AWFUL AL West!
gi...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
wouldn't be so tragic if not for the fact that now this division HAS only 4
teams now! Realignment's worst nightmare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--Matt
Charles W Saeger
They showed charts about this in the STATS 1993 Baseball Scoreboard. Or,
as Bill James once said, the AL West is 'the third world of baseball.'
Scary, but just a few years ago, the West have ALL of its teams at or
above .500. Now, the new West will possible have all of its remaining
teams below .500. And, when you remember that Kansas City and Minnesota
have horrid teams (though both are playing reasonably well right now), the
only good team left in the old division would be Chicago.
Is it to late to go back to the old alignment?
Tony Lima
>as Bill James once said, the AL West is 'the third world of baseball.'
CWS>Scary, but just a few years ago, the West have ALL of its teams at or
>above .500. Now, the new West will possible have all of its remaining
>teams below .500. And, when you remember that Kansas City and Minnesota
>have horrid teams (though both are playing reasonably well right now), the
>only good team left in the old division would be Chicago.
CWS>Is it to late to go back to the old alignment?
Which is the more scary statistic: (a) the Oakland A's only
recently achieved double-digit wins or (b) they remain a
single digit figure in games out of first place? (Stolen
without apology from Bruce Jenkins, San Francisco Chronicle.)
-- Tony Lima
---
* SLMR 2.0 #1193 * In DBLSPACE no one can hear you scream...
unknown
Ok, time for another opinion. I _want_ the winner of at least one
of the divisions to be under .500. So say it's the AL West. Texas
wins with a record of 78-84. Then, they go on and sweep the first
games in the best-o-five, and win the LCS in 6. They struggle in
the WS, but manage to push it to 7 games. They win the 7th game
in extra innings to be WS champs. Maybe then, the people at the
top will see how stupid the new alignment really is and decide
that they don't like <.500 teams winning the WS and change it.
Well, at least the Ranger fans would like it!
paul
Charles M Kozierok
unknown <pout...@mace.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
} Ok, time for another opinion. I _want_ the winner of at least one
} of the divisions to be under .500. So say it's the AL West. Texas
} wins with a record of 78-84. Then, they go on and sweep the first
} games in the best-o-five, and win the LCS in 6. They struggle in
} the WS, but manage to push it to 7 games. They win the 7th game
} in extra innings to be WS champs. Maybe then, the people at the
} top will see how stupid the new alignment really is and decide
} that they don't like <.500 teams winning the WS and change it.
Heh. I agree with your position but I'd bet the exact
*opposite* would happen. People would *love* it. Not only
could the average Joe on the street not care less about a
sub-.500 team winning the WS, they'd probably think it was
great! Remember, everyone loves an underdog. If Atlanta
wins 110 games and then sweeps the playoffs, it's not viewed
as that big of a deal. But the 78-84 Rangers? Now *that*
is exciting. The weak beating the strong *sells*.
I offer as evidence the mania that happens in the NHL *every*
year when a lesser team advances to the later rounds
of the playoffs. This year it was the San Jose Sharks.
cheers,
-*-
charles
unknown
>
>Heh. I agree with your position but I'd bet the exact
>*opposite* would happen. People would *love* it. Not only
>could the average Joe on the street not care less about a
>sub-.500 team winning the WS, they'd probably think it was
>great! Remember, everyone loves an underdog. If Atlanta
>wins 110 games and then sweeps the playoffs, it's not viewed
>as that big of a deal. But the 78-84 Rangers? Now *that*
>is exciting. The weak beating the strong *sells*.
>
>I offer as evidence the mania that happens in the NHL *every*
>year when a lesser team advances to the later rounds
>of the playoffs. This year it was the San Jose Sharks.
>
>cheers,
>
>-*-
>charles
I almost wrote a part that it probably wouldn't work because the
Roger Maynards of the world would claim it was great that a <.500
team would have the chance to be the best team in the league...
paul
Michael Zimmers
Charles M Kozierok <i...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>Heh. I agree with your position but I'd bet the exact
>*opposite* would happen. People would *love* it. Not only
>could the average Joe on the street not care less about a
>sub-.500 team winning the WS, they'd probably think it was
>great! Remember, everyone loves an underdog. If Atlanta
>wins 110 games and then sweeps the playoffs, it's not viewed
>as that big of a deal. But the 78-84 Rangers? Now *that*
>is exciting. The weak beating the strong *sells*.
