Strike-aversary

[metsmarathon]

in 1973, the team with only the 9th best record in the majors made it all the way to the world series, taking it a full seven games.

that was just awful, wasn't it?

[Frayed Knot]

Not as awful as the 2000 WS winner who finished the season with ML's 9th best record.

[metsmarathon]

the 2006 WS winner with the 13th best record was pretty awful, too.

too bad the wild card can't explicitly be blamed for either of those injustices. well, i guesss we could blame the wild card teams in those years for not defeating the clearly inferior division winners that ultimately won the title.

[batmagadanleadoff]

For the same reasons that Vic states, I prefer the current WC system to the older one. (Like I'd prefer knee replacement surgery over having my eyeballs gouged out). But overall, no matter what WC sysyem they're using in baseball, it's too many playoff teams for my blood. I don't like postseason baseball because I think it's a total crap-shoot.

Only twice during the 19 Wild Card era World Series, have the best teams in each league vied for the title. It happened in the WC era's first WS (1995), and it happened last year.

Only six of those 19 WS were played between two of the best four teams in baseball.

The 1973 Mets rule! No, I'm fine with that, despite the slight bias. That was a rare occurrence. I don't have anything against upsets, or an unexpected team winning the crown. But those events should have their place. If it happens too often (and I think it does in baseball - and I don't necessarily mean an 82 win team in the WS, -- but a non-elite team taking the title) it cheapens the game.

[metsmarathon]

between 1969 and 1979, the top two teams in each league faced each other in hte world series 6 times.

from 1980 until the dawn of the wild card era in 1993, a span of 14 years, it happened only twice. the mets and red sox were the last pair of teams to pull the trick.

it's not like it was a regular occurrence, by any stretch of the imagination, for the top two teams to emerge from the divisional playoffs. especially not in more recent memory.

[Edgy MD]

I think a notable thing is that, since 1979, the top team is not necessarily the top team.

I mean division play starting in 1979 introduced the idea that a team could have a better record but not be the best team in the league due to playing in perhaps a less competitive division. But we had three absolute juggernauts in 1970s, and really only the 1996-2000 Yankees compare to any of them as far as dominance. Maybe the Braves of the mid-late 1990s (who generally lost in the playoffs).

But yeah, the best team still could hit a slump during the playoffs. So, kill the playoffs.

But kill the draft and kill territorial exclusivity while you're at it. KILL!!!

[metsmarathon]

but, please, first start with the DH.

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: but, please, first start with the DH.

but first, kill the idea that pitchers don't have to work on their hitting.

[Edgy MD]

You can't kill an idea, man!

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I think a notable thing is that, since 1979, the top team is not necessarily the top team.

You mean 1969, but I get you. It was theoretically possible for one of the NL playoff teams to be merely the 7th best team in the league, and 8th best in the AL (1977-1993).

What are the odds of that?

I'll tell you.

With two six team divisions, the odds of the leagues six best teams playing in one division and the worst six teams playing in the other division are 462-1.

With two seven team divisions, the odds of the leagues seven best teams playing in one division and the worst seven teams playing in the other division are 1,716-1.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Solution: Three 10-team, regionally-aligned leagues playing a balanced-schedule within the league. The champions of each league are awarded the pennant, which is treated as an honor nearly as high as the World Series championship. In post-season, three pennant-winners rest while second place teams play a round-robin playoff for the wild card. Then a seven-game semifinal. Then a seven-game World Series.

[Guest d'Kong76]

That would never work as long as there are DH's in baseball.
(or they went all DH)

[Frayed Knot]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Solution: Three 10-team, regionally-aligned leagues playing a balanced-schedule within the league. The champions of each league are awarded the pennant, which is treated as an honor nearly as high as the World Series championship. In post-season, three pennant-winners rest while second place teams play a round-robin playoff for the wild card. Then a seven-game semifinal. Then a seven-game World Series.

That's pretty much the way things were, only with a 2x10 set-up, for the first seven decades of the 20th century, and then your expanded version is maybe the way things would have worked out had the original Branch Rickey/Bill Shea (among others) idea been put into place.

The idea that later led to the Mets/Astros/Angels/Senators expansion in the early '60s had started as the makings of a 3rd league, one which would have started separate from and somewhat below the level of the existing NL & AL. The plan was then that their 'Continental League' would, over time, work its way up to being full-fledged ML status as their players and farm systems developed. If/when that happened, a plan such as yours is one that the three leagues could have concocted as a playoff system between them.

