I’m sure we all played some version of the game my friends and I called Strikeout. You know, 1 v. 1. Pitcher and hitter with a chalked strike zone on the wall to pitch against. The type of hits were determined by how far you hit the ball. Lotsa singles and doubles. A few triples and homers. Some strikeouts and walks. Not too many SO’s even though we called it that. I can guarantee you that it wouldn’t have been fun if it were mostly strikeouts, walks, and homeruns. No way.
If you want to see baseball with a lot of baserunners, steals, and doubles (but only a single triple all year because of the short fences), watch the WPBL. The championship series starts this week, it's a best of 5.
I’m admittedly not a Big Fan (book reference intended) of pitchers winning the MVP award. It’s hard to see how a player who is only the field for about 15% of his team’s innings (less than 5% for a RP…i’m looking at you Willie Hernandez) can be league MVP. Schlittler is having an outstanding season, but it’s not rare air enough for him to garner significant MVP consideration…but hey, that’s just one man’s opinion.
Schilttler has faced 722 batters so far this season, and Bobby Witt, Jr., has 581 plate appearances (plus 461 chances in the field). I think it's pretty clear that starting pitchers have as big an impact on winning as most position players do. But I also believe that WAR does a great job accounting for the differences, which is why relievers barely show up on the WAR leaderboards at all, no matter how dominant they are.
Proud of myself for guessing Jacob deGrom as the one pitcher to get a 1st place MVP vote since 2014
That being said: I don't think a starting pitcher should win MVP UNTIL they are returned to their previous status within the game. I'd pick Alvarez for MVP
Yep. I'm hoping that our WSox get rewarded with a #2 seed and division title for their turnaround this season - even if they are still a bit crummy & will probably top off at 83 wins (at best).
To go from 41 wins to 60 wins to at least 76 & probably more is great for our "small market" fan base. It's been a fun season and at this point in my life, fun baseball seasons are a great bonus.
"Come on you White Sox!"
or #COYWS (as my pal has been signing off lately).
Joe, I re-read your post on checked swings and think that your recommendations make a ton of sense. I had to laugh at the Sandy Koufax videos where checked swings were not called strikes. The guys he was pitching to should have been called for two strikes because of how far around they went.
I've been pondering the idea of giving teams some kind of advantage for having a much better record than their opponent in the postseason. I'd vote for something like, if your team has 10 more wins than the opponent, you automatically win the first game of the series, so you start 1-0 up. You only have to win 3 games, your opponent has to win 4. MLB might not like that (possibility of losing ad money from fewer playoff games), so maybe you start with taking away home field advantage. If you have 10 more regular season wins than your opponent, you get 5 home games instead of 4. 20+ games up, 6 home games to 1.
I have also now gotten to the point that I've completely stopped caring about division races. So many teams make the playoffs, that we are going to see a team make the playoffs with a less-good record than one who misses. No division format is worth that situation. Just go to a single table in each league. The top 6 teams make it to the tournament. The rest go home.
Just to be clear, I don't like that I'm thinking this way now. But I'm so beat down by so many teams making it in, that I think it's probably the best way forward.
When you're talking about rule changes to stop annoying things, I immediately start thinking about ways to stop intentional walks. I don't believe they can be eliminated entirely, but any little bit helps. So, my contribution to this is that teams can issue intentional walks no more than twice a game, and none after the sixth inning.
Now, this of course does not stop pitching around players. And I don't really think anything can truly stop that. However, just because you can't do everything doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. So the rule change would leave it up to the umpires to decide if teams are intentionally pitching around a player. If teams do that in innings 1-6, and the ump decides it should count as one of the two IBBs, then the ump makes that call. If a team does that after the sixth, my preference would be for the pitcher to then get ejected. However, I do have sympathy for those who might say that would be a bit too draconian of a punishment. So I'm going to say that if the ump decides a team is issuing an "intentional unintentional" walk, then that team gets one warning, and then if it happens again (even if another pitcher has come into the game since the warning), then that pitcher is ejected. If it happens again, another ejection, this time the manager as well.
IBBs are a scourge, and they should be stopped no matter how we do it.
