Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

Posted
I believe MLB has had more different teams win the championship over the last 30 yrs than either the national felon league or the NBA.

 

In the last 35 years, only 10 different teams have won an NBA title. In MLB, there have been 10 different World Series champs in the past 16 seasons...

  • Replies 763
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

FA Signings

 

Year- over $20M/yr, $15-19.9M- $9M-14.9

 

2019, so far

 

2- 7- 19

 

2018: 4- 3- 13

2017: 2- 10- 11

2016: 8- 9- 17

2015: 3- 4- 27

 

Posted
And they absolutely must fix extra innings. Start each half with a man on 2nd. If it's still tied after 12 innings, the team with most hits wins, or something like that. 20 inning games help no one.
Posted

Extra innings are part of what makes baseball baseball IMO

 

It's a game that involves a lot of stress and suffering on the part of players and fans alike.

Posted
And they absolutely must fix extra innings. Start each half with a man on 2nd. If it's still tied after 12 innings, the team with most hits wins, or something like that. 20 inning games help no one.

 

Too radical. It wouldn't be baseball anymore.

 

It would be like soccer.

Posted
Does it make baseball any different from any other sport?

 

Maybe it's the same in all of the major sports, but that doesn't make it any better.

Posted
Baseball has more parity than any other sport. How many other sports see all the teams win between 40% and 60% of their games nearly every year? And when teams fall outside that range, it usually isn't by much.

 

Ever seen a season in the NFL when every team was between 10-6 and 6-10? Or the NBA where every team was between 49-33 and 33-49?

 

The fact that teams almost always win 40% to 60% of their games has to do with the nature of baseball, not with any so called parity. Winning 40% of games gives a team roughly 65 wins. However, 48 of those wins are accrued by replacement level, basically 'given' wins.

 

Of the remaining 114 games, getting to 65 wins requires a team to only win 17 games above replacement level.

 

When a few teams are spending north of $200 million while other teams are spending $70 million or less, that's not parity.

Posted
And they absolutely must fix extra innings. Start each half with a man on 2nd. If it's still tied after 12 innings, the team with most hits wins, or something like that. 20 inning games help no one.

 

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this.

 

Do not change the rules of extra inning games.

Posted
The fact that teams almost always win 40% to 60% of their games has to do with the nature of baseball, not with any so called parity. Winning 40% of games gives a team roughly 65 wins. However, 48 of those wins are accrued by replacement level, basically 'given' wins.

 

Of the remaining 114 games, getting to 65 wins requires a team to only win 17 games above replacement level.

 

When a few teams are spending north of $200 million while other teams are spending $70 million or less, that's not parity.

 

This reminds me, I was rewatching The West Wing the other day and one of the characters said "In baseball there's a saying: Every team is going to win 54 games, every team is going to lose 54 games. It's what you do with the other 54 that counts."

 

I was struck by that because the Sox only lost 54 games this season, which means they won each of those 54 extra games. Awesome, right?

 

 

Anyways, back to the discussion, I have to agree about keeping extra innings the way they are. That's a part of baseball I would hate to see mucked up. 17-20 inning games don't happen enough to be a serious problem, in my opinion. There are only a handful each year.

Posted
And they absolutely must fix extra innings. Start each half with a man on 2nd. If it's still tied after 12 innings, the team with most hits wins, or something like that. 20 inning games help no one.

 

 

No matter what the sport, fans cannot handle it when the score is tied. Why is that? Is the uncertainty of when it ends so stressful?

Posted
This reminds me, I was rewatching The West Wing the other day and one of the characters said "In baseball there's a saying: Every team is going to win 54 games, every team is going to lose 54 games. It's what you do with the other 54 that counts."

 

I was struck by that because the Sox only lost 54 games this season, which means they won each of those 54 extra games. Awesome, right?

 

 

Anyways, back to the discussion, I have to agree about keeping extra innings the way they are. That's a part of baseball I would hate to see mucked up. 17-20 inning games don't happen enough to be a serious problem, in my opinion. There are only a handful each year.

 

That is very awesome when you look at it that way.

 

There was a long extra inning postseason game in 2005, I believe, between the Astros and the White Sox. It was one of best non Red Sox games that I have watched. I'd hate to lose that kind of drama.

 

And more recently, the postseason marathon between the Sox and the Dodgers.

Posted
That is very awesome when you look at it that way.

 

There was a long extra inning postseason game in 2005, I believe, between the Astros and the White Sox. It was one of best non Red Sox games that I have watched. I'd hate to lose that kind of drama.

 

And more recently, the postseason marathon between the Sox and the Dodgers.

 

As you know, they had to put Game 3 of the World Series on 2 DVD's, which is kind of comical.

 

I wonder what the cutoff point is before it's too long for one DVD. Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS fit on one DVD.

Posted
The fact that teams almost always win 40% to 60% of their games has to do with the nature of baseball, not with any so called parity. Winning 40% of games gives a team roughly 65 wins. However, 48 of those wins are accrued by replacement level, basically 'given' wins.

 

Of the remaining 114 games, getting to 65 wins requires a team to only win 17 games above replacement level.

