The following is not mathematically rigorous, since the events of yesterday evening were contingent upon one another in various ways. But just for fun, let’s put all of them together in sequence: The Red Sox had just a 0.3 percent chance of failing to make the playoffs on Sept. 3. The Rays had just a 0.3 percent chance of coming back after trailing 7-0 with two innings to play. The Red Sox had only about a 2 percent chance of losing their game against Baltimore, when the Orioles were down to their last strike. The Rays had about a 2 percent chance of winning in the bottom of the 9th, with Johnson also down to his last strike. Multiply those four probabilities together, and you get a combined probability of about one chance in 278 million of all these events coming together in quite this way.
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]MLB did a great job on their season finale last night.[/quote]I would have liked to have received a better explanation of what the numbers mean, but overall I liked it.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Am I correct in stating that last night does not happen if there were a second wild card berth?[/quote]Now that I read the article Mish posted I am even more against the idea of a second wild card.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Am I correct in stating that last night does not happen if there were a second wild card berth?[/quote]Not really. It would happen every year. Isn’t the proposition to have a pair of one-game playoffs in each league? Or just one in each league? That would mean the final four in each league would be decided by a one-game showdown every year. Or would it be less exciting if the teams were playing each other?
Or we could just continue hoping that such a scenario plays out again, despite the mathematical evidence showing that we’ll probably have to wait a few thousand years or so.
Furthermore, wouldn’t it stand to reason that as the standard of qualifying for the playoffs is lowered, the distribution of talent at the brink of qualification will become more dense and therefore more exciting?
Just a guess, but if the playoffs were eliminated and the top team from each league advanced to the World Series, wouldn’t you expect that race to be less exciting and to involve fewer contenders? As the bar is lowered, the break between the worst playoff team and the best nonplayoff team would seemingly narrow, therefore heightening the probability of craziness, right?
I think if they were hell bent on the additional wild card, instead of making the wild cards play each other they should seed the teams 1 through 5 regardless of division winner/wild card and have 4 and 5 play each other. I understand you want to give division winners the advantage but making a superior team play in a one-off also seems unfair.
Fuck all this anti second-wild card bullshit that’s been running around this week. If you want to make the argument that there shouldn’t be because the best teams should be in the playoffs, fine (and that’s what I think). But looking at a sample size of one (this season) and exclaiming that ZOMG THIS WOULDN’T HAPPEN UNDER THE NEW PLAN DON’T DO IT!!!one!!11! is ridiculous. As Adam mentioned above, more teams would have a chance so there would be just as many, if not more, chances for crazy tiebreaker scenarios.
[quote name=AndCounting]Or we could just continue hoping that such a scenario plays out again, despite the mathematical evidence showing that we’ll probably have to wait a few thousand years or so.[/quote] 1000 times THIS, +1 LSA Rec’d NAMBLA etc etc
[quote name=ACT]Longoria: more than just HR’s: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19787229%5B/quote%5DHe also started that triple play yesterday when he easily could have gotten a for-sure out at home. I know it’s just my eyes (though stats generally back it), but he’s just an amazing fielder. I’m probably being a homer, but he’s got to be in the conversation for best true talent player in the AL, if not baseball. And this was a “down year”.
[quote name=Berselius]Fuck all this anti second-wild card bullshit that’s been running around this week. If you want to make the argument that there shouldn’t be because the best teams should be in the playoffs, fine (and that’s what I think). But looking at a sample size of one (this season) and exclaiming that ZOMG THIS WOULDN’T HAPPEN UNDER THE NEW PLAN DON’T DO IT!!!one!!11! is ridiculous. As Adam mentioned above, more teams would have a chance so there would be just as many, if not more, chances for crazy tiebreaker scenarios.[/quote]if we’re using the sample size of one as you said, that’s not true. The Giants finished with 86 wins. They’d have been eliminated from the 5th playoff spot last weekend. The Braves and Cardinals both would have clinched then. Anaheim was even further behind the top 5 in the AL.
Overall I think you’re probably right, but this year isn’t an example to use. This year is an example that supports their opinion. The race would have been over before these final series even started. There wouldn’t have been a meaningful game in baseball all week.
[quote name=mb21]if we’re using the sample size of one as you said, that’s not true. The Giants finished with 86 wins. They’d have been eliminated from the 5th playoff spot last weekend. The Braves and Cardinals both would have clinched then. Anaheim was even further behind the top 5 in the AL.
Overall I think you’re probably right, but this year isn’t an example to use. This year is an example that supports their opinion. The race would have been over before these final series even started. There wouldn’t have been a meaningful game in baseball all week.[/quote] I just think it’s a dumb argument. It’s true that everything would be wrapped up this year under the new plan, just as it’s true that if Maddon hadn’t issued that IBB 2 days ago the Rays wouldn’t have turned that triple play.
Apparently Papelbon is finished (according to Sox fans). That’s a shame, considering his 1.53 FIP this year. Obviously, he can’t be relied upon in big game situations, however.
Last year in the AL Boston would have been the 5th team and finished just 1 game better than the White Sox. Padres would have been the 5th team in the NL and the Cardinals finished 4 behind them. Giants and Marlins finished one game apart in 2009. Rangers and Tigers finished 1 game apart in the AL.
So yeah, overall there would just as many exciting games on the final day, but certainly not this year.
[quote name=Berselius]I just think it’s a dumb argument. It’s true that everything would be wrapped up this year under the new plan, just as it’s true that if Maddon hadn’t issued that IBB 2 days ago the Rays wouldn’t have turned that triple play.[/quote]It might be a dumb argument. I tend to think it is, but I’d want to see what the races would look like. I don’t want the 5th WC team for two reasons: a one-game playoff is retarded and if I was in charge my playoffs would consist of the AL/NL winner in the World Series.
[quote name=mb21]Actually, I think (wild ass guess) that there would be more tight races for the playoffs. I would be surprised if that wasn’t true.[/quote] No, it’s definitely true. The more you widen the pool the more teams will have a shot.