And BTW, my initial preference for punishment is that the pitcher should have to change the name on the back of his uniform to "Coward" the next time he pitches. But I think this will not be adopted. More's the shame.
I don't like the number of playoff teams either, but this is where we are. The fact that the best record means little almost makes me want to shorten the season, even though I like the long season, and like the consistency of history.
But going back to two teams like in the days (mostly before Joe was born) is unrealistic, and has been ever since the expansion and adding divisions. (Which happened perhaps not before Joe was born, but before his memory) The league winner came from a time when there were less teams and every team in each league played every other team the same amount of times. A schedule balance impossible to achieve with this may teams.
I was happy with the single elimination wild card game (and then that wild card playing the #1 seed having burned their best pitcher). It did allow a non division winner in, but still made winning the division a paramount thing. But even to go back to that at this point, we would have to have a yearly fan go fund me that raises as much money as the MLB gets for extra playoffs, and even though most fans would like it, I don't think they would pay for it. Also even if they managed to do it once, it would fall off quickly, as fans whose teams would have made it under the current format would be pissed their team didn't get the chance they feel they "deserved".
I have thought of a way (if the league ever does get to 32) for the teams to prioritize a good regular season record, as they will probably want to add yet another playoff team to each league. (I would of course, prefer 8 divisions of 4, and only division winners making it. If you don't win your division, too bad so sad, there were only 4 teams, and you played the same schedule as the other 3, and weren't the best, but then we are getting back into the go fund me stuff, because the MLB will never give up that money)
The 3 best division teams get a bye. (Really no longer than the one now.) The division winner with the worst record hosts a double elimination tournament at their site with the 3 wild cards. Seeded game the first game, then winners and loser play, the team that loses the losers game is eliminated, the 1-1 teams play an elimination game, and then the winner has to go 2-0 vs. the team that already has two wins to advance.
One team emerges, and goes up against the number 1 seed. The #2 and #3 division winners start to play each other on the travel day, staggering the different series (an AL and NL game every day!) naturally instead of the weird day off for no reason we have now. Their would still be a chance for a non division winner to make it, but only one, and they will have earned their way in.
I check out in the opening round now unless I have a rooting interest, but I would totally watch that.
Yordan Alvarez is my AL MVP and it's not close. When he's on, no pitcher wants to face him. For a while, it felt like he was keeping the Astros afloat all by himself. Yeah, the team is meh, .500, but nothing about Yordan Alvarez is meh.
BA: 1st
OBP: 1st
SLG: 1st
TB: 1st
HR: 2nd
RBI: 2nd
H: 2nd
R: 3rd
2b: 6th
BB: 1st
K: 43rd
Not an Astros fan. I'm a Mariners fan, and Mariners fans know better than anybody. It's Alvarez.
Whether the “big star” theory for large-market dominance in the postseason is bs or not, the fact remains that high-salaried teams tend to win the World Series. Since 2015, only two World Series winners (‘15 Royals and ‘17 Astros) did not rank among the top 10 in salaries, and five ( those two plus ‘19 Nats, ‘21 Braves, and ‘22 Astros) did not rank in top 5.
A.) "Top-10" is a third of the league. That's not a small group; if we were to EXCLUDE the top-10, that's a lot of teams!
B.) We want SOME correlation between salary and winning. We want a team to reward good players with big contracts. Thus, the 2017 Astros were a "low payroll winner," while the 2022 Astros were not.
C.) There are 10 teams I, at least, DON'T want winning: Angels, Athletics, Twins, Royals, Orioles, Pirates, Nationals, Marlins, Rockies, Giants. These are teams that are only BARELY - if at all - trying to win. They don't go out and try to sign people; they don't try to lock up young stars. I'm GLAD they're not rewarded for incompetence and/or a lack of effort.
D.) While there is a history of big spenders winning... a lot of big spenders DON'T win. Perhaps you've seen the Mets' recent history. Their recent-ish trip to the NLCS notwithstanding, they've only appeared in the playoffs twice in the last ten years. The Angels have often ranked among the biggest spenders... and they haven't made the playoffs in over a decade. The Yankees have made that one World Series in the last 16 years... but ONLY the one, which is fewer than the Giants, Rangers, Royals, Cardinals, Red Sox, Astros, and Dodgers. So it's not JUST spending (and yes, some of those teams have spent more than the Yankees in recent years, but not every year for 16 years).
