The MLB Thread

[Maksutov]

Since there's a hockey thread, and an NBA thread I'm to blame for, equal time rules would seem to require an MLB thread.

Yawn...

That's right. It's April, so it's time for more professional baseball. Hard to believe I used to follow this sport so closely and was a huge Brooklyn Dodgers fan (may Walter O'Malley rot somewhere it's hot), then cheered on the Milwaukee Braves (Spahn and Burdette, what a combo!), and finally a Metropolitan Baseball Club of New York fan (can't anyone here play this game?). When Thomas Boswell wrote Why Time Begins on Opening Day, not only did I agree with him but proved it with all those trips to Shea Stadium. Ah, Mookie malleting that one through Buckner's wicket: priceless!

But that was the 1980s. In 1994 the spoiled brats/yuckies that are the sport (the players and the owners) decided to swindle us fans out of the World Series. As a result I've shown my appreciation by having little to nothing to do with MLB ever since.

And the sideshow goes on.

While leaving the channel on an SF Giants game during some DVD categorization activities last evening, I was treated to live Barry Bonds action which was punctuated with an MLB-sponsored ad warning children of the dangers of steroid use. Irony? No, well beyond that.

Just before I changed the channel I was entertained with highlights of the new career of Johnny Damon, who was the heart and soul, as it were, of the Boston Red Sox. Damon was bought by George Steinbrenner during the off-season and transported to the New York Damn Yankees. He now has no beard nor any unruly hair. Instead he has been squeaky-cleaned by one of the primary agents of all that's wrong with major league baseball.

I still watch baseball of course. Fortunately many of the Ole Miss and Mississippi State games are broadcast locally. Plus UConn's team will make a tour of the South every other year or so. Nice to see the real game still being played.

Well, almost. If they'd just get rid of those aluminum bats and the DH.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/707/baseballglovesmilie3tc.gif

[jkmccrann]

Well, when it comes to this season, there's only one thing I'm looking out for. The breaking of curses to continue of course!

So, in that spirit, have to go for the Cleveland Indians of course! Cleveland haven't won the pennant since 1948 - the longest drought but 1 of any major league clubs, and the reason they haven't won the thing for nearly 60 years is the curse of Rocky Marciano of course.

So go Indians!

(Other curse to be broken would have to be that of the SF Giants (no luck since leaving Noo York) - but as long as Mr. Bonds is slogging things for SanFran - I think they can wait another couple of seasons)

[Swift]

Well, when it comes to this season, there's only one thing I'm looking out for. The breaking of curses to continue of course!

So, in that spirit, have to go for the Cleveland Indians of course! Cleveland haven't won the pennant since 1948 - the longest drought but 1 of any major league clubs, and the reason they haven't won the thing for nearly 60 years is the curse of Rocky Marciano of course.

So go Indians!

(Other curse to be broken would have to be that of the SF Giants (no luck since leaving Noo York) - but as long as Mr. Bonds is slogging things for SanFran - I think they can wait another couple of seasons)
As my mother-in-law would say, from your lips, jkmccrann, to god's ear!!!! :)
Actually, Cleveland's drought is the worst in other ways. Sure the Cubs and the Red Soxes went a long time without, but they had teams like the Bulls and the Patriots to comfort them. The last champion in Cleveland was the AFL Browns. :(

Maksutov, in spite of the steroids and the payrolls and the '94 strike, I still love baseball. There is nothing better than sitting in the stadium on a beautiful spring day, a beer and a dog in my hands, watching a baseball game.

Almost as good was watching the Indians beat the O's last night 15-1 on the old TV. GO TRIBE!!!

[antoniseb]

Cleveland haven't won the pennant since 1948 - the longest drought but 1 of any major league clubs, and the reason they haven't won the thing for nearly 60 years is the curse of Rocky Marciano of course.

So go Indians!

I'm a Red Sox fan, but I'd have to say, of the Cubs and Indians, The Cubs do not look like they have what it takes this year, but the Indians do. If someone is going to have a long overdue championship, the tribe would be the team this year. Of course two long overdues in a row doesn't prove that the this year will be the same.

[pumpkinpie]

How 'bout let's leave this as the "complain about MLB thread" and start another one for people who love to watch it, no matter what faults it has! I don't quite understand why you started an MLB thread, Mak, when you say you have "little to nothing to do with it."

;) I'm kidding. You have a right to post whatever you want within the rules, of course! It's just that I love MLB so much that I tend to take it personally when people bad-mouth it.

But I'll move on from that and say how awesome it is that Chris Shelton is ON FIRE!! Hopefully the Tigers will actually have a winning season this year! :D

[pumpkinpie]

I'm a Red Sox fan, but I'd have to say, of the Cubs and Indians, The Cubs do not look like they have what it takes this year, but the Indians do. If someone is going to have a long overdue championship, the tribe would be the team this year. Of course two long overdues in a row doesn't prove that the this year will be the same.

The Indians certainly are looking sharp this year. It's so early, though, it's hard to make solid predictions. Remember the Orioles last year, in first place through June? Then they just fell apart. Anything can happen with so many games, that's what I love about it!

And I also love to see a different variety of teams in the playoffs from year to year. For the AL Central, it's been a while since the Indians have been there, right? It's been a mix of the Twins and White Sox lately. I'm not counting on the Tigers to make a run for it this year!

[Maksutov]

How 'bout let's leave this as the "complain about MLB thread" and start another one for people who love to watch it, no matter what faults it has! I don't quite understand why you started an MLB thread, Mak, when you say you have "little to nothing to do with it."

;) I'm kidding. You have a right to post whatever you want within the rules, of course! It's just that I love MLB so much that I tend to take it personally when people bad-mouth it. I knew you were kidding. I'm just still perturbed by the 1994 strike.

I started playing baseball when I was five, and worked up through various leagues, and continued the participation and interest in high school and college. To see these professional underachievers earned $10+ million a year is discouraging and a turn off.
But I'll move on from that and say how awesome it is that Chris Shelton is ON FIRE!! Hopefully the Tigers will actually have a winning season this year! :DGood luck to you and Detroit!

[farmerjumperdon]

Professional sports. As Bill the Cat would say . . . . .ACHHHH!

Bunch of overpaid crybaby whiny millionaires playing children's games who take a little extra time off every few years to go on strike because they can't make ends meet on the paltry millions they get paid. Icing on the cake is the crybaby whiny millionaire owners who have somehow duped the public into subsidizing the building of their castles.

The people who still consider this as worthy entertainment should support it directly. My guess is that if the fans had to actually foot the bill, 90% of them would never go to another game, which would then drive salaries and ticket prices back to reasonable levels (as was the case in pre-government subsidy days). No way no how should one cent of tax money be spent to support this sham.

[Parrothead]

I haven't been much of a MLB fan since the '94 strike. NYY and Montreal Expos were having great seasons, I was looking forward to a possible WS between these two teams and having Canada's other team win one, after the Jays took two straight. ...

That said, I'll watch an occasional game and look in come playoffs. The Jays did make some off-season moves and may be in the mix this season.

[Donnie B.]

I think baseball is still my favorite spectator sport. It's a game you almost have to grow up watching to fully understand. Try explaining the rules to someone who's never seen it! Very complex, physically challenging (though perhaps less athletic than many other sports), and a century of tradition and lore -- it's a thinking man's game.

I had a revelation awhile back. The bases are 90 feet apart, or 30 yards. So if you touch them all (as in, say, an inside-the-park home run) it's the equivalent of running the length of a full football field and both end zones. Except you have to make three 90-degree turns along the way. But at least you don't have to lug all that padding along!

As a Red Sox fan I was on the other end of the emotional spectrum when Buckner had his "ole' moment". Aaauuuuugggghhhhh!

So far this year, the things that stand out for me are:

(1) Watching games in High Definition. Oh, lordy, it's awesome! What a sense of spaciousness you get with the wide screen, and you can even tell what the fans behind the plate had for lunch from the bits left on their shirts.

(2) The whole Barry Bonds mess. Probably too much said about it already, so I'll stop.

(3) Detroit and their HOT start followed by an equally COLD stretch. Yikes.

(4) Boston's Papelbon as the new closer. 7 for 7 in save attempts and a 0.00 ERA. Like, wha??