[quote name=Berselius]No, it’s definitely true. The more you widen the pool the more teams will have a shot.[/quote]It’s not teams having a shot that people are complaining about right now. They’re complaining about the races coming down to the final day or maybe two days. Obviously more teams have a shot, but that doesn’t mean there will be more close races. I think there would. The question is this: how close is the current Wild Card team to the next best teams and how close would the 5th WC team be to the next best teams? Over the last 3 years it looks even or maybe just slight in favor of the current system.
About a year ago when they first floated this idea I started looking back through the WC era and I found little difference. I think Dave Cameron looked at it too, but I did something slightly different and don’t remember exactly what it was. I may still have the file somewhere. I think there would be more tight races, but it’s going to be so close that we could probably just say it’s the same damn thing and be done with it. It’s not like all of a sudden with a 5th team there’s going to be a tight race coming down the final game every year. The same is true for the current system.
If the entire goal of the baseball season is to have races come down the final team then they should just randomly select players each year for teams. Just put all the names in a hat and do it that way. We’ll have a lot more races that way.
Thing is, I don’t think these people give a shit about this. The only complaint right now is because this race is fresh in their memory. They’re just overreacting.
My personal opinion is that a single wild-card race that allows the fourth team in to play an actual series is more exciting than allowing two wild cards in to bash each other’s brains out in a one-off prior to becoming fodder for a division winner in the next round, especially if one or both of those wild cards are better than one of the three division winners over the course of the year. But that’s a bunch of different points mixed into one.
I probably should just leave it at “I don’t like the second wild card” and it has nothing to do with math (dying laughing)
I don’t think there’s any reason a 4th and 5th WC team can’t play a 3-game series without affecting much of anything. You supposedly have to leave the final day open for an extra game, but most of the time those don’t happen so you can still schedule the first of 3 games between these WC teams the first available day. They play every day. Give the other teams an even better advantage. You could still start the “real” playoffs on Thursday or Friday (assuming season ends on Sunday, which it apparently does not these days).
Someone needs to tell these teams that having a few days off isn’t going to ruin their mojo. It’s not going to make them worse or better so I don’t even care if you have those two WC teams play a 5-game series. Then the first LDS needs to be expanded to 7 games.
I wish they’d at least make it a 3-game series. They’re not going to shorten the regular season so that may require some schedule finagling, but one of the penalties for not winning the division should be a loss of a travel day for the third game and then the loss of another travel day for getting to the divisional series. That’s three games you can squeeze between the normal end of the regular season and the start of the divisional series.
That’s if they keep it as the wild cards playing each other and don’t go to a straight seeding system which I think is more fair.
[quote name=ACT]Apparently Papelbon is finished (according to Sox fans). That’s a shame, considering his 1.53 FIP this year. Obviously, he can’t be relied upon in big game situations, however.[/quote]Hadn’t he thrown something like 75 pitches spread across 4 days? Seems like he can’t be relied upon in those situations, but that’s what happens when your rotation crumbles.
Given how the probabilities work out in baseball I don’t care if it’s a one game series or a three game series. Too lazy to look it up but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the best team winning.
I do like the idea of having less off-days in the playoffs because it rewards teams for depth, rather than having a few elite pitchers that they can throw more often than in the regular season.
[quote name=Berselius]Given how the probabilities work out in baseball I don’t care if it’s a one game series or a three game series. Too lazy to look it up but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the best team winning.
I do like the idea of having less off-days in the playoffs because it rewards teams for depth, rather than having a few elite pitchers that they can throw more often than in the regular season.[/quote]The two travel days within the 2-3-2 format makes sense but the random off-days in the 5-game divisional series are annoying.
Regardless of how many games the series would entail, if the top 5 teams in the NL had advanced to the playoffs in 2008, the Dodgers still would have finished 2.5 games out of the final slot. With two teams waiting ahead of them. Instead, well, you know what happened.
Fuck this shit about lowering the standards. Having three divisions has already done that. Going to two divisions and adding a wild card would actually make the requirements stricter. (dying laughing)
[quote name=Rice Cube]My personal opinion is that a single wild-card race that allows the fourth team in to play an actual series is more exciting than allowing two wild cards in to bash each other’s brains out in a one-off prior to becoming fodder for a division winner in the next round, especially if one or both of those wild cards are better than one of the three division winners over the course of the year. But that’s a bunch of different points mixed into one.
I probably should just leave it at “I don’t like the second wild card” and it has nothing to do with math (dying laughing)
[quote name=AndCounting]Regardless of how many games the series would entail, if the top 5 teams in the NL had advanced to the playoffs in 2008, the Dodgers still would have finished 2.5 games out of the final slot. With two teams waiting ahead of them. Instead, well, you know what happened.
Fuck this shit about lowering the standards. Having three divisions has already done that. Going to two divisions and adding a wild card would actually make the requirements stricter. (dying laughing)[/quote]I actually liked your realignment idea from your old blog. I forgot if you threw Houston into the AL though. At that point you seed the teams 1-4 and ta-da, done.
But since it’s all about the $, I guess they keep adding playoff spots until it becomes as ridiculous as the NBA/NHL playoffs.
[quote name=TMQ]What The Martz! Are too many cooks spoiling the broth in Chicago? Lovie Smith has three former NFL head coaches as assistants (Mike Martz, Rod Marinelli and Mike Tice), plus a former college head coach (Bob Babich).
It’s not just that Martz has made the pass-wacky offense one-dimensional: counting sacks and scrambles, he has called 131 passes versus 48 rushes. The 1-2 Bears seemed discombobulated at critical moments against the defending champion Packers. Former head coaches tend to project ego fields. Many don’t really want to be taking orders, and don’t want to be questioned by players or each other. There are so many ego fields on the Chicago sideline, they may be interacting negatively.[/quote]For Bears fans.
[quote name=Berselius]Given how the probabilities work out in baseball I don’t care if it’s a one game series or a three game series. Too lazy to look it up but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the best team winning.