Basically, it's certainly true that the top spenders have a leg - maybe leg-and-a-half - up on the competition. But it's certainly not EVERYTHING.
I think the reason this debate really gets clogged up is that both sides see what they want to see; the "It's all about the money" side sees that only a handful of teams seem to win the World Series, or that the same teams make the postseason every year (or at least that only about half the league has a shot in a given year). The "Money doesn't matter" side sees only that, year after year, the playoffs look like a crapshoot and the best (regular-season) teams in baseball seem to come from all over the spending spectrum. Both sides are right; both sides are incomplete. It is, certainly not going to map 100% onto either hypothesis. So both sides just dig in, cherry-pick arguments (not EVERYONE, but enough), and see what they want to see.
The only thing I'd add to this analysis is how salary changes during the course of the year. A team in contention adds salary while a poor one dumps contracts. ATL added much of Tyler Mahle's contract because they were already winning, SF dumped him because they weren't. That, and a zillion other examples, muddy the waters of cause and effect relationship between dollars and wins.
Right, KHAZAD's analysis is pretty compelling, I think even Bill James would have a hard time refuting it. "Big-star" is a good hypothesis, but it needs more analysis before declaring it as the root cause (which is why Joe compared it to B.S.
I’m sure we all played some version of the game my friends and I called Strikeout. You know, 1 v. 1. Pitcher and hitter with a chalked strike zone on the wall to pitch against. The type of hits were determined by how far you hit the ball. Lotsa singles and doubles. A few triples and homers. Some strikeouts and walks. Not too many SO’s even though we called it that. I can guarantee you that it wouldn’t have been fun if it were mostly strikeouts, walks, and homeruns. No way.
If you want to see baseball with a lot of baserunners, steals, and doubles (but only a single triple all year because of the short fences), watch the WPBL. The championship series starts this week, it's a best of 5.
I’m admittedly not a Big Fan (book reference intended) of pitchers winning the MVP award. It’s hard to see how a player who is only the field for about 15% of his team’s innings (less than 5% for a RP…i’m looking at you Willie Hernandez) can be league MVP. Schlittler is having an outstanding season, but it’s not rare air enough for him to garner significant MVP consideration…but hey, that’s just one man’s opinion.
Schilttler has faced 722 batters so far this season, and Bobby Witt, Jr., has 581 plate appearances (plus 461 chances in the field). I think it's pretty clear that starting pitchers have as big an impact on winning as most position players do. But I also believe that WAR does a great job accounting for the differences, which is why relievers barely show up on the WAR leaderboards at all, no matter how dominant they are.
Sox win! Sox win!
Wasn't pretty. Wasn't easy.
But a win is a win.
September baseball.
Oh-oh!
Colson? How could you?
Thankfully, floodgates not open.
Tristan Peters using his head.
The kind of play that will be remembered for years to come ... if the season turns out great.
By the way, Peters got to first on a walk (18 pitch at bat). Just kept fouling them off. Starter Gavin Williams was lifted at that point.
Wow!
How a single oddball play can make a difference. Vargas!
As the late Terry Boers would often say, "Baseball is a game of infinite possibilities."
WSox v Guardians.
Half way through the game, 0-0.
Tense!
If this was football/futbol/soccer/calcium at halftime, away, against main contender, I'd be satisfied with first half of play. More to come ...
Calcio not calcium.
Proud of myself for guessing Jacob deGrom as the one pitcher to get a 1st place MVP vote since 2014
That being said: I don't think a starting pitcher should win MVP UNTIL they are returned to their previous status within the game. I'd pick Alvarez for MVP
Guardians v White Sox?
All In?
Yep. I'm hoping that our WSox get rewarded with a #2 seed and division title for their turnaround this season - even if they are still a bit crummy & will probably top off at 83 wins (at best).
