Master Index of Archived Threads


Strike-aversary

Edgy MD Aug 11 2014 01:46 PM

Are there any remaining players who participated in the 1994 strike? I don't think there are. If minor league players who were on the 40-man MLB roster participated in the walkout (I don't honestly know), maybe Giambi? LaTroy Hawkins?

Gwreck Aug 11 2014 02:58 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Alex Rodriguez was in the majors in 1994 but was sent to the minors in advance of the strike.

seawolf17 Aug 11 2014 03:40 PM Re: Strike-aversary

LaTroy Hawkins and Jason Giambi both debuted in 1995. Nobody else goes back past that as far as I can tell.

G-Fafif Aug 12 2014 12:02 AM Re: Strike-aversary

I pretty much loved the 1994 Mets in a way I hadn't love any Mets since 1990. Fondly remembering a mostly forgotten team and its truncated near-success here.

Frayed Knot Aug 12 2014 07:13 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Among those who never played again after that day: Rich Gossage - final game was on Aug 8 Jack Morris - Aug 7 Bo Jackson - Aug 10

SteveJRogers Aug 12 2014 07:18 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Frayed Knot wrote: Among those who never played again after that day: Rich Gossage - final game was on Aug 8 Gossage has the distinction of being an active MLBer during every labor related work stoppage.

Edgy MD Aug 12 2014 07:26 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Pretty cool, I guess that Gossage finished his career as a teammate of Rodriguez. That's a nice little bridge to the past on the 1994 Mariners.

Frayed Knot Aug 12 2014 07:36 AM Re: Strike-aversary

SteveJRogers wrote: Among those who never played again after that day: Rich Gossage - final game was on Aug 8 Gossage has the distinction of being an active MLBer during every labor related work stoppage. So then clearly all the labor problems were his fault.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 12 2014 07:55 AM Re: Strike-aversary

I would have guessed Nolan Ryan too, but I just checked and his last season was 1993.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 12 2014 08:02 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Frayed Knot wrote: Among those who never played again after that day: Rich Gossage - final game was on Aug 8 Jack Morris - Aug 7 Bo Jackson - Aug 10 Jeff McKnight

seawolf17 Aug 12 2014 08:07 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Would never have figured Goose lasted that long. If I had to guess, I would have said 1990 or thereabouts.

Edgy MD Aug 12 2014 08:14 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Think of everything that changed after that. [list:1wsqil4c][*:1wsqil4c]The power boom and the presumed juice boom[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the new stadium boom[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the empty-heartedness of faux nostalgia[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the extra tiers of playoffs (which would have happened in 1994 hadn't the strike occurred)[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the extreme widening of the market advantage due to the cable boom[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the Mets missing that boat due in part to being locked into a pre-boom cable contract[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the utter deterioration and destruction of the Expos and Francophonic baseball[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the unprecedented powers of Selig[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the unapologetic presentation of a commissioner coming out of the owner's club[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the threat of contraction[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the return of the independent minors[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the explosion of legacy ballplayers, with all-star teams crowded with second- and third-generation players[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the sinking feeling that among these legacy players were the only black American athletes still interested in playing baseball[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]despite the unprecendent offense, there still being three or four pitchers who could make people look as stupid as Bob Gibson did in 1968[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]thin-handled bats and ballooning strikeout numbers[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the weirdness of baseball's popularity growing by any measure, with the paradoxical growing feeling and general attitude that its relevancy was hopelessly waning[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]the weird boom in the card market where everybody in America suddenly had a nephew who religiously collected cards, keeping them pristine in their cellophane binders, but who had no interest in actual baseball[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]'roid hearings[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]pontifications about roids and baseball ruining America, even though you knew most every other game was as filthy or filthier --- sometimes far filthier (hello, wrestling)[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]failed prosecution of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]having to explain to people over and over again, no, you really don't take any joy from the Yankees' run of success, and no, you don't in any way feel you're being stingy[/*:m:1wsqil4c] [*:1wsqil4c]but hey, artificial turf disappearing from every big league stadium but appearing at every high school, evolving over the years from the luxury that only big league teams could have to the luxury only big league teams could afford not to have.[/*:m:1wsqil4c][/list:u:1wsqil4c]

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 12 2014 08:21 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Mets Journal with Jonathan S. "52" Weissman

G-Fafif Aug 12 2014 01:03 PM Re: Strike-aversary

1994 Mets Kevin McReynolds, Goose Gozzo, Jim Lindeman and Juan Castillo each played his final MLB game in the two weeks before the strike. Castillo only pitched in two games altogether, however.

Edgy MD Aug 12 2014 01:42 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Lost window of opportunity for Castillo. Not that he would have made it through, but what a lousy break. Tim Bogar closed out the season and went into that strike with an 0-7. Ouch.

Zvon Aug 12 2014 01:57 PM Re: Strike-aversary

This strike changed my entire outlook on baseball and for me the game hasn't been the same since. Or, let me put it this way, my strong feelings for the game changed and have remained that way. Not in relation to the game, which I love on any level, but to major league baseball. I've worked my way back to an extent (it never effected my love of the Mets, but I used to be much more involved in baseball as a whole) but the resentment still lingers. It's not the strike itself that pissed me off. Hey, do what you gotta do. But no World Series? Inexcusable.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 12 2014 02:12 PM Re: Strike-aversary

The strike-aversary reminds me its my friend's 20th wedding anniversary, which took place the the same week. I didn't pay any attention to baseball in 1995 and for much of 1996, but the '97 Mets romanced me back in.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 12 2014 02:27 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Zvon wrote: This strike changed my entire outlook on baseball and for me the game hasn't been the same since. Or, let me put it this way, my strong feelings for the game changed and have remained that way. Not in relation to the game, which I love on any level, but to major league baseball. I've worked my way back to an extent (it never effected my love of the Mets, but I used to be much more involved in baseball as a whole) but the resentment still lingers. It's not the strike itself that pissed me off. Hey, do what you gotta do. But no World Series? Inexcusable. That's me too, except I don't feel resentment, just detachment. Where I used to be a baseball fan, now I'm strictly a Mets fan. I tried watching the 1995 World Series and it didn't hold me interest. Since then, I've only watched one World Series, in 2000. And I haven't seen a single pitch of a post-season game since Carlos Beltran looked at strike three in 2006.

Zvon Aug 12 2014 03:38 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This strike changed my entire outlook on baseball and for me the game hasn't been the same since. Or, let me put it this way, my strong feelings for the game changed and have remained that way. Not in relation to the game, which I love on any level, but to major league baseball. I've worked my way back to an extent (it never effected my love of the Mets, but I used to be much more involved in baseball as a whole) but the resentment still lingers. It's not the strike itself that pissed me off. Hey, do what you gotta do. But no World Series? Inexcusable. That's me too, except I don't feel resentment, just detachment. Yes, that too, even more so than resentment. It was like : I'm no longer going to give them my time.

Edgy MD Aug 12 2014 05:21 PM Re: Strike-aversary

But it really depends on who them is. A lot of the resentment was focused on the players. I stood by them, even though I resent that the MLBPA has never supported the umpires' union nor attempts by minor league players to unionize. They were right to walk and to hold out, and any cracks in the unfathomable position that MLB owners had and still largely have was a good thing, from my perspective. Think of all the looking-in-from-the-outside HoF cases of baseball players whose careers included both the 1981 strike and the 1994 one --- Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris, Fernando Valenzuela. The labor movement might have cost them an impressive dose of historical authority.

Zvon Aug 12 2014 05:50 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Edgy MD wrote: But it really depends on who them is. A lot of the resentment was focused on the players. I stood by them, even though I resent that the MLBPA has never supported the umpires' union nor attempts by minor league players to unionize. They were right to walk and to hold out, and any cracks in the unfathomable position that MLB owners had and still largely have was a good thing, from my perspective. Think of all the looking-in-from-the-outside HoF cases of baseball players whose careers included both the 1981 strike and the 1994 one --- Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris, Fernando Valenzuela. The labor movement might have cost them an impressive dose of historical authority. For me "them" was the players and the owners. It was MLB in general. I started going to minor league games down here (The Surf) after a few years, because I did miss the game.

SteveJRogers Aug 12 2014 08:02 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Think of all the looking-in-from-the-outside HoF cases of baseball players whose careers included both the 1981 strike and the 1994 one --- Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris, Fernando Valenzuela. The labor movement might have cost them an impressive dose of historical authority. Incidentally, Morris and Gossage were the only members of the 2000 "first time on the ballot" guys to stay on the ballot for future HOF considerations: Jeff Reardon 4.8% 24 votes Willie Wilson 2.0% 10 votes Rick Sutcliffe 1.8% 9 votes Kent Hrbek 1% 5 votes Charlie Hough 4 votes 2 votes each for Dave Henderson and Steve Sax 1 vote each for Bruce Hurst, Bob Welch, Lonnie Smith and Bill Gullickson and finally Hubie Brooks was on the ballot and garnered not a single darn vote. Gullickson's lone vote from a NYC based writer with whom Gullickson shared a joint with while in college. True story. Just as another FYI, that year saw Carlton Fisk on his second (getting edged out from the super class of 1999 of Ryan, Yount and Brett) and Tony Perez on his 9th get elected. Gossage's placement was good for 6th, and all ahead of him (Jim Rice, Gary Carter and Bruce Sutter) eventually got in. Morris came in at 11th, behind Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Dale Murphy, all still on the outside, looking in.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2014 01:26 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Coincidentally to this being Strike-aversary week, the owners start meeting today in advance of an expected vote tomorrow to select Bud Selig's replacement. Current MLB COO Rob Manfred, Red Sox chairman Tom Werner, and MLB executive vice president of business Tim Brosnan are the leading candidates. Manfred is Selig's choice, and is considered to be the front-runner and the one most likely to continue along the current direction of the late Selig regime. And while there probably isn't enough opposition to make one of the others the winner, there may just be enough to prevent Manfred from getting the 23 of 30 vote minimum needed and force a stalemate. As usual, White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf is said to be involved and if he could put together a big enough faction to oppose Manfred it would signal that there is at least a sizable minority of owners NOT all that happy with the current path and maybe instead hold out for someone who'll bring a more confrontational tact with the player's union.

Edgy MD Aug 13 2014 01:34 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Werner: From the very inner-circle of the Friends of Bill.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 13 2014 01:47 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Zvon wrote: This strike changed my entire outlook on baseball and for me the game hasn't been the same since. Or, let me put it this way, my strong feelings for the game changed and have remained that way. Not in relation to the game, which I love on any level, but to major league baseball. I've worked my way back to an extent (it never effected my love of the Mets, but I used to be much more involved in baseball as a whole) but the resentment still lingers. It's not the strike itself that pissed me off. Hey, do what you gotta do. But no World Series? Inexcusable. That's me too, except I don't feel resentment, just detachment. Where I used to be a baseball fan, now I'm strictly a Mets fan. I tried watching the 1995 World Series and it didn't hold me interest. Since then, I've only watched one World Series, in 2000. And I haven't seen a single pitch of a post-season game since Carlos Beltran looked at strike three in 2006. Me too. Though I also blame a good deal of my lack of interest on the wild card slots also introduced that year. To my way of seeing things, it cheapened the title considerably. I hate to say this, but I think that baseball is a deeply flawed sport because of the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game -- significantly more so than in any of the other major team sports I'm aware of. The way to counter this is to keep the # of playoff teams at a minimum -- otherwise the sport won't be rewarding excellence as strongly as it ought to. Of course, the powers of the game care about $$ more than anything else, and more playoff teams brings in more $$ -- so whenever it's $$ versus the purity of the game, or $$ versus anything -- well we all know which factor is going to override every other one.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 13 2014 01:56 PM Re: Strike-aversary

