2009 Baseball Season/Off-Season Discussion

[pilferk]

Did you see that play though?? When Tex had to back up only a few steps, and Cano had to sprint part of the way to get there... He had no business near the foul line!

I agree that Cano SHOULDN'T have been anywhere near the play, and he certainly SHOULDN'T have called of Tex.

But once he did, Tex had to listen and back off.  It's like it's ingrained in you.....

100% Cano's fault on that play.

[pilferk]

The AL has a substantial lead in interleague games (which has ran it's course for me personally, yawn..) since it's inception - no denying that even for a Senior Circuit guy like myself..

I'm conflicted on interleague.

If you take it out...you end up with either more divisional games (and nobody wants that), more league games (which might be OK) or less games (which I'd actually be OK with...but I doubt the league would be).

I'd almost prefer the interleague play be "rotated".  Like...do it every other or every 3rd year.   Because I agree....those games are just "another game" now.

[Falcon]

If you take it out...you end up with either more divisional games (and nobody wants that), more league games (which might be OK) or less games (which I'd actually be OK with...but I doubt the league would be).

I with you on not wanting more divisional games, more league games outside of each division would work for me..

If I were commish for a day, my immediate agenda would consist of:

1. Jettison the home field advantage for All Star Game winner
2. Interleage play would go away
3. DH would be abolished

Just an opinion..

[pilferk]

I with you on not wanting more divisional games, more league games outside of each division would work for me..

If I were commish for a day, my immediate agenda would consist of:

1. Jettison the home field advantage for All Star Game winner
2. Interleage play would go away
3. DH would be abolished

Just an opinion..

I'd:

1) Leave Home field for the AS game winner alone.  It makes the AS game relevant...which I think it should be.
2) I'd "alternate" Interleague year to year, at least.
3) DH would be an MLB "choice".  You "declare" at the begining of the year and have to stick with it.  Home, away, NL park, AL park....whatever the team picks in any given year is what they do.

Honestly, if I had to go one way or the other, it would be to institute the DH in the NL, rather than abolish it in the AL. 

[Bodhi]

I actually like interleague play.  In a sport where there are a ridiculous amount of games in a season I don't think it hurts to change it up a little from time to time.  Yankees/Mets is always a lot of fun around here, although I agree the hype around these games is not what it once was.

[faldor]

I with you on not wanting more divisional games, more league games outside of each division would work for me..

If I were commish for a day, my immediate agenda would consist of:

1. Jettison the home field advantage for All Star Game winner
2. Interleage play would go away
3. DH would be abolished

Just an opinion..

I'd:

1) Leave Home field for the AS game winner alone.  It makes the AS game relevant...which I think it should be.
2) I'd "alternate" Interleague year to year, at least.
3) DH would be an MLB "choice".  You "declare" at the begining of the year and have to stick with it.  Home, away, NL park, AL park....whatever the team picks in any given year is what they do.

Honestly, if I had to go one way or the other, it would be to institute the DH in the NL, rather than abolish it in the AL. 

I kind of like the idea of having the DH in interleague play in NL parks, but having the pitchers hit in AL parks.  It gives fans a chance to see the game played a different way, if only for 9 games or so.  Plus it might level the playing field a bit.

[Falcon]

1) Leave Home field for the AS game winner alone.  It makes the AS game relevant...which I think it should be.

I've never bought the "Now it counts" stance, it's an exhibition game.  Award the team with the best record throughout the season with home field..

Honestly, if I had to go one way or the other, it would be to institute the DH in the NL, rather than abolish it in the AL. 

I don't think I could take any more 4 hour games.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Keep that DH nonsense out of the National League, thanks.

Here's a wild idea.  If I were in DUD Selig's shoes, I would DOUBLE the luxury tax penalty.

[pilferk]

Keep that DH nonsense out of the National League, thanks.

Here's a wild idea.  If I were in DUD Selig's shoes, I would DOUBLE the luxury tax penalty.

I'll ignore my suspicion that this is simply a "Yankee rule", and take you at face value that you think it's the best thing for the game, as a whole.