It sells to novelty-seekers, but it's a turn-off to other fans. The
trick in putting together a decent playoff format, to me, is a matter
of degree. On the one extreme, you could have no playoffs. Every
team plays 162 games and at the end, the team with the best record
is pronounced the champ. Probably not too unfair, but a whole bunch
of teams are going to experience huge drops in attendence revenue
the second half of the season. To say nothing of no ticket sales for
the post-season.
The opposite extreme is what the NBA did up until a few years ago, when
all but seven teams made the playoffs. Making matters worse was the
first round was a mere 5 games, making an upset quite possible. This
format is bound to generate interest, but forces the "best" team to
run a guantlet of chances to get dinged, and turns the post-season
into a crapshoot.
I think that MLB got it half-right -- four teams out of fourteen seems
like a decent ratio to make the playoffs. The part they got wrong, as
has been pointed out, is how those four are selected. If the AL holds
to early-season form, for example, there are gonna be some hugely upset
players and fans in Baltimore.
I'd like to see them go back to two divisions, and give the two winners
and two wildcards to the postseason. (In theory, this can still create
inequity, but it didn't often in the past with two teams going, and
the divisions have some appeal.) Same number of playoff games, but
a better chance for a good field.
--
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael Zimmers | Voice: 408 996 1965 |
| SoftHelp -- Suppliers to Software Developers | Data: 408 996 1974 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Greg Woods
Michael Zimmers <mzim...@netcom.com> wrote:
>The opposite extreme is what the NBA did up until a few years ago, when
>all but seven teams made the playoffs. Making matters worse was the
>first round was a mere 5 games, making an upset quite possible. This
>format is bound to generate interest, but forces the "best" team to
>run a guantlet of chances to get dinged, and turns the post-season
>into a crapshoot.
No kidding; look at this year when the Nuggets knocked off the Sonics.
I agree that on the whole we'd be better off with four playoff teams in
each league in only two divisions. But look at it this way; I speak as
a fan of one of the teams in a "weak" division. We've been within a
half game of first place this year, and if we had any relief pitching
at all, we'd not have blown a 5-1 lead on May 4 and we would have
actually BEEN in first place (even if only for a few days). We
wouldn't have been in that position with last year's division
alignment. So those who say that it does create more fan interest when
more teams theoretically have a shot at the playoffs are also correct.
It isn't quite black and white.
--Greg
Sherri Nichols
>It sells to novelty-seekers, but it's a turn-off to other fans.
I don't think anybody would characterize me as a "novelty-seeker", but I
do think it's a lot of fun when a big underdog team wins in the playoffs.
That the Sharks were a below-.500 team that many people here apparently
believe shouldn't have been in the playoffs at all doesn't diminish one bit
the enjoyment I had watching and cheering for them in the playoffs.
To me, the playoffs are about fun and excitement, not picking the "best"
team. No matter how you restrict the playoffs, the fact that teams are
playing short series means that you can't be picking the best team.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Charles W Saeger
paul:
That's not a bad idea, actually, but I thought the 1972 Mets and the 1987
Twins demonstrated the bad side of two divisions (though I confess two
divisions were necessary).
The problem here is -- how many winners per team? Before 1961 (1962 in
the NL), there was one winner for each eight teams. From 1961-1968, there
was one per ten, from 1969 to the 1976 in the AL and 1992 in the NL, one
per six, and from 1977 to 1993 in the AL and in 1993 in the NL, there was
one per seven. The number has always stayed near the historical ratio of
one per eight, and nobody had a problem with that until about 1975 (just
from looking at old TSN guides).
The best solution? Here are my ideas:
Return to the older two division format with seven teams in each division.
The schedule, of course, must be changed to prevent the unbalance of the AL
of the 1980s (ie, you should play more games in your own division). The
solution to that is a 14-10 setup, and the math on that ...
Ex. Baltimore Orioles
play 6 teams in the East 14 times each (7 Camden Yards - 7 road):
6 *14 =84
play 7 teams in the West 10 times each (5 Camden Yards - 5 road):
7 *10 =70
play 84 games against the East and 70 games against the West:
84 +70 =154
Which, of course, is the historical length of the season.
