The W
Views: 100775917
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 1643
The W - Baseball - The Race Has Been Joined
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.02
Pages: 1 2 Next
(489 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (31 total)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 510 days
Last activity: 510 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
In as glaring an indictment of the National League Central as any person could find, the Reds are now within 6.5 games of 1st place with 5 weeks to go. Double digits under .500, yet closer to 1st in their division than Atlanta and the By God New York Yankees. Since the Brewers seem to have taken the advice of the White Sox and quit on the season, my personal dislike of Tony LaRussa, and my lack of faith in the Cubbies, why not the sub .500 by a great deal Reds for a playoff spot. 78 wins can get you to October the way the Central is going. That 3 game set at home to close the season against the Cubbies could actually be extremely meaningful, as the only 'tough on paper' series would be 3 at home against the Mets on Labor Day week. Other than that, either easier teams or head-to-head games against the 3 teams in front of them.



(edited by redsoxnation on 26.8.07 2100)
Promote this thread!
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 6 hours
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.19
I'm more of a "get to .500 before you're in the race" kind of guy, so I'll excuse the Reds from consdieration at this point. The Cardinals, however, are in just due to being so close at this point.

That said, this division blows chunks this year.
Gugs
Bierwurst








Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 549 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.98
The Reds might be closer than the Braves or the Yankees, but they have more teams to hop over to get into the lead. And they really, really suck. So I wouldn't be worried about them if I was a Cubs fan.





Click Here (youtube.com)
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.57
Sorry, still busy worrying about the Cards - as I mentioned at the break - and was pooh-poohed here.



http://myspace.com/awarulz
Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 256 days
Last activity: 2 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.75
As we are probably looking at another year of a division winner making the playoffs with a worse record than 1 or more other teams who are missing the playoffs because of playing in a tougher division, I don't understand how this issue gets no attention & no one thinks the system is seriously flawed.

I'm sure there are a bunch of possible solutions out there, & since no one asked I'll propose mine... :-)

Go back to 2 divisions within each league
Give 2 spots to the division winners
Give the 2 Wild Card spots to the next 2 best records, regardless of division

I just don't understand how MLB is OK with teams in a league making the playoffs when teams with better records are sitting home. Makes no sense.
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 146 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.45
    Originally posted by Sec19Row53
    I'm more of a "get to .500 before you're in the race" kind of guy


I've been saying to myself all summer, no point in even starting to get excited about a pennant race until the Cubs get to 10 over .500 (eventually 86-76 or better if you keep it up from there). After their hot streak, 8 over was the highest they got, and since they've been stuck in neutral around +5.

I know the Cards won the World Series at 83-78 last year, but you have to attribute that more to the stars aligning just right than them being a great team with a good chance to win at the start of the playoffs. Not to take anything away from the Redbirds, I'm just saying going into those playoffs.. at best, they had a punchers' chance. To their credit, they made it payoff.

But whoever wins this division, it won't be because they're a great team - and their odds of winning 3 series will be just as long.

I guess I should mention that sure, I'll take that chance over missing the playoffs, and I'm watching the games much more closely now. So the heart still overrides the head

- - - - - - - - - -
And not that it would ever happen, but because the chance of playoff upsets are so high (compared to football or basketball, at least).. I'd prefer going back to 2 divisions in each league, with no wild cards.




It's the Big "W", I tell ya! The Big "W"!
shawnpatrick
Kishke








Since: 31.7.07
From: Leesville SC

Since last post: 920 days
Last activity: 803 days
#7 Posted on
The best team in the NL has a winning pct of .562
The worse team in the NL has a winning pct of .432

It's called complete parity.

Remember just a few years ago everyone thought it would be impossible for "small market" teams to win.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.57
    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    I'd prefer going back to 2 divisions in each league, with no wild cards.


If we're gonna dream, I'd like to go back to a 154 game schedule too, so the word series ends in early October instead of on Halloween (or election day with a snowout or two)

and if they go back to two divisions, cut to 14 (or better, 12) teams in each league.



http://myspace.com/awarulz
Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by shawnpatrick
    The best team in the NL has a winning pct of .562
    The worse team in the NL has a winning pct of .432

    It's called complete parity.