In terms of "sport", I get it.  People feel like the large market teams (especially the Yanks, Mets, Sox, Dodgers, and Angels) have an unfair advantage in the market.  I don't necessarily SEE it (the Rays success last year, the Marlins success in years past) borne out in results, but I get the perception.  And I get that anything that can be done to quell that perception, in terms of SPORT, wouldn't be bad.

HOWEVER, looking at baseball as a business...you don't really want to do that, actually. 

It's set now as a deterrent, in part, but also as a "revenue enhancer" for the small market teams.  In other words:  We know that the big market teams are going to have a payroll advantage.  They can choose to exploit THAT advantage (and leave other paths to success for the smaller market teams), but they have to "share the wealth" with the small market teams.  If they're going to pay the big names big dollars to put butts in seats, sell merch, etc....and rob the small market teams of THAT, too (they're not, really...mid-market teams maybe, but not the small..more on that in a sec)...then there needs to be a way to even things out, financially.  The luxury tax is that instrument.  At it's core, it's not about competitiveness on the field (and it was never really conceived to be), but about making sure the small market teams can still make ends meet.

If you ACTUALLY made it into a 100% deterrent, that was so large that it would deter even the largest market teams from going over cap, you're actually advocating the death of the small market teams.  Because the MLBPA isn't going to allow "salary contraction" at this point.  While there'd be more competition in the market for the big names...the truly small market teams STILL wouldn't be able to afford to pay the big names, meaning they'd just end up in the mid-market teams  AND the small market teams would now lose out on the luxury tax payments that are keeping them afloat (or going into owner's pockets..depending on the team..but functionally they may be the same thing).  It wouldn't be pretty.

[pilferk]

I've never bought the "Now it counts" stance, it's an exhibition game.  Award the team with the best record throughout the season with home field..

I don't think I could take any more 4 hour games.

The problem with the "give the team with the best record home field" philosophy is the disparity (borne out by interleague play) in the 2 leagues strengths.  REALLY good teams in the NL don't have the overall strength of schedule that the REALLY good teams in the AL have.  They tend to rack up more wins against lesser competition.  Since the two leagues are so different, I agree that looking at end of season record, when comparing an NL team vs an AL team, just isn't a fair comparison.

I'm not saying the AS rule is "more fair"...but it seems to be "as fair", and as an aside it makes a game that NOBODY (including the players) took seriously, had become a complete joke with players skipping for hang nails, a game who's relevance was destroyed by allowing it to end in a TIE and turned it into something a bit "more".

If it's going to be an exhibition game (and I think we can agree that it ISN'T that, anymore...it WAS), then the league should basically just kill it and just give everyone a mid-season break, or radically change it.  Because in a 162 game season, the players have no reason to want to play a 163rd, dead in the middle of the season, "for fun".  So they won't.

My other thought has always been to throw the AS game onto the END of the season...to take place between the end of the Pennant series and the World series.  Sure, the players on the 2 best teams wouldn't play...but the others might.  But you make it part of the "World Series" festivities.  There'd be some logistical issues to be worked out...and you'd get YOUR wish, and Home field for the WS wouldn't be on the line anymore...but at least you might get players to participate and be able to harness some of the WS hype to generate fan interest.  Maybe hand out some regular season awards at the same time?

One other thing:  There is a dirty little secret on MLB's side as to WHY the WS league home field is determined at the AS break: It aids travel arrangements from the leagues offices by giving them a BIT of a head start on scheduling possibilities during the playoffs.  It limits the number of possible outcomes by removing a variable.  That's directly from Selig's own mouth (via Mike and Mike show, on ESPNRadio, a couple months back).

As for "more 4 hour games", I've never been convinced that's due to the DH rule.  In fact, in 2004, according to Elias (granted, it's old data...but I can't find newer) the NL averaged 2:47:20 to the AL's 2:46:55.  I don't get the feeling that game length is all that different between the two leagues, in general.  Anyone see more recent data that says otherwise?

[sandman]

I've never bought the "Now it counts" stance, it's an exhibition game.  Award the team with the best record throughout the season with home field..