In the NL, the Chicago Cubs and St. Louis Cardinals will go to the West
and the Cincinnati Reds and the Atlanta Braves will go to the East. Lest
you think Tribune Co. will vehemently object (due to tv time differences):
(1) The San Francisco Giants now play a majority of day games (53 in 1993)
(2) Fay (Good Riddance) Vincent proposed a 20-6 schedule, which would make
around (assuming 15 night/home dates against the Cubs for the Padres and
the Dodgers, and 4 for the Giants, and not worrying about the Rockies) 19
really late games. The new way would have about 11, increasing tv
revenues drastically (believe me, it does).
The other solution? Add St. Petersburg, Phoenix, Washington, and Buffalo
to the leagues and then splitting each league in to two eight-team leagues
or making two eight-team divisions, at a 14-8 split for 162 games.
Seeing as that we just had an expansion and my preference for a 154-game
schedule, I'd choose the former.
Charles W Saeger
>I almost wrote a part that it probably wouldn't work because the
>Roger Maynards of the world would claim it was great that a <.500
>team would have the chance to be the best team in the league...
Being as that the anti-Christ is gone for the summer, I wouldn't worry too
much about that.
Actually, I'd almost (read: almost; I really want Roger to have a heart
attack while driving a semi in rush hour traffic) want to see Roger's
logic on this.
croz...@delphi.com
are the most successful franchise in baseball on the field in the last
25 years, the Angels potentially are a powerhouse financially if the
ownership situation gets straightened out, and Texas and Seattle have some
of the best young players and foreward looking ownerships in baseball
right now.
Also, at the end of the year, the divisional winner -- Seattle probably,
but maybe Texas -- will be over .500 and people will have forgotten all
this crap.
Nolan Johnson
See the NHL playoffs for another example of this. A few years ago, the
*North* Stars barely made the playoffs (with a horrible record), then
knocked off the two best teams in the league (Chicago and St. Louis), and
eventually lost to the Penguins in the Stanley Cup finals.
More related to baseball, the of the AL West winner should be
better next year, when they play an unbalanced schedule (no, that won't
make the teams any better, but you can bet that people won't notice how
bad they are, as a result of the improved record).
Nolan Johnson
Michael Zimmers
Sherri Nichols <snic...@mv.us.adobe.com> wrote:
Point taken. In most sports, the "best" team is decided before the
playoffs begin -- the team with the best record probably has numerical
rights to the claim, with possible exceptions in the NFL due to the
limited number of games, and the hugely imbalanced schedules.
As important as post-season success seems to be to most fans, though,
I'd argue against near-total crapshoots like the NBA has. And as much
fun as it is watching a way underdog do well, I wonder whether it's worth
keeping out a more qualified contestant (in the manner that Baltimore
might be excluded in favor of Texas this year). Putting the best teams
in the post-season has both fan and logical support.
ak8...@albnyvms.bitnet
>In article <CpwCC...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
>unknown <pout...@mace.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>} Ok, time for another opinion. I _want_ the winner of at least one
>} of the divisions to be under .500. So say it's the AL West. Texas
>} wins with a record of 78-84. Then, they go on and sweep the first
>} games in the best-o-five,
This is the first abomination. The first round of the playoffs is
only five games long. The shortness of the series makes it MORE likely,
not LESS, that the inferior team may win the series. If the people who
run Major League Baseball were serious about maximizing the likelihood
of the best team winning, they would make the first series run to a
best-of-nine.
>} and win the LCS in 6. They struggle in
>} the WS, but manage to push it to 7 games. They win the 7th game
>} in extra innings to be WS champs. Maybe then, the people at the
>} top will see how stupid the new alignment really is and decide
>} that they don't like <.500 teams winning the WS and change it.
>
>Heh. I agree with your position but I'd bet the exact
>*opposite* would happen. People would *love* it. Not only
>could the average Joe on the street not care less about a
>sub-.500 team winning the WS, they'd probably think it was
>great! Remember, everyone loves an underdog. If Atlanta
>wins 110 games and then sweeps the playoffs, it's not viewed
>as that big of a deal. But the 78-84 Rangers? Now *that*
>is exciting. The weak beating the strong *sells*.
>
>I offer as evidence the mania that happens in the NHL *every*
>year when a lesser team advances to the later rounds
>of the playoffs. This year it was the San Jose Sharks.
>
I am including the entire previous discussion in this post, because
I could not figure out what to cut out. I think that it was about
three years ago that the North Stars made it to the Stanley Cup
Finals, in spite of their having a sub-.500 record. The North Stars
participation in the playoffs made a travesty of the entire tournament.