[antoniseb]

(4) Boston's Papelbon as the new closer. 7 for 7 in save attempts and a 0.00 ERA. Like, wha??
I'm glad the Sox have Papelbon, but he looked pretty human last night, requiring almost 40 pitches to record three outs. I'd expect his ERA to go up before the end of the month.

[Donnie B.]

I'm glad the Sox have Papelbon, but he looked pretty human last night, requiring almost 40 pitches to record three outs. I'd expect his ERA to go up before the end of the month.True, and it took a circus catch in the outfield to preserve his perfect ERA.

I have no doubt it'll go up. Where else can it go? :wink:

[Swift]

I think baseball is still my favorite spectator sport. It's a game you almost have to grow up watching to fully understand. Try explaining the rules to someone who's never seen it! Very complex, physically challenging (though perhaps less athletic than many other sports), and a century of tradition and lore -- it's a thinking man's game.

And, IMHO, different than many (most?) other sports where you are trying to get the object (ball) in the opposite teams goal (American football, football, hockey, basketball, etc.). It doesn't seem that tough to explain, at least the general prinicpal of hockey, to someone who knows basketball.

On the flip side, for those who love baseball, it tends to be a global love. Back in the late 80s, when the Cleveland Indians were really terrible and they played in the old Cleveland Stadium (not a nice baseball stadium), I took a Japanese work-visitor to a game, as a way to entertain him. He was extremely happy to have the opportunity to see "real American baseball". :D

[Donnie B.]

Ah, Municipal Stadium. The Mistake On the Lake. I saw quite a few games there, since I spent my wonder years about 40 miles west of Cleveland.

It's rather nice that the Indians went from one of the worst of the major league ballparks to one of the best (Jacobs Field).

[Trebuchet]

....If they'd just get rid of those aluminum bats and the DH.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/707/baseballglovesmilie3tc.gif
My local MLB team, the Seattle Mariners, have effectively gotten rid of the DH by employing Carl Everett in the role, batting .114 the last time I checked! And they have a pitcher who pretty much speaks only Spanish throwing to a catcher who speaks only Japanese. Must be interesting.

Edit: I take it all back. Carl Everett just hit a 3-run, walk-off homer in the bottom of the ninth.

[blueshift]

I'm a White Sox fan and we have really mellowed from last fall and am enjoying it. It seems as many teams in the Central Division of the AL improved over last year and the American League overall looks stronger.

I am hoping for a real hair-pulling season like last year's was and we feel that our team has improved a great deal over last year's team. The pitching is now stronger than it was last year but will have to be since all the other contenders improved as well.

I played hard ball quite a lot and was fortunate to play against very many minor and major league players in my amateur career. They are all quite talented and it takes a great deal of skill to play the game, a skill that is quite illusive to many but can slowly be learned.

While I feel that drugs has played a role in the later innings of a game when an athlete normally tires, it does not, IMHO, create all the home runs that you see being hit.
The invention of camcorders and the creation of many baseball academies with professional input has boosted the chances of developing skills for hitting beyond anything that past generations could enjoy. Hitting can be practiced at indoor academies and it is big business nowadays. Off-season work is where all the changes take place and mechanics, not drugs, has changed the amount of home runs you are witnessing. Plyometrics has replaced bench pressing as the greatest way to achieve power.

The players in the majors feel the pressure to a larger extent than past generations because the gap between major and minor league baseball is shrinking. This could encourage many major leaguers to indulge in dope, feeling a need to intimidate the younger generation with their new massive sizes. Some younger ones then respond by getting on the dope themselves..

Pitching is harder to develope in the off-season since you need a partner to play catch with. Many amateur catchers make a living catching major league pitchers in the off-season and charge as high as $50 per 1/2 hour..peanuts to a millionaire. Yet their mounds are mostly artificial since indoors is where most workouts occur in northern cities.

What prompted the big jump in salaries had a lot to do with Mike Marshall, a former Minnesota Twins pitcher who went to court and sued to try and get the right to use the local high school gymnasiums and weight rooms that were mostly idle during off school hours in the 1970s. After all, his taxes paid for the school and he felt he should have the right to use it. He lost and invested a large sum to buy his own work out facility. Other players followed suit and were buying up entire baseball fields in the south and former warehouses in the north to train in. Money kept chasing money in one battle after the other(strikes and lockouts) and now, behind each player, is an entire business of agents and equipment that owners cannot hold as ransom from the players..

Sorry to drag this out but it was my two cents worth.

[pumpkinpie]

I think baseball is still my favorite spectator sport. It's a game you almost have to grow up watching to fully understand. Try explaining the rules to someone who's never seen it! Very complex, physically challenging (though perhaps less athletic than many other sports), and a century of tradition and lore -- it's a thinking man's game.



Ditto. Well, for me it's a thinking woman's game. ;)

I love the chance to take someone unfamilar with the game to the ballpark and explain all the nuances. I've been able to do that with friends from Turkey, Italy and Portugal, as well as my college roommate from Podunk, MI. :D

[JohnW]

Has anyone else noticed that, during TV coverage of night games, there are always no stars in the sky? The conclusion is obvious. Baseball is a hoax.

[JohnW]

Ditto. Well, for me it's a thinking woman's game. ;)

I love the chance to take someone unfamilar with the game to the ballpark and explain all the nuances. I've been able to do that with friends from Turkey, Italy and Portugal, as well as my college roommate from Podunk, MI. :D
I once took my wife (from Syracuse, NY) to Lord's to see Middlesex v. Yorkshire. She forgave me. Eventually.

[antoniseb]

Has anyone else noticed that, during TV coverage of night games, there are always no stars in the sky? The conclusion is obvious. Baseball is a hoax.

I've also noticed that flags wave, and there are many non-parallel shadows, now that you mention it.

[Hydro]

I am a huge Astros fan, and have been for almost 40 years. Please tell me there are more Astro fans in this forum!

[antoniseb]

Please tell me there are more Astro fans in this forum!
They are my NL favorite, but I'm not a big fan. I'd like to see them win. I'd like to see them re-sign Roger Clemens.

[Donnie B.]

My family spent a year in Houston during my youth and we saw a number of games in the Astrodome (when it was relatively new). The team was pretty lousy in those days, though, so I didn't become a fan. I'm more of an American League guy anyway, since I grew up near Cleveland and now hail from the Boston area.

[Maksutov]

Ah poetic justice!

The Boston Red Sox beat the Damn Yankees 7 to 3 this evening in their first meeting of the season, played at chilly, windy Fenway Park.

The reception for Johnny "Money Bags" Damon was initially quite chilly too, with about 30 seconds of boos. The best jersey in the stands was worn by a gal who had taped over the name "DAMON" on its back and replaced it with "TRAITOR". The best sign had a large color photo of the former Bosox "caveman" next to the words "YANKEE GO HOME!" Some Boston fans provided a shower of green paper (mostly fake money, but including a few real bills) on the warning track for Damon when he first journeyed to the outfield in his enemy uniform.

Doug Mirabelli returned to the team barely in time, taking 14 minutes to get from Logan to Fenway just before the start of the contest. He had an outstanding game behind the plate, preventing balls in the dirt from becoming wild pitches or passed balls. Big Poppi put the game away with a three-run HR in the bottom of the eighth that went over Damon's head into the Boston bullpen, where it was caught by Jonathan Papelbon, who came on in the top of the ninth and set the Bronx Bombs down 1-2-3, with two strikeouts, including a final out strikeout of Posada.

The 52 million-dollar man went 0 for 4. Poetic justice.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/a040.gif

[antoniseb]

It was a very nice game to watch. Lots of tension right up to the end, as the score was tied going into the bottom of the eighth. I wish Wakefield could have picked up a victory.

[Taks]

now that both curses are over, the cardinals are free to dominate baseball as god (uh, figure of speech) intended. both the cy young winner, chris carpenter, and NL MVP, albert pujols, are setting the trend for repeat performances and if they can actually manage to beat cincy today (tied right now), the team will hold on to a tie for first in the NL central.

all hail the hypnotoad! hmm, i need one of those nifty emoticons for this...

taks

PS: by both curses i mean white sox and red sox. st. louis was gracious enough last year to let houston be the sucker punched team...

[Maksutov]

[edit]all hail the hypnotoad! hmm, i need one of those nifty emoticons for this...You mean something like this?

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3346/hypnotoad11dm.gif

Only thing is there's no sound or animation, but you can supply those by crossing your eyes and making a loud, low humming noise.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/verschiedene/f040.gif

[Donnie B.]

PS: by both curses i mean white sox and red sox. But, but, but... what about the Cubbies? :D

[Swift]

But, but, but... what about the Cubbies? :D
Or the Injuns? :dance:

[sts60]

I am a huge Astros fan, and have been for almost 40 years. Please tell me there are more Astro fans in this forum!

From the 25-cent fortune telling machine issues a little slip of paper:
Your Wish is Granted.

I've lived in Colorado and Maryland for the past seven years or so, and have been to a total of 1 Rockies game in that time. Never bonded with them, nor yet with the Nationals (although I plan to go to some games). Even my hereditary Orioles allegiance has faded. But I liked the Astros before I ever had an inkling I'd spend a big chunk of my life in Houston.

I was too late to see the 1980 run, but was there when the cigarette smoke in the Dome made thick stratus layers by the seventh inning - what a difference after smoking was banned! and I was there for Nolan Ryan's fifth no-hitter. I watched the "Lastros" and "Disastros" teams of the late '80s. I watched "Cheo" with his distinctive leg-lifted swing. I absorbed the sadder stories - Dickie Thon's career cut short by a fastball to the head, J.R. Richards' by a stroke (I saw him pitch in Tucson in his comeback attempt), the smiling Ken Caminiti's wretched end. I camped out overnight in the Astrodome parking lot for playoff tickets in 1986, and I can tell you that Nolan Ryan really did throw strike three, but the umpire gave the call and ultimately the game to the Mets*.

Since leaving town, I've remained a loyal 'Stros fan, and needless to say their success over the past few years, capped by last year's wild ride to the World Series, has been delightful.

Yes, MLB is full of greed and drugs and drones like Bud Selig and unmentionables like Steinbrenner (who, "at a minimum, deserves the death penalty" - Dave Barry), and I'll never forget the player's rep in 1994 who, when prompted by a reporter, guessed the median U.S. household income to be $100,000, but the flame has never quite gone out.

And then, of course, there's minor-league and college baseball. A July 4th Toros game back in Tucson is permanently solidified in my neural patterns, not for the game but just for the perfectness of it all. And college baseball ("less bling, more ping"), metal bats or not, is my favorite. It doesn't hurt that my alma mater has been one of the dominant teams since the arrival of God, I mean Wayne Graham. A day at a college game is good for what ails ya, and is easy on the pocketbook to boot.

*The late, great Mike Royko once wrote a review of Keith Hernandez's ghostwritten account of that season:

" I will begin my review by saying that this is a very solid book. The moment I opened the package and saw what it was about, I threw it against my office wall as hard as I could. Then I slammed it to the floor and jumped up and down on it. I beat on it with a chair for several minutes until I slumped onto my couch, emotionally and physically spent.
Although slightly scuffed, the book was still intact....

" It is also a book that can cause excitement. I dropped it on the desk of a friend who has had weekend season tickets at Wrigley Field for the past 10 years. It immediately stirred him to emotional heights. He shouted: 'Why are you showing me that piece of [deleted]? I say [deleted] Hernandez and [deleted] the Mets and [deleted] the whole [deleted] City of New York. And [deleted] you too.'...

" The fact is, I have found this to be a useful book. I have been tearing out the pages and crumbling them into little wads. When I have about 30 or 40 of these wads, I put them in my fireplace under the kindling and light them. They're excellent for getting a fire started.
Then I pour myself a drink, lower the lights, sit back and stare at the crackling flame.
And I pretend that I'm looking at Shea Stadium."

[A.DIM]

They only way I can tolerate baseball is if I'm playing softball; otherwise, as a spectator sport, IMHO, it is also the "great american wastetime."

[Taks]

But, but, but... what about the Cubbies? :Dthat's not a curse. that's just the way things are and always have been. :)

taks

[Taks]

You mean something like this?

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3346/hypnotoad11dm.gifhow did i know it would be mak to hook me up. LOL! :)

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/verschiedene/f040.gifyes, worship the hypnotoad.

of course, the dumb basses lost to cincy AGAIN. arrrgh. oh well.

taks

[sts60]

the dumb basses lost to cincy AGAIN.

Oh, quit your carping.

[antoniseb]

what about the Cubbies?

The Cubs (formerly the White Stockings) had an amazing run of great seasons with Cap Anson. Later with Three-Finger Brown pitching they had more good years. Who can forget Tinker to Evers to Chance?

I'm not sure that the Cubs have earned back all the good luck they used up during that stretch.

[Jim]

The Cubs (formerly the White Stockings)...

Huh?

... Who can forget Tinker to Evers to Chance?

These are the saddest of possible words:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."
Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,
Tinker and Evers and Chance.
Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double-
Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Baseball's Sad Lexicon
by Franklin Pierce Adams

[SeanF]

Huh?
The Cubs were originally the White Stockings.

They changed their name to the Colts in 1890, then to the Orphans in 1898, and finally to the Cubs in 1902.

In 1901, when the American League started up, there was a new Chicago White Stockings team. They changed their name to the White Sox in 1904.

[Jim]

Sheesh! Some people are such wells of arcane and useless information.

(Yeah, yeah, I know... Pot, Kettle; Kettle, Pot.)

[SeanF]

Sheesh! Some people are such wells of arcane and useless information.

(Yeah, yeah, I know... Pot, Kettle; Kettle, Pot.)
www.baseball-almanac.com

:D

[Maksutov]

www.baseball-almanac.com (http://www.baseball-almanac.com)

:DOh baloney and moose feathers! We all know you used to host this segment (http://bullwinkle.toonzone.net/episodes-know.htm) of a popular TV show!

"Hey Rock! Watch me pull a stat out of my hat!"

"Barry Bonds' failed drug tests?"

"Whoops! Wrong hat!"

[Donnie B.]

Papelbon update: He now has 12 saves in 12 opportunities. His ERA is 0.50.

However, he does have a loss. He gave up a winning run after entering a tie game (so it wasn't a blown save opportunity).

One little blemish... but a very impressive start as a closer.

[Maksutov]

That was one of the ugliest World Series on record. I've seen Little League games played with fewer bone-headed errors. Those guys get paid how much?

Nevertheless, congrats to the St. Louis Cardinals.

[Chuck]

Well, it's been over for about an hour and I no longer remember who played. It's time to root for the football home team. Unfortunately, my home team is those other Cardinals.

[Maksutov]

Well, it's been over for about an hour and I no longer remember who played. It's time to root for the football home team. Unfortunately, my home team is those other Cardinals.You have my deepest sympathy, rooting for a team that has defined "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

Then there are the Coyotes.

[crosscountry]

Congrats Cards. Gotta love the hometeam (about the only thing I actually like about St. Louis)

actually Houston is my first pick, but Cards will always work too!

[pumpkinpie]

What a miserable series....yes, the Detroit Tigers are my team. I have waited so long to see them succeed. I never expected them to make the playoffs....then the ALCS....then the World Series. So naturally I was excited when they accomplished each of those! But then to watch them play so miserably in the last series was so disheartening. They beat themselves.

Of course, a couple months from now, I'll look back on this year very fondly. In the end, it's much better to have made the World Series and lost, than never to have made it at all! I'd take a season like this over the previous....counting how many awful years I've experienced....17 seasons, any year!

[eugenek]

I've been a fan of the Tigers since the late 70's so I was blessed with 1984. The late 70's, I think, prepared me for the 1990's as the Tigers were perpetually in 4th or 5th place back then.

However, after the Tigers took the Yankees out of the post season this year, I told my wife that was almost as good as winning the world series. I'm still very happy with how the Tigers did.

[ToSeek]

The Tigers are a young team - they'll be back next year.

[Peter Wilson]

I hate to see teams "rust" out of the playoffs. Oakland won division series 3-0, then had to sit around and rust. Detroit, still hot and rearing-to-go from clawing their way to 3-2 division win, knocked off Oakland 4-0 in ALCS, then went into rust-mode. Cardinals, still hot and rearing-to-go from clawing their way to 4-3 NLCS win, knocked off rusty Detroit 4-1.

Solution? Sudden death format: whoever wins a series immediately faces whoever is ahead in other playoff (one game if they are tied).

Problem? Lost ticket sales.