See if you can match the corporate mug shot with the would-be Commish. No url peeking! A B C

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2014 02:34 PM Re: Strike-aversary

A = Werner B = Manfred C = The other guy

seawolf17 Aug 13 2014 03:04 PM Re: Strike-aversary

1) Manfred 2) Other guy 3) Werner

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2014 03:06 PM Re: Strike-aversary

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ... I also blame a good deal of my lack of interest on the wild card slots also introduced that year. To my way of seeing things, it cheapened the title considerably. I hate to say this, but I think that baseball is a deeply flawed sport because of the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game -- significantly more so than in any of the other major team sports I'm aware of. The way to counter this is to keep the # of playoff teams at a minimum -- otherwise the sport won't be rewarding excellence as strongly as it ought to. Of course, the powers of the game care about $$ more than anything else, and more playoff teams brings in more $$ -- so whenever it's $$ versus the purity of the game, or $$ versus anything -- well we all know which factor is going to override every other one. The last NINE NFL seasons have produced more Super Bowl winners from the bottom of their playoff structure [Two 4th seeds, One 5th seed, Two 6th seeds = 5] than from the top half [Two 1st seeds, one 2nd seed, one 3rd seed = 4] and remember that those 5 & 6 seeds wouldn't even make the playoffs in MLB's 1995-2011 system. Looked at another way, that's as many LAST seeds as first and 1/3 of the most recent 9 champions were somewhere in the 7th to 12th best team that season. But, as usual, a trait which is cited as an asset in where football is concerned (PARITY!!! ... Oh those wacky playoffs) is treated as a negative in baseball (What a shitty sport, the best teams don't always win!) I don't dispute your point about too many 'post-season' teams having a negative effect that's usually not discussed among playoff-happy leagues and the networks that flog them, only that this is neither unique to baseball nor, IMO, more pronounced. NHL hockey (if you're one who considers that a major sport) is MUCH more random come Stanley Cup tourney time. The NBA is probably less so (even as the playoffs are double the size and length) but that speaks more to the sizable gap between the top shelf teams and the also-rans that make up the back end of the 'non-lottery' gaggle. Roughly half of their playoff teams (and often more) in any given year have no chance to win and everyone knows it going in.

Edgy MD Aug 13 2014 06:24 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Well, it's nearly unthinkable, but Duan was unabashed about suggesting that the way to crown the truly best team is to bag the post-season altogether. The team with the best record is your champ.

Frayed Knot Aug 13 2014 06:42 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Edgy MD wrote: Well, it's nearly unthinkable, but Duan was unabashed about suggesting that the way to crown the truly best team is to bag the post-season altogether. The team with the best record is your champ. Not all that unthinkable considering that things ran that way for nearly 70 years with the NL & AL being very separate entities back then. Of course it would be totally unthinkable NOW, but that's because we've been increasingly conditioned that way.

d'Kong76 Aug 13 2014 06:46 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Who is unabashed Duan? I'm confused.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 13 2014 06:48 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Frayed Knot wrote: A = Werner B = Manfred C = The other guy correct

Edgy MD Aug 13 2014 07:12 PM Re: Strike-aversary

d'Kong76 wrote: Who is unabashed Duan? I'm confused. You don't remember duan? Our erstwhile poster from Dublin? Footballer? Rock journalist?

d'Kong76 Aug 13 2014 07:20 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Ah! Didn't see Duan in the thread and when you start whipping out stuff like unabashed I get even more confused!! And then people know what you mean and that confuses me even further.

Edgy MD Aug 13 2014 07:59 PM Re: Strike-aversary

No, it's an oldentimes case duan made.

