finish 2nd in their dcivision. What's really unfair is a playoff setup that treats wild cards equally with division winners -- negating a 162 game schedule.

    Great action tonight -- the Tigers and Nats clinch their divisions. The Braves are locked into the first NL wild card and get a home game Friday. The Cards reduce their magic number to one -- if the Dodgers lose to the Giants tonight (LA is up 2-1 in the 7th) then the Cards lock up the second wild card and the only thing left to play for in the NL is the race between the Nats and the Reds for the best record in the league.

    The Yankees beatup on the Red Sox while the Orioles were losing to the Rays, giving the Yankee a one-game lead with two to play. The A's are up 4-2 in the 7th on the Rangers ... if they hold on, it eliminates the Rays and the Angels. It would also leave the A's just one game behind the Rangers for the division with two head-to-head games in Oakland to play.

    Also, great race for the AL triple crown. Cabrera hit No. 44 tonight and went 3-5, giving him a lead over Hamilton in HRs and upping his BA to .329. But Trout opened 4-for-4 and got his average up to .325.
    Going to be a great last two days.
    This emphasis on winning your division ignores the fact that the divisions are imbalanced in the first place, and in some cases, somewhat arbitrarily assembled.

    The reason wild cards were originally introduced in the first place, in both the NFL and MLB is that really good teams were finishing second in their divisions with better or even much better records than winners of other divisions. The 1993 Giants didn't deserve to be in the playoffs because they lost their division at 103-59?

    The winner of the AL Central is not going to be as good as the AL wild cards. The 2006 Cardinals, who won the WS, were in a horrendous division. The wild card is a corrective to that. The playoffs will always be a crapshoot in baseball. But some sort of myopic emphasis on winning a division ignores the fact that so doing isn't much of an accomplishment at 83 wins, or even 88 wins, is good at 93 wins, and is really good at 98 or 103 wins. The wild card team, however, is solely merit-based...it's the best record of non-division winners. You can win a division with a mediocre squad or a really good one, depending upon imbalance.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  17. #497
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Wow, with Oakland's win over Texas, things are getting deep in the junior circuit.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  18. #498

    MVP v s. Cy Young

    Quote Originally Posted by blazindw View Post
    Like I said, I didn't agree with the theory, but it was brought up last year and is usually brought up whenever a pitcher is in the hunt for the MVP. It was also brought up by some of the commentators on the MLB Network last night when they were debating it (I was watching it for updates on all the games).
    I actully think that starting pitchers -- who work just one game in five --SHOULD be in a different category. I can see extreme cases where a stopper, who may work 40 percent of a team's games could be in MVP consideration, but even then we're talking about a guy who doesn't play in 100 innings.

    As for Chipper, he's a no-brainer first-team pick. He's the third or fourth best third-baseman of all time (depending on whether you forgive A-Roid for his PEDs and count him as a third baseman) and the second or third best switch hitter in histiory. He'll be elected on the first ballot and it won't be close.

    I have heard a lot of guys claim they'll never vote for a player with PED suspicions (too bad A-Roid) ... but I don't think there are many who will avoid anybody from the steroid era -- even those wih no hint of PED allegations. Chipper ... Griffey ... Jeter ... and Pujols seem to be first-ballot locks from this era.

    As for the complaint about the imbalance of the divisions, I totally agree -- and don't forget the fact that the interleague schedules are unbalanced too. That's not an argument to my mind against diviion champs, but an indictment of baseball for trashing 100-plus years of balanced schedules.

    Tomorrow is going to be great -- the big game is Texas at Oakland at 3:30 p.m. Winner takes the AL West and the loser plays in the wild card. Yankees have a game lead on the O's with a game to go.

  19. #499
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    The reason wild cards were originally introduced in the first place, in both the NFL and MLB is that really good teams were finishing second in their divisions with better or even much better records than winners of other divisions.
    Oh. I thought it was because the owners wanted to create an extra round of playoffs and thereby reap the enormous sums that came with the gate receipts, concessions, parking, and oh yeah, I almost forgot, the increase in the TV contracts.

  20. #500
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    OK, the Redbirds just clinched the last playoff spot in the NL due to Vin Scully's team falling short. Thus, Waino is listed as tomorrow's starter, but I find it hard to believe the club would waste him on a nothing game. There was some talk about Kelly pitching in such a scenario, but he pitched in relief tonight. Read stltoday,com in the morning and there may be some clarity. My current semi-educated guess is that Shelby Miller will be spent on the meaningless game tomorrow night, to which I have a ticket. Maybe Kexman or Rasputin is paying better attention than I.

    This would mean Waino, Lohse, and Lynn are all possibilities for the tango de la muerte a la Ted on Friday night.

    While I'll still be at Mahler 3, I think I'm rooting for the Braves due to the Chipper factor. Whichever team emerges, I still have one in the playoffs. I'll still take Mahler over the Cardinals or the Braves.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

Similar Threads

  1. New 2012 Recruiting Thread
    By Newton_14 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 467
    Last Post: 05-14-2012, 01:50 AM
  2. 2012 AP All-Americans (post-season, not pre-season!)
    By superdave in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-27-2012, 12:02 PM
  3. 2012 Basketball Recruiting Thread
    By Osiagledknarf in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3572
    Last Post: 03-13-2012, 08:25 PM
  4. Bad news for Duke baseball-Marconcini to miss season
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2012, 08:00 PM
  5. Duke Baseball - 2009 Thread
    By chrishoke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 06-14-2009, 10:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •