6/15 Yankems @ SOX. It's a dirty job, but I'll do it.

[Old Red]

There's two of us then. They just took 2 of 3 from the winningest team in the National League, and a win tomorrow means they will have done it to the winningest team in the American League. Not too shabby.

This might the most rollercoastery Sox team I can remember. Most errors in MLB. Way too often can't buy a hit with men on base. Split 4 freaking games with worst W-L record (White Sox) in MLB. Casas, who can hit, is missing almost almost half a season because he did the very dangerous and hazardous thing of swinging a bat. One of the cheapest rotations in MLB. And a flock of presumably talent guys on the IL: Giolito, Story, Whitlock, Casas, Yoshida (now off, but missed a bunch of games), Abreu. Oh, and Sale is having a great year, the Sox are paying his $17M salary, and he's pitching for the Braves.

By rights this Sox team should be 20-51, which would put them a tad ahead of the White Sox, 18-53.

And like I keep saying Max the League just isn’t that strong, so that’s why the Red Sox are hanging around 500 instead of 20-51 like you mentioned, so by rights in other years you would be right.

[moonslav59]

Numbers don't lie and it really is difficult to defend Bobby. I guess we will all find out when Casas finally returns.

Dalbec does bat righty, so there is that.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Dalbec does bat righty, so there is that.

Bringing Dalbec's bat into the argument would be a 'strike' against him.

[Old Red]

It might help, if he knew what "giddy" means, and it looks like O'Neill has done just fine after I made a semi-flattering statement about him.

For someone who continuously says, "Pay not attention to the man behind the curtain," he stalks me day in and day out.

Kinda sad, but also quite funny.

For someone who said they wouldn’t comment on me anymore through other posters you certainly didn’t keep your word after thinking you’re punishing me for putting me on ignore for the upteenth time. I know exactly what giddy is, and you didn’t talk O’Neil up after last night’s game so tonight had nothing to do with what O’Neil did like it did last night when he sucked after you talked him up.Stalk? I thought I smelt a stench coming from the Southern part of the state, and now I know what that stench was, because it was you.

[Maxbialystock]

Btw, because I started this game thread illegally, please, one of you guys start tomorrow night's game thread.

Are you freaking nuts? You beat the Yankees. Stay on the horse.

[moonslav59]

Bringing Dalbec's bat into the argument would be a 'strike' against him.

Good one, LOL!

[moonslav59]

Are you freaking nuts? You beat the Yankees. Stay on the horse.

Agreed, and 2 of 3 from PHI!

[moonslav59]

Always nice to beat the Yanks.

Let's keep it rolling!

[Maxbialystock]

And like I keep saying Max the League just isn’t that strong, so that’s why the Red Sox are hanging around 500 instead of 20-51 like you mentioned, so by rights in other years you would be right.

And as I keep saying, what evidence do you have that the "League just isn't that strong?" Salaries are up, and so is the population base from which players are recruited.

You keep demeaning a .500 winning percentage as a sure sign of mediocrity when we have compelling evidence from last year that the difference between percentages of Atlanta (.640), Texas (.560), and Arizona (.520) last year were insignificant because Atlanta did not make it to the WS and both Texas and Arizona did.

And why did that happen? Because the statistical difference between 64%, 56%, and 52% is 12%, which is actually quite small.

What I also find interesting are these MLB team payrolls matched to their current won-lost records--

1. NYMets, $308M, W-L 32-37
2. NYY, $305M, 50-23
3. Houston, $250M, 32-39
4. Philly, $246M, 47-23
5. Texas, $232M, 33-37
6. Atlanta, $232M, 38-30
7. Dodgers, $230M, 43-29
8. Cubs, $225M, 34-37
9. Toronto, $224M, 34-36
10. Giants, $201M, 34-37
11. Boston, $182M, 36-35
17. Seattle, $142M, 42-31
18. White Sox, $136M, 19-53
20. Kansas City, $118M, 41-31
25. Baltimore, $101M, 46-24
26. Cleveland, $100M, 44-24
28. Tampa Bay, $98M, 33-38

Three of the top five team payrolls have losing records. And three of the bottom 11 payrolls are 41-31, 46-24, and 44-24.