[Swift]

I hate to see teams "rust" out of the playoffs. Oakland won division series 3-0, then had to sit around and rust. Detroit, still hot and rearing-to-go from clawing their way to 3-2 division win, knocked off Oakland 4-0 in ALCS, then went into rust-mode. Cardinals, still hot and rearing-to-go from clawing their way to 4-3 NLCS win, knocked off rusty Detroit 4-1.

Solution? Sudden death format: whoever wins a series immediately faces whoever is ahead in other playoff (one game if they are tied).

Problem? Lost ticket sales.
Since a lot of the scheduling revolves around TV, particularly so that just about every game is in prime time, that means the TV gods get to decide who has a short series. I can't say I like that idea. I'm not sure your "rust" theory holds for other years too.

[Chuck]

Another way to handle it would be to always play every game of a series. To make every game mean something, instead of playing most wins out of five or most wins out of seven, the team that wins the final game would win the series. The other games would earn bonus runs for the final game.

For example, at the beginning of the final game each team could start with one run for each previous win and an additional run for each five scored in previous games, rounded off to the nearest whole number. A team that won the first four of five by five runs each would start the final game with an eight run lead, but that would be an extreme case and still wouldn't be unbeatable. In most cases the bonus would be less and the last game would still be interesting.

There could be bonuses for other achievements, such as a one run bonus for the team with the most home runs so far. Then a team that's behind in a game could have its batters all swing away without regard for strategy. That would be fun to watch.

Care would have to be taken to prevent the system of bonuses from getting too silly. Scoring runs should remain the main focus.

The advantages would be players not getting rusty, maximum ticket sales, and easier television scheduling.

[SeanF]

I hate to see teams "rust" out of the playoffs. Oakland won division series 3-0, then had to sit around and rust. Detroit, still hot and rearing-to-go from clawing their way to 3-2 division win, knocked off Oakland 4-0 in ALCS, then went into rust-mode. Cardinals, still hot and rearing-to-go from clawing their way to 4-3 NLCS win, knocked off rusty Detroit 4-1.
Statistically speaking, though, teams that get a nice long break before going on to the next round win more often than not.

[Jim]

Why not make it a round-robin playoff to start? You have four teams in each league; they play each opponent twice - home-and-home. After the round-robin, the top team in each league goes to the world series for a seven game set. Round-robins would require tie-breakers... head-to-head, run differential, runners in scoring position who score, team mascots fist fight... but every game would count and both leagues would finish on the same day or within one.

[eugenek]

Another way to handle it would be to always play every game of a series. To make every game mean something, instead of playing most wins out of five or most wins out of seven, the team that wins the final game would win the series. The other games would earn bonus runs for the final game....

Oh, gosh, I don't know what word could be used here. Words like BLASPEMY, HERESY, UN-AMERICAN, COMMIE, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY come to mind. :)

Of course, the Tigers were beneficiaries of the stench called 'wildcard' so maybe I'm being hypocritical since it was okay this year...

Wins are the most important stat in baseball. It doesn't matter that one team comes by them by scoring lots of runs while another team comes by them with incredible pitching. Anything that devalues a win is going in the wrong direction in my opinion. What's the difference between a 17-2 win over a 1-0 win? In my eyes, other than one of the games was boring, nothing.

I can't say that I like the idea of a team being put in a position where losing game 5 of a five game series ends their post season appearance despite winning the first four games. In a five game post season series the team which won 80% of the games shouldn't be going home for the season because they lost the last game even if they got all sorts of bonuses to start game 5. In MLB any team might defeat any other team on any given day. Even the best team in baseball can look like the Bad News Bears from time to time.

There could be bonuses for other achievements, such as a one run bonus for the team with the most home runs so far.

Why should a homerun count more than two triples? Assuming the homerun is a solo they both score 1 run. I'm thinking the 2 triples probably outscore the solo homerun more often than not by the time the inning ends. Though the sample size for two triples in an inning is probably pretty small...

Then a team that's behind in a game could have its batters all swing away without regard for strategy. That would be fun to watch.

What does this mean? I can only think it means no outs? Why should the team behind get this while the team which is currently winning the game not? If it doesn't have anything to do with outs then going on the offense without a strategy is probably a bad move since strategy is an effort to score runs. The batter doesn't come to the plate for any other reason than to attempt to assist his/her team to score runs. I find strategy to be a very interesting aspect of the game. The currency is usually 27 outs and the offense and defense make decisions on how they are going to be spent.

I think this sort of thing would actually cause injury to the game. Why not just require the team which is ahead to field only two outfielders and only one middle infielder?

Care would have to be taken to prevent the system of bonuses from getting too silly. Scoring runs should remain the main focus.

I think the main focus needs to remain on winning games. I think any system of bonuses would be silly. However, perhaps if you were to advocate a system where a pitcher throwing error counted for something good for the defense then maybe I'd be more receptive.

I don't know that rust is even an issue. I thought I head one of the TV commentators state that teams with long waits tended to win the series. I guess I need to look into that because I'm kind of interested myself.

[eugenek]

Why not make it a round-robin playoff to start? You have four teams in each league; they play each opponent twice - home-and-home. After the round-robin, the top team in each league goes to the world series for a seven game set. Round-robins would require tie-breakers... head-to-head, run differential, runners in scoring position who score, team mascots fist fight... but every game would count and both leagues would finish on the same day or within one.

I think I kinda like this. If I'm reading this correctly, the league round robin is six games per team. The team with the most wins goes to the world series. In the event of a tie in the number of wins it is resolved in a mascot death match on sunday sunDAY SUNDAY. I'd probably prefer four games against each team for a total of 12 games which is what the current potential game load is for the league championship. Followed by a no-rules mascot cage match for tie breaking, of course.

[crosscountry]

Statistically speaking, though, teams that get a nice long break before going on to the next round win more often than not.


I remember the Colts last year:boohoo:


All this talk about changing the MLB is frivolous... Just so we all know.

[Swift]

Oh, gosh, I don't know what word could be used here. Words like BLASPEMY, HERESY, UN-AMERICAN, COMMIE, a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY come to mind. :)

Yeah, baseball is built on traditions and I don't like mucky with them. I'm just about used to wildcards and the DH (I like the first, I have mixed feelings about the second). I'm actually fine with the playoff structure in MLB.

Now the NBA needs a fix for the playoffs, half the teams make the playoffs and it takes almost three months to get through all of them.

[eugenek]

I remember the Colts last year:boohoo:


All this talk about changing the MLB is frivolous... Just so we all know.

Yup. I'm suspecting that asking my wife for a starship for the past three Christmas mornings is frivolous but I have to do it regardless. She just might listen to me one year. Same thing with baseball I guess. However, I don't really have a problem with the current system MLB uses. I've slowly been won over to the dark side, er, wild card. Not because the Tigers got in this year via the wild card either. I kind of like the second race the wildcard creates and the Tigers really weren't in that race until the last day and by then it was a lock for either the Twins or Tigers.

[Gruesome]

I remember back to '84 when the Tigers were kicking all buttocks. Some reporter asked Sparky Anderson regarding his thoughts about the World Series. He said he'd like to see it at a neutral site (like the SuperBowl) and a best of 9 series, played on nine consecutive days. This way, he said, the depth of both benches is tested, like during the regular season.

I've always thought it a good idea, especially since the Series is being pushed later and later into October. One of these days they're gonna have to call a game due to snow.

[Jim]

There was a column in the paper about the weather problems in the Series. It noted that both Detroit and St. Louis play baseball in open air stadiums, but play football under a roof.

The columnist went on to say that no Series should be played in a stadium w/o a retractable roof or consistently good weather, and suggested using a neutral site that had that.

[Swift]

There was a column in the paper about the weather problems in the Series. It noted that both Detroit and St. Louis play baseball in open air stadiums, but play football under a roof.

The columnist went on to say that no Series should be played in a stadium w/o a retractable roof or consistently good weather, and suggested using a neutral site that had that.
I personally hate the idea and I really hate that the Superbowl is only played in domed stadium or warm-weather sites. What a bunch of softies - football is meant to be played in bad weather. God forbid the stupid half time concert gets snowed out! It also means that half the NFL cities (including Cleveland) will never get a Superbowl.

I loved the Indians playoff games in the 90s in all kinds of cold weather. Real Indians fan have more logo-wear coats and hats and earmuffs than other sports teams have t-shirts!

[Peter Wilson]

Statistically speaking, though, teams that get a nice long break before going on to the next round win more often than not.Is that a fact?

