Tiger337

I don't really like it. It's more a matter of not liking the status quo. I don't like that playoffs have become the only thing that matters, but that's not going to change. So, I would consider alternatives to the current structure.

They would have been better than Cabrera plus that multi-position flavor of the year.

Yes, it can be a very different team by September. However, one thing that used to make baseball special is that generally only teams that were great all season made the playoffs. A team had to come to play for 162 games or it would miss the playoffs. I know there are some exceptions, but that was the case moreso than today. It's stupid to have a 162-game season if all anybody cares about is the playoffs. If you want to have a playoff of the best teams at the current time, then have a shorter season where players don't beat themselves up by the time the post-season tournament comes around. Or have a split season with two playoffs.

Should of kept Castellanos.

Within 7 games is randomness. Not 20 games.

I think the point is that it should be hard for an 85 win team to beat a 105-win team. Otherwise, why play 162 games? Big upsets are fun if they are unusual like in baseketball. If they happen all the time, then it makes the whole process look random.

That was back when they had no playoffs, so it was logical that you couldn't sell even an eighth place team. Now, an eighth place team is most likely in the race late in the season. To your point, a colleague who knows nothing about baseball did notice that the Red Sox were in last and the Tigers were in second. I was able to explain to him in seconds why the Tigers were in no better position than the Red Sox at the time. Of course, he's very good a math and logic, so that may have been the reason.

I hope they keep the leagues based on tradition and history. By 8-teams, I meant 8-teams in each league (since I assume they are headed in that direction). Have two big leagues with no divisions. I would think that would be easier for fans since they wouldn't have to look at two sets of standings to know where their team stands.

I don't understand that. Are fans really that dumb that they think an 88-win team 5th place team is less appealing than a 78 win second place team? It would be a lot simpler with no divisions. Just take the top 8 teams (since I are know they are going to 8 teams in each league). If your team can't contend with that many teams getting in, then sell it

He has 13 years and 2511 innings as a Tigers and 6 years and 720 innings as an Astro. I don't think number of championships has a lot to do with choosing a Hall of Fame team, so I think he's do in as a Tiger. I don't really care though. The HoF is an individual honor, not a team honor.

Are you guessing or assuming?

I read it. It's not quite as good as the top 100, but it's worth reading. It's got a little less depth than the previous book, but some really good stories surrounding baseball's great moments.

That is usually my line!

I second that. It's one of the best baseball books I have ever read. Like you said, I expected to read a lot of stuff about these guys I've already heard before, but it was mostly new. It's a perfect blend of stats and stories. People shouldn't read it as a definitive list. He admits at the outset that it's impossible to do that. It's just great sories.

The Rangers have balls and spent money and made trades at the right time but it's hard to find fault with the Orioles turn around the last couple of years. The Orioles had a great season and should have a good future and more opportunities to win championships. I think it's OK that they didn't trade their prospects this year.

They can still keep track of the wins and losses and stats over the 162 games of both halves combined.

Now that they have close to a balanced schedule, they should eliminate divisions and just take the top six (or how ever many teams they feel is necessary).

But if there are two sets of playoffs, then it doesn't really matter what happens to a team in the second half. They can win their first half championship and fans can feel good about it. There doesn't need to be a set up where we glorify one champion whether it be the third wild card team or an 85-game divison winner. Some years, a team wins two championships in one year, and that will be special like winning the Triple Crown in horse racing or multiple majors in golf.

Unlike other sports, underdogs winning is not really a story in baseball because it happens so often. It all feels random to me which I don't find entertaining. I think the only solution is having fewer teams in the playoffs, so that only geat teams make it most years. That's not going to happen. In fact, I am pretty sure there will be more teams soon.

The list series is here if someone wants to do the work. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/layoffs-havent-hindered-playoff-teams-historically/

Evidence that long layoffs may not hurt teams:

Or they could barnstorm for 8 months periodically having some tournaments. That would be cool.

I could support that. I prefer the long season and don't need them to have any tournaments, but I know most fans like tournaments. playing 162 games just to start all over again with a bunch of short series just seems insane to me though.

He was terrible, but I don't know that what they have now is any better.

I liked it better the old way, but it's not coming back. I do not have a problem with the post-season being separate and distinct from the regular season. The problem is I don't think they are regarded separately. The post-season tournament is regarded as far more important with the winner determining the league champion and the regular season virtually being ignored as far as team accomplishments. I would like the teams with the best records in the regular season to be rewarded more for the regular season records than the post-season tournament. I do understand that the post-season would make no money if it was regarded as a footnote to the regular season, but I don't have to like it. On the other hand, regular season individual accomplishments get more recognition than post-season accomplishments. It's a strange disconnect. That part makes me happy, because I am probably more interested in individual than team accomplishments.