Wow, that's not really correct at all. You can't judge baseball that way because every team is guaranteed 41 wins and 41 losses, just by the nature of how the schedule plays out. You have to throw those 82 games away when you are considering "parity", when comparing it to the NFL or NBA, for example. A 14-2 NFL team, therefore, isn't comparable to a 140-22 MLB team, but a 111-51 MLB team. (80 games x .875 winning pct = 70-10, added to a 41-41 record.)

Almost every NL team has played 130 games, so if you take away 32-32 from each team's record you end up with this:

EAST W L PCT
NY Mets 41 25 .621
Philadelphia 36 30 .545
Atlanta 36 32 .529
Washington 26 44 .371
Florida 25 43 .368
CENTRAL W L PCT
Chicago Cubs 34 31 .523
Milwaukee 33 33 .500
St. Louis 31 32 .492
Cincinnati 28 38 .424
Houston 26 41 .388
Pittsburgh 25 40 .385
WEST W L PCT
Arizona 42 26 .618
San Diego 39 27 .591
LA Dodgers 36 31 .537
Colorado 35 32 .522
San Francisco 28 40 .412



Two teams over .600 and four under .400 isn't quite "complete parity".



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 483 days
Last activity: 443 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    You can't judge baseball that way because every team is guaranteed 41 wins and 41 losses, just by the nature of how the schedule plays out.

I don't really follow baseball. Can you explain that?
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
      Originally posted by JayJayDean
      You can't judge baseball that way because every team is guaranteed 41 wins and 41 losses, just by the nature of how the schedule plays out.

    I don't really follow baseball. Can you explain that?


The ALL-TIME record for fewest wins in a season: 40
The ALL-TIME record for fewest losses in a season: 46

It's fair to say that on average the best team wins 101-ish games and the worst team loses 101-ish in any given season, right? At face value a 101-win season would be comparable to a 10-6 NFL season, which is good but not a canidadate for the best. However, if you take away the 41-41 that every team is going to get, you are left with 60-20 in the other 80 games, a .750 winning pct., equivalent to a 12-4 recond in an NFL season, which could be expected of the best team in a conference.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.67
You just blew my mind and I like it.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Oh, come on. That's Grade A bologna and you know it. They play 162 games; you can't just ignore half of them.

You can prove ANYTHING with STATISTICS.



I AM CRZ
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Oh, come on. That's Grade A bologna and you know it. They play 162 games; you can't just ignore half of them.

    You can prove ANYTHING with STATISTICS.


Who is saying to "ignore half of them"? My point (which IS valid) is that it is dumb to look at the range of winning percentages in baseball and point to it like some evidence of "complete parity". Baseball, by nature, doesn't produce a wide variance of winning percentage amount the teams, compared to football and basketball, is all.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 138 days
Last activity: 9 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    Who is saying to "ignore half of them"? My point (which IS valid) is that it is dumb to look at the range of winning percentages in baseball and point to it like some evidence of "complete parity". Baseball, by nature, doesn't produce a wide variance of winning percentage amount the teams, compared to football and basketball, is all.

Here's the original quote:
    Originally posted by shawnpatrick
    It's called complete parity.

    Remember just a few years ago everyone thought it would be impossible for "small market" teams to win.

There's nothing there about comparing baseball to other sports. In fact, her point seems to be that people were arguing that small market teams couldn't compete but given today's parity, that was a silly argument. I don't see how you are in disagreement with that statement. If you want to dispute that argument, compare baseball records over time. In fact, pick a couple of years when people argued that baseball teams were feast or famine (or bemoaned the lack of parity), then compare it to the standings today. Then, you could throw out half the games and no one would say you can prove ANYTHING with STATISTICS because at least your comparision would be valid.

Lastly, if you do decide to throw out the same number of wins and losses, then it will always make the winning percentage distribution wider. I don't see how that proves baseball has more or less parity today compared to its past. Or, to other sports, if that was what you were trying to do.




"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
No, HERE is the original quote.

