Posted on 10/24/2023 8:36:51 PM PDT by Az Joe
AZ vs TX
Sounds good. That way, those teams with the highest payrolls can be eliminated in just 2 games.
Baseball is the greatest equalizer sport there is. Teams get on a roll, teams get in slumps. When talented teams are in slumps, lesser teams can roll them. Pitchers equalize everything. When they're in the zone, lights out.
Well I found out who is in the world serious this year. If you forced me to pick one of these teams I would go with the team that has never won it so that would be the Rangers. I watched a bit of the end of last years show but at this point I don’t think I’d recognize anyone on either team so the likelihood I will watch any of it this is close to zero. For those who do I hope you enjoy it. Now on to ignoring for the most part the NFL NBA and NHL and all the other sports I used to once upon a time watch.
The only thing is it should be enough time off, to allow the higher-seeded team to set their rotation.
Or you could just do like the Premier League. Have each team play a balanced schedule, same number of games against every other team. And the team with the best record at the end of the season is the Champion. No playoffs.
“ It IS baseball. The way we saw the D-backs win is as old-school as it gets.”
Except for the part about losing by 16 games.
Teams that don’t have players salaried in the tens of millions apiece have to make adjustments at several stretches of the season. It’s admirable when they do.
It’s a long season; it amounts to a mile run rather than a sprint. So it matters where you are at the finish rather than the first lap or even the third. The D-Backs had a nice kick this year. Their chemistry became downright formidable.
There’s really no reason to denigrate them, any more than the ‘69 Mets. They had to jell before becoming giant killers.
I’m not denigrating them, I’m pointing out that it’s not traditional baseball and the 162 game season doesn’t matter anymore.
40% of the teams go in to the post season.
Probably not. The biggest problem baseball has is the length of the season. Between the general expectation of every team losing 1/3 of the games, and how much the personnel of team can change over the season, higher ranked teams can easily be there because of May and June performance and not be nearly as good as the record says by October. Meanwhile a team like the D-Backs can basically reinvent themselves at the trade deadline and be a significantly better team by the end of September than their record says.
Actually Arizona was 16 games over .500 in June, then collapsed in July and August, and at one point were two games under .500. Only the Cubs epic collapse got them in.
It’s only 1/10 of the season. Baseball is the only sport where people insist that a team that’s a 10% better record is drastically better.
Yes. Traditional baseball.
Over longer periods, differences become for significant.
It was called the National pastime.
Tournament competition makes sense for other sports to determine the best.
Every team has hot streaks.
Baseball reflected the worth ethic of consistency and long term effort and slow and steady wins the race.
What we have now is deciding who won the marathon by have a sprint of the top 40% of finishers after the marathon.
Except the differences really don’t become significant. Actually the differences even out. That’s why baseball is in this silly situation of everybody thinking a 100 win team (basically the equivalent of 10-6 in the old NFL schedule, 10-6-1 in the 17 games schedule) is drastically better than an 88 win team (9-7/ 9-8 ish in the NFL). They really aren’t that different. That whole built in assumption of 53 losses a season completely hoses any significant differences.
Tournaments don’t determine the best, they determine the champion. That’s true of all American sports. The marathon gets you into the tournament, then you gotta win the sprint to get the trophy. Best, not best, doesn’t really matter. Won the games that count most, that makes you a champion.
10 and 6 is not equivalent to 100 - 60 in terms of significance.
“ Tournaments don’t determine the best, they determine the champion.”
My point exactly.
Baseball used to determine the best in each league, the Pennant Winners. These two would play each other for the World Championship.
They could choose the 40% randomly and the games would be just as exciting.
Well there’s the gap between baseball fans and not. Baseball fans all seem to do the math in their head and “subtract” the assume 1/3 losses. People who aren’t don’t. From my view if you’re going to assume 53 losses a year play 53 fewer games.
I don’t think baseball really did determine the best in each league. With a season that long, with trades, acquisitions and losses throughout the season, who really knows who’s best. Look at Tampa, they started the season with that record win streak, but nobody believed they were the best, and by the end of the season nobody was even talking about them.
You want more exciting games, play fewer. The entire lose 1/3 model innately devalues 1/3 of the games. Right off the bat the entire model assumes 1/3 of the games are completely meaningless.
“ Look at Tampa, they started the season with that record win streak, but nobody believed they were the best, and by the end of the season nobody was even talking about them.”
Once again you make my point.
No. I was showing you’re wrong. Tampa still got to 99 wins, largely held up by that beginning. According to standard baseball logic that means they were almost great. But we all know they weren’t. They started the season with a hot streak and that inflated their record. Who knows, maybe they were good. This is the problem with the baseball schedule. Which version of the team is the team? The record setting early season team? The really bad mid-season team? Or the pretty good late season team?
Once you build in the assumption that 1/3 of the season is completely meaningless the WHOLE season is actually meaningless. That’s the problem with baseball, a 6 month 162 game grind where 109 games actually matter, but nobody knows which 109, and in the end the teams really just want to finish hot so they can get the trophy because nobody gives a damn regular season success in American sports.
“ Once you build in the assumption that 1/3 of the season is completely meaningless the WHOLE season is actually meaningless.”
I don’t understand your reasoning.
I am saying the entire season is meaningful.
It’s a cliche, but true, losses in April count as much as losses in September. Same for wins.
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make.
Unless you are arguing the season is meaningless and shouldn’t even be played.
But we know it isn’t. Because everybody assumes each team will lose 1/3 of the games. That’s why you can a 100-62 record isn’t the same as a 10-6 record. Because you know 53 of those losses were guaranteed. So when YOU see a 100 win team you’re really seeing is 100 wins out of 109 games that matter.
The point is the one everyone makes, the baseball season is too damned long. And actually decreases the meaning of all the games. It’s stupid to play 162 games to have a team miss the playoffs by 1. The season should be shortened. DRASTICALLY. When the best record in the history of the game is 76% wins it’s just a pointless grind.
I have the exact opposite opinion.
The season is long for a reason, it is traditional, and is good.
It provides enough time to determine the best teams.
That’s why baseball has been great and a pastime and reflective of the American spirit.
first time for the Mariners too....er...NOT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.