d'Kong76 Aug 13 2014 08:30 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Yes, sorry for even saying. I don't remember olden time posts from a guy in Dublin.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 13 2014 09:50 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Frayed Knot wrote: ... I also blame a good deal of my lack of interest on the wild card slots also introduced that year. To my way of seeing things, it cheapened the title considerably. I hate to say this, but I think that baseball is a deeply flawed sport because of the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game -- significantly more so than in any of the other major team sports I'm aware of. The way to counter this is to keep the # of playoff teams at a minimum -- otherwise the sport won't be rewarding excellence as strongly as it ought to. Of course, the powers of the game care about $$ more than anything else, and more playoff teams brings in more $$ -- so whenever it's $$ versus the purity of the game, or $$ versus anything -- well we all know which factor is going to override every other one. The last NINE NFL seasons have produced more Super Bowl winners from the bottom of their playoff structure [Two 4th seeds, One 5th seed, Two 6th seeds = 5] than from the top half [Two 1st seeds, one 2nd seed, one 3rd seed = 4] and remember that those 5 & 6 seeds wouldn't even make the playoffs in MLB's 1995-2011 system. Looked at another way, that's as many LAST seeds as first and 1/3 of the most recent 9 champions were somewhere in the 7th to 12th best team that season. But, as usual, a trait which is cited as an asset in where football is concerned (PARITY!!! ... Oh those wacky playoffs) is treated as a negative in baseball (What a shitty sport, the best teams don't always win!) I don't dispute your point about too many 'post-season' teams having a negative effect that's usually not discussed among playoff-happy leagues and the networks that flog them, only that this is neither unique to baseball nor, IMO, more pronounced. NHL hockey (if you're one who considers that a major sport) is MUCH more random come Stanley Cup tourney time. The NBA is probably less so (even as the playoffs are double the size and length) but that speaks more to the sizable gap between the top shelf teams and the also-rans that make up the back end of the 'non-lottery' gaggle. Roughly half of their playoff teams (and often more) in any given year have no chance to win and everyone knows it going in. -------------------------- I see your points. However, when I wrote that baseball is flawed, I was referring to the dynamics of the game itself --- the way the game is played on the diamond. I believe that there's more luck than there ought to be for the game not to be flawed. So because this imperfection is inherent to the play of the game and stems from the nature of baseball, it would continue to exist no matter how many teams are awarded playoff spots. I wasn't blaming baseball's flaws on the playoff system. I meant to write that the expanded playoff system exacerbates the problem. Keeping playoff teams at a minimum in baseball would, in my opinion, act as a counterbalance against the prevalence of luck in the game. (/pipe dream) Frayed Knot wrote: The NBA is probably less so (even as the playoffs are double the size and length) but that speaks more to the sizable gap between the top shelf teams and the also-rans that make up the back end of the 'non-lottery' gaggle. Roughly half of their playoff teams (and often more) in any given year have no chance to win and everyone knows it going in. I disagree --somewhat-- with this point, at least as it relates to my post. The reason that the elite teams generally win the NBA championship is because, as you say, they are considerably better than their other playoff rivals, but also, because the game is truer ... there's less luck involved ... and therefore, a seven game series between two NBA teams is a fairly reliable way to determine which of two competing teams is the better one. In baseball, there are also considerable gaps between playoff teams. But the prevalence of luck in baseball shrinks that gap. A 100 win in baseball is considerably better than an 85 win team. But in a short series, I wouldn't expect the 100 win team to win as often as its record indicates it should. Also, another factor that has nothing to do with luck is that postseason baseball is markedly different from regular season baseball because teams can skip their 5th starters, and occasionally, even their fourth starters. Often, the gap between teams in the regular season is based on the superior team having a pitching staff that is much deeper than that of its rivals. That advantage is eroded, if not lost entirely in the post season. The last NINE NFL seasons have produced more Super Bowl winners from the bottom of their playoff structure [Two 4th seeds, One 5th seed, Two 6th seeds = 5] than from the top half [Two 1st seeds, one 2nd seed, one 3rd seed = 4] and remember that those 5 & 6 seeds wouldn't even make the playoffs in MLB's 1995-2011 system. Looked at another way, that's as many LAST seeds as first and 1/3 of the most recent 9 champions were somewhere in the 7th to 12th best team that season. It's pointless to have this discussion within the context of the NFL. They play a sixteen game season and the playoffs is a one game elimination tournament. Small. Sample. Size. And it'll never get fixed because the game is too violent for players to play even slightly more than they already do. Didn't we have this discussion once before?

Frayed Knot Aug 14 2014 06:24 AM Re: Strike-aversary

The reason that the elite teams generally win the NBA championship is because, as you say, they are considerably better than their other playoff rivals, but also, because the game is truer ... there's less luck involved ... and therefore, a seven game series between two NBA teams is a fairly reliable way to determine which of two competing teams is the better one. ... In baseball, there are also considerable gaps between playoff teams. But not nearly to the same extent. Even in your (larger than usual) example of a 100-win team vs an 85-win club, that's a team winning 62% of their games vs 53%. In the NBA the 1st and sometimes 2nd round contests (which are usually no contest at all) almost always feature clubs with .750+ winning pct against sub-.500 stragglers. THAT, as much as anything else, is why the better team wins. By rounds three & four in the NBA (for those still awake by that point) the outcomes get closer to random/tougher to predict. It's pointless to have this discussion within the context of the NFL. They play a sixteen game season and the playoffs is a one game elimination tournament. Small. Sample. Size. And it'll never get fixed because the game is too violent for players to play even slightly more than they already do. Not pointless when the best team not winning is cited as a reason why MLB's post-season set-up is flawed but cited as a product of the genius of the NFL when the same thing happens in that sport. The factors may be different but the results aren't.

Ceetar Aug 14 2014 08:39 AM Re: Strike-aversary

eh, one man's flaw is another one's narrative. I think that inherent luck is part of what makes us all romantic about baseball. It's possible to root and cheer for the "bad players" and still have them succeed. The MLB version of Tim Tebow could luck into a season where he hits .300 and his incoherent supporters could scream for years as he's relegated to bench time and "will he return to his glory year" and all that. Hell, look at Justin Turner this year. Generally not a very good player, but sorta fun-loving and endears himself to fans. He's one of those guys that adds some kind of excitement outside of the strictly performance based excitement. This year he's having a very good year and it's fun. You get Todd Pratt hitting series winning home runs, pitcher's making one bad pitch that gets away in game 163 to advance to the playoffs, a slow-roller that's mishandled but might have been a hit anyway that's talked about and debated endlessly for nearly 30 years even in non-sports ways sometimes. That's why I happen to love the playoffs the way they are. (And granted, I barely remember non Wild Card play, so there is no nostalgia here) You've got two sudden death games at the end of the season that feature all the luck and bad bounces and moment by moment stress that makes baseball so great. Yes, it's completely not fair to either team, but they could've won the division. That's the point. The 'best teams' over the 162 large sample get the safety net. Honestly I think less people would have a problem with it if they stopped referring to it as two playoff teams and instead called it a "play-in" round or something. I wonder how the game would do if it was played in a 'neutral' field? Say they decided where each game would be played prior to the season, worst record in the league or something, and sold tickets to it like game 163. (hey look, revenue for the team that finished last, an exciting game, etc. revenue sharing?) I know I'd have been intrigued to buy a ticket to that game if it was at Citi Field. It also gives the fans of a team that's sorta waiting around a taste of meaningful baseball, helps keep the more casual fan from checking out for good? It might be fun. Hell, it might help the regionalness (which isn't a problem) too. If I watched say the Pirates beat the Giants to advance, I might have a little more vested interest in watching the Pirates play in the playoffs. I'd get to know the players from that game. It's sort of a last stop of the bandwagon to the playoffs, but hell, why not?