Of course, no reform has resulted in hockey, as a result of this
abomination.
Major League Baseball does not care about the credibility of the
champions that its perverted systems may produce. The turpid
experience of the 1973 New York Mets and the 1988 Los Angeles
Dodgers did not lead to any reform of the playoff system.
>cheers,
>
>-*-
>charles
ALfredo B. Goyburu
CHMR FM
>This is the first abomination. The first round of the playoffs is
>only five games long. The shortness of the series makes it MORE likely,
>not LESS, that the inferior team may win the series. If the people who
>run Major League Baseball were serious about maximizing the likelihood
>of the best team winning, they would make the first series run to a
>best-of-nine.
I totally agree with you. The heads of Major League Baseball aren't so
much interested in the best team winning as they are in dragging more
people into the stadiums. With rising player salaries and the fact that
everybody and their dog wants a new stadium the best way to make a profit
is to give more people a hope of their team making it to the playoffs.
>>Heh. I agree with your position but I'd bet the exact
>>*opposite* would happen. People would *love* it. Not only
>>could the average Joe on the street not care less about a
>>sub-.500 team winning the WS, they'd probably think it was
>>great! Remember, everyone loves an underdog. If Atlanta
>>wins 110 games and then sweeps the playoffs, it's not viewed
>>as that big of a deal. But the 78-84 Rangers? Now *that*
>>is exciting. The weak beating the strong *sells*.
I'm not sure people would love it that much. In the hypothetical
situation above I'm sure the Rangers' fans would be ecstatic. The rest of
the baseball world, however, would be totally disgusted. I'm sure even
fans of the team in question would not hold their heads as high knowing
that they really weren't the best team that season, only the best during
the comparatively short number of games taken in the playoffs. In some
instances such as the one above (apologies to Rangers' fans) we can say that
the regular season is inconsequential. All it decides is who makes it to the
playoffs, not who is really the best team.
>Major League Baseball does not care about the credibility of the
>champions that its perverted systems may produce. The turpid
>experience of the 1973 New York Mets and the 1988 Los Angeles
>Dodgers did not lead to any reform of the playoff system.
If they were going to change the playoff system to include more teams, I
think it would have made more sense to take the top 4 or 6 teams in each
league. One can only think it is a shame that last year's Giants didn't
get any more than a pat on the back for their outstanding record (no, I'm
not a Giants fan, I'm an Expos fan).
Let's just be thankful we don't have the same playoff system as the NHL.
Bob
--
"Man must show goodness of heart toward animals because
those who are cruel to them are equally insensitive to men."
(I. Kant 1724-1804) ch...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
Charles W Saeger
>You can't judge any division based on one year. The fact is, the A's
>are the most successful franchise in baseball on the field in the last
>25 years,
Wrong. Baltimore Orioles. Cincinnati Reds. New York Yankees.
>the Angels potentially are a powerhouse financially if the ownership
>situation gets straightened out,
The same thing that was said in 1964, and in 1974, and in 1984, and ...
>and Texas and Seattle have some of the best young players and foreward
>looking ownerships in baseball right now.
Is the same Seattle Mariners who traded Bret Boone and Erik Hansen for
Bobby Ayala and Dan Wilson? Mike Jackson and Dave Burba and Billy Swift
for Kevin Mitchell? They HAD some of the best young players until their front
office showed its lack of intelligence.
Charles W Saeger
>I don't think anybody would characterize me as a "novelty-seeker", but I
>do think it's a lot of fun when a big underdog team wins in the playoffs.
I was horrified when the North Stars did the same a few years back. I
watched several teams play horrible hockey to lose to a group of
pipsqueaks. It was NOT fun.
>That the Sharks were a below-.500 team that many people here apparently
>believe shouldn't have been in the playoffs at all doesn't diminish one bit
>the enjoyment I had watching and cheering for them in the playoffs.
Well, wouldn't you get more enjoyment out of being a New York Rangers fan,
and watching a good team in the playoffs? I want the 1975 World Series --
good fundamental ball against good fundamental ball, with exciting plays,
heroes, and goats. You aren't gonna get that with the wild cards.
>To me, the playoffs are about fun and excitement, not picking the "best"
>team. No matter how you restrict the playoffs, the fact that teams are
>playing short series means that you can't be picking the best team.