I don't think I could take any more 4 hour games.

The problem with the "give the team with the best record home field" philosophy is the disparity (borne out by interleague play) in the 2 leagues strengths.  REALLY good teams in the NL don't have the overall strength of schedule that the REALLY good teams in the AL have.  They tend to rack up more wins against lesser competition.  Since the two leagues are so different, I agree that looking at end of season record, when comparing an NL team vs an AL team, just isn't a fair comparison.

I'm not saying the AS rule is "more fair"...but it seems to be "as fair", and as an aside it makes a game that NOBODY (including the players) took seriously, had become a complete joke with players skipping for hang nails, a game who's relevance was destroyed by allowing it to end in a TIE and turned it into something a bit "more".

One other thing:  There is a dirty little secret on MLB's side as to WHY the WS league home field is determined at the AS break: It aids travel arrangements from the leagues offices by giving them a BIT of a head start on scheduling possibilities during the playoffs.  It limits the number of possible outcomes by removing a variable.  That's directly from Selig's own mouth (via Mike and Mike show, on ESPNRadio, a couple months back).

don't get me started on the home field rule. it is a total joke. you are in a very small minority if you think the current system is "as fair" as having it based on games actually won by the actual teams playing in the WS (no matter who they were against). they were real games won.

it will change once the NL wins 4 in a row and a couple wild card teams with .500 records get home field against the yanks or red sox after 105+ win seasons. 

and Selig's travel argument is complete bull shit. it barely helps travel arrangements. he's a fraud. in fact, if that truely is a factor (and not just an added "benefit"), then he should be fired. cause to make a critical decision affecting the integrity of the sport's annual WS winner on travel arrangements is about as absurd as it gets.

[pilferk]

don't get me started on the home field rule. it is a total joke. you are in a very small minority if you think the current system is "as fair" as having it based on games actually won by the actual teams playing in the WS (no matter who they were against). they were real games won.

But wins in completely different environments. You can't sit there and tell me that 105 wins from a team in the AL east is remotely the same as 105 wins from a team in the NL Central.  And there's no easy way to really solve that inherent issue, year to  year.  At least in AL vs AL or NL vs NL, you ARE playing the entire league, at least once.  When comparing NL vs AL....it's like comparing Grannysmith to Red Delicious.  They might both be apples...but they're VERY different apples.

Neither method is "fair".  I just see them as being roughly equivalent in fairness...and whatever gap exists in other's opinions, is (in the eyes of MLB), overridden by making the AS game relevant, and "encouraging" the players to participate.  Having see what the AS game had become....which was a meaningless, boring, unwatchable event that nobody cared about, and no veteran player really wanted to be part of...I can't say they're too far off in that reasoning.

How about basing home field on the ultimate outcome of yearly interleague play?  Whichever league wins more games gets home field?  Would make THAT more interesting. I'd certainly be OK with that, and it would STILL decide things earlier than in the final weeks of the playoffs (something MLB obviously wants).  In fact...if you moved the AS game to the end of the year, that would be my preferred methodology.

As for being in the minority...the polls I've seen from fans on the subject seem pretty evenly divided.  Now, reasoning (fairness, etc) isn't part of the poll....but still.

it will change once the NL wins 4 in a row and a couple wild card teams with .500 records get home field against the yanks or red sox after 105+ win seasons. 

It won't change until Selig leaves...and if his successor is hand picked by him, it likely won't change even then. And it if makes it through Selig's successor (and if his successor has the kind of staying power we've seen from Selig), it's here for good.  Selig has said he looks at this as part of his "legacy" in terms of baseball.  I can live with not having Home field after winning 105...because everyone else is held to the same standard. 

and Selig's travel argument is complete bull shit. it barely helps travel arrangements. he's a fraud. in fact, if that truely is a factor (and not just an added "benefit"), then he should be fired. cause to make a critical decision affecting the integrity of the sport's annual WS winner on travel arrangements is about as absurd as it gets.