Ceetar Aug 14 2014 08:40 AM Re: Strike-aversary

also, fuck the NFL. It's a league about gambling and an excuse to sit on the couch every Sunday and drink beer. If the NFL decided it was going to be a lacrosse league and marketed it the same way they'd probably get the same fervor. (Different rant here, but NBA really should force-feed the WNBA to it's fans. would be a great idea)

SteveJRogers Aug 14 2014 09:08 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Ceetar wrote: (Different rant here, but NBA really should force-feed the WNBA to it's fans. would be a great idea) They, and ESPN have tried over the years.

d'Kong76 Aug 14 2014 09:18 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Ceetar wrote: also, fuck the NFL. It's a league about gambling and an excuse to sit on the couch every Sunday and drink beer. I love football season, and sometimes I sit on a chair!!

Ceetar Aug 14 2014 12:25 PM Re: Strike-aversary

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: also, fuck the NFL. It's a league about gambling and an excuse to sit on the couch every Sunday and drink beer. I love football season, and sometimes I sit on a chair!! oh, I don't really mind that aspect of it, though I find myself busy on Sundays and don't care enough to schedule around it but I need a week recovery time before I even think about it again.

Frayed Knot Aug 14 2014 12:50 PM Re: Strike-aversary

SteveJRogers wrote: Ceetar wrote: (Different rant here, but NBA really should force-feed the WNBA to it's fans. would be a great idea) They, and ESPN have tried over the years. The WNBA is essentially a wholly-owned (and money losing) arm of the NBA designed as an attempt to double the market for jersey sales (and therefore try to make up the lost revenue). The backing of the main league allowed it to put out of business the other women's pro league which was started a year earlier and that, at least initially, had better talent and the better paid talent. That outlets which carry the NBA (mainly ESPN but not limited to them) make it a point to give WNBA scores in their run-downs makes one wonder whether that practice is a courtesy or more of a quid pro quo.

Frayed Knot Aug 14 2014 01:01 PM Re: Strike-aversary

And it wasn't my point to turn this into a baseball vs football discussion, especially as I find those arguments both tedious and pointless, akin to cat & dog owners arguing over which is smarter. All that winds up happening in those clashes is that each side cites the strong points of their breed which does nothing more than to prove that cats don't make very good dogs and that dogs would be really lousy at being cats. I'm just disagreeing with the notion that baseball's post-season 'randomness' is particularly unique, and when similar arguments for one is often used against the other. [Random Sportscaster]The reason I hate baseball and refuse to talk about it is that these number geeks have ruined the whole sport ... so let's get back to our discussion QB Ratings and RPI Indexes[/Random Sportscaster]

batmagadanleadoff Aug 15 2014 08:57 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm just disagreeing with the notion that baseball's post-season 'randomness' is particularly unique, and when similar arguments for one is often used against the other. [Random Sportscaster]The reason I hate baseball and refuse to talk about it is that these number geeks have ruined the whole sport ... so let's get back to our discussion QB Ratings and RPI Indexes[/Random Sportscaster] Well, you seem to be disagreeing with me. And I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport. You seemed to have set that up one, and then sucked me in. I simply said that the expanded playoff system in baseball was a big turnoff for me, and that it exacerbates what I consider to be a problem with the sport -- that the ratio of luck to skill in baseball is greater than my tastes would prefer. I don't understand why my point should be diminished because of things you point out in some of the other sports. You raise an interesting point in one of your other posts. Why don't the dominant baseball teams win 70 or 75% of their regular season games, as do their counterparts in the other major American team sports? I've got a few theories.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 15 2014 09:20 AM Re: Strike-aversary

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You raise an interesting point in one of your other posts. Why don't the dominant baseball teams win 70 or 75% of their regular season games, as do their counterparts in the other major American team sports? I've got a few theories. Baseball is a less-true game, right? And luck is a leveler, isn't it?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 15 2014 09:42 AM Re: Strike-aversary

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: You raise an interesting point in one of your other posts. Why don't the dominant baseball teams win 70 or 75% of their regular season games, as do their counterparts in the other major American team sports? I've got a few theories. Baseball is a less-true game, right? And luck is a leveler, isn't it? Bingo! I'm with you on that one. Also, an elite player has less of an overall impact in baseball. A basketball team, for example, can run its entire offense around a Michael Jordan or a Lebron James. Dick Butkus or Patrick Willis can play just about every snap. But a baseball team can't have its superstar hitter take 15 or 20 at-bats a game, can't even have its superstar hitter take the key at bat in a game, unless that hitter is available to pinch-hit, and can't have its ace start every game.

Frayed Knot Aug 15 2014 09:56 AM Re: Strike-aversary Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 15 2014 10:08 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport. Sure you did. You didn't specifically use the word 'unique' but you did say that the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game was "significantly more so [in baseball] than in any of the other major team sports" which was the major turn-off for you about baseball's post-season. Now you can choose to watch, or not to watch, anything you want, I'm not one to tell people what they should be doing in their free time. All I'm doing is pointing out that, using that same logic, one should be just as dismissive about the NFL's playoff (and much, MUCH more about hockey's) and whereas the NBA does stay true to form more often (at least in the early rounds) I contend that that's largely to do with the gap between the top and second tier teams (and about that sport's huge home/road gap) than it is about the game itself.