I do like the idea of having less off-days in the playoffs because it rewards teams for depth, rather than having a few elite pitchers that they can throw more often than in the regular season.[/quote]Let’s say we have two equal teams. The team with home field advantage will have about a 52% chance of winning the best of 3. Somewhere around there. I’m too lazy to calculate it as well. If we have a team with a 60% chance of winning each game (average of the 3 games), the odds of that team winning are over 60%. In some series it would make a difference and in some it wouldn’t. I’m just against the idea that a one-game playoff means anything. Can the loser even claim to have reached the playoffs? They didn’t. They reached the additional game that came before reaching the playoffs. That’s the thing here. There aren’t 5 playoff teams from each league. There are 4 playoff teams as there currently is. The only difference is that the WC team has to play another WC team one time to see who advances to the playoffs. it’s like saying game 163 is part of the playoffs. The Giants didn’t reach the postseason in 1998. The Cubs beat them in game 163. That’s all this is doing. It’s adding game 163 for each league or potentially game 164.
[quote name=AndCounting]Regardless of how many games the series would entail, if the top 5 teams in the NL had advanced to the playoffs in 2008, the Dodgers still would have finished 2.5 games out of the final slot. With two teams waiting ahead of them. Instead, well, you know what happened.
Fuck this shit about lowering the standards. Having three divisions has already done that. Going to two divisions and adding a wild card would actually make the requirements stricter. (dying laughing)[/quote] They need to go to 15 teams in each league, no divisions and the 5 best reach the playoffs. Actually, at that point just go with the 6 best. Baseball isn’t lowering the number of teams in the playoffs even if i want them to. (dying laughing)
[quote name=mb21]They need to go to 15 teams in each league, no divisions and the 5 best reach the playoffs. Actually, at that point just go with the 6 best. Baseball isn’t lowering the number of teams in the playoffs even if i want them to. (dying laughing)[/quote]Yeah, and give the top two teams a first-round bye and a 1-0 lead to start the best-of-seven 2nd round.
[quote name=AndCounting]Yeah, and give the top two teams a first-round bye and a 1-0 lead to start the best-of-seven 2nd round.[/quote]I like the first-round bye idea but what is the logic behind giving them the one game lead as well?
[quote name=Rice Cube]I like the first-round bye idea but what is the logic behind giving them the one game lead as well?[/quote]Make it less likely that a sixth seed advances. Screw those guys.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Would it be better to have a best-of-9 series rather than a best-of-7 in order to reduce randomness, or would it just not matter?
/not good at math[/quote]The problem with a best-of-9 anytime prior to the World Series is that the potential variation in time it could take to play a series is so big. It could take one week or two. TV would hate that, and so would the teams who pulled off a sweep and have to wait an entire week before the NLCS.
They could also do a round-robin format. Have all six teams play each other in a two-week, five-series affair. Top two records would play each other in the NLCS. This will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever happen, but I’d enjoy it a lot.
[quote name=AndCounting]The problem with a best-of-9 anytime prior to the World Series is that the potential variation in time it could take to play a series is so big. It could take one week or two. TV would hate that, and so would the teams who pulled off a sweep and have to wait an entire week before the NLCS.
They could also do a round-robin format. Have all six teams play each other in a two-week, five-series affair. Top two records would play each other in the NLCS. This will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever happen, but I’d enjoy it a lot.[/quote]I think a lot of fans would like this actually. Well, at least you and I would. But then it’s a lot like the College World Series set-up and that seems even more random than doing the 5- or 7-game series.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Wow…was he texting? (dying laughing) It looked like he didn’t even see the ball even if he was paying attention.[/quote]He was calling for a bunt.
In 2003, Eric Gagne struckout 45.1% of the batters faced. Jansen struckout 44.0%. Last year Marmol struckout 42.1%. I believe he was 3rd prior to this year. I think Wagner was 2nd behind Gagne. I’d have to look though and I’m too lazy. (dying laughing)
I thought the idea of the Red Sox being the best ever was absurd. I didn’t even think they were the best team entering the season. I figured the Yankees were with the Phillies not far behind.
To be honest, I’d have rather seen Boston in the playoffs than the Rays (especially with the Rays’ home being Tropicana Field. Ewww.) That said, last night was extremely exciting, and Boston’s story has a Titanic-style poetic justice to it that feels fitting.
[quote name=ACT]To be honest, I’d have rather seen Boston in the playoffs than the Rays (especially with the Rays’ home being Tropicana Field. Ewww.) That said, last night was extremely exciting, and Boston’s story has a Titanic-style poetic justice to it that feels fitting.[/quote]So in Boston’s case, who is going to die an old lady warm in her bed?
[quote name=ACT]Some of the arguments he is “refuting” are in fact true, though. Boston’s offense did easily outscore last year’s, and their relief pitching was extraordinary (they had the lowest OPS+ against in the league).[/quote]Funsucker.
Nice. For all the talk of Longoria’s “down year,” he’s hitting as well with respect to the rest of the league, as he did in previous years. His batting average is misleading.
[quote name=ACT]Nice. For all the talk of Longoria’s “down year,” he’s hitting as well with respect to the rest of the league, as he did in previous years. His batting average is misleading.[/quote] He posted career bests in K and BB rates and had a .239 BABIP. He might be due for a monster year next year.
[quote name=Mish]He posted career bests in K and BB rates and had a .239 BABIP. He might be due for a monster year next year.[/quote]Well, his BABIP will probably regress, but there’s a good chance his K and BB rates will regress as well (yes, I’m a funsucker).
[quote name=ACT]Well, his BABIP will probably regress, but there’s a good chance his K and BB rates will regress as well (yes, I’m a funsucker).[/quote]Maybe – he still hasn’t hit his peak age and he’s shown improvement year over year…
Anyway, I for one, love the fact that playoff give teams enough off-time to use 3-4 man rotations. It’s the playoffs; I want to see the best pitchers. I love seeing Verlander-Sabathia matchups.