[eugenek]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/

Looking at only the world series between 2005 and 1969 and arbitrarily deciding that if one league champion team played two fewer games in the LCS than the other league champion then that team had a long rest period.

I count 10 instances of the above. Of those ten, teams with the extended rest won the world series six times.

Doing the same sort of look at the LCS as compared to the number of games played in the LDS between 2005 and 1995 I found six cases. The team with the short LDS won three of those LCSs.

With this very small sample size I don't see a rust problem. Maybe by doing something more exhaustive such as looking at the actual rest period and going farther back in history might show something but to me it appears that if rust is a problem it isn't a very major one. I'm not sure that this even supports a rested team having an advantage.

[Swift]

Nice work eugenek. You win the baseball geek award (you must have been well rested) ;) .

[Bob]

So now the World Series has been played out in the two most dangerous cities in the United States. There is a message there. I'll get back to you when I figure out what it is.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/30/real_estate/Most_dangerous_cities/index.htm?section=money_latest

[pumpkinpie]

Dangit, St Louis beat Detroit again!!!:p

[crosscountry]

I'm not going back to St. Louis!

[Maksutov]

I personally hate the idea and I really hate that the Superbowl is only played in domed stadium or warm-weather sites. What a bunch of softies - football is meant to be played in bad weather. God forbid the stupid half time concert gets snowed out! It also means that half the NFL cities (including Cleveland) will never get a Superbowl.

I loved the Indians playoff games in the 90s in all kinds of cold weather. Real Indians fan have more logo-wear coats and hats and earmuffs than other sports teams have t-shirts!I'm with you on that, man!

I relished those cold, snowy days in Foxboro, parking in the sand next to Route 1, walking a mile to stand in line, sitting on those dang benches/bleachers (no individual seats in the old stadium except of course for the well-to-do) where you muscled your way to a comfortable sitting zone, and yelled and screamed at Shula and his frozen fish. And when Grogan was knocked out of the game and all was lost, it was just a short jaunt up to the top where you would be entertained watching the fights in one of the few nearby parking lots.

Football starts with the center, something the team logo acknowledged in those days.

Now it's a little too plush, but at least the field is still sandy. http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

[eugenek]

There was a column in the paper about the weather problems in the Series. It noted that both Detroit and St. Louis play baseball in open air stadiums, but play football under a roof.

The columnist went on to say that no Series should be played in a stadium w/o a retractable roof or consistently good weather, and suggested using a neutral site that had that.

I don't think that would be a good move. For football I can see where it might be okay because it is only a single game. Fans can make plans to attend that single game and be reasonably sure the game is going to be played. Has a post season football game ever been postponed?

However, in a seven or nine game series there's no guarantee of a game being played beyond the minimum. It would be kind of hard to make plans for a game 7. A person might need a hotel and airline ticket to get to the neutral site. Not cheap and at the last minute more expansive and not easy. Despite having consistently good weather what happens if it does rain? There are the people from the postponed game and there are the people arriving in town for the next game which has been pushed back because the rained out game is now in its place.

I don't like the neutral site idea because to me there is something about the game being played "here" that I like. I've never been to a post season game but back in 1984 I liked the idea that it was only 30 miles away from me. I could go to Tiger Stadium if I wanted to. Something about my team going off and playing at a neutral site also seems like they are leaving me behind.

[farmerjumperdon]

So now the World Series has been played out in the two most dangerous cities in the United States. There is a message there. I'll get back to you when I figure out what it is.

Clearly the message is that domed stadiums = safer cities.

[farmerjumperdon]

Revealing my status as a sentimental semi-oldster when it comes to sports, but the answer isn't domed stadiums (at least not my answer). The answer is that they should not have extended the baseball season into the beginning of winter.

But since the sport has become more about the business than about the game, sentiment and $4 doesn't buy anything but a hot dog any more.

As far as nuetral sites, where did that even come from? I suppose because the NFL championship is only one game, it could not be on one of the teams home turf. So what will they do if it happens to play out that way? Move the game? PISHAW!

And the requirement to be in sunny climes or have a roof just reflects the tourist attraction that post season play has become. It's no longer about the loyal fans, it's about bringing Vegas to town for a day (or a couple weeks the way it is done now).

I love the games, I hate what pro sports has become.

Rant over.

[crosscountry]

But since the sport has become more about the business than about the game, sentiment and $4 doesn't buy anything but a hot dog any more.


Not at a Cardinals game it wont!

[Donnie B.]

I don't believe that any Super Bowl (so far) has been played in the home stadium of one of the participating teams. If such were to happen, however, the game wouldn't be moved.

In most cases, the people who attend Super Bowls are not those who follow the teams through the season (though there is an allotment of tickets available to the season ticket holders of each team). The Super Bowl is an "event" more than the last game of each team's season. Many tickets are held by corporations, sponsors, and VIPs. Many are sold to the general public in "packages" that include air travel, accommodations, and admission at outrageous prices -- and the majority of these are sold long before anyone knows which teams will be playing in the game. Some of the corporate/sponsor tickets are given away in contests, or handed out to the VIPs of major customers/clients.

So your typical moderate-income fans of the participating teams make up only a small part of the crowd at a Super Bowl, and that number wouldn't be any higher if the game happened to include a local team. The only real difference is that the local hotels and restaurants would suffer somewhat as the local fans wouldn't need to make use of them.

[farmerjumperdon]

Nice work eugenek. You win the baseball geek award (you must have been well rested) ;) .

You should see the little project I've been doing in my spare time. Determining the Greatest Baseball Players Ever. As a fan, it is the game I like best, and the marriage of stats and baseball is undeniable.

Using raw numbers from several key categories, and weighting the categories by importance has landed The Bambino on top. My top ten so far is:

1 The Bambino
2 Ted Williams
3 Lou Gehrig
4 Ty Cobb
5 Jimmie Foxx
6 Stan Musial
7 Tris Speaker
8 Roger Hornsby
9 Barry Bonds
10 Cap Anson

I'm pretty confident in my top 150, but expect minor shuffling after the next steps. I've got 380 on the list, which in ten point font makes my spreadsheet about 6' long and 3' wide.

To further refine the ratings, I'm going to factor in, by category, the performance of each player as a ratio to the categories very top performers (placing less emphasis on the rank and more on the differences in actual performance).

After that is all done, I'm going to do pitchers. I disagree strongly with any attempts to put them on the same list as all the other positions when it comes to ranking baseball's all-time greatest.

And yes, this is all very personal. Though I'm attempting to make it highly objective, it is the World According to Don.

[farmerjumperdon]

So your typical moderate-income fans of the participating teams make up only a small part of the crowd at a Super Bowl, and that number wouldn't be any higher if the game happened to include a local team. The only real difference is that the local hotels and restaurants would suffer somewhat as the local fans wouldn't need to make use of them.

Exactly my point, the post season has become a carnival that is more about barkers and spectacles than the game. And the moderate income fan is being shut out, with the hotel and restaurant income, radio station contests, and celebrity appearances being much more important considerations.

[Swift]

1 The Bambino
2 Ted Williams
3 Lou Gehrig
4 Ty Cobb
5 Jimmie Foxx
6 Stan Musial
7 Tris Speaker
8 Roger Hornsby
9 Barry Bonds
10 Cap Anson

Don't know what your equation is, but looks like a good list.

[farmerjumperdon]

Don't know what your equation is, but looks like a good list.

When I'm done I'll share my formulas; and solicit for critique from the stats gurus.

The most amazing stat to me so far is the on-base percentage for Ted Williams, .482! It's just amazing to think that he got on base nearly half the times he visitied the plate. Though Ruth was not far behind at #2 with .474 (IIRC).

[crosscountry]

Hank Aaron?

[Bob]

No pitchers. No Joe Dimaggio. No Pete Rose. And if the list doesn't have Willie Mays, your equation's coefficients need major adjustment. But the list is a good starting point, like all such lists are.

[farmerjumperdon]

Aaron #17
Dimaggio #22
Mays #27
Rose #66

Come on folks, everybody's favorites can't be in the top 10! (I love these debates BTW). Heck, with the 10's of thousands of pro players over the years, cracking the top couple hundred is an amazing feat.

The first 3 could easily move up a bit as I adjust from raw numbers to performance as a percent of the leaders. I doubt Rose will move up though. His place in the rankings is too much a matter of longetivity versus efficiency. He is in the top 100 in only 3 of 9 categories; RBI's, runs, and hits. No power, no speed, no efficiency. He lacked the power and/or efficiency to get to the rarefied part of the list. He is nowhere to be seen when it comes to accomplishments as a percent of at-bats.