The best team in the NL has a winning pct of .562
The worse team in the NL has a winning pct of .432

It's called complete parity.


Followed by, Remember just a few years ago everyone thought it would be impossible for "small market" teams to win.

I was only focusing on the FIRST part: HERE are the winning percentages. "It's called complete parity." (Read by ME as: I just proved that by putting the winning percentages RIGHT THERE.)

"Parity" is when a lot of teams are close to the middle, right? The final record of a team has a .562 winning percentage is 91-71. The final record of a team with a .432 winning percentage is 70-92. Would anyone REALLY argue at the end of the season that those teams are close to the middle? I'd doubt it.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by Corajudo
      Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Who is saying to "ignore half of them"? My point (which IS valid) is that it is dumb to look at the range of winning percentages in baseball and point to it like some evidence of "complete parity". Baseball, by nature, doesn't produce a wide variance of winning percentage amount the teams, compared to football and basketball, is all.

    Here's the original quote:
      Originally posted by shawnpatrick
      It's called complete parity.

      Remember just a few years ago everyone thought it would be impossible for "small market" teams to win.

    There's nothing there about comparing baseball to other sports. In fact, her point seems to be that people were arguing that small market teams couldn't compete but given today's parity, that was a silly argument. I don't see how you are in disagreement with that statement. If you want to dispute that argument, compare baseball records over time. In fact, pick a couple of years when people argued that baseball teams were feast or famine (or bemoaned the lack of parity), then compare it to the standings today. Then, you could throw out half the games and no one would say you can prove ANYTHING with STATISTICS because at least your comparision would be valid.

    Lastly, if you do decide to throw out the same number of wins and losses, then it will always make the winning percentage distribution wider. I don't see how that proves baseball has more or less parity today compared to its past. Or, to other sports, if that was what you were trying to do.



Here is a list of the standings as of 8/27 and what market the team is in. Market rankings from Wikipedia.

American League
Boston (1st in AL, 1st East) #7 Market (Boston/Manchester, NH)
Los Angeles A (2nd in AL, 1st West) #2 Market (Los Angeles)
Seattle (3rd in AL, 2nd West) #14 Market (Seattle/Tacoma)
Cleveland (4th in AL, 1st Central) #17 Market (Cleveland/Akron/Canton)
New York Y (5th in AL, 2nd East) #1 Market (New York City)
Detroit (6th in AL, 2nd Central) #11 Market (Detroit)
Minnesota (7th in AL, 3rd Central) #15 Market (Minneapolis/St. Paul)
Toronto (8th in AL, 3rd East) #1 Canadian Market (Toronto/Hamilton/Niagara Falls, ON), Would be #4 market if in America.
Oakland (9th in AL, 3rd West) #6 Market (San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose)
Baltimore (10th in AL, 4th East) #24 Market (Baltimore)
Texas (11th in AL, 4th, LAST, West) #5 Market (Dallas/Fort Worth)
Kansas City (12th in AL, 4th Central) #31 Market (Kansas City, MO)
Chicago Sox (13th in AL, 5th, LAST, Central) #3 Market (Chicago)
Tampa Bay (14th and last in AL, 5th, LAST, East) #12 Market (Tampa/St. Petersburg/Sarasota)

Same list in Market order
#1 New York, 5th in AL
#2 Los Angeles, 2nd in AL
#3 Chicago, 13th in AL
#4* Toronto, 8th in AL
#5 Dallas/Ft Worth, 11th in AL
#6 San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, 9th in AL
#7 Boston/Manchester, NH, #1 in AL
(8) #11 Detroit, 6th in AL
(9) #12 Tampa/St. Petersburg/Sarasota, 14th, LAST, in AL
(10) #14 Seattle/Tacoma, 3rd in AL
(11) #15 Minneapolis/St. Paul, 7th in AL
(12) #17 Cleveland/Akron/Canton, 4th in AL
(13) #24 Baltimore, 10th in AL
(14) #31 Kansas City, MO, 12th in AL

Cleveland and Boston are overachieving, and NY and Chicago are underachieving, if the market had anything to do with success.