I agree, but try telling that to the players. They're not out there to
have fun; they're out there to win. Your having fun is not of immediate
importance to them.
The new system rewards mediocre play. The playoffs are not for mediocre
play; good play is much more exciting. The only thing I like is that the
LCS is once again a 5-game series -- gets you to the World Series quicker,
and gives the Fall Classic greater importance.
Sherri Nichols
>I was horrified when the North Stars did the same a few years back. I
>watched several teams play horrible hockey to lose to a group of
>pipsqueaks. It was NOT fun.
It may not have been fun to you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun to
anybody else.
>Well, wouldn't you get more enjoyment out of being a New York Rangers fan,
Bite your tongue!
>and watching a good team in the playoffs?
I am a fan of one of the good teams that was in the playoffs (the
Penguins), and believe me, the Sharks played a more fundamentally sound
game than the Pens did.
>I agree, but try telling that to the players. They're not out there to
>have fun; they're out there to win. Your having fun is not of immediate
>importance to them.
So? Does that mean that I should only have fun when the players think so?
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Michael Zimmers
>To me, the playoffs are about fun and excitement, not picking the "best"
>team. No matter how you restrict the playoffs, the fact that teams are
>playing short series means that you can't be picking the best team.
True, but that doesn't mean you can't impose a format more likely to
do so than the current scheme in MLB. That the playoffs are
(essentially) entertainment doesn't mean that they can't feature the
Eric Smith
>The best solution? Here are my ideas:
>Return to the older two division format with seven teams in each division.
>The schedule, of course, must be changed to prevent the unbalance of the AL
>of the 1980s (ie, you should play more games in your own division).
If you unbalance the schedule, you'll probably guarantee that only plus-.500
teams will win the divsions, no matter what the alignment is. But that won't
change the fact that there are weak divisions; it will only hide it.
-----
Eric Smith
er...@netcom.com
CI$: 70262,3610
Eric Smith
>>You can't judge any division based on one year. The fact is, the A's
>>are the most successful franchise in baseball on the field in the last
>>25 years,
>Wrong. Baltimore Orioles. Cincinnati Reds. New York Yankees.
Depends on how you measure success. Since winning championships is the
main goal of the teams (just look at how righteous people start to get
when a second-place team or a sub-.500 team might get into the playoffs),
numbers of championships is certainly one measure of success. The A's
have won ten division titles, six pennants and four World Series in
the past 25 years. None of those teams can match those totals.
Eric Smith
>>That the Sharks were a below-.500 team that many people here apparently
>>believe shouldn't have been in the playoffs at all doesn't diminish one bit
>>the enjoyment I had watching and cheering for them in the playoffs.
>Well, wouldn't you get more enjoyment out of being a New York Rangers fan,
>and watching a good team in the playoffs?
Getting away from baseball now, but the Sharks *are* a good team. Remember
that they began the season 0-8-1, but over the last month or two they were
certainly one of the five or so best teams in the league. So one could
argue that expanding the playoffs gives one a better chance to see the best
teams, because it's possible to include a team that maybe didn't hit its
stride until the second half of the season. I thought the Sharks' series
with Detroit and Toronto were extremely well-played, well-matched, and
exciting.
gi...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
--Your point hinges on past years, future years, and speculation about this
year. It really doesn't say much for the arguement at hand.
--Matt
Gail A. Fullman
>I'd argue against near-total crapshoots like the NBA has. And as much
>fun as it is watching a way underdog do well, I wonder whether it's worth
>keeping out a more qualified contestant (in the manner that Baltimore
>might be excluded in favor of Texas this year). Putting the best teams
>in the post-season has both fan and logical support.
>--
Hmmmm. Maybe scrap divisions altogether and jsut have the top n teams go into
the playoffs. No division titles, no division title races. Seems like the
races for second, third, etc., would not be as exciting as a division race.
Whoops! Now we all know why! TV REVENUE! Can't mess with the sacred cash
cow! :):):)
--
Gail Fullman
Manager - ADMO
Ric Dube
>>and Texas and Seattle have some of the best young players and foreward
>>looking ownerships in baseball right now.
>Is the same Seattle Mariners who traded Bret Boone and Erik Hansen for
>Bobby Ayala and Dan Wilson? Mike Jackson and Dave Burba and Billy Swift
>for Kevin Mitchell? They HAD some of the best young players until their front
>office showed its lack of intelligence.
