2GOLD Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Not offering to Arthur Rhodes surprises me. Calling the Cubs! Calling the Cubs! Stable left handed reliever has become available! Charge! Sign! Get!
Bored Posted December 8, 2003 Author Report Posted December 8, 2003 Hmmm wouldn't mind seeing Rhodes in an A's uniform. Still rumors flying about the A's going after Mike Cameron and possibly already have made a contract offer. They only way I could see them signing him is if they trade Jermaine Dye and there is actually a rumor of Dye and a prospect to the Dodgers for Paul Lo Duca. Not so sure if I buy the rumor but as long as the prospect isn't Joe Blanton I'd do that in a second as the A's desperately need to get Dye's salary off the payroll and give them more felxibility for the rest offseason and for midseason trades.
treble Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 This sucks. Someone's gonna come from absolutely nowhere to win the WS this year, just like the previous 2 seasons. Fucking over consistent teams for one more year. TORONTO BLUE JAYS WS CHAMPS 2004!!! Well, once they get Kerry Ligtenberg, there will be no stopping them!
2GOLD Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 This sucks. Someone's gonna come from absolutely nowhere to win the WS this year, just like the previous 2 seasons. Fucking over consistent teams for one more year. TORONTO BLUE JAYS WS CHAMPS 2004!!! Well, once they get Kerry Ligtenberg, there will be no stopping them! Yeah, a player so good the Orioles didn't even want him.
King Kamala Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Considering the almost complete lack of superstars or even stars (With exception of Delgado and Roy Halladay), the Jays have kicked ass. They've hanged in until Late August for the past several years. I think they're one star away from an awesome team.....that star is Kerry Ligtenberg.
2GOLD Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Considering the almost complete lack of superstars or even stars (With exception of Delgado and Roy Halladay), the Jays have kicked ass. They've hanged in until Late August for the past several years. I think they're one star away from an awesome team.....that star is Kerry Ligtenberg. I could have sworn that star would be Rey Sanchez? I like the Jays, they seem to win with almost nothing every season. Just keeping pace with the Red Sox and Yankees without spending 40000 million dollars seems impossible.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Vernon Wells is one good season from stardom. Interesting to look up his most similar players at his age and see.....Enos Slaughter. Also, Toronto with Halladay on the mound might be as good as any other team in baseball.
Guest Anglesault Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 I like the Jays, they seem to win with almost nothing every season. Just keeping pace with the Red Sox and Yankees without spending 40000 million dollars seems impossible. When all else fails, go back to the old standby. They have more money than us! Teams with less money can never win anything! ...Oh wait...
Vern Gagne Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Vernon Wells is one good season from stardom. Interesting to look up his most similar players at his age and see.....Enos Slaughter. Also, Toronto with Halladay on the mound might be as good as any other team in baseball. Fuck Enos Slaughter. One of the most outspoken players against Jackie Robinson, threatened not to play against him, and once spiked Robinson sliding into 2nd base. Hasn't it been proven, that you can compete, and even win the World Series without one of the biggest payrolls?
treble Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Wells was probably consistently the best Jay last year (besides Halladay). Delgado had better numbers, but there was a point in the season when he wasn't hitting anything.
MrRant Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 I think it's more of a question of if teams with low payrolls can compete consistently over the course of a season. ANY team can get hot and win the Series. But most of the teams with moderate to high payrolls are good/decent throughout the season and for at least a few years consistently. IMO.
CanadianChris Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 I'm currently doing a correlation analysis between team salary and number of playoff wins. I'm very interested in the results.
Guest Anglesault Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 ANY team can get hot and win the Series. Uhm, no. You have to be consistantly good enough to win more games than at least ten other teams in your league, beat an equally good (or better) team three games out of five, beat another four out of seven and yet another (the best team in the other league) four out of seven. A so-so team can plausibly get hot towards the end of the year and sneak by in football, but not really in baseball.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 I don't think a study on playoff wins produces much. Far too little sample size. Why not include regular season games?
MrRant Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 It doesn't take much to win a crappy division. So a so-so team CAN get into the playoffs and win.
Vern Gagne Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 I believe 18 off the 30 teams last season finished with records above .500. That doesn't mean they stayed in contention, but it's still a fairly high % of teams.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Fuck Enos Slaughter. One of the most outspoken players against Jackie Robinson, threatened not to play against him, and once spiked Robinson sliding into 2nd base. I'm taking a look at The Spirit Of St. Louis, a team biography of the Cardinals. As you might expect, the author is apologetic, saying the Cards never planned to strike, and the spiking incident was minor. Slaughter did spike white players as well, so the Robinson spiking might not have been race related. Not the best defense I know. Still, I think Slaughter was a good guy with a fault or two. His playing ability certainly can't be denied.
Bored Posted December 8, 2003 Author Report Posted December 8, 2003 Well it depends on if you subscribe to Billy Beane's crapshoot theory. Obviously the A's are the #1 example of winning with a low payroll since they've done it for five straight years ('99 they were in the Wild Card race until the last week) but have crapped out four consective years in the playoffs.
Guest Anglesault Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 It doesn't take much to win a crappy division. So a so-so team CAN get into the playoffs and win. A so so team can beat good teams 11 times in the play offs?