Vic Sage Aug 15 2014 09:59 AM Re: Strike-aversary

I simply said that the expanded playoff system in baseball was a big turnoff for me, and that it exacerbates what I consider to be a problem with the sport -- that the ratio of luck to skill in baseball is greater than my tastes would prefer. I don't consider it a problem. Baseball is the game that most replicates life. As far as i'm concerned, that's its great strength.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 15 2014 10:12 AM Re: Strike-aversary

I don't want life from my sports. I get enough life from life.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 18 2014 12:39 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Frayed Knot wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport. Sure you did. You didn't specifically use the word 'unique' but you did say that the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game was "significantly more so [in baseball] than in any of the other major team sports" which was the major turn-off for you about baseball's post-season. Not really. I was super fine with the way things were before expanded playoffs, even though whatever luck exists in baseball is the same with or without wild cards. It's the wild cards that turned me off -- not the luck. Baseball's a long season and the luck gets more or less sorted out over as many as 162 games, so I reasoned. And even though the playoffs and World Series are a crap-shoot, at least the old playoffs system virtually ensured that it would be contested between the elite teams. I don't see this happening under expanded playoffs, and to my way of experiencing the game, the wild cards have cheapened the game to the point where it's ruined my enjoyment of the post-season. I understand what you mean when you say that the best NFL teams don't always win the Super Bowl, but it's not a proper comparison, again, to my way of seeing things and experiencing the game. First off, I wouldn't attribute that to luck as much as I would to a very short season, and a single elimination playoff tournament. Secondly, who's to say who the best NFL teams are? They play 16 games. That's the whole season. 16 games. That's not even three weeks of a baseball season. And I can cherry-pick different three week stretches of a baseball season to prove just about anything I want to. If the 2014 baseball season was comprised of the first three weeks of the season, for example, Clayton Kershaw goes from a pitcher on the verge of completing one of the most dominant seasons ever, to someone who doesn't throw a single pitch and has "DID NOT PLAY" instead of stats on the 2014 line on the back of next year's baseball cards. If I pick a more recent three week stretch, the NY Mets, a bad baseball team, suddenly appear to be World Series Contenders and the local tabloids are writing about Lucas Duda as if he's the second coming of Babe Ruth. See what I mean by "16 games"? Last year, the Arizona Cardinals didn't even make the playoffs even though they won seven of their last nine games, including a win at Seattle. Who's to say that if the NFL was 40 games long, the Cards don't win the title running away? It's not luck, but not enough games. I suppose that I'd feel safe saying that the team that went 12-4 was better than the 6-10 team. But ranking NFL teams three or four games apart based on the ridiculously small sample size that constitutes an NFL season is, I think, a fool's errand. And I accept all of this in the NFL because there's nothing that can be done about it. NFL teams can't play 162 games, or 82, or probably even 20. So I accept those limitations. But as far as baseball goes, I can't get it out of my mind that they ruined a good thing with the wild cards.

Frayed Knot Aug 18 2014 08:06 AM Re: Strike-aversary

- I was pretty sure I already had a handle on the differences between a 16 & a 162 game season, but thanks for the primer anyway. - If the NFL playoffs are better for you despite the fact that the best teams not only don't always survive the post-season but sometimes aren't even there* then, by all means, enjoy. * even with a system that allows >1/3 of them in and is all but certain to expand even further, probably as soon as next season - I stand by my original statement (which was the only thing I set out to discuss on this topic) that is, with the exception of the NBA (although not for reasons of that game being "truer"), the luck/randomness/whateveryouwannacallit of MLB's playoff system is no more likely to produce a non-best winner than those of the other major team sports (about the same, I figure, as the NFL and MUCH LESS likely than hockey). Plus I think the newly-installed double-WC system has put back at least some of the advantage to the division winners that was taken away when the WC was first concocted. - As always, your mileage may vary.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 18 2014 08:24 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Me, I really despise the latest wild-card innovation. A one-game playoff is fine for teams that end with the same record, but the two wild card teams could be separated by five or six games in the standings. To resolve that difference with just one game seems totally wrong to me. I know the argument is that it makes finishing in first place more of a reward, and that's true, but I don't like how it can potentially allow a third-place team to take such a great leap forward. I'd be much better with it if it was a best-of-three series rather than a best-of-one. (Those three games can even be played in two days. One game on Monday and a day/night doubleheader on Tuesday.)

Edgy MD Aug 18 2014 08:28 AM Re: Strike-aversary

It's the nature of playoffs that --- more or less by design --- they give lesser-record teams a chance to steal better-record teams' bacon.

Ceetar Aug 18 2014 08:42 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Edgy MD wrote: It's the nature of playoffs that --- more or less by design --- they give lesser-record teams a chance to steal better-record teams' bacon. well yeah. If they designed it so the best team won 90% of the time, where would the drama and intrigue come from? The only thing I really dislike about the MLB playoffs is all the off time that allows a different roster construction than the regular season. I don't like teams being to fly with just 3 starting pitchers sometimes.

Gwreck Aug 18 2014 08:44 AM Re: Strike-aversary

One note I didn't see here yet: the Wild Cards offer a means of fixing the imbalances in the schedule. This year's example: Seattle plays 19 games each against the Angels and the Athletics, but are in third place. Would they be in first place if they were in the East or Central? Quite possibly.

Vic Sage Aug 18 2014 08:46 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Me, I really despise the latest wild-card innovation. A one-game playoff is fine for teams that end with the same record, but the two wild card teams could be separated by five or six games in the standings. To resolve that difference with just one game seems totally wrong to me. I know the argument is that it makes finishing in first place more of a reward, and that's true, but I don't like how it can potentially allow a third-place team to take such a great leap forward. I'd be much better with it if it was a best-of-three series rather than a best-of-one. (Those three games can even be played in two days. One game on Monday and a day/night doubleheader on Tuesday.) I disagree. The only things that makes a WC system work for me at all is if the teams that don't win their division are significantly disadvantaged against those who did. And i think a one-game playoff (actually, its not a playoff game; it's a "play-in" game) accomplishes that. Teams will not want to be subject to the vagaries of a 1-game post-season, and so will go to the whip down the stretch to try and win the division instead of just resting guys and cruising, if the difference between winning the division or getting the WC is more significant than being able to rest key players. As to any notion of unfairness to the 1st WC team... look, you either win the division or you don't. If your team doesn't, whether by a little or by a alot, they should just consider themselves lucky to have any post-season at all. It's the very unpredictability of 1 game that makes it such a ballbuster and a fate teams would prefer to avoid. It also prevents such a team from setting up its rotation, likely having to burn their best starter in the play-in game before they play a team that has its rotation set up the way it wants. And that's the point; not just to keep more teams playing "meaningful games" in September but actually incentivizing teams to go hard down the stretch. If i can get that and all i have to give up is the possibility that the 4th best team may lose to the 5th best team, i'm ok with that.