I get the travel day. Great. That makes sense, but a random day off like they sometimes have? These teams would use a 4-man rotation if they played every day. it’s the postseason. They’re not running their number 5 starter out there. Those guys often don’t even make the playoff roster.
[quote name=mb21]Z was already on the 40-man roster.[/quote]There’s a news blurb out there that suggested that he had been taken off but then put back on. It was really strange as I too thought he was already on the roster. I think Berg and Schlitter were DFA’ed as well. Here’s a BN article via a Paul Sullivan Tweet:
I don’t think that’s how the 40-man roster works. As I understand it, it’s relatively simple: Zambrano was suspended for one month, but he remained part of the 40-man roster. By disqualifying him or whatever the hell it was the Cubs did, they added the ability to add someone to replace his spot. It’s the same as a guy on the 60-day DL. You can replace his spot on the roster, but the DL’d guy is still on the 40-man roster.
As far as I know, when Z’s one-month suspension was over, he should’ve been re-added to the 40-man but he was told to stay home since there was no way to get him ready to pitch. So I’m not entirely sure why there was a random procedural move here unless this was like when Ricketts hired the economist and nobody found out for six months.
Are we sure the Cubs actually made a move with regards to Zambrano and the media isn’t just making shit up? I’m guessing that’s exactly what they’re doing. I think the media (and almost all fans) have a terrible understanding of the roster. That’s not a big deal as it is a very difficult thing to learn. I’ve read about it for hours and hours and still don’t know everything. But I am relatively certain that Zambrano never came off the roster. To my knowledge, the only way to take a player like Z off the roster is to outright him to the minor leagues. In order to do that, he’d be eligible to become a free agent because they cannot remove him from the 40-man roster.
I don’t get it and I don’t believe it. (dying laughing)
I think what they mean here is that he’s been added back to the active roster. Yeah, there’s no doubt that’s what they mean and that’s just confusion over what the active and 40- man rosters are. The active roster is the team at the big league level. For most of the year it’s 25 guys and in September it’s as many as 40. Z’s been on the 40-man all this time, but was added back to the active roster, which isn’t news: he automatically got placed back on the active roster when the season ended.
[quote name=mb21]I think what they mean here is that he’s been added back to the active roster. Yeah, there’s no doubt that’s what they mean and that’s just confusion over what the active and 40- man rosters are. The active roster is the team at the big league level. For most of the year it’s 25 guys and in September it’s as many as 40. Z’s been on the 40-man all this time, but was added back to the active roster, which isn’t news: he automatically got placed back on the active roster when the season ended.[/quote]That makes infinitely more sense (dying laughing)
[quote name=Rice Cube]That makes infinitely more sense (dying laughing)
I love that these news folks get paid.[/quote]I’ll give them some leeway on this one. The roster shit in MLB is difficult to understand. Although these people in the media should know the difference between the active and 40-man rosters. So I guess there’s really no excuse.
http://cubs.mlb.com/team/roster_active.jsp?c_id=chc%5B/quote%5DI take back what I said above. There is no excuse they shouldn’t know the difference between the active and 40-man roster. Maybe the media for all teams are this ignorant, but for years the Cubs media has pissed me off when it comes to roster moves. You’d think at least one of them would have taken the time to understand options yet sometimes they don’t even get the basics right.
Comments
Still amazed.
MishQuote Reply
MishQuote Reply
This should have been a
Fanshot.Unobstructed ViewWaLiQuote Reply
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/bill-buckner-strikes-again/
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/bill-buckner-strikes-again/[/quote]
Wow.
BerseliusQuote Reply
(dying laughing), and Nate dropped the now-classic sports narratives xkcd comic in the article
BerseliusQuote Reply
MLB did a great job on their season finale last night.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]MLB did a great job on their season finale last night.[/quote]I would have liked to have received a better explanation of what the numbers mean, but overall I liked it.
AndCountingQuote Reply
Am I correct in stating that last night does not happen if there were a second wild card berth?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]MLB did a great job on their season finale last night.[/quote]
meh, a little too unrealistic.
GWQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Am I correct in stating that last night does not happen if there were a second wild card berth?[/quote]Now that I read the article Mish posted I am even more against the idea of a second wild card.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Am I correct in stating that last night does not happen if there were a second wild card berth?[/quote]Not really. It would happen every year. Isn’t the proposition to have a pair of one-game playoffs in each league? Or just one in each league? That would mean the final four in each league would be decided by a one-game showdown every year. Or would it be less exciting if the teams were playing each other?
AndCountingQuote Reply
Or we could just continue hoping that such a scenario plays out again, despite the mathematical evidence showing that we’ll probably have to wait a few thousand years or so.
AndCountingQuote Reply
Furthermore, wouldn’t it stand to reason that as the standard of qualifying for the playoffs is lowered, the distribution of talent at the brink of qualification will become more dense and therefore more exciting?
Just a guess, but if the playoffs were eliminated and the top team from each league advanced to the World Series, wouldn’t you expect that race to be less exciting and to involve fewer contenders? As the bar is lowered, the break between the worst playoff team and the best nonplayoff team would seemingly narrow, therefore heightening the probability of craziness, right?
AndCountingQuote Reply
I see your point there.