I think the jury's still out on the Boone/Ayala deal. It's been 1/4 of
a season. There's a chance that Ayala could be a legitimate stopper.
He's got 6 saves already. Sure, Boone's hot right now but Hanson's ERA's
up around 5. The trade to knock is obviously the Fermin/Vizquel deal.
Dan-o
Charles M. Kozierok
If the jury's still out it's because they passed out from laughing
too hard and no-one's gone in to revive them. Seattle made this stupid
deal for only two reasons: money (in the case of Hanson and Valle) and
spite (in the case of Boone).
Let's start with catcher. Instead of re-signing Valle, who signed
for a *paltry* sum ($1 million?) with the Red Sox, they let him
walk and acquired Dan Wilson. Dan Wilson is not a major-league
quality hitter. He is good defensively, but *nobody* is *that*
good defensively (c.f., Tony Pena). He should be a back-up
somewhere, not a starter.
While Ayala may be good, he is still only a reliever. Hanson
may not have been *great*, but he is still solid and Seattle's
starting corps suddenly looks quite vulnerable.
But the real laugher in this deal is the giving away of Boone.
Here is a potential star-quality middle-infielder who was
trashed simply because his manager didn't like him for whatever
reason (c.f., Phil Plantier). When people look back on this
trade in 10 years, what they will remember (if Boone pans
out) is "The Reds got Boone and someone else for a middle
reliever and a back-up catcher.
} The trade to knock is obviously the Fermin/Vizquel deal.
Is there *anyone* who understands this one?
cheers, c
______________________________________________________________________________
Notice how Carlos Delgado has done *squat* since announcing to the world that
opponents should pitch to him by "throwing it down the middle and praying"?
>>>rec.sport.baseball.analysis/.data--coming soon to a newsreader near you!<<<
______________________________________________________________________________
charles m kozierok GB/GCS/GE d++@ -p+(+) c++(++++) l u+ e++ m++@ s+/+@
-*i...@ai.mit.edu*- n@ h---- f+(?) g+ w(++) t++@ r-(++) y+(?)
______________________________________________________________________________
vand...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
is that one of these teams will be in the playoffs at the end of the year with
a divisional crown atop its head. This makes me sick because teams in tougher
divisions (like the AL East) will get screwed out of a playoff spot no matter
what kind of year they have. They just happened to be in the wrong division.
Down with re-alignment!!!
--Muskrat
Richard Detweiler
True enough, but also true under the system as well - in fact - there would
be more of the good teams sitting at home because there would only be 2 instead
of 4 teams going on.
Chung-Hsiung Yang
I don't understand what is your beef. You should be very happy because
AL East will have two teams in the play-offs (division winner + wild card)
assuming that the second place team has the best record of all other teams.
Even though a team from the AL west would be there, there is more equality
because of the expanded play-off format.
BTW, at the end of the season there will be a respectable team
from the West that will win the division. Rangers and the Mariners are much better team than the record shows, IMHO. The west is just cursed that is
all.
- Chung Yang
|>
|> --Muskrat
|>
Ira K. Blum
Don't look now but the Texas Strangers (I love/hate this particular
bermanism) are only a game under .500
PS I love the name Strangers because it seems like the Doug Stranges of
this team will make them win.
PPS I hate the name Strangers because it makes them seem like they just
came out of the corn fields to play baseball. What don't they know about
this team? or is this just the "team that happens to be in the same area
as the Cowboys!"
--
Ira
ib...@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
Will Clark for MVP!!!!!
A tisket, a tasket
You'll all end up in a casket,
I pull the thread
And cut off your head
It rolls into a basket.
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
Charles W Saeger
>} The trade to knock is obviously the Fermin/Vizquel deal.
>Is there *anyone* who understands this one?
No. Well, I think the Mariners thought that Reggie Jefferson could amount
to something, and that the Indians didn't want him because they had tons
of young talent. However, they're taking their chances letting Sorrento
face lefties (assuming Jefferson or Murray would play first base against
them) than keeping Jefferson to do that for him. I personally wouldn't do
that, but Jefferson isn't that good, and the Indians do know more about
him than I do.
Three of him aren't worth Omar Vizquel, however. And, well, I can't
believe that anyone would think Felix Fermin would be worth anything, much
less a Gold Glove shortstop with a decent on-base percentage and good
fundamental play.