To go from 41 wins to 60 wins to at least 76 & probably more is great for our "small market" fan base. It's been a fun season and at this point in my life, fun baseball seasons are a great bonus.
"Come on you White Sox!"
or #COYWS (as my pal has been signing off lately).
Joe, I re-read your post on checked swings and think that your recommendations make a ton of sense. I had to laugh at the Sandy Koufax videos where checked swings were not called strikes. The guys he was pitching to should have been called for two strikes because of how far around they went.
Re: making the regular season matter more.
I've been pondering the idea of giving teams some kind of advantage for having a much better record than their opponent in the postseason. I'd vote for something like, if your team has 10 more wins than the opponent, you automatically win the first game of the series, so you start 1-0 up. You only have to win 3 games, your opponent has to win 4. MLB might not like that (possibility of losing ad money from fewer playoff games), so maybe you start with taking away home field advantage. If you have 10 more regular season wins than your opponent, you get 5 home games instead of 4. 20+ games up, 6 home games to 1.
I have also now gotten to the point that I've completely stopped caring about division races. So many teams make the playoffs, that we are going to see a team make the playoffs with a less-good record than one who misses. No division format is worth that situation. Just go to a single table in each league. The top 6 teams make it to the tournament. The rest go home.
Just to be clear, I don't like that I'm thinking this way now. But I'm so beat down by so many teams making it in, that I think it's probably the best way forward.
When you're talking about rule changes to stop annoying things, I immediately start thinking about ways to stop intentional walks. I don't believe they can be eliminated entirely, but any little bit helps. So, my contribution to this is that teams can issue intentional walks no more than twice a game, and none after the sixth inning.
Now, this of course does not stop pitching around players. And I don't really think anything can truly stop that. However, just because you can't do everything doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. So the rule change would leave it up to the umpires to decide if teams are intentionally pitching around a player. If teams do that in innings 1-6, and the ump decides it should count as one of the two IBBs, then the ump makes that call. If a team does that after the sixth, my preference would be for the pitcher to then get ejected. However, I do have sympathy for those who might say that would be a bit too draconian of a punishment. So I'm going to say that if the ump decides a team is issuing an "intentional unintentional" walk, then that team gets one warning, and then if it happens again (even if another pitcher has come into the game since the warning), then that pitcher is ejected. If it happens again, another ejection, this time the manager as well.
IBBs are a scourge, and they should be stopped no matter how we do it.
And BTW, my initial preference for punishment is that the pitcher should have to change the name on the back of his uniform to "Coward" the next time he pitches. But I think this will not be adopted. More's the shame.
I don't like the number of playoff teams either, but this is where we are. The fact that the best record means little almost makes me want to shorten the season, even though I like the long season, and like the consistency of history.
But going back to two teams like in the days (mostly before Joe was born) is unrealistic, and has been ever since the expansion and adding divisions. (Which happened perhaps not before Joe was born, but before his memory) The league winner came from a time when there were less teams and every team in each league played every other team the same amount of times. A schedule balance impossible to achieve with this may teams.
I was happy with the single elimination wild card game (and then that wild card playing the #1 seed having burned their best pitcher). It did allow a non division winner in, but still made winning the division a paramount thing. But even to go back to that at this point, we would have to have a yearly fan go fund me that raises as much money as the MLB gets for extra playoffs, and even though most fans would like it, I don't think they would pay for it. Also even if they managed to do it once, it would fall off quickly, as fans whose teams would have made it under the current format would be pissed their team didn't get the chance they feel they "deserved".
I have thought of a way (if the league ever does get to 32) for the teams to prioritize a good regular season record, as they will probably want to add yet another playoff team to each league. (I would of course, prefer 8 divisions of 4, and only division winners making it. If you don't win your division, too bad so sad, there were only 4 teams, and you played the same schedule as the other 3, and weren't the best, but then we are getting back into the go fund me stuff, because the MLB will never give up that money)
The 3 best division teams get a bye. (Really no longer than the one now.) The division winner with the worst record hosts a double elimination tournament at their site with the 3 wild cards. Seeded game the first game, then winners and loser play, the team that loses the losers game is eliminated, the 1-1 teams play an elimination game, and then the winner has to go 2-0 vs. the team that already has two wins to advance.