I think if they were hell bent on the additional wild card, instead of making the wild cards play each other they should seed the teams 1 through 5 regardless of division winner/wild card and have 4 and 5 play each other. I understand you want to give division winners the advantage but making a superior team play in a one-off also seems unfair.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=GW]meh, a little too unrealistic.[/quote]
Those fuckers never told us who killed Rosie Larsen.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Fuck all this anti second-wild card bullshit that’s been running around this week. If you want to make the argument that there shouldn’t be because the best teams should be in the playoffs, fine (and that’s what I think). But looking at a sample size of one (this season) and exclaiming that ZOMG THIS WOULDN’T HAPPEN UNDER THE NEW PLAN DON’T DO IT!!!one!!11! is ridiculous. As Adam mentioned above, more teams would have a chance so there would be just as many, if not more, chances for crazy tiebreaker scenarios.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Or we could just continue hoping that such a scenario plays out again, despite the mathematical evidence showing that we’ll probably have to wait a few thousand years or so.[/quote]
1000 times THIS, +1 LSA Rec’d NAMBLA etc etc
BerseliusQuote Reply
http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7033428/breakdown-wednesday-games
MishQuote Reply
The AL WC race, visually: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/reliving-the-final-day-in-the-al-visually/
ACTQuote Reply
ACTQuote Reply
Longoria: more than just HR’s: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19787229
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Longoria: more than just HR’s: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19787229%5B/quote%5DHe also started that triple play yesterday when he easily could have gotten a for-sure out at home. I know it’s just my eyes (though stats generally back it), but he’s just an amazing fielder. I’m probably being a homer, but he’s got to be in the conversation for best true talent player in the AL, if not baseball. And this was a “down year”.
MishQuote Reply
Longoria is one of the best players in baseball.
ACTQuote Reply
More defense:
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19769483
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19771657
ACTQuote Reply
fWAR has him as the second best player since he came into the league. He is credited with nearly 5 wins on defense, though.
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2008&ind=0
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Fuck all this anti second-wild card bullshit that’s been running around this week. If you want to make the argument that there shouldn’t be because the best teams should be in the playoffs, fine (and that’s what I think). But looking at a sample size of one (this season) and exclaiming that ZOMG THIS WOULDN’T HAPPEN UNDER THE NEW PLAN DON’T DO IT!!!one!!11! is ridiculous. As Adam mentioned above, more teams would have a chance so there would be just as many, if not more, chances for crazy tiebreaker scenarios.[/quote]if we’re using the sample size of one as you said, that’s not true. The Giants finished with 86 wins. They’d have been eliminated from the 5th playoff spot last weekend. The Braves and Cardinals both would have clinched then. Anaheim was even further behind the top 5 in the AL.
Overall I think you’re probably right, but this year isn’t an example to use. This year is an example that supports their opinion. The race would have been over before these final series even started. There wouldn’t have been a meaningful game in baseball all week.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]if we’re using the sample size of one as you said, that’s not true. The Giants finished with 86 wins. They’d have been eliminated from the 5th playoff spot last weekend. The Braves and Cardinals both would have clinched then. Anaheim was even further behind the top 5 in the AL.
Overall I think you’re probably right, but this year isn’t an example to use. This year is an example that supports their opinion. The race would have been over before these final series even started. There wouldn’t have been a meaningful game in baseball all week.[/quote]
I just think it’s a dumb argument. It’s true that everything would be wrapped up this year under the new plan, just as it’s true that if Maddon hadn’t issued that IBB 2 days ago the Rays wouldn’t have turned that triple play.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Apparently Papelbon is finished (according to Sox fans). That’s a shame, considering his 1.53 FIP this year. Obviously, he can’t be relied upon in big game situations, however.
ACTQuote Reply
Last year in the AL Boston would have been the 5th team and finished just 1 game better than the White Sox. Padres would have been the 5th team in the NL and the Cardinals finished 4 behind them. Giants and Marlins finished one game apart in 2009. Rangers and Tigers finished 1 game apart in the AL.
So yeah, overall there would just as many exciting games on the final day, but certainly not this year.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I just think it’s a dumb argument. It’s true that everything would be wrapped up this year under the new plan, just as it’s true that if Maddon hadn’t issued that IBB 2 days ago the Rays wouldn’t have turned that triple play.[/quote]It might be a dumb argument. I tend to think it is, but I’d want to see what the races would look like. I don’t want the 5th WC team for two reasons: a one-game playoff is retarded and if I was in charge my playoffs would consist of the AL/NL winner in the World Series.
mb21Quote Reply
Actually, I think (wild ass guess) that there would be more tight races for the playoffs. I would be surprised if that wasn’t true.
mb21Quote Reply
^^^^if there were 5 teams in the playoffs
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Actually, I think (wild ass guess) that there would be more tight races for the playoffs. I would be surprised if that wasn’t true.[/quote]
No, it’s definitely true. The more you widen the pool the more teams will have a shot.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]No, it’s definitely true. The more you widen the pool the more teams will have a shot.[/quote]It’s not teams having a shot that people are complaining about right now. They’re complaining about the races coming down to the final day or maybe two days. Obviously more teams have a shot, but that doesn’t mean there will be more close races. I think there would. The question is this: how close is the current Wild Card team to the next best teams and how close would the 5th WC team be to the next best teams? Over the last 3 years it looks even or maybe just slight in favor of the current system.
About a year ago when they first floated this idea I started looking back through the WC era and I found little difference. I think Dave Cameron looked at it too, but I did something slightly different and don’t remember exactly what it was. I may still have the file somewhere. I think there would be more tight races, but it’s going to be so close that we could probably just say it’s the same damn thing and be done with it. It’s not like all of a sudden with a 5th team there’s going to be a tight race coming down the final game every year. The same is true for the current system.
If the entire goal of the baseball season is to have races come down the final team then they should just randomly select players each year for teams. Just put all the names in a hat and do it that way. We’ll have a lot more races that way.
Thing is, I don’t think these people give a shit about this. The only complaint right now is because this race is fresh in their memory. They’re just overreacting.
mb21Quote Reply
My personal opinion is that a single wild-card race that allows the fourth team in to play an actual series is more exciting than allowing two wild cards in to bash each other’s brains out in a one-off prior to becoming fodder for a division winner in the next round, especially if one or both of those wild cards are better than one of the three division winners over the course of the year. But that’s a bunch of different points mixed into one.
I probably should just leave it at “I don’t like the second wild card” and it has nothing to do with math (dying laughing)
/Whitlock’d
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Agreed. I hate the one-game playoff idea.