If I were to add a factor to each category that reduces the ranking based on lack of efficiency, he would almost certainly fall out of the top 100. And I exxagerate by saying "No . . . ". I just mean relatively, compared to the leaders in those categories.

Best pitcher. That's easy. No in-depth analysis needed. Sandy Koufax. If you had to pick one pitcher to pitch one game for all the marbles - he'd be it.

I do expect him to be near the top when I do pitchers, and not just because he's my personal favorite. With only 11 years (only 6 of which were really good years) of playing time, he still made it into the rare air at the top of many categories. Of course his style of pitching is also what cost him half his career. That's the way the elbow crumbles.

An opposing coach commented on Sandy's 25-5 season by saying he was not amazed by the 25 wins, but he was amazed at the 5 losses. Another Koufax tidbit is that he was very poor at hiding his pitches. Most experienced hitters knew what was coming before it was delivered. I think it was Willie Mays who said it didn't matter, he was still the toughest by far that he ever faced.

[antoniseb]

1 The Bambino
2 Ted Williams
...the World According to Don.

I'm curious to know a few things about your criteria. Would it be different if you only looked at the best five consecutive years of their career? Do you take into account live ball vs. dead ball eras, park sizes, and things that changed slowly over history?

[farmerjumperdon]

I'm curious to know a few things about your criteria. Would it be different if you only looked at the best five consecutive years of their career? Do you take into account live ball vs. dead ball eras, park sizes, and things that changed slowly over history?

I'd like to consider all factors, and that would be quite the feat; but it wouldn't necessarily increase the validity of the end result. At some point you'd have to establish the weight of each factor. To do that right would probably require analyzing all the box scores ever recorded. The task would be something. For example, you'd have to know the location (ballpark) of every home run. Yikes!

I thought about the changes to the game, and they probably are a factor. Evidence for that might be the lesser representation (at a glance) of players from a certain era. I noticed that the last few years before they lowered the mound, hitters appeared to have suffered a bit.

Then there is team chemistry. How do you rate for what a person contributes to the "jelling" of a team?

It would definitely change if I took just each players best consecutive years. Koufax is a great example. His years from 61 to 66 are probably the best 5 years of any pitcher ever.

Seems we have at least a few fans of baseball stats, or baseball nostalgia, or both. I do really enjoy the topics myself. Makes me yearn for a pilgrimage to Wrigley.

I'm going to take the next few steps, then maybe start a thread when I have some meaningful results.

BTW, what I have so far is the rankings of the top 100 players in each of 9 offensive categories, with the categories weighted by how significantly they contribute to winning games (a slightly opinionated topic, heh?), with points assigned in inverse order to the rank on the list. I feel I need to change the points assignment to a ratio of the leaders performance to get more accurate because some categories have quite a spread, others are pretty tight. I've also been playing with the weightings to see how biased my results might be if I were over-weighting batting average or stolen bases or whatever.

A little nugget: The only players to show in the top 100 in 8 of 9 categories are Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Foxx, and Bonds. Ruth and Williams are also the only 2 to show 7 times in the top 10. THAT'S impressive.

This I could do all day. Maybe time for a career change.

[Peter Wilson]

Looking at only the world series between 2005 and 1969...I don't see a rust problem.
Ok, thanks.

If it ain't broke... ;)

[pumpkinpie]

Revealing my status as a sentimental semi-oldster when it comes to sports, but the answer isn't domed stadiums (at least not my answer). The answer is that they should not have extended the baseball season into the beginning of winter.

Wha?? Baseball isn't over until December? I've already missed almost a week's worth of games! How are the Tigers doing? ;)

[Big Brother Dunk]

farmerjumperdon, congrats on taking on a massive project like this one. I'd imagine you've read a lot of materiall by Bill James, Pete Palmer and others. I'm curious to see your formula, especially when your 10 ten includes Bonds, but not Aaron and Mays.

Nonetheless, a terrific effort. I'd like to see your list of the top current players as well.

Here's an list of on person's picks as the top players from 1952 to 2005. You'll likely find it interesting: Top Players From 1952 - 2005 (http://www.lehigh.edu/~dmd1/baseball.html)

By the way, when your list is all done, will Bonds' name have an asterisk?;)

[crosscountry]

I'd like to consider all factors, and that would be quite the feat;


I may have missed it, but do you take into account number of games played? Since seasons are getting longer it's hard to compare number of homeruns now to 50 years ago.

[Jim]

If it ain't broke... ;)

This is, of course, excellent advice. However, there is no field of human endeavour where - no matter how well things are going - someone, sometime doesn't say the fateful words, "Y'know, if we just tweak it a lee-e-eettle bit..."

[farmerjumperdon]

I think the approach taken has to start with some fundamental ideas about what makes a player great. My primary one was the ability to contribute to the winning of games. From there comes the assumption that the most important thing to winning games is scoring runs. (Pitchers not included, I'm going to do them separately). Then on to determining what categories contribute to scoring runs. To get to what I call efficiency I've included rankings for HR as a % of at bats and RBI as a % of at bats, in addition to the usual categories of batting average and on-base %. So players get points based on their raw ranking, and can get extra points if they did it with a high level of efficiency. This would compensate for someone that maybe hit a lot of homeruns, but also struck out and grounded into double plays a lot.

So I guess the question I'm trying to answer is: If I had to pick a group of hitters to play one game, or a short series of games, based on their career stats; who would they be?

Specifically, Bonds only weak point is his batting average. But that might be misleading because even though it is not in the top 100 (the only category in which he isn't there), his average is a very healthy percent of the top performers. So when I change to assigning points by performance related to the top performer instead of ranking related to the top performer, he will almost certainly move up. He'll get some points where he currently gets none.

Aaron suffers from lower efficiency than many of those above him. For example, in the HR category, he is #1. But in HR as a % of at bats, he is #33, with HR's in 6.11% of his at bats. The leader in that category is McGuire with HR's in 9.42% of at bats. He's not on the SB list at all; a relatively minor category, but worth points nonetheless since it does contribute to runs.

Mays is the same. No points for average, OB%, SB, or RBI%.

I don't think I'm shorting the long ball hitters, and they are very well represented near the top. The instant offense of a HR is represented in 8 categories, but some players start to slide if they also made a lot more outs than others. This would definitely hurt players who stuck around for too long after they quit producing. That makes comparing based on 5 best consecutive years very appealing.

One other thing - I have not included defense at all yet. In reviewing the defensive stats what really jumps out is that there is very little spread in performance amongst the top players. It is definitely the category with the smallest differential, to the point of insignificance most of the time.

I like that site. Looks like we started down very similar paths. I think my revised way of ranking the performance will give some added validity though. I know that taking percentages of percentages has it's pitfalls (can't remember the lecture on the reasons why, just remember the idea) so we'll see how it goes.

And as someone pointed out, all lists are just a starting point for the interesting debates. I'm just trying to improve the starting point. Stats aren't everything, but they are fun; or as they say . . .

"That's why we play the games."

[Jim]

I think you're concentrating too much on offense. What about their defensive skills? Baseball is all about scoring more runs than your opponent, but a 1-0 win counts as much as a 13-12 win.

Also, while contributing to a winning team is nice (and that's how the MVPs seem to be chosen), don't overlook the stellar player on a mediocre team.

[SeanF]

I think you're concentrating too much on offense. What about their defensive skills? Baseball is all about scoring more runs than your opponent, but a 1-0 win counts as much as a 13-12 win.
No, your last statement is wrong - which only serves to make your first statement more important.

Baseball is not "all about scoring more runs than your opponent," it's all about preventing your opponent from scoring as many runs as you. In a defensive game like baseball, the defensive stats should be more important than offensive.

IMHO. :)

[eugenek]

I think the approach taken has to start with some fundamental ideas about what makes a player great. My primary one was the ability to contribute to the winning of games....

To get to what I call efficiency I've included rankings for HR as a % of at bats and RBI as a % of at bats

I don't believe RBI to be a very indicative statistic of a player's value. The number of RBI a batter is credited with is heavily dependent on whether there are runners in scoring position for the batter to hit in. For example, during the leadoff batter's first at bat of the game he has absolutely no opportunity to get credited with an RBI. However, the number four batter has many more opportunities on his first at bat of the game when compared to the lead off batter. Now, if you were able to calculate the percentage of runners scored who were in scoring position that might be a better indicator of player value. You might be interested in some of the stuff over at www.retrosheet.org. It has quite a few game files which include every at bat of a game but I think they only go back as far as the 1950's or so.