MrRant Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Correct. Same how an 8-8/9-7 team can get into the NFL playoffs and possibly beat 4 teams to win the Super Bowl
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 I agree. In a sport where the very best teams lose 1/3 of their games, upsets are very common.
Guest Anglesault Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 Correct. Same how an 8-8/9-7 team can get into the NFL playoffs and possibly beat 4 teams to win the Super Bowl I disagree. I think it's more plausible (If not likely) for a team to 8-8 there way into the playoffs and then simply have a better single game than four much better teams in a row. In the football playoffs, you only have to play better than a better team for one game. In baseball, you have to be better than a better team for up to seven.
Bored Posted December 8, 2003 Author Report Posted December 8, 2003 Correct. Same how an 8-8/9-7 team can get into the NFL playoffs and possibly beat 4 teams to win the Super Bowl Are you sure about that? 8-8 is incredibly rare to make the playoffs, although more chance now with the four divisions, and I'm pretty sure no 9-7 team has ever been to the Super Bowl. Typically the in the NFL most of the time the Super Bowl champ was one of the two or three best teams in the league during the regular season. You do get years like when the Patriots won two years ago and probably wasn't one of the best teams in the league during the regular season but they still went 11-5. Baseball the idea works. Best example was the '87 Twins who won only 85 games but won the World Series. The East had four teams with better records than the Twins that year.
Vern Gagne Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 I agree with AS. Although more recently in baseball it seems like you're getting the team that happened to get hot at the right time. That hasn't been the best team on paper, or overall record.
MrRant Posted December 8, 2003 Report Posted December 8, 2003 All you need to do is win 11 out 19 games. That's about a 58% winning percentage when you GET to the playoffs. Are you telling me a team like KC can't get hot at that point and win only 58% of their games? I certainly think so.
Guest Anglesault Posted December 9, 2003 Report Posted December 9, 2003 But it's not just straight up eleven games. It's three out of five against a good team. 4 out of 7 against a better team and 4 out of 7 against the best team of the other league. If the team is truly a mediocre team at heart, a *good* team is bound to outlast them in a series.
MrRant Posted December 9, 2003 Report Posted December 9, 2003 It's not always the better team that gets to the next round.
CanadianChris Posted December 9, 2003 Report Posted December 9, 2003 I don't think a study on playoff wins produces much. Far too little sample size. Why not include regular season games? I'm doing a second run on winning percentage.
Bored Posted December 9, 2003 Author Report Posted December 9, 2003 Let's look since division play start in 1969 at the Series champs and where they ranked in their league and where they ranked overall in terms of record (league rank, MLB rank). '69 Mets 100-62 (1st, 2nd) '70 Orioles 108-54 (1st, 1st) '71 Pirates 97-65 (1st, 3rd) '72 A's 93-62 (1st, 3rd) '73 A's 94-68 (2nd, 4th) '74 A's 90-72 (2nd, 4th) '75 Reds 108-54 (1st, 1st) '76 Reds 102-60 (1st, 1st) '77 Yankees 100-62 (2nd, 3rd) '78 Yankees 100-62 (1st, 1st) '79 Pirates 98-64 (1st, 2nd) '80 Phillies 91-71 (3rd, 5th) '81 Dodgers 63-47 (3rd, 4th) - strike season with division playoffs '82 Cardinals 92-70 (1st, 4th) '83 Orioles 98-64 (2nd, 2nd) '84 Tigers 104-58 (1st, 1st) '85 Royals 91-71 (3rd, 6th) '86 Mets 108-54 (1st, 1st) '87 Twins 85-77 (5th, 9th) '88 Dodgers 94-67 (2nd, 3rd) '89 A's 99-63 (1st, 1st) '90 Reds 91-71 (2nd, 4th) '91 Twins 95-67 (1st, 2nd) '92 Blue Jays 96-66 (1st, 2nd) '93 Blue Jays 95-67 (1st, 4th) Wild Card added '95 Braves 90-54 (1st, 2nd) '96 Yankees 92-70 (2nd, 3rd) '97 Marlins 92-70 (2nd, 4th) '98 Yankees 114-48 (1st, 1st) '99 Yankees 98-64 (1st, 3rd) '00 Yankees 87-74 (5th, 9th) '01 Diamondbacks 92-70 (3rd, 6th) '02 Angels 99-63 (3rd, 4th) '03 Marlins 91-71 (3rd, 7th) See the last four years teams have who won were not among the elite, as in top two or three teams in baseball, during the regular season although Angels with 99 wins in many years would be good enough for the best record. Also notice only 8 out of the 34 years since division play started did the team with the best record in baseball win the World Series and 18 of 34 have had the best record in their league but since the Wild Cards only 3 out of the 9 champs have been the best team in their league during the year. Only been two years where a team won the World Series without one of the top 3 records in their league ('87 Twins, '00 Yankees) and six that have not been in the top 5 in MLB although three of those have come in the last four years.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted December 9, 2003 Report Posted December 9, 2003 Its hard to look at league records the last few years, because with the advent of the unbalanced schedule, teams play drastically different schedules. And the same goes for the MLB rank. How do you compare an AL team with an NL team?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now