It's a factor.  It's not the entirety of the reasoning, but he said it himself:  It was a factor in the decision, as it provided what he considered to be a huge benefit to the AS game and solved some logistical nightmares in relation to the WS.  It was one of the factors he cited when discussing the possibility of reverting back to the "old" way when he was on Mike and Mike.  His ultimate response was (and I'm paraphrasing, obviously): It ain't never gonna happen. Deal with it.

I know..the NL fans hate it because they just can't seem to put one in their pocket.  But...if the Yanks were the ones getting "burned" by the rule I can HONESTLY tell you it wouldn't bother me. 

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Keep that DH nonsense out of the National League, thanks.

Here's a wild idea.  If I were in DUD Selig's shoes, I would DOUBLE the luxury tax penalty.

I'll ignore my suspicion that this is simply a "Yankee rule", and take you at face value that you think it's the best thing for the game, as a whole.

In terms of "sport", I get it.  People feel like the large market teams (especially the Yanks, Mets, Sox, Dodgers, and Angels) have an unfair advantage in the market.  I don't necessarily SEE it (the Rays success last year, the Marlins success in years past) borne out in results, but I get the perception.  And I get that anything that can be done to quell that perception, in terms of SPORT, wouldn't be bad.

HOWEVER, looking at baseball as a business...you don't really want to do that, actually. 

It's set now as a deterrent, in part, but also as a "revenue enhancer" for the small market teams.  In other words:  We know that the big market teams are going to have a payroll advantage.  They can choose to exploit THAT advantage (and leave other paths to success for the smaller market teams), but they have to "share the wealth" with the small market teams.  If they're going to pay the big names big dollars to put butts in seats, sell merch, etc....and rob the small market teams of THAT, too (they're not, really...mid-market teams maybe, but not the small..more on that in a sec)...then there needs to be a way to even things out, financially.  The luxury tax is that instrument.  At it's core, it's not about competitiveness on the field (and it was never really conceived to be), but about making sure the small market teams can still make ends meet.

If you ACTUALLY made it into a 100% deterrent, that was so large that it would deter even the largest market teams from going over cap, you're actually advocating the death of the small market teams.  Because the MLBPA isn't going to allow "salary contraction" at this point.  While there'd be more competition in the market for the big names...the truly small market teams STILL wouldn't be able to afford to pay the big names, meaning they'd just end up in the mid-market teams  AND the small market teams would now lose out on the luxury tax payments that are keeping them afloat (or going into owner's pockets..depending on the team..but functionally they may be the same thing).  It wouldn't be pretty.

Not a "Yankee Rule," even though the Yankees have set the bar at exploiting it.

Some small market teams leech off the wealthier teams due to the luxury tax.  The owners profit and at the same time, they keep their payroll at a bare minimum.  Not to take anything from the Rays last year, but that team was not built to make a World Series run.  They stumbled and lucked their way into it.  Ownership had not done anything, and as we saw today, they dumped Kazmir for "prospects."  They don't want to pay their players.  Of course they will remain a small-time operation if they don't do anything to fill seats.

I would not mind having fewer teams.  There would be a better talent pool, and we could have traditional pennant races where "coasting" would not be beneficiary to the team in first place.

I actually love the way the ASG is setup now.  "Make It Count," perhaps Selig's only fine idea.

[sandman]

don't get me started on the home field rule. it is a total joke. you are in a very small minority if you think the current system is "as fair" as having it based on games actually won by the actual teams playing in the WS (no matter who they were against). they were real games won.

But wins in completely different environments. You can't sit there and tell me that 105 wins from a team in the AL east is remotely the same as 105 wins from a team in the NL Central.  And there's no easy way to really solve that inherent issue, year to  year.  At least in AL vs AL or NL vs NL, you ARE playing the entire league, at least once.  When comparing NL vs AL....it's like comparing Grannysmith to Red Delicious.  They might both be apples...but they're VERY different apples.

Neither method is "fair".  I just see them as being roughly equivalent in fairness...and whatever gap exists in other's opinions, is (in the eyes of MLB), overridden by making the AS game relevant, and "encouraging" the players to participate.  Having see what the AS game had become....which was a meaningless, boring, unwatchable event that nobody cared about, and no veteran player really wanted to be part of...I can't say they're too far off in that reasoning.