The Mad Kobold < Doug Norris >
I believe Seattle also received a sum of cash which they had earmarked to
purchase a respectable (i.e. better than Jeff Nelson :) closer. Although,
I must say Ayala's done quite a good job lately, as has the rest of the
bullpen. Now if our so-called "best starting rotation in the AL West" would
pitch in a bit (pun fully intended).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Todd Norris (n914...@henson.cc.wwu.edu) "The Mad Kobold"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my
view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-
term economic strategy" - Candidate Bill Clinton, January 1992
Chung-Hsiung Yang
Charles W Saeger <saeg...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>>} The trade to knock is obviously the Fermin/Vizquel deal.
>
>>Is there *anyone* who understands this one?
>
>No. Well, I think the Mariners thought that Reggie Jefferson could amount
>to something, and that the Indians didn't want him because they had tons
>of young talent. However, they're taking their chances letting Sorrento
>face lefties (assuming Jefferson or Murray would play first base against
>them) than keeping Jefferson to do that for him. I personally wouldn't do
>that, but Jefferson isn't that good, and the Indians do know more about
>him than I do.
As a DH for the Mariners, Reggie Jefferson is currently batting
something like ~0.330 with several HRs. He has the best batting average
of all players against right handed pitcher (Like 0.480 or something)
or maybe it is against the left. He is also a back up first baseman.
Most importantly, for the first time in Jefferson's career, he is
actually healthy enough to play day in and day out.
>
>Three of him aren't worth Omar Vizquel, however. And, well, I can't
>believe that anyone would think Felix Fermin would be worth anything, much
>less a Gold Glove shortstop with a decent on-base percentage and good
>fundamental play.
Felix Fermin is having a career year with the Mariners also.
He is batting 0.325 with a HR. His defense has been OK.
Omar is on the bench right now with an injury.
- Chung Yang
>
Chung-Hsiung Yang
The Mad Kobold < Doug Norris > < Doug Norris > wrote:
>I believe Seattle also received a sum of cash which they had earmarked to
>purchase a respectable (i.e. better than Jeff Nelson :) closer. Although,
>I must say Ayala's done quite a good job lately, as has the rest of the
>bullpen. Now if our so-called "best starting rotation in the AL West" would
>pitch in a bit (pun fully intended).
At an ERA of 3.56, the Mariner's bullpen is the best in the AL
according to ESPN.
As for their poor record, everything else that is supposed to
be dominate has sucked so far. Collectively, the Mariners have a pretty
decent offensive team, but they just can't seem to get it together.
As usual, Griffey's performance has been nothing but excellent with
17 HR, he leads the majors.
As for the Starting pitching, the saving grace for the Mariners
the past several years ... Ugh! :-(.
This team is not a bad team, they are just cursed. :-(
- Chung Yang
Charles W Saeger
> As a DH for the Mariners, Reggie Jefferson is currently batting
>something like ~0.330 with several HRs. He has the best batting average
>of all players against right handed pitcher (Like 0.480 or something)
>or maybe it is against the left. He is also a back up first baseman.
>Most importantly, for the first time in Jefferson's career, he is
>actually healthy enough to play day in and day out.
> Felix Fermin is having a career year with the Mariners also.
>He is batting 0.325 with a HR. His defense has been OK.
Jefferson is hitting .480 (24-50) with 5 homers, all against righties.
Fermin is hitting .340 (106-36), and has a range factor of 4.30.
You're right, they're hitting well (but Fermin is not playing well
defensively), but that's irrelevant. They are NOT that quality of
ballplayers, and, over the course of a season, that will become obvious.
Heck, Alvaro Espinoza (Felix Fermin's clone) once was leading the league
in hitting early in 1991, before Cal Ripken and Julio Franco passed him in
late April. I'd rather have Omar Vizquel for 120 games for Jefferson and
Fermin, at their real level of ability, for 240.
It's like the Ivan Calderon/Barry Jones for Tim Raines trade: Calderon
had a great year, and Jones pitched sort of well. Even after the end of
that season, there was no question but that the White Sox won that trade:
Raines, even in an off year, was far more valuable than those two combined.
Jeff Epstein
in the 7 team AL West ended at .500 or better. These things are cyclical. In a few years every team
in another division will suck and people will be complain then about that division.
