MLB 2013 Season

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Do you think the Marlins will ever go back to their old look? I'm not a fan of the team, but you're right in pointing out how stupid their stadium and uniforms are now. The whole "12 fans in the stands" joke used to be funny until it became perfectly clear that the fan base was being subjected to an a-hole of an owner.

 

Eventually, yes. Once new ownership takes over, they're going to want to distance the team from Loria as much as possible, and the uniforms are a good easy way to get that idea across.

 

The problem though is that Loria is close with Bud Selig and has no intention of selling the team anytime soon. Some people will tell you that the Marlins were Loria's compensation for running the Expos into the ground which facilitated their move to Washington. I don't know how true that is, but from what I know of both Loria and Selig, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Also, the Marlins are actually decently profitable. Between MLB's revenue sharing program and the payroll being as low as possible, he's making good money. So there's no incentive to change how he runs things or to sell the team. And this attitude is apparent when you look at Loria's public comments over the last couple of years. He comes off as extremely out of touch and he kind of implies that if the fans knew more about running a baseball team they would be on board with everything he's doing. It's infuriating.

 

So he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

Eventually, yes. Once new ownership takes over, they're going to want to distance the team from Loria as much as possible, and the uniforms are a good easy way to get that idea across.

 

The problem though is that Loria is close with Bud Selig and has no intention of selling the team anytime soon. Some people will tell you that the Marlins were Loria's compensation for running the Expos into the ground which facilitated their move to Washington. I don't know how true that is, but from what I know of both Loria and Selig, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Also, the Marlins are actually decently profitable. Between MLB's revenue sharing program and the payroll being as low as possible, he's making good money. So there's no incentive to change how he runs things or to sell the team. And this attitude is apparent when you look at Loria's public comments over the last couple of years. He comes off as extremely out of touch and he kind of implies that if the fans knew more about running a baseball team they would be on board with everything he's doing. It's infuriating.

 

So he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

The worst part of the Marlins situation is the new stadium; the taxpayers will be on the hook for millions, and for a subpar product at that.

 

but your division beef is a little unfair.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

The worst part of the Marlins situation is the new stadium; the taxpayers will be on the hook for millions, and for a subpar product at that.

 

but your division beef is a little unfair.

 

Absolutely, and that's why Miami as a whole should be pissed at this guy, not just fans of the team.

 

What was unfair about the division thing?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

So I listen to a lot of podcasts while I'm at work. ESPN used to have one called Baseball Today which featured mostly rational discussion with a little bit of the ESPN flavor thrown in. It was enjoyable.

 

This season they've replaced that with one called Baseball Tonight, which so far has been Buster Olney talking about how he has access to clubhouses, talking about players being resilient, and grossly overacting to what has happened in the first three weeks of the season. It is not enjoyable.

 

Today they were talking about what's wrong with the Nationals. Apparently they're in trouble because they've gone 5-1 against the Marlins and 5-8 against everyone else. This, of course, is ridiculous. I understand they have to talk about something, but to say that the Nationals are in trouble when we're not even all the way through April is insane. No team is in trouble right now. You have teams like the Marlins and Astros who are clearly going nowhere, but no contending team is in any kind of peril three weeks into a six month season.

 

The 2003 Marlins were 11-31 at the end of May and they turned things around and won the World Series. That team, although they turned out to be very good, had far more issues to address early in the season than the Nationals currently have. I'm not saying that means the Nationals are going to win the World Series, or that there is no way that they can have an awful season and finish in fourth place. Both of those things are possible. But it's way too early to even get a rough idea of which of those things is going to happen. 19 games is not enough to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

What was unfair about the division thing?

 

The situation you described is unfortunate but it's not always going to be that way. Detroit also made the WS too.

 

The only way to combat the problem you described is to expand the playoffs. However I am not in favor of that at all. I'd much rather watch a few select teams with high competition than more teams but less competition.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Justin Upton hit homers number 10 and 11 today.

 

Did I mention he only had 17 all last year.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

The situation you described is unfortunate but it's not always going to be that way. Detroit also made the WS too.

 

The only way to combat the problem you described is to expand the playoffs. However I am not in favor of that at all. I'd much rather watch a few select teams with high competition than more teams but less competition.

 

How often it actually happens is irrelevant. The fact that it is possible and happens at all is the problem.

 

Think about why people are objecting to the Wild Card game. A 100 win team can lose to an 84 win team due to the flukiness of a single game, which completely negates the regular season which had already established that the 100 win team was better. If this is unfair (and I agree that it is), then the division system is even more unfair because the same scenario can happen, but with geography taking the place of the single game.

 

The Tigers made the playoffs over the Rays and Angels not as a result of any baseball game, single or otherwise. They did so based on the location of their home stadium. Think about it this way: if the 2012 season played out exactly as it did with the lone exception being that the Rays played their home games in St. Louis instead of Tampa, then the Rays would have made the playoffs and Detroit would not.

 

The point is not that Detroit was a bad team. They were a pretty good team. But so was Tampa and so was LA. And the determining factor for which of those teams made the playoffs was geography and not actual on-field results.