How about basing home field on the ultimate outcome of yearly interleague play?  Whichever league wins more games gets home field?  Would make THAT more interesting. I'd certainly be OK with that, and it would STILL decide things earlier than in the final weeks of the playoffs (something MLB obviously wants).  In fact...if you moved the AS game to the end of the year, that would be my preferred methodology.

As for being in the minority...the polls I've seen from fans on the subject seem pretty evenly divided.  Now, reasoning (fairness, etc) isn't part of the poll....but still.

it will change once the NL wins 4 in a row and a couple wild card teams with .500 records get home field against the yanks or red sox after 105+ win seasons. 

It won't change until Selig leaves...and if his successor is hand picked by him, it likely won't change even then. And it if makes it through Selig's successor (and if his successor has the kind of staying power we've seen from Selig), it's here for good.  Selig has said he looks at this as part of his "legacy" in terms of baseball.  I can live with not having Home field after winning 105...because everyone else is held to the same standard. 

and Selig's travel argument is complete bull shit. it barely helps travel arrangements. he's a fraud. in fact, if that truely is a factor (and not just an added "benefit"), then he should be fired. cause to make a critical decision affecting the integrity of the sport's annual WS winner on travel arrangements is about as absurd as it gets.

It's a factor.  It's not the entirety of the reasoning, but he said it himself:  It was a factor in the decision, as it provided what he considered to be a huge benefit to the AS game and solved some logistical nightmares in relation to the WS.  It was one of the factors he cited when discussing the possibility of reverting back to the "old" way when he was on Mike and Mike.  His ultimate response was (and I'm paraphrasing, obviously): It ain't never gonna happen. Deal with it.

I know..the NL fans hate it because they just can't seem to put one in their pocket.  But...if the Yanks were the ones getting "burned" by the rule I can HONESTLY tell you it wouldn't bother me. 

it has nothing to do with me being an NL fan. i clearly made my argument (but feel free to continue to ignore my ACTUAL opinion). the phils have actually won a world series in recent years, and won it at home. which made it so much sweeter. and i got to attend game 4 - a critical game that we ended up blowing open and essentially locking it all up with a 3-1 lead. we dominated the best the AL had to offer, so it worked out perfectly that the AL had home field. so as a phils fan, we benefited from the current system. big time. (btw, still blows my mind that TB was able to win the AL East.)

you actually believe things bud selig says??? the logistical nightmare he talks about is BS. the nba and nhl have the same issues - it's no big deal. and there are still plenty of variables MLB has to plan for - early october the league still has several potential locations for the WS.

[pilferk]

it has nothing to do with me being an NL fan. i clearly made my argument (but feel free to continue to ignore my ACTUAL opinion). the phils have actually won a world series in recent years, and won it at home. which made it so much sweeter. and i got to attend game 4 - a critical game that we ended up blowing open and essentially locking it all up with a 3-1 lead. we dominated the best the AL had to offer, so it worked out perfectly that the AL had home field. so as a phils fan, we benefited from the current system. big time. (btw, still blows my mind that TB was able to win the AL East.)

you actually believe things bud selig says??? the logistical nightmare he talks about is BS. the nba and nhl have the same issues - it's no big deal. and there are still plenty of variables MLB has to plan for - early october the league still has several potential locations for the WS.

1) I'd actually forgotten (or, actually, just not thought about..which is why I address the NL fans as "they" and not "you") the fact your team was an NL team.  It was just a final "broad point" at the end of the post.

2) I hardly "ignored" your opinion.  In fact, I'd spent the previous however many words addressing it.

3) I have no reason to think Selig lies.  Because, if he DID lie, I'd assume he'd come up with better ones.  All I know is what he's said, in public conversations/interviews.

4) MLB takes the number of potential schedule sites for each "home segment" from a max of 8 down to a max of 4.  In other words, there are only 4 possible teams, when the playoffs BEGIN, that can have the opening game of the WS.   As for the other leagues ability to cope: I have no idea.  That's a good question to ask Selig.  Try to ring him up and get him to answer it.  All I know is what he's said on the record.