One team emerges, and goes up against the number 1 seed. The #2 and #3 division winners start to play each other on the travel day, staggering the different series (an AL and NL game every day!) naturally instead of the weird day off for no reason we have now. Their would still be a chance for a non division winner to make it, but only one, and they will have earned their way in.
I check out in the opening round now unless I have a rooting interest, but I would totally watch that.
Yordan Alvarez is my AL MVP and it's not close. When he's on, no pitcher wants to face him. For a while, it felt like he was keeping the Astros afloat all by himself. Yeah, the team is meh, .500, but nothing about Yordan Alvarez is meh.
BA: 1st
OBP: 1st
SLG: 1st
TB: 1st
HR: 2nd
RBI: 2nd
H: 2nd
R: 3rd
2b: 6th
BB: 1st
K: 43rd
Not an Astros fan. I'm a Mariners fan, and Mariners fans know better than anybody. It's Alvarez.
Whether the “big star” theory for large-market dominance in the postseason is bs or not, the fact remains that high-salaried teams tend to win the World Series. Since 2015, only two World Series winners (‘15 Royals and ‘17 Astros) did not rank among the top 10 in salaries, and five ( those two plus ‘19 Nats, ‘21 Braves, and ‘22 Astros) did not rank in top 5.
Okay, but...
A.) "Top-10" is a third of the league. That's not a small group; if we were to EXCLUDE the top-10, that's a lot of teams!
B.) We want SOME correlation between salary and winning. We want a team to reward good players with big contracts. Thus, the 2017 Astros were a "low payroll winner," while the 2022 Astros were not.
C.) There are 10 teams I, at least, DON'T want winning: Angels, Athletics, Twins, Royals, Orioles, Pirates, Nationals, Marlins, Rockies, Giants. These are teams that are only BARELY - if at all - trying to win. They don't go out and try to sign people; they don't try to lock up young stars. I'm GLAD they're not rewarded for incompetence and/or a lack of effort.
D.) While there is a history of big spenders winning... a lot of big spenders DON'T win. Perhaps you've seen the Mets' recent history. Their recent-ish trip to the NLCS notwithstanding, they've only appeared in the playoffs twice in the last ten years. The Angels have often ranked among the biggest spenders... and they haven't made the playoffs in over a decade. The Yankees have made that one World Series in the last 16 years... but ONLY the one, which is fewer than the Giants, Rangers, Royals, Cardinals, Red Sox, Astros, and Dodgers. So it's not JUST spending (and yes, some of those teams have spent more than the Yankees in recent years, but not every year for 16 years).
Basically, it's certainly true that the top spenders have a leg - maybe leg-and-a-half - up on the competition. But it's certainly not EVERYTHING.
I think the reason this debate really gets clogged up is that both sides see what they want to see; the "It's all about the money" side sees that only a handful of teams seem to win the World Series, or that the same teams make the postseason every year (or at least that only about half the league has a shot in a given year). The "Money doesn't matter" side sees only that, year after year, the playoffs look like a crapshoot and the best (regular-season) teams in baseball seem to come from all over the spending spectrum. Both sides are right; both sides are incomplete. It is, certainly not going to map 100% onto either hypothesis. So both sides just dig in, cherry-pick arguments (not EVERYONE, but enough), and see what they want to see.
I think the Giants try. It’s just that they lose a lot a of players to other teams and Buster Posey doesn’t know what he’s doing
And I think the Angels have tried they are just inept
The only thing I'd add to this analysis is how salary changes during the course of the year. A team in contention adds salary while a poor one dumps contracts. ATL added much of Tyler Mahle's contract because they were already winning, SF dumped him because they weren't. That, and a zillion other examples, muddy the waters of cause and effect relationship between dollars and wins.
Right, KHAZAD's analysis is pretty compelling, I think even Bill James would have a hard time refuting it. "Big-star" is a good hypothesis, but it needs more analysis before declaring it as the root cause (which is why Joe compared it to B.S.