ACTQuote Reply
I don’t think there’s any reason a 4th and 5th WC team can’t play a 3-game series without affecting much of anything. You supposedly have to leave the final day open for an extra game, but most of the time those don’t happen so you can still schedule the first of 3 games between these WC teams the first available day. They play every day. Give the other teams an even better advantage. You could still start the “real” playoffs on Thursday or Friday (assuming season ends on Sunday, which it apparently does not these days).
mb21Quote Reply
Someone needs to tell these teams that having a few days off isn’t going to ruin their mojo. It’s not going to make them worse or better so I don’t even care if you have those two WC teams play a 5-game series. Then the first LDS needs to be expanded to 7 games.
mb21Quote Reply
I wish they’d at least make it a 3-game series. They’re not going to shorten the regular season so that may require some schedule finagling, but one of the penalties for not winning the division should be a loss of a travel day for the third game and then the loss of another travel day for getting to the divisional series. That’s three games you can squeeze between the normal end of the regular season and the start of the divisional series.
That’s if they keep it as the wild cards playing each other and don’t go to a straight seeding system which I think is more fair.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]
[/quote](dying laughing)
I just realized this was in minutes. I thought it was in days.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Apparently Papelbon is finished (according to Sox fans). That’s a shame, considering his 1.53 FIP this year. Obviously, he can’t be relied upon in big game situations, however.[/quote]Hadn’t he thrown something like 75 pitches spread across 4 days? Seems like he can’t be relied upon in those situations, but that’s what happens when your rotation crumbles.
AndCountingQuote Reply
Given how the probabilities work out in baseball I don’t care if it’s a one game series or a three game series. Too lazy to look it up but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the best team winning.
I do like the idea of having less off-days in the playoffs because it rewards teams for depth, rather than having a few elite pitchers that they can throw more often than in the regular season.
BerseliusQuote Reply
How Rays fans feel today:
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Given how the probabilities work out in baseball I don’t care if it’s a one game series or a three game series. Too lazy to look it up but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the best team winning.
I do like the idea of having less off-days in the playoffs because it rewards teams for depth, rather than having a few elite pitchers that they can throw more often than in the regular season.[/quote]The two travel days within the 2-3-2 format makes sense but the random off-days in the 5-game divisional series are annoying.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Regardless of how many games the series would entail, if the top 5 teams in the NL had advanced to the playoffs in 2008, the Dodgers still would have finished 2.5 games out of the final slot. With two teams waiting ahead of them. Instead, well, you know what happened.
Fuck this shit about lowering the standards. Having three divisions has already done that. Going to two divisions and adding a wild card would actually make the requirements stricter. (dying laughing)
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]My personal opinion is that a single wild-card race that allows the fourth team in to play an actual series is more exciting than allowing two wild cards in to bash each other’s brains out in a one-off prior to becoming fodder for a division winner in the next round, especially if one or both of those wild cards are better than one of the three division winners over the course of the year. But that’s a bunch of different points mixed into one.
I probably should just leave it at “I don’t like the second wild card” and it has nothing to do with math (dying laughing)
/Whitlock’d[/quote]
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Regardless of how many games the series would entail, if the top 5 teams in the NL had advanced to the playoffs in 2008, the Dodgers still would have finished 2.5 games out of the final slot. With two teams waiting ahead of them. Instead, well, you know what happened.
Fuck this shit about lowering the standards. Having three divisions has already done that. Going to two divisions and adding a wild card would actually make the requirements stricter. (dying laughing)[/quote]I actually liked your realignment idea from your old blog. I forgot if you threw Houston into the AL though. At that point you seed the teams 1-4 and ta-da, done.
But since it’s all about the $, I guess they keep adding playoff spots until it becomes as ridiculous as the NBA/NHL playoffs.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Damn you baseball. This is an awful time for me to be distracted by you for the first time in over about 16 months.
Selfishly,
Shawn
shawndgoldmanQuote Reply
[quote name=TMQ]What The Martz! Are too many cooks spoiling the broth in Chicago? Lovie Smith has three former NFL head coaches as assistants (Mike Martz, Rod Marinelli and Mike Tice), plus a former college head coach (Bob Babich).
It’s not just that Martz has made the pass-wacky offense one-dimensional: counting sacks and scrambles, he has called 131 passes versus 48 rushes. The 1-2 Bears seemed discombobulated at critical moments against the defending champion Packers. Former head coaches tend to project ego fields. Many don’t really want to be taking orders, and don’t want to be questioned by players or each other. There are so many ego fields on the Chicago sideline, they may be interacting negatively.[/quote]For Bears fans.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Given how the probabilities work out in baseball I don’t care if it’s a one game series or a three game series. Too lazy to look it up but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the best team winning.
I do like the idea of having less off-days in the playoffs because it rewards teams for depth, rather than having a few elite pitchers that they can throw more often than in the regular season.[/quote]Let’s say we have two equal teams. The team with home field advantage will have about a 52% chance of winning the best of 3. Somewhere around there. I’m too lazy to calculate it as well. If we have a team with a 60% chance of winning each game (average of the 3 games), the odds of that team winning are over 60%. In some series it would make a difference and in some it wouldn’t. I’m just against the idea that a one-game playoff means anything. Can the loser even claim to have reached the playoffs? They didn’t. They reached the additional game that came before reaching the playoffs. That’s the thing here. There aren’t 5 playoff teams from each league. There are 4 playoff teams as there currently is. The only difference is that the WC team has to play another WC team one time to see who advances to the playoffs. it’s like saying game 163 is part of the playoffs. The Giants didn’t reach the postseason in 1998. The Cubs beat them in game 163. That’s all this is doing. It’s adding game 163 for each league or potentially game 164.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Regardless of how many games the series would entail, if the top 5 teams in the NL had advanced to the playoffs in 2008, the Dodgers still would have finished 2.5 games out of the final slot. With two teams waiting ahead of them. Instead, well, you know what happened.