This should be unacceptable under any circumstances, but especially so if we deem the Wild Card game to be unacceptable.

 

The solution to this in no way requires an expansion of the playoffs. The top three records in the league get automatic playoff berths regardless of division. The fourth and fifth best records regardless of division play the one game playoff. Problem solved. Divisions make sense for regional rivalries and simplification of travel, and those things can be preserved just as they are now. But divisions do not make sense for playoff placement.

[Trey Time 186]

UPTON BROTHERS!

[Trey Time 186]

Justin Upton hit homers number 10 and 11 today.

 

Did I mention he only had 17 all last year.

 

That's what the D-Backs get for trading a 25 year old power hitter. If only they could've taken Uggla instead of Prado, then THAT would've been perfection.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

How often it actually happens is irrelevant. The fact that it is possible and happens at all is the problem.

 

Think about why people are objecting to the Wild Card game. A 100 win team can lose to an 84 win team due to the flukiness of a single game, which completely negates the regular season which had already established that the 100 win team was better. If this is unfair (and I agree that it is), then the division system is even more unfair because the same scenario can happen, but with geography taking the place of the single game.

 

The Tigers made the playoffs over the Rays and Angels not as a result of any baseball game, single or otherwise. They did so based on the location of their home stadium.

 

Think about it this way: if the 2012 season played out exactly as it did with the lone exception being that the Rays played their home games in St. Louis instead of Tampa, then the Rays would have made the playoffs and Detroit would not.

 

The point is not that Detroit was a bad team. They were a pretty good team. But so was Tampa and so was LA. And the determining factor for which of those teams made the playoffs was geography and not actual on-field results.

 

This should be unacceptable under any circumstances, but especially so if we deem the Wild Card game to be unacceptable.

 

The solution to this in no way requires an expansion of the playoffs. The top three records in the league get automatic playoff berths regardless of division. The fourth and fifth best records regardless of division play the one game playoff. Problem solved.

 

Divisions make sense for regional rivalries and simplification of travel, and those things can be preserved just as they are now. But divisions do not make sense for playoff placement.

 

I don't totally disagree with you, but your way makes divisions irrelevant. It's not realistic. It also makes decisions extremely complicated if you have to compete with not 4, but 14 teams in your conference.

 

Do you have the same complaint with the NFL? I remember a few seasons ago, a team in the NFC west was like 8-8 or 7-9 (the seahawks I think?) Yea it sucks, but aside from revamping the whole playoff system there's not much you can do to fix it.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

That's what the D-Backs get for trading a 25 year old power hitter. If only they could've taken Uggla instead of Prado, then THAT would've been perfection.

 

Really? I like Uggla. Yea he's struggling, and last season he had that horrible stretch. But he's a good power hitter. Prado would just be redundant IMO.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I don't totally disagree with you, but your way makes divisions irrelevant. It's not realistic. It also makes decisions extremely complicated if you have to compete with not 4, but 14 teams in your conference.

 

Are divisions relevant in the NBA? Beyond guaranteeing home court in the first round, not really. And I don't think that takes anything away from anyone's enjoyment of the NBA.

 

There is probably an argument to be made that since MLB employs an unbalanced schedule, divisions have to matter because teams from different divisions are playing radically different schedules. The reasoning would be that teams in tough divisions are at a disadvantage because they're playing tougher schedules. Theoretically that would lead to teams in weak divisions having artificially inflated records, which would secure them better playoff positioning unfairly. But that argument fails because we have that problem under the current system, but with the additional problem of guaranteeing a playoff spot to the best team of the worst division regardless of record.

 

It hasn't happened yet, but it's entirely possible for a team to make the playoffs with a losing record. All it would have taken last year was for Detroit to lose 8 more games and Chicago to lose 5 more. That's not an unreasonable scenario. If that were to happen, would it be defensible? I don't think so, and I can't think of a reason why it would be desirable to preserve that possibility.

 

 

Do you have the same complaint with the NFL? I remember a few seasons ago, a team in the NFC west was like 8-8 or 7-9 (the seahawks I think?) Yea it sucks, but aside from revamping the whole playoff system there's not much you can do to fix it.

 

I don't follow the NFL, so I'm unqualified to comment on their system specifically. But if it is set up in such a way that a losing team can make the playoffs over winning teams, then yes I would have a problem with that as well. What you're doing with a system like that is saying that it's more important that we have teams from all regions make the playoffs than it is to have the best teams make the playoffs.

 

What do you think the reaction would be if we currently had a system where only the best teams made the playoffs, and that's the way it had always been, and then the league proposed changing everything to make it so that the best teams won't necessarily make the playoffs, but instead playoff berths would be awarded based on region instead of record? Or what if divisions were assigned randomly instead of being based on location? Would the division format still be as important in either of those scenarios?

 

I would guess that people would be emphatically not ok with that. We're just used to things being this way, and it's normal and how we've always known things to work. But is it fair? Is it the best possible system?