But as more people/groups got involved the idea of having the fewer but stronger of these nascent clubs getting absorbed into the existing leagues struck some as the easier solution than trying to fly solo. Oddly, this movement got mixed up with football at the time and in that sport it did result in the forming of a rival league, the AFL

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

d'Kong76 wrote: That would never work as long as there are DH's in baseball. (or they went all DH)

Yes, the DH would be eliminated in this plan.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Frayed Knot wrote: That's pretty much the way things were, only with a 2x10 set-up, for the first seven decades of the 20th century, and then your expanded version is maybe the way things would have worked out had the original Branch Rickey/Bill Shea (among others) idea been put into place.

Yep, on the surface it's a radical idea, but it would actual bring back traditional practices such as balanced schedules, no interleague play, and restoring the pennant to a great achievement rather than just a thing.

And I named the third league the Continental League in honor of the Rickey plan.

American League: Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, New York Mets, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, Toronto Blue Jays, and Washington Nationals.

National League: Atlanta Braves, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, Kansas City Royals, Miami Marlins, Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins, St. Louis Cardinals, and Tampa Bay Rays.

Continental League: Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, Los Angeles Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers, Oakland A�s, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants, Seattle Mariners, and Texas Rangers.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Willets Point wrote: Yes, the DH would be eliminated in this plan.

The player's union will be happy about that!

[Edgy MD]

I've said it before, but I don't think evidence is clear at all that the DH raises salary levels, and I think the MLBPA would be wise to study that.

[Guest d'Kong76]

It extends careers for some union brothers. You get
rid of it, you're taking food from their children.

[Edgy MD]

That's a general attitude, certainly, but I'm not sure it holds up.

National League teams are forced to field deeper benches and deeper bullpens --- which means more decently paid vets and fewer mimimum salary guys. I don't think the data necessarily shows that the National League has lower mean or median salaries. If the data suggests that more brothers are sacrificing so fewer brothers can cash in, should the union membership still support that?

[Guest d'Kong76]

I haven't mentioned salaries in my two short posts.
And, I'm sure you know full well I was being facetious.

[Edgy MD]

Sorry, I'm not sure what I said wrong here.

I understood that you were arguing that the union would not allow cessation of the DH. I understand and agree and was suggesting the union should re-examine that position.

I'm not making a lot of friends this evening.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Sorry, I'm not sure what I said wrong here. I understood that you were arguing that the union would not allow cessation of the DH. I understand and agree and was suggesting the union should re-examine that position. I'm not making a lot of friends this evening.

I've moved along to the "just do it and give us the DH all over" camp, but I do think it elevates salaries.

Hard to measure though because it's so circumstantial. Take the Tigers a few years ago when they got Prince Fielder. They probably don't do that without the DH to rotate goes into. So that would take them out of the running and theoretically one less team bidding for his services means he'd end up making less money. I suspect guys like Jason Giambi, or Alex Rodriguez, get an extra year, or a couple extra million, at the end of their contracts knowing you can sorta milk a little more value out of them by not playing them in the field.

But there are so many moving parts and interleague trades and different markets that I don't think it's easy to just say "AL has higher contracts" or anything.

[Edgy MD]

I think it's pretty easy to measure. Decades of data are available. If there's an ambiguous outcome, then that settles the question. The DH doesn't raise salaries.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not making a lot of friends this evening.

Take care of your clique, and your clique will take care of you, eh?

[Rubs fingers together]

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not making a lot of friends this evening.

I wasn't being unfriendly. I made a short point that
the union likes the DH because it lengthens some player's
careers and you wanted to talk about salaries.
There's too much of that here sometimes, and some of it
on a very large scale.

[Edgy MD]

I'm sorry. I'm still not clear of what there's too much of. Too much talk of salaries? Too much hijacking? I wasn't meaning to hijack.

I thought it was obvious that the lengthening of careers and improved salary condition of players was related. If we want to measure the DH's benefit to players purely in terms of length of tenure, I'd submit that careers are lengthened in the National League too where the deeper and more experienced benches and bullpens are needed, and it's worth studying which effect is more pronounced.

[Guest d'Kong76]

There's too much DH!