Have you looked at any of Bill James research? If not you might be interested in some of his stuff.

[SeanF]

For example, during the leadoff batter's first at bat of the game he has absolutely no opportunity to get credited with an RBI.
I wouldn't say "absolutely." :) But you're right that RBI is not really an individual statistic.

[eugenek]

No, your last statement is wrong - which only serves to make your first statement more important.

Baseball is not "all about scoring more runs than your opponent," it's all about preventing your opponent from scoring as many runs as you. In a defensive game like baseball, the defensive stats should be more important than offensive.

IMHO. :)

I don't think it is "all about" either. Offense and defense play their rolls but I think scoring more runs (offense) is equally as important as preventing runs (pitching/fielding). I also believe that at the MLB level the difference between the best fielding team and worst fielding team makes very little impact. Winning is, in my mind, 50% offense, 40% pitching and 10% fielding.

Bill James, I think, came up with a formula which predicts a team's winning percentage based only on runs scored and runs allowed. Running some numbers through a little program I wrote it seems that scoring a percentage of runs more than preventing the same percentage of runs scoring gives about the same record.

A team which scores 600 and allows 600 can be expected to finish with an 81-81 record. A team with 720/600 finishes 88-74 while a team with 600/480 finishes at 89-73.

Some interesting articles on the pythagorean theorem as used in baseball;

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=342
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~bvollmay/baseball/pythagoras.html
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pythagoras-and-the-white-sox/

[eugenek]

I wouldn't say "absolutely." :) But you're right that RBI is not really an individual statistic.

Oops! Yes, you're right. The leadoff batter might hit a homerun.

[SeanF]

Winning is, in my mind, 50% offense, 40% pitching and 10% fielding.
Hmm. I'd disagree with that, but I think the problem is that the defense is so important that it's just assumed.

I mean, almost every sport in existence is (generally) about throwing, catching, and carrying the ball. Baseball (and it's close relatives) is the only major sport in which the throwing, catching, and carrying is done by the defensive team - in every other sport, it's the team on offense that has control of the ball. That's why I say baseball is primarily a defensive sport.

So, when I say it's assumed, I mean that a baseball player with poor defense would be like a basketball player who can't dribble - no matter how good he is at the rest of the game, you're never going to see him in the major leagues.

If you look at baseball's fielding statistics, the individual player stats are almost all in the high 90s in percentages. That's why a difference in offensive capability can make such a big difference in the outcome of a given game - not because defense is not important, but because it's so important that both teams are by necessity almost perfect defensively.

Does that make sense?

[eugenek]

Hmm. I'd disagree with that, but I think the problem is that the defense is so important that it's just assumed.

...

Does that make sense?

I think I see where you are coming from and I think I agree. Defense is important and a team with truly poor defense is doomed. I can see where on a little league field a team with exceptional defense and weak offense probably beats the team with exceptional offense and weak defense. Even a well hit linedrive can be chased down by a great fielder. The good defensive team is going to gets its 27 outs but the weak defensive team may have a hard time of it if they can't field the weak hits by the enemy. I've seen this firsthand on the softball team I play on. We were horrible on defense. We lost every single game last spring. I don't think anyone scored less than 20 on us and a lot of those would be unearned if anyone was scoring.

However, at the MLB level, the difference between the best defense and worst defense isn't really that big. No MLB truly has poor defense because only good fielders even make it to that level. Weak fielders are Darwined out. It's sort a saying a child who received a 97% test score is stupid because others received a 100%.

My 50%/40%/10% opinion is based on the makeup of an average MLB team. Defense is very important but at that level of play the difference between best and worst isn't much so as far as winning games it makes only a minor impact. Based on earned runs vs totals runs in 2006 the difference is 84 unearned runs allowed by Cleveland and 41 unearned runs allowed by St Louis. That's only .25 runs a game between best and worst. I do realize that the defense does a lot of things statistics can't show very well but I think the difference here is also minor.

On the whole though, I can see defense as being incredibly important. More important than what my 10% figure may appear to indicate. It's just easier to make a improvement to the winning percentage via pitching or batting because all fielders are dang good at that level of play.

[farmerjumperdon]

Oooooh, good stuff.

In a nutshell, defense is as important, but it is easier to be good at it. The big divider between the men and the boys is being able to hit good pitching, not fielding ground balls, and certainly not shagging flies. Heck, at my peak I could have easily played outfield at least at the minor league level. Hitting the duece from a quality pitcher - that's a whole different issue. What separates the guys in The Show from the guys riding the bus is the ability to bring focus, timing, strength, and execution to the plate.

The evidence that satisfies me that this is so is, like I said before - the nearly insignificant spread in the defensive stats for the better players; and not much more of a spread for nearly all major league players. I mean, .994 versus .996 ain't very likely to make much difference over the course of a season.

That might be a tough sell to Tigers fans right now though. Course I think their pitchers were a long way from the .99's during the series. Think they'll have the pitchers taking a little fielding practice next spring?

[crosscountry]

On the whole though, I can see defense as being incredibly important. More important than what my 10% figure may appear to indicate. It's just easier to make a improvement to the winning percentage via pitching or batting because all fielders are dang good at that level of play.

so, what you're saying (and I agree) is that ranking players by their defense ability is nearly pointless and will have very little outcome on the results. Not that defense isn't important, just that the deviation is very small between players, too small to overcome the differences in offense.

[farmerjumperdon]

so, what you're saying (and I agree) is that ranking players by their defense ability is nearly pointless and will have very little outcome on the results. Not that defense isn't important, just that the deviation is very small between players, too small to overcome the differences in offense.

I would definitely concur with that. I think I will include it eventually just to be complete, but wouldn't expect it to matter much. Of course that depends on the weight for that category. Maybe the weighting of categories should be based on the differential between players?

[eugenek]

Oooooh, good stuff.

In a nutshell, defense is as important, but it is easier to be good at it. The big divider between the men and the boys is being able to hit good pitching, not fielding ground balls, and certainly not shagging flies.

I don't think defense is easier to be good at. I believe good fielders are selected for right at the beginning of their careers. If you're not a very good fielder then you're simply not going to advance very high up the baseball ladder.

Heck, at my peak I could have easily played outfield at least at the minor league level.

I used to be decent at outfield about 25 years ago but now, for some reason, I can't tell where the ball is going.

Hitting the duece from a quality pitcher - that's a whole different issue. What separates the guys in The Show from the guys riding the bus is the ability to bring focus, timing, strength, and execution to the plate.

At certain fielding positions this is probably true. However, at positions such as second and short, MLB teams are willing to suffer weak hitting for a good fielder.

The evidence that satisfies me that this is so is, like I said before - the nearly insignificant spread in the defensive stats for the better players; and not much more of a spread for nearly all major league players. I mean, .994 versus .996 ain't very likely to make much difference over the course of a season.

Maybe a couple games either way. The difference is somewhat wider than above but not by much. In 1987 (the magazine was within grasp) the team fielding pct of the best AL team was .984, the weakest was .975. These values have been pretty constant for decades. For most positions other than catcher and firstbase the players stats are usually within two-three percent of one another. Lambardozzi for Minnesota had a fPct of .991 at second while Randolph posted a .972. I don't think that 1.9% is going to have that much impact on a game. Sometimes there's a 4 or 5% difference between best and worst but it's not going to be a huge impact over a season. For those two players mentioned above it's the difference between 6 fielding errors and 20 fielding errors over the length of a season. An extra error every 11 games.

As SeanF stated above, these guys are nearly perfect. It's hard to improve dramatically when you are already near perfect.

Fielders also have differing ranges which isn't measured in the standard stats but again, all the MLB players are all very good at this level. The difference isn't that great. The fielders must be very good at fielding or they wouldn't get to the majors. Put me in centerfield and the game is a long one.

[Swift]

In a nutshell, defense is as important, but it is easier to be good at it.
I haven't done a statistical analysis, but from watching the game, I'm with eugenek on disagreeing with that statement. I think there is a big difference between a mediocre fielder and an excellent one.