[moonslav59]

And as I keep saying, what evidence do you have that the "League just isn't that strong?" Salaries are up, and so is the population base from which players are recruited.

You keep demeaning a .500 winning percentage as a sure sign of mediocrity when we have compelling evidence from last year that the difference between percentages of Atlanta (.640), Texas (.560), and Arizona (.520) last year were insignificant because Atlanta did not make it to the WS and both Texas and Arizona did.

And why did that happen? Because the statistical difference between 64%, 56%, and 52% is 12%, which is actually quite small.

What I also find interesting are these MLB team payrolls matched to their current won-lost records--

1. NYMets, $308M, W-L 32-37
2. NYY, $305M, 50-23
3. Houston, $250M, 32-39
4. Philly, $246M, 47-23
5. Texas, $232M, 33-37
6. Atlanta, $232M, 38-30
7. Dodgers, $230M, 43-29
8. Cubs, $225M, 34-37
9. Toronto, $224M, 34-36
10. Giants, $201M, 34-37
11. Boston, $182M, 36-35
17. Seattle, $142M, 42-31
18. White Sox, $136M, 19-53
20. Kansas City, $118M, 41-31
25. Baltimore, $101M, 46-24
26. Cleveland, $100M, 44-24
28. Tampa Bay, $98M, 33-38

Three of the top five team payrolls have losing records. And three of the bottom 11 payrolls are 41-31, 46-24, and 44-24.

Every year, somehow, someway, MLB always ends up at .500.

There is absolutely no way anyone can prove the league and players have gotten worse.

It might be hard to prove talent levels have gotten better, but I think the last 2 decades look better than the previous 3 decades, since I've been following MLB.

The pitchers throw incredible breaking stuff. Pens have become specialized and no longer is the dumping ground for failed starters.

I think the tendency is to overinflate the way things were when we were young, and some of those Sox teams from the 70's looked awesome, but I think the pitching has come a long way since then, and probably the hitting, too.

Is 2024 worse than 2018, or 2013 or 2007? It's hard to say. It makes sense there might be some ebbs and flows, but how can anyone prove it?

[Maxbialystock]

Every year, somehow, someway, MLB always ends up at .500.

There is absolutely no way anyone can prove the league and players have gotten worse.

It might be hard to prove talent levels have gotten better, but I think the last 2 decades look better than the previous 3 decades, since I've been following MLB.

The pitchers throw incredible breaking stuff. Pens have become specialized and no longer is the dumping ground for failed starters.

I think the tendency is to overinflate the way things were when we were young, and some of those Sox teams from the 70's looked awesome, but I think the pitching has come a long way since then, and probably the hitting, too.

Is 2024 worse than 2018, or 2013 or 2007? It's hard to say. It makes sense there might be some ebbs and flows, but how can anyone prove it?

I would put it this simply. MLB is, for lack of a better word, balanced, and that's definitely the way the Commissioner and probably the owners want it. Almost everybody, rich or poor, has a shot. I think it's beyond question that the postseason format, now with six division winners and six wild cards, 12 out of 30 teams, has made that possible. Thus my harping on the fact that the WS last year was played between a team who finished with 90 wins and the other with 84 wins.

That said, let's not forget that just 6 years ago the Red Sox won 108 games in the regular season and beat the Yankees (100 wins) in the ALDS, 3 games to 1, the Astros (103 wins) in the ALCS, 4 games to 1, and the Dodgers (92 wins), also 4 games to 1.

[moonslav59]

I would put it this simply. MLB is, for lack of a better word, balanced, and that's definitely the way the Commissioner and probably the owners want it. Almost everybody, rich or poor, has a shot. I think it's beyond question that the postseason format, now with six division winners and six wild cards, 12 out of 30 teams, has made that possible. Thus my harping on the fact that the WS last year was played between a team who finished with 90 wins and the other with 84 wins.

That said, let's not forget that just 6 years ago the Red Sox won 108 games in the regular season and beat the Yankees (100 wins) in the ALDS, 3 games to 1, the Astros (103 wins) in the ALCS, 4 games to 1, and the Dodgers (92 wins), also 4 games to 1.

Agreed, and maybe the talent being more spread out gives the impression that overall quality is down. I doubt it is, but it can not be easily proven.