National League
New York M (1st in NL, 1st East) #1 Market (New York)
Arizona (2nd in NL, 1st West) #12 Market (Phoenix)
San Diego (3rd in NL, 2nd West) #27 Market (San Diego)
Philadelphia (4th in NL, 2nd East) #4 Market (Philadelphia)
Los Angeles D (5th in NL, 3rd West) #2 Market (Los Angeles)
Atlanta (6th in NL, 3rd East) #8 Market (Atlanta)
Chicago Cubs (7th in NL, 1st Central) #3 Market (Chicago)
Colorado (8th in NL, 4th West) #18 Market (Denver)
Milwaukee (9th in NL, 2nd Central) #34 Market (Milwaukee)
St. Louis (10th in NL, 3rd Central) #21 Market (St. Louis)
Cincinnati (11th in NL, 4th Central) #33 Market (Cincinnati)
San Francisco (12th in NL, 5th, LAST, West) #6 Market (San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose)
Houston (13th in NL, 5th Central) #10 Market (Houston)
Pittsburgh (14th in NL, 6th, LAST, Central) #22 Market (Pittsburgh)
Washington (15th in NL, 4th East) #9 Market (Washington)
Florida (16th, LAST, in NL, 5th, LAST, East) #16 Market (Miami/Ft. Lauderdale)

Same list in Market order
#1 New York, 1st in NL
#2 Los Angeles, 5th in NL
#3 Chicago, 7th in NL
#4 Philadelphia, 4th in NL
(5) #6 San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, 12th in NL
(6) #8 Atlanta, 6th in NL
(7) #9 Washington, 15th in NL
(8) #10 Houston, 13th in NL
(9) #12 Phoenix, 2nd in NL
(10) #16 Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, 16th, LAST, in NL
(11) #18 Denver, 8th in NL
(12) #21 St. Louis, 10th in NL
(13) #22 Pittsburgh, 14th in NL
(14) #27 San Diego, 3rd in NL
(15) #33 Cincinnati, 11th in NL
(16) #34 Milwaukee, 9th in NL

Washington, Houston, and Florida are underachieving, Milwaukee, San Diego, and Arizona are overachieving.




-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"Let me see if I can get inside his mouth." -- Michal Wilbon on PTI August 28, 2007
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 365 days
Last activity: 359 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.37

    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    Wow, that's not really correct at all. You can't judge baseball that way because every team is guaranteed 41 wins and 41 losses, just by the nature of how the schedule plays out.



Without throwing in an opinion either way on these calculations, but how does it factor in the unbalancedness of the interleague schedules?

And they don't need MORE playoff teams. The 1973 Mets were the only team in the NL East above .500 htat season, yet they almost took out the A's dynasty.






As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005
As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight"
As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds

Now announcing for the NBWA!
www.wdws.com home of DWS Sportsnight and downstate radio home of thecubsfan!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
Well, it appears the race is unjoined, as the Reds just dropped a doubleheader last night to the Pirates.

Also, the NL Central race is officially a 2-team race, as the Brewers have proven themselves to just be a terrible team. They will be lucky to get out of Chicago without getting swept.
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 6 hours
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.19
    Originally posted by spf
    Well, it appears the race is unjoined, as the Reds just dropped a doubleheader last night to the Pirates.

    Also, the NL Central race is officially a 2-team race, as the Brewers have proven themselves to just be a terrible team. They will be lucky to get out of Chicago without getting swept.

C'mon spf - we're the Cubs. We can lose with the best of them :-)

I hope you're right though. The cold shoulders I'm getting at work today make it easier to get things done.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 6.02
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Poor cubsfan
Next thread: Playoff standings with 4 weeks left
Previous thread: Astros fire GM, MGR
(489 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Perhaps because someone's paid a shitload of money to play the game and should take pride in their performance and have some kind of winning drive? Then you wonder why the Red Sox will NEVER be shit with that kind of nucleus.
- kazhayashi81, MANRAM! (2002)
Related threads: Josh Hamilton - Mr. Kearns go to Washington, Ponson to Yanks - This one belongs to the Reds - More...
The W - Baseball - The Race Has Been JoinedRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.127 seconds.