Fuck this shit about lowering the standards. Having three divisions has already done that. Going to two divisions and adding a wild card would actually make the requirements stricter. (dying laughing)[/quote] They need to go to 15 teams in each league, no divisions and the 5 best reach the playoffs. Actually, at that point just go with the 6 best. Baseball isn’t lowering the number of teams in the playoffs even if i want them to. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
just make it like the NBA and everyone automatically makes the playoffs. Baseball in December for everyone!
dylanjQuote Reply
<img src="http://static03.mediaite.com/sportsgrid/uploads/gallery/boston-headlines/MA_BH%20(1).jpg” alt=”” />
Don’t know why the image tag isn’t working..
WaLiQuote Reply
[quote name=WaLi].jpg)
Don’t know why the image tag isn’t working..[/quote]You had to take out the url tags methinks.
False! Find a Photobucket (dying laughing)
I think it might have something to do with the parentheses within the link.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]You had to take out the url tags methinks.
False! Find a Photobucket (dying laughing)[/quote]
Without the url tags it adds a space.
Can’t Photobucket at work. Ah well. Click on the link yourselves lazy bastards (dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]They need to go to 15 teams in each league, no divisions and the 5 best reach the playoffs. Actually, at that point just go with the 6 best. Baseball isn’t lowering the number of teams in the playoffs even if i want them to. (dying laughing)[/quote]Yeah, and give the top two teams a first-round bye and a 1-0 lead to start the best-of-seven 2nd round.
AndCountingQuote Reply
Joe Poz on last night:
http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/09/baseball-night-in-america.html
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Yeah, and give the top two teams a first-round bye and a 1-0 lead to start the best-of-seven 2nd round.[/quote]I like the first-round bye idea but what is the logic behind giving them the one game lead as well?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Wait. The Diamondbacks are in postseason?
binkyQuote Reply
Bautista didn’t get to the 50HR plateau. He’ll have to settle for just being the guy who hit the most homeruns all season in MLB.
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I like the first-round bye idea but what is the logic behind giving them the one game lead as well?[/quote]Make it less likely that a sixth seed advances. Screw those guys.
AndCountingQuote Reply
Would it be better to have a best-of-9 series rather than a best-of-7 in order to reduce randomness, or would it just not matter?
/not good at math
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Would it be better to have a best-of-9 series rather than a best-of-7 in order to reduce randomness, or would it just not matter?
/not good at math[/quote]The problem with a best-of-9 anytime prior to the World Series is that the potential variation in time it could take to play a series is so big. It could take one week or two. TV would hate that, and so would the teams who pulled off a sweep and have to wait an entire week before the NLCS.
They could also do a round-robin format. Have all six teams play each other in a two-week, five-series affair. Top two records would play each other in the NLCS. This will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever happen, but I’d enjoy it a lot.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]The problem with a best-of-9 anytime prior to the World Series is that the potential variation in time it could take to play a series is so big. It could take one week or two. TV would hate that, and so would the teams who pulled off a sweep and have to wait an entire week before the NLCS.
They could also do a round-robin format. Have all six teams play each other in a two-week, five-series affair. Top two records would play each other in the NLCS. This will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever happen, but I’d enjoy it a lot.[/quote]I think a lot of fans would like this actually. Well, at least you and I would. But then it’s a lot like the College World Series set-up and that seems even more random than doing the 5- or 7-game series.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Solid gif of Dan Johnson’s nut shot heard round the world:
http://www.raysindex.com/2011/09/one-unlucky-fan-got-a-special-souvenir-from-dan-johnson.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RaysIndex+%28Rays+Index%29
GBTSQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
It might have actually got his thigh, but it’s still awesome.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]
(dying laughing)
It might have actually got his thigh, but it’s still awesome.[/quote]
From one Johnson to another…
WaLiQuote Reply
Wow…was he texting? (dying laughing) It looked like he didn’t even see the ball even if he was paying attention.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=WaLi]From one Johnson to another…[/quote]
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]
[/quote]I’m surprised Ryno hasn’t done something nasty with this image yet. It’s just too perfect. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Wow…was he texting? (dying laughing) It looked like he didn’t even see the ball even if he was paying attention.[/quote]He was calling for a bunt.
WaLiQuote Reply
Marmol no longer awesomest:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/29/kenley-jansen-broke-the-all-time-strikeout-rate-record/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I think Eric Gagne has still struckout the highest percentage of batters faced (minus IBB) in a single season.
mb21Quote Reply
In 2003, Eric Gagne struckout 45.1% of the batters faced. Jansen struckout 44.0%. Last year Marmol struckout 42.1%. I believe he was 3rd prior to this year. I think Wagner was 2nd behind Gagne. I’d have to look though and I’m too lazy. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
GBTSQuote Reply
^^^ WIN
MishQuote Reply
Someone just needs to shop Joe Maddon over Truman. Or Longoria.
GBTSQuote Reply
(dying laughing) @ the Boston media: http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/nesn_the_gift_that_keeps_on_giving
mb21Quote Reply
I thought the idea of the Red Sox being the best ever was absurd. I didn’t even think they were the best team entering the season. I figured the Yankees were with the Phillies not far behind.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21](dying laughing) @ the Boston media: http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/nesn_the_gift_that_keeps_on_giving%5B/quote%5D
(dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
I love RLYW. It’s my favorite team oriented blog (other than this discredited one of course)
mb21Quote Reply
MishQuote Reply
To be honest, I’d have rather seen Boston in the playoffs than the Rays (especially with the Rays’ home being Tropicana Field. Ewww.) That said, last night was extremely exciting, and Boston’s story has a Titanic-style poetic justice to it that feels fitting.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]To be honest, I’d have rather seen Boston in the playoffs than the Rays (especially with the Rays’ home being Tropicana Field. Ewww.) That said, last night was extremely exciting, and Boston’s story has a Titanic-style poetic justice to it that feels fitting.[/quote]So in Boston’s case, who is going to die an old lady warm in her bed?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21](dying laughing) @ the Boston media: http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/comments/nesn_the_gift_that_keeps_on_giving%5B/quote%5DSome of the arguments he is “refuting” are in fact true, though. Boston’s offense did easily outscore last year’s, and their relief pitching was extraordinary (they had the lowest OPS+ against in the league).
