Wild-Card Play-in IGTs

[Gwreck]

Wait, why did we let Darren O'Day get away again?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Gwreck wrote: Wait, why did we let Darren O'Day get away again?

Because we needed an extra starter and we-- or rather, a non-false-hustling former member of "we"-- couldn't master basic roster management.

[Frayed Knot]

In other news: the contest for the world's worst sideburns has been concluded.

[bmfc1]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Gwreck wrote: Wait, why did we let Darren O'Day get away again? Because we needed an extra starter and we-- or rather, a non-false-hustling former member of "we"-- couldn't master basic roster management.

Exactly. Pelfrey had to miss one start and Omar didn't want to put him on the DL because he would have miss another so he waived O'Day to call up Nelson Figueroa for a start. And then he waived Figueroa to replace him with Casey Fossum.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

According to the announcers on the NL game (and I may have misheard) the teams that win today can reset the roster after today's games. Doesn't that lead to all sorts of potential shenanigans?

No need to carry your second and third starters for one game - drop them and replace them with pinch-runners and/or defensive specialists who you had on the expanded September roster, then reinstate them if you win.

I have a feeling that this is a loophole that slipped by in the mad rush to get this thing implemented, and that next year the roster for the WC and Division round will need to be the same.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I don't know that I'd call it a loophole, per se-- I think the aim was to give teams the opportunity to tune their roster for a one-game "round." Hell, they're already playing an extra game after hastily-arranged, short-notice travel, with the winners getting more travel early the next day, and no opportunity to "reset" their rotation; treating this like an additional round-- with allowed roster tweaks-- merely gives the wild-card winner a smaller disadvantage in the next round.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

I see your point, and I don't disagree that it may have been intentional rather than a loophole, but I don't like the idea.

I'll buy it if the guys taken off can't come back in future rounds.

[Guest Kong76]

B'more tackin' on insurance runs!!

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Well, hey, Dallas-- you've always got the Cowboys.

[Edgy MD]

Kong76 wrote: The outfield ump called infield fly rule ... it's too funny. Those extra umps should watch the lines, make sure balls aren't trapped instead of caught and stuff like that.

I always thought their best position would be back by the foul poles --- putting them in position to call deep fair/foul plays and homeruns. I think the infield umps have the best perspective for the trap calls most of the time.

[Frayed Knot]

Maybe, when the series starts in Baltimore, they can get Jim Biden to throw out the first ball.

[smg58]

bmfc1 wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Gwreck wrote: Wait, why did we let Darren O'Day get away again? Because we needed an extra starter and we-- or rather, a non-false-hustling former member of "we"-- couldn't master basic roster management. Exactly. Pelfrey had to miss one start and Omar didn't want to put him on the DL because he would have miss another so he waived O'Day to call up Nelson Figueroa for a start. And then he waived Figueroa to replace him with Casey Fossum.

And Bobby Parnell's future would have obviously been ruined if his first month in the majors were interrupted for a few days.

[Guest Kong76]

Harold Reynolds just talked me into the infield fly rule call
was a reasonable call. Like him a lot by the way on tv.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I see that one of the popular themes about last night's AL Wild Card play in is how the O's shocked the Rangers. Or how the O's stunned the Rangers. I just don't get how any result from a one game series involving two pretty good teams could surprise anyone.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Kong76 wrote: Harold Reynolds just talked me into the infield fly rule call was a reasonable call. Like him a lot by the way on tv.

He's great until he starts assaying advanced stats/the "assault" on traditional stats. (Or, apparently, giving colleagues hugs.)

I see the other side. But I'd still argue that it was poorly done-- the call should come at or near the ball's apex-- and that the call, while technically accurate, was against the spirit of the rule, and contrary the way that the rule has been interpreted in practice by the 2-3 generations of umps I've watched in my life.

[smg58]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I see that one of the popular themes about last night's AL Wild Card play in is how the O's shocked the Rangers. Or how the O's stunned the Rangers. I just don't get how any result from a one game series involving two pretty good teams could surprise anyone.

Right. The A's winning the division on a three-game seep after the Rangers had been leading for pretty much the entire season was stunning, especially given pre-season expectations. The Orioles, with an identical record, winning one game? About 50-50.

[ashie62]

Hmmmm...if Hamilton catches that ball in Oakland...FA will be interesting for Josh. He is using an unusual recovery method. Bible based (with a personal keeper) v. a 12 step program...Big risk..

[Gwreck]

I see that one of the popular themes about last night's AL Wild Card play in is how the O's shocked the Rangers. Or how the O's stunned the Rangers. I just don't get how any result from a one game series involving two pretty good teams could surprise anyone.

No kidding. Worth keeping in mind: the Orioles and Rangers had the same record. This one-game playoff would have been necessary even if they were using last season's rules.

[Edgy MD]

Bien punto.

[stevejrogers]

Swan Swan H wrote: I see your point, and I don't disagree that it may have been intentional rather than a loophole, but I don't like the idea. I'll buy it if the guys taken off can't come back in future rounds.

FWIW, that's exactly what the Cardinals did with Carpenter, Wainright and Garcia, in favor of another infielder, a 3rd catcher and an extra arm in the pen. All three obviously not on the NLDS roster in favor of the starting rotation guys.

I think teams have been able to tinker in between rounds since the start of the Division Series as I've seen statistical tables for a team's postseason go 27-28 deep and some of them I have no recollection of injuries causing a replacement to happen.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

I understand the need between five or seven game rounds, but the nature of the single game leads to teams only needing two, or perhaps three starters on the roster, which is not the team's usual configuration.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Yeah. True. So?

If you're preparing for a seven-game series, you might configure your team differently than if you're preparing for a short five-game series, right? So, if you're preparing for a one-game "series," you configure your team as you think best to win that one game. I can see how this may be disorienting to fans; I don't-- not at all-- see how this is cheating.

[stevejrogers]

At the same time though, teams that played in Game 163s had the same roster that they had for Game 162. Which meant, for example, instead of Al Leiter and Edgardo Alfonzo being the heroes of the 1999 Play-In Game, it could have been Shane Halter or Dan Murray as the heroes and neither one of them would even be considered to be on the NLDS/NLCS/WS roster that year.

[Frayed Knot]

I would prefer it if they simply treated the WC play-in game and the first round as if all part of the same round for roster purposes.
It would be like Round 1 is a 3-of-5 for the division winner but a 4-of-6 for the WC team.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

What FK said, which is what I said two pages ago.

I don't consider it cheating at all, and if I implied that it's only due to my limited ability to express myself. Teams would be doing themselves a disservice not to tweak their rosters based on the rules as they stand. I just think the rules make no sense.

[stevejrogers]

Swan Swan H wrote: What FK said, which is what I said two pages ago. I don't consider it cheating at all, and if I implied that it's only due to my limited ability to express myself. Teams would be doing themselves a disservice not to tweak their rosters based on the rules as they stand. I just think the rules make no sense.

So Shane Halter as the last guy off the bench drives in the winning run with a pinch hit, seeing eye double in the top of the 15th inning, and Dan Murray as the last guy in the pen, save for Rick Reed and Orel Hershiser, shuts down the Reds in the bottom of the 15th to nail down the game, you say they should be on the 25 man roster for the 1999 NLDS?

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Do you understand the difference between a tiebreaker game, which is a regular season game and is contested only when teams are tied for a playoff spot, and the new Wild Card round, which will be contested every year under the current rules?

[stevejrogers]

Swan Swan H wrote: Do you understand the difference between a tiebreaker game, which is a regular season game and is contested only when teams are tied for a playoff spot, and the new Wild Card round, which will be contested every year under the current rules?

Fair enough.