 

When a few teams are spending north of $200 million while other teams are spending $70 million or less, that's not parity.

 

 

If a team is “given” forty percent winning percentage, that is an inherent parity that isn’t found in any other sport. The economic disparity becomes a matter of efficiency in obtaining the rest of the wins...

Posted (edited)

With universal DH, there should be no more National and American Leagues anymore. Change it to East or West whatever, and get new divisions, so there is less traveling, and more rivalry games. White Sox play the Cubs 18 games a year. same with NY.

Or keep the name for old time sake, but now make the Leagues more efficient.

AL East

Sox

Yanks

Mets

O's

Phillies

Since the rules are now Universal, and everybody plays each other anyway, whether DH or not, there really is no more National or American Leagues.

Only way you go back is where one League doesn't play each other.

Like when there was no DH.

Basically there is no more inter-league anymore. It's just one that you might not play another team that year.

Edited by OH FOY!
Posted

Baseball is still the greatest game man invented. You can be fast/slow, strong/weak, short/tall, thin/fat, etc.

 

People in today’s culture want blood & guts but football is on the down slide. Most round ball stars are very tall compared to the average guy.

 

There was nothing like going to a big league game and seeing that luscious green grass in April and then get home and have a make-believe game against the front door steps afterwards!

Posted
With universal DH, there should be no more National and American Leagues anymore. Change it to East or West whatever, and get new divisions, so there is less traveling, and more rivalry games. White Sox play the Cubs 18 games a year. same with NY.

Or keep the name for old time sake, but now make the Leagues more efficient.

AL East

Sox

Yanks

Mets

O's

Phillies

Since the rules are now Universal, and everybody plays each other anyway, whether DH or not, there really is no more National or American Leagues.

Only way you go back is where one League doesn't play each other.

Like when there was no DH.

Basically there is no more inter-league anymore. It's just one that you might not play another team that year.

 

 

Both leagues played with the same set of rules for about 70 years and didn’t do any of that...

Posted
As you know, they had to put Game 3 of the World Series on 2 DVD's, which is kind of comical.

 

I wonder what the cutoff point is before it's too long for one DVD. Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS fit on one DVD.

 

They released this World Series on DVD? I didn't know they were still making DVDs, I thought it was all Blu-Ray now.

Posted
They released this World Series on DVD? I didn't know they were still making DVDs, I thought it was all Blu-Ray now.

 

Yeah, they still make DVD's for us Luddites.

Posted
Well, he'll probably be a wealthy idiot either which way.......

 

 

But if he played baseball he’d remember where his wealth came from ...

Posted
I read that deGrom and his agent are thinking of - what? - sitting out some games to protect his arm? Kinda like LeVeon Bell. All because the Mets haven't given him a longterm deal.
Posted
I read that deGrom and his agent are thinking of - what? - sitting out some games to protect his arm? Kinda like LeVeon Bell. All because the Mets haven't given him a longterm deal.

 

 

Nothing entices a GM like a me-first, money-grubbing player...

Posted
With universal DH, there should be no more National and American Leagues anymore. Change it to East or West whatever, and get new divisions, so there is less traveling, and more rivalry games. White Sox play the Cubs 18 games a year. same with NY.

Or keep the name for old time sake, but now make the Leagues more efficient.

AL East

Sox

Yanks

Mets

O's

Phillies

Since the rules are now Universal, and everybody plays each other anyway, whether DH or not, there really is no more National or American Leagues.

Only way you go back is where one League doesn't play each other.

Like when there was no DH.

Basically there is no more inter-league anymore. It's just one that you might not play another team that year.

 

Maybe something like this:

 

6 divisions of 5 teams

EAST

BOS

NYY

NYM

PHI

TOR

 

BAL

WSH

ATL

TBR

MIA

 

PIT

CLE

DET

CIN

CWS

 

 

WEST

CC

MIL

MN

KC

STL

 

TX

HOU

COL

AZ

SDP

 

SEA

SF

OAK

LAD

LAA

 

I like this better: (5 divisions of 6 teams)

 

EAST

BOS

NYY

NYM

PHI

BAL

WSH

 

MidEast

TOR

PIT

DET

CLE

CIN

CWS

 

MidWest

CC

MIL

MN

KC

STL

COL

 

SOUTH

ATL

TBR

MIA

TX

HOU

AZ

 

WEST

SEA

OAK

SF

LAD

LAA

SD

 

(Alternative: Pit to East, Wsh to south, AZ to Mid West, Cubs to Mid East. This allows the Cubs to be with the CWS , PIT to be with PHI, and AZ to play closer their time zone, but it eliminates the BAL-WSH rivalry.)

 

Schedules:

 

6 divisions of 5 teams

18 games vs own div (18 x 5= 90 games)

3 games vs 4 other divisions (3 x 20=60 games)

2 games vs 1 other division (2 x 5=10 games)

1 extra game vs 2 teams from above division (2 games)

 

5 divisions of 6 teams

18 games vs own division (18 x 5= 90 games)

3 games vs other divisions (3 x 24= 72 games)

Neat and balanced.

 

 

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Red Sox community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...