Frayed Knot Aug 18 2014 09:47 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Me, I really despise the latest wild-card innovation. A one-game playoff is fine for teams that end with the same record, but the two wild card teams could be separated by five or six games in the standings. To resolve that difference with just one game seems totally wrong to me. I know the argument is that it makes finishing in first place more of a reward, and that's true, but I don't like how it can potentially allow a third-place team to take such a great leap forward. I'd be much better with it if it was a best-of-three series rather than a best-of-one. (Those three games can even be played in two days. One game on Monday and a day/night doubleheader on Tuesday.) Well, my point here in praising it was strictly in the vein of the topic at hand: that if one has a problem with MLB's playoffs due, at least in part, to too many WCs moving on past season-long superior teams then the Double-WC system, with it's play-in game and the probable hole in the pitching rotation that would follow the survivor of it, should help calm your qualms. That said, I DO like it better for many of the reasons Vic stated.

metsmarathon Aug 19 2014 09:57 AM Re: Strike-aversary

in 1973, the team with only the 9th best record in the majors made it all the way to the world series, taking it a full seven games. that was just awful, wasn't it?

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2014 09:59 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Not as awful as the 2000 WS winner who finished the season with ML's 9th best record.

metsmarathon Aug 19 2014 10:05 AM Re: Strike-aversary

the 2006 WS winner with the 13th best record was pretty awful, too. too bad the wild card can't explicitly be blamed for either of those injustices. well, i guesss we could blame the wild card teams in those years for not defeating the clearly inferior division winners that ultimately won the title.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2014 10:35 AM Re: Strike-aversary

For the same reasons that Vic states, I prefer the current WC system to the older one. (Like I'd prefer knee replacement surgery over having my eyeballs gouged out). But overall, no matter what WC sysyem they're using in baseball, it's too many playoff teams for my blood. I don't like postseason baseball because I think it's a total crap-shoot. Only twice during the 19 Wild Card era World Series, have the best teams in each league vied for the title. It happened in the WC era's first WS (1995), and it happened last year. Only six of those 19 WS were played between two of the best four teams in baseball. The 1973 Mets rule! No, I'm fine with that, despite the slight bias. That was a rare occurrence. I don't have anything against upsets, or an unexpected team winning the crown. But those events should have their place. If it happens too often (and I think it does in baseball - and I don't necessarily mean an 82 win team in the WS, -- but a non-elite team taking the title) it cheapens the game.

metsmarathon Aug 19 2014 11:22 AM Re: Strike-aversary

between 1969 and 1979, the top two teams in each league faced each other in hte world series 6 times. from 1980 until the dawn of the wild card era in 1993, a span of 14 years, it happened only twice. the mets and red sox were the last pair of teams to pull the trick. it's not like it was a regular occurrence, by any stretch of the imagination, for the top two teams to emerge from the divisional playoffs. especially not in more recent memory.

Edgy MD Aug 19 2014 11:47 AM Re: Strike-aversary

I think a notable thing is that, since 1979, the top team is not necessarily the top team. I mean division play starting in 1979 introduced the idea that a team could have a better record but not be the best team in the league due to playing in perhaps a less competitive division. But we had three absolute juggernauts in 1970s, and really only the 1996-2000 Yankees compare to any of them as far as dominance. Maybe the Braves of the mid-late 1990s (who generally lost in the playoffs). But yeah, the best team still could hit a slump during the playoffs. So, kill the playoffs. But kill the draft and kill territorial exclusivity while you're at it. KILL!!!

metsmarathon Aug 19 2014 11:54 AM Re: Strike-aversary

but, please, first start with the DH.

Ceetar Aug 19 2014 12:10 PM Re: Strike-aversary

metsmarathon wrote: but, please, first start with the DH. but first, kill the idea that pitchers don't have to work on their hitting.

Edgy MD Aug 19 2014 12:50 PM Re: Strike-aversary

You can't kill an idea, man!

batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2014 05:39 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Edgy MD wrote: I think a notable thing is that, since 1979, the top team is not necessarily the top team. You mean 1969, but I get you. It was theoretically possible for one of the NL playoff teams to be merely the 7th best team in the league, and 8th best in the AL (1977-1993). What are the odds of that? I'll tell you. With two six team divisions, the odds of the leagues six best teams playing in one division and the worst six teams playing in the other division are 462-1. With two seven team divisions, the odds of the leagues seven best teams playing in one division and the worst seven teams playing in the other division are 1,716-1.