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Some of the arguments he is “refuting” are in fact true, though. Boston’s offense did easily outscore last year’s, and their relief pitching was extraordinary (they had the lowest OPS+ against in the league).[/quote]Funsucker.
WaLiQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ij0ovv8AUw[/quote]
(dying laughing), they were playing clips from this on my drive in this morning
BerseliusQuote Reply
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15204
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15204[/quote]Wow, I didn’t know he was a vet. That’s hardcore.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Longoria’s bat —–> HOF
MishQuote Reply
Nice. For all the talk of Longoria’s “down year,” he’s hitting as well with respect to the rest of the league, as he did in previous years. His batting average is misleading.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Nice. For all the talk of Longoria’s “down year,” he’s hitting as well with respect to the rest of the league, as he did in previous years. His batting average is misleading.[/quote]
He posted career bests in K and BB rates and had a .239 BABIP. He might be due for a monster year next year.
MishQuote Reply
Longoria —> 6 WAR
Batting average is overrated.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]He posted career bests in K and BB rates and had a .239 BABIP. He might be due for a monster year next year.[/quote]Well, his BABIP will probably regress, but there’s a good chance his K and BB rates will regress as well (yes, I’m a funsucker).
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Well, his BABIP will probably regress, but there’s a good chance his K and BB rates will regress as well (yes, I’m a funsucker).[/quote]Maybe – he still hasn’t hit his peak age and he’s shown improvement year over year…
MishQuote Reply
http://isitnextyearyet.com/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Anyway, I for one, love the fact that playoff give teams enough off-time to use 3-4 man rotations. It’s the playoffs; I want to see the best pitchers. I love seeing Verlander-Sabathia matchups.
ACTQuote Reply
I get the travel day. Great. That makes sense, but a random day off like they sometimes have? These teams would use a 4-man rotation if they played every day. it’s the postseason. They’re not running their number 5 starter out there. Those guys often don’t even make the playoff roster.
mb21Quote Reply
^^ Agreed. I prefer the playoffs for any sport to closesly resemble the regular season as possible.
MishQuote Reply
Z —-> 40-man roster
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Z was already on the 40-man roster.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Z was already on the 40-man roster.[/quote]There’s a news blurb out there that suggested that he had been taken off but then put back on. It was really strange as I too thought he was already on the roster. I think Berg and Schlitter were DFA’ed as well. Here’s a BN article via a Paul Sullivan Tweet:
http://www.bleachernation.com/2011/09/29/carlos-zambrano-officially-back-on-the-roster-justin-berg-and-brian-schlitter-designated-for-assignment/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I don’t think that’s how the 40-man roster works. As I understand it, it’s relatively simple: Zambrano was suspended for one month, but he remained part of the 40-man roster. By disqualifying him or whatever the hell it was the Cubs did, they added the ability to add someone to replace his spot. It’s the same as a guy on the 60-day DL. You can replace his spot on the roster, but the DL’d guy is still on the 40-man roster.
mb21Quote Reply
As far as I know, when Z’s one-month suspension was over, he should’ve been re-added to the 40-man but he was told to stay home since there was no way to get him ready to pitch. So I’m not entirely sure why there was a random procedural move here unless this was like when Ricketts hired the economist and nobody found out for six months.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Are we sure the Cubs actually made a move with regards to Zambrano and the media isn’t just making shit up? I’m guessing that’s exactly what they’re doing. I think the media (and almost all fans) have a terrible understanding of the roster. That’s not a big deal as it is a very difficult thing to learn. I’ve read about it for hours and hours and still don’t know everything. But I am relatively certain that Zambrano never came off the roster. To my knowledge, the only way to take a player like Z off the roster is to outright him to the minor leagues. In order to do that, he’d be eligible to become a free agent because they cannot remove him from the 40-man roster.
I don’t get it and I don’t believe it. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
I think what they mean here is that he’s been added back to the active roster. Yeah, there’s no doubt that’s what they mean and that’s just confusion over what the active and 40- man rosters are. The active roster is the team at the big league level. For most of the year it’s 25 guys and in September it’s as many as 40. Z’s been on the 40-man all this time, but was added back to the active roster, which isn’t news: he automatically got placed back on the active roster when the season ended.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I think what they mean here is that he’s been added back to the active roster. Yeah, there’s no doubt that’s what they mean and that’s just confusion over what the active and 40- man rosters are. The active roster is the team at the big league level. For most of the year it’s 25 guys and in September it’s as many as 40. Z’s been on the 40-man all this time, but was added back to the active roster, which isn’t news: he automatically got placed back on the active roster when the season ended.[/quote]That makes infinitely more sense (dying laughing)
I love that these news folks get paid.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Yup:
http://cubs.mlb.com/team/roster_active.jsp?c_id=chc
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]That makes infinitely more sense (dying laughing)
I love that these news folks get paid.[/quote]I’ll give them some leeway on this one. The roster shit in MLB is difficult to understand. Although these people in the media should know the difference between the active and 40-man rosters. So I guess there’s really no excuse.
mb21Quote Reply
As if on cue, from Muskat:
http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2011/09/29/929-z-back-on-40-man-berg-schlitter-dfa/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Yup:
http://cubs.mlb.com/team/roster_active.jsp?c_id=chc%5B/quote%5DI take back what I said above. There is no excuse they shouldn’t know the difference between the active and 40-man roster. Maybe the media for all teams are this ignorant, but for years the Cubs media has pissed me off when it comes to roster moves. You’d think at least one of them would have taken the time to understand options yet sometimes they don’t even get the basics right.
mb21Quote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/carlos-zambrano-was-not-added-to-the-40-man-roster.html
mb21Quote Reply