[sandman]

it has nothing to do with me being an NL fan. i clearly made my argument (but feel free to continue to ignore my ACTUAL opinion). the phils have actually won a world series in recent years, and won it at home. which made it so much sweeter. and i got to attend game 4 - a critical game that we ended up blowing open and essentially locking it all up with a 3-1 lead. we dominated the best the AL had to offer, so it worked out perfectly that the AL had home field. so as a phils fan, we benefited from the current system. big time. (btw, still blows my mind that TB was able to win the AL East.)

you actually believe things bud selig says??? the logistical nightmare he talks about is BS. the nba and nhl have the same issues - it's no big deal. and there are still plenty of variables MLB has to plan for - early october the league still has several potential locations for the WS.

1) I'd actually forgotten (or, actually, just not thought about..which is why I address the NL fans as "they" and not "you") the fact your team was an NL team.  It was just a final "broad point" at the end of the post.

2) I hardly "ignored" your opinion.  In fact, I'd spent the previous however many words addressing it.

3) I have no reason to think Selig lies.  Because, if he DID lie, I'd assume he'd come up with better ones.  All I know is what he's said, in public conversations/interviews.

4) MLB takes the number of potential schedule sites for each "home segment" from a max of 8 down to a max of 4.  In other words, there are only 4 possible teams, when the playoffs BEGIN, that can have the opening game of the WS.   As for the other leagues ability to cope: I have no idea.  That's a good question to ask Selig.  Try to ring him up and get him to answer it.  All I know is what he's said on the record.

1. understood. thought that was directed at me.

4. actually, the question for selig when i give him a call is how did MLB manage the scheduling nightmares for the first 9-10 years of the wild card. i guess having some secretary make extra calls to book a few flights and hotels was really rough. 

regardless of the reasoning, they should at least make sure the best players are there if it is gonna be such an important game. fans are clueless, and the requirement that every team is represented ensures the best players are not included.

[Falcon]

regardless of the reasoning, they should at least make sure the best players are there if it is gonna be such an important game. fans are clueless, and the requirement that every team is represented ensures the best players are not included.

Agreed - If it's "gonna count" that is..

Until then, it remains an exhibition to me.

Pilf - you make some good points for sure,  agree to disagree.

I think baseball has just overthought a few things and gone "gimmick" on a few others - it's just not that hard.

[Falcon]

DISCLAIMER:

I have a huge amount of respect for the Yankees and their tradition - THE most storied franchise in all of sports in my book.

That said...

John Sterling is absolutely THE cheesy-est play by play man I have ever heard.

Listened to Dan Patrick and Opie and Anthony today, both replaying a couple of Sterling's latest crimes against baseball and hammering him accordingly.

"Swisherlicious"?? "Hinske with your best shot"??

Does he not realize he's calling NEW YORK YANKEE games and not minor league hockey??

Pilf - or any Yank fan..How in the hell do you guys tolerate it??? 

[faldor]

DISCLAIMER:

I have a huge amount of respect for the Yankees and their tradition - THE most storied franchise in all of sports in my book.

That said...

John Sterling is absolutely THE cheesy-est play by play man I have ever heard.

Listened to Dan Patrick and Opie and Anthony today, both replaying a couple of Sterling's latest crimes against baseball and hammering him accordingly.

"Swisherlicious"?? "Hinske with your best shot"??

Does he not realize he's calling NEW YORK YANKEE games and not minor league hockey??

Pilf - or any Yank fan..How in the hell do you guys tolerate it??? 

I'm glad you brought this up.  The Yankees have the worst broadcast teams ever created.  Both on radio and TV.  Susan Waldman, well, just reference her reaction to Roger Clemens' return.  That's all you need to hear to make a judgement call on her.  Michael Kay is horrendous on YES, and any combination of the 14 other analysts on that station aren't much better.  Actually some of the "fringe" guys aren't THAT bad, but the main guys are just plain bad.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Yeah, no one memorable since Red Barber.  Of course, that was before my time.