I'll take the team I watch the most, the Indians. Omar Visquel is/was probably the best or second best defensive shortstop in the last 25 years or more. His replacement, Johnny Peralta, is mediocre at best, and has cost the Indians games. Similarly, Victor Martinez is a fine hitter, but he is a mediocre catcher, particularly at throwing out runners. Because of that, teams run a lot on the Indians and it costs them games. And both of these guys went from mediocre last year, to even worse this year. The Indians had basically the same offense and pitching last year and this; most analysts I've heard say the difference between the Indians 93 wins last year and 78 this year is their poor defense.

I don't think you can simply look at fielding percentage or errors. Good infielders make the difference between just getting one runner or turning the double play - but a missed double play doesn't count as an error. Not throwing out the base stealer isn't an error, but leads to runs.

I also don't think the importance of defense is the same at all positions. As eugenek said, teams will take a poorer hitting 2nd baseman or shortstop (I'd also throw in catcher) if they are good fielders. I don't think 1st, 3rd, left or right field are nearly as critical and I've seen a lot of poor catchers or third basemen turned into mediocre 1st basemen.

[SMEaton]

This thread was apparently buried until recently... sorry I missed the bulk of the posts!
Regarding the defense debate (I'm pretty much useless at remembering stats, sorry), just look at how Detroit's defense played during the series. The Cardinals weren't great (by any stretch of the imagination... and I'm a Cards fan), but Detroit made those key errors (Zumaya, Inge, etc.) that led to their downfall. The teams' respective stats won't show much of a difference, of course.
I agree with SeanF's statement about the assumption of the role of defense in the game... outfielders should just catch it, right?
Ground ball? Just get behind it! I can't believe he missed that!
Swift, yes, a lot of balls get through that gap. But as I said, consider Inge! What a cost for a slip at 3rd.

[crosscountry]

this thread was NOT buried.


and this whole talk of defense is going to make the farmer's live a lot more difficult.

[farmerjumperdon]

this thread was NOT buried.


and this whole talk of defense is going to make the farmer's live a lot more difficult.

Well, it sure is going to make my task of making everybody happy at work look like a piece of cake.

But heh, that's the wonderful thing about this stuff. We can sift thru numbers on paper all day, which is fun, and then we can pontificate about the actual value of them, which is also fun.

Someone mentioned something earlier about whether Bonds should get an asterisk. I certainly don't like what looks like might have happened, but innocent until proven guilty. For those critical of him, get this: I just finished with a 1st raw cut (no weighting of the categories - so being #1 in SB carries the same weight as being #1 in HR, or anything else) of assigning points based on performance against the best instead of the raw rank. He moved from #9 to #5.

He is so good in so many categories. Harkens back to days of players like Ruth, Williams, and Gehrig (still #'s 1, 2 & 3). Which kind of speaks to an issue someone mentioned; about more recent players being affected by things like changes to the ball, changes to ballparks, etc. I noticed looking over the lists of top performers in each category, that there are modern players on all of them, but far fewer repeats. It isn't that modern players are underrepresented on any one list; it is that very few of them make it to as many lists. Does this mean today's players are far less rounded? Bonds is the only one that matches up with those legends of the past when it comes to posting huge numbers in lots of categories.

[Peter Wilson]

This is, of course, excellent advice..."
The school I played baseball at as a kid had a field so large that nobody ever hit the ball over the fence, so there was no such thing as ground-rule double or out-of-the-park homerun. Basically, if a ball got by you as an outfielder, it was a homerun (usually) or at least a triple, because without the fence there, you had to chase down any ball that went past.

So I always thought the ground-rule-double should be a triple, which would be closer to the what happens in an "ideal" playing field with no fences. So I thought this was an "unfair" bias for defense. But I finally realized the foul-ball-in-the-stands rules works the other way--in favor of the batter. So I guess the two rules even out.

All-in-all, with the possible exception of soccer, which has really simple rules, I like rules of baseball best of major sports.

[crosscountry]

Well, it sure is going to make my task of making everybody happy at work look like a piece of cake.

But heh, that's the wonderful thing about this stuff. We can sift thru numbers on paper all day, which is fun, and then we can pontificate about the actual value of them, which is also fun.

Someone mentioned something earlier about whether Bonds should get an asterisk. I certainly don't like what looks like might have happened, but innocent until proven guilty. For those critical of him, get this: I just finished with a 1st raw cut (no weighting of the categories - so being #1 in SB carries the same weight as being #1 in HR, or anything else) of assigning points based on performance against the best instead of the raw rank. He moved from #9 to #5.

He is so good in so many categories. Harkens back to days of players like Ruth, Williams, and Gehrig (still #'s 1, 2 & 3). Which kind of speaks to an issue someone mentioned; about more recent players being affected by things like changes to the ball, changes to ballparks, etc. I noticed looking over the lists of top performers in each category, that there are modern players on all of them, but far fewer repeats. It isn't that modern players are underrepresented on any one list; it is that very few of them make it to as many lists. Does this mean today's players are far less rounded? Bonds is the only one that matches up with those legends of the past when it comes to posting huge numbers in lots of categories.

speaking of Ballpark issues, have you accounted for the size of the park in HRs? Some players have much shorter distances to hit the ball.

[Maksutov]

This thread was apparently buried until recently... sorry I missed the bulk of the posts!...Not to worry. It was the end of a rather poor World Series (hats off to the Cardinals nevertheless) and was due for a wrap-up post re the 2006 season.

Now we're into what's called, at least above the Mason-Dixon line, the Hot Stove League (http://baseball.about.com/od/basicrule1/g/hotstove.htm).

Re the game in general, personally, I think it all comes down to pitching. If the starting pitcher (or combined with his relievers) strikes out 27 consecutive batters, starting with the first man up, and his team scores at least one run, then that pitcher's team wins. All baseball games are variations on that theme.

PS: My having pitched in Little League, HS, and college had no bearing on the above opinion.

[Maksutov]

Cardinals do the noblesse oblige thing. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54778)

Mighty sporting of them. After all, once in certain sections it's hard to tell if you're in St. Louis or Detroit.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Using raw numbers from several key categories, and weighting the categories by importance has landed The Bambino on top. My top ten so far is:

1 The Bambino
2 Ted Williams
3 Lou Gehrig
4 Ty Cobb
5 Jimmie Foxx
6 Stan Musial
7 Tris Speaker
8 Roger Hornsby
9 Barry Bonds
10 Cap Anson...Nice list, except for that arrogant cheater at number nine.

[crosscountry]

Cardinals do the noblesse oblige thing. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54778)

Mighty sporting of them. After all, once in certain sections it's hard to tell if you're in St. Louis or Detroit.

:lol: :clap:

[Maksutov]

This may be old news in Chicago (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54216), but not all of us have the privilege of living in the Second City.

Sweet, Lou!

TUOAMW!*

*The usual Onion adult material warning.

[crosscountry]

adult? I missed something, either that or I'm not old enough to understand. 8)

[farmerjumperdon]

I haven't done a statistical analysis, but from watching the game, I'm with eugenek on disagreeing with that statement. I think there is a big difference between a mediocre fielder and an excellent one.

I wouldn't disagree that it is a very important part of the game. Just saying that it is easier to be good at it. The evidence for me is in the spread at the top of the game. Hitting stats among the top players are typically in the 50 to 60 parts per thousand. Fielding differences are more in the 5 to 10 parts per thousand, and very often lower.

Also, what I'm comparing is excellent players to excellent players. Mediocre players need not apply.

[farmerjumperdon]

speaking of Ballpark issues, have you accounted for the size of the park in HRs? Some players have much shorter distances to hit the ball.

No, but only because it would require I track where every homerun was hit; and it could even be taken to the extreme of knowing the distance of every shot.

I do find the discussions of this nature interesting. Where would Ernie Banks be without Wrigley Field? What if The Mick had played at Wrigley? And what if he played his whole career there . . . and sober? That scoreboard, which amazingly has never been hit, probably would have taken a beating.

[farmerjumperdon]

Nice list, except for that arrogant cheater at number nine.

Yeah, that is so unfortunate for the game. It's such a nasty cloud around not just him, but because of his success on the field, for all of baseball. And most unfortunately, the only way it goes away is if he is found guilty and stripped of everything. If it is never resolved, or if he is found to be officially innocent, the cloud will be there forever.

[crosscountry]

I think an asterick makes a great reminder.