Mets – Willets Point Aug 19 2014 06:02 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Solution: Three 10-team, regionally-aligned leagues playing a balanced-schedule within the league. The champions of each league are awarded the pennant, which is treated as an honor nearly as high as the World Series championship. In post-season, three pennant-winners rest while second place teams play a round-robin playoff for the wild card. Then a seven-game semifinal. Then a seven-game World Series.

d'Kong76 Aug 19 2014 06:44 PM Re: Strike-aversary

That would never work as long as there are DH's in baseball. (or they went all DH)

Frayed Knot Aug 19 2014 07:26 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Solution: Three 10-team, regionally-aligned leagues playing a balanced-schedule within the league. The champions of each league are awarded the pennant, which is treated as an honor nearly as high as the World Series championship. In post-season, three pennant-winners rest while second place teams play a round-robin playoff for the wild card. Then a seven-game semifinal. Then a seven-game World Series. That's pretty much the way things were, only with a 2x10 set-up, for the first seven decades of the 20th century, and then your expanded version is maybe the way things would have worked out had the original Branch Rickey/Bill Shea (among others) idea been put into place. The idea that later led to the Mets/Astros/Angels/Senators expansion in the early '60s had started as the makings of a 3rd league, one which would have started separate from and somewhat below the level of the existing NL & AL. The plan was then that their 'Continental League' would, over time, work its way up to being full-fledged ML status as their players and farm systems developed. If/when that happened, a plan such as yours is one that the three leagues could have concocted as a playoff system between them. But as more people/groups got involved the idea of having the fewer but stronger of these nascent clubs getting absorbed into the existing leagues struck some as the easier solution than trying to fly solo. Oddly, this movement got mixed up with football at the time and in that sport it did result in the forming of a rival league, the AFL

Mets – Willets Point Aug 19 2014 07:28 PM Re: Strike-aversary

d'Kong76 wrote: That would never work as long as there are DH's in baseball. (or they went all DH) Yes, the DH would be eliminated in this plan.

Mets – Willets Point Aug 19 2014 07:32 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Frayed Knot wrote: That's pretty much the way things were, only with a 2x10 set-up, for the first seven decades of the 20th century, and then your expanded version is maybe the way things would have worked out had the original Branch Rickey/Bill Shea (among others) idea been put into place. Yep, on the surface it's a radical idea, but it would actual bring back traditional practices such as balanced schedules, no interleague play, and restoring the pennant to a great achievement rather than just a thing. And I named the third league the Continental League in honor of the Rickey plan. American League: Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, New York Mets, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, Toronto Blue Jays, and Washington Nationals. National League: Atlanta Braves, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, Kansas City Royals, Miami Marlins, Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins, St. Louis Cardinals, and Tampa Bay Rays. Continental League: Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Houston Astros, Los Angeles Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers, Oakland A’s, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants, Seattle Mariners, and Texas Rangers.

d'Kong76 Aug 19 2014 07:49 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Willets Point wrote: Yes, the DH would be eliminated in this plan. The player's union will be happy about that!

Edgy MD Aug 19 2014 07:52 PM Re: Strike-aversary

I've said it before, but I don't think evidence is clear at all that the DH raises salary levels, and I think the MLBPA would be wise to study that.

d'Kong76 Aug 19 2014 07:54 PM Re: Strike-aversary

It extends careers for some union brothers. You get rid of it, you're taking food from their children.

Edgy MD Aug 19 2014 07:59 PM Re: Strike-aversary

That's a general attitude, certainly, but I'm not sure it holds up. National League teams are forced to field deeper benches and deeper bullpens --- which means more decently paid vets and fewer mimimum salary guys. I don't think the data necessarily shows that the National League has lower mean or median salaries. If the data suggests that more brothers are sacrificing so fewer brothers can cash in, should the union membership still support that?

d'Kong76 Aug 19 2014 08:17 PM Re: Strike-aversary

I haven't mentioned salaries in my two short posts. And, I'm sure you know full well I was being facetious.

Edgy MD Aug 19 2014 08:23 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Sorry, I'm not sure what I said wrong here. I understood that you were arguing that the union would not allow cessation of the DH. I understand and agree and was suggesting the union should re-examine that position. I'm not making a lot of friends this evening.

Ceetar Aug 19 2014 08:30 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Edgy MD wrote: Sorry, I'm not sure what I said wrong here. I understood that you were arguing that the union would not allow cessation of the DH. I understand and agree and was suggesting the union should re-examine that position. I'm not making a lot of friends this evening. I've moved along to the "just do it and give us the DH all over" camp, but I do think it elevates salaries. Hard to measure though because it's so circumstantial. Take the Tigers a few years ago when they got Prince Fielder. They probably don't do that without the DH to rotate goes into. So that would take them out of the running and theoretically one less team bidding for his services means he'd end up making less money. I suspect guys like Jason Giambi, or Alex Rodriguez, get an extra year, or a couple extra million, at the end of their contracts knowing you can sorta milk a little more value out of them by not playing them in the field. But there are so many moving parts and interleague trades and different markets that I don't think it's easy to just say "AL has higher contracts" or anything.

Edgy MD Aug 19 2014 08:44 PM Re: Strike-aversary

I think it's pretty easy to measure. Decades of data are available. If there's an ambiguous outcome, then that settles the question. The DH doesn't raise salaries.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 19 2014 08:49 PM Re: Strike-aversary

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not making a lot of friends this evening. Take care of your clique, and your clique will take care of you, eh? [Rubs fingers together]

d'Kong76 Aug 20 2014 08:21 AM Re: Strike-aversary

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not making a lot of friends this evening. I wasn't being unfriendly. I made a short point that the union likes the DH because it lengthens some player's careers and you wanted to talk about salaries. There's too much of that here sometimes, and some of it on a very large scale.

Edgy MD Aug 20 2014 08:31 AM Re: Strike-aversary

I'm sorry. I'm still not clear of what there's too much of. Too much talk of salaries? Too much hijacking? I wasn't meaning to hijack. I thought it was obvious that the lengthening of careers and improved salary condition of players was related. If we want to measure the DH's benefit to players purely in terms of length of tenure, I'd submit that careers are lengthened in the National League too where the deeper and more experienced benches and bullpens are needed, and it's worth studying which effect is more pronounced.

d'Kong76 Aug 20 2014 08:40 AM Re: Strike-aversary

There's too much DH!