I am less concerned that the winner of a division could be less than .500 and still make the playoffs or
that a great team with a better record won't than I am with the fact that a second place team will make
the playoffs. Good teams often don't make the postseason.. Remember last year when a team with 103
wins didn't make the playoffs.?
Why not just have the three division winners make the playoffs and have the team with the
best record get a bye in the first round (I know, money).
If you're still pissed that a possible < .500 team makes the playoffs and it's Texas, remmeber that Texas
(George W. Bush Jr.) was the only team to vote AGAINST realignment. Wouldn't it be great if Texas did
win it all ? Gotta love the irony.
Jeff
Eric Smith
>Down with re-alignment!!!
You mean down with alignment, period. There's nothing about this situation
that hasn't existed since 1969. Or have you forgotten that the Giants won
103 games last year and didn't make the playoffs? The AL East will come out
better this year than they would have under the two-division format, because
it's likely they will have two teams in the playoffs.
Steven Thornton
> No. Well, I think the Mariners thought that Reggie Jefferson could amount
> to something, and that the Indians didn't want him because they had tons
> of young talent. However, they're taking their chances letting Sorrento
> face lefties (assuming Jefferson or Murray would play first base against
> them) than keeping Jefferson to do that for him. I personally wouldn't do
> that, but Jefferson isn't that good, and the Indians do know more about
> him than I do.
The scary thing is that right this minute, Fermin and especially
Jefferson are red-hot, while Omar has missed much of the year. So a lot
of Seattle fans are inclined to think, "wow, cool, look what we pulled
off". Jefferson's improvement is largely due to his decision to stop
pretending that he's a switch-hitter (maybe he read last year's STATS
Scoreboard), but he's still not going to bat .480/.800/544 all year, and
Felix is going to be hard-pressed to keep up his .340 average (his OBP is
only 20 points higher).
Sadly, Lou Piniella, who is completely clueless about OBP, has been
taking "advantage" of this two-month spurt of activity by batting Reggie
and Felix sixth and ninth, and leading off with Eric Anthony (OBP .303)
and occasionally Turang (.238). So Griffey's magnificent exploits aren't
resulting in any runs, because there's no one on base. Now that Edgar
Martinez is back, he's using his excellent OBP in the five slot. And Lou
wonders why we don't score runs. Last week, you could almost hear the
wheels turning in his head as he pored over the stat sheet and announced
to the press: "we've got to start getting on base more, but we can't do
it by drawing more walks." Sorry, Lou, nice try, but....
> Three of him aren't worth Omar Vizquel, however. And, well, I can't
> believe that anyone would think Felix Fermin would be worth anything, much
> less a Gold Glove shortstop with a decent on-base percentage and good
> fundamental play.
The Mariners seem to be amazed that using a perfectly-good-utility-
guy-but-that's-all journeyman 2B (Amaral) and Fermin instead of Vizquel is
producing a terrific flood of errors. Sigh.
This is all the same old story with the M's -- the new owners come in and
make a huge noise about finally showing a commitment to winning, and then
after the hoopla dies down they start running things on the ultra-cheap
just like the last guy. It was exactly the same with Argyros and Smulyan.
They're never going to win until they start thinking like winners. The
stuff they put out about how much money they lose is hogwash -- their
amortized depreciation allowance for player contracts more than covers
all of their supposed losses; and Seattle is NOT a "small market". They
just act as if it is. One good sign: they finally signed their first-ever
cable TV contract, which is important not just for the $3 million or so
bucks it brings, but for the marketing value in their vast MLB-granted
territory -- Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, etc.
But moves like Vizquel/Fermin & Jefferson and Boone & Hanson/Ayala and
Wilson make them look stupid, and belie any "forward-looking commitment
to winning" that gets announced in the papers.
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Steve Thornton ste...@eskimo.com Seattle, Washington
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven Thornton
> At an ERA of 3.56, the Mariner's bullpen is the best in the AL
> according to ESPN.
While the bullpeen has been a lot better than expected, any Mariner ERA
is suspect, due to the phenomenal number of unearned runs they've been
giving up (leading the league in that department).
Chung-Hsiung Yang
|> On 20 May 1994 05:12:18 GMT, Chung-Hsiung Yang (chy...@thummim.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
|>
|> > At an ERA of 3.56, the Mariner's bullpen is the best in the AL
|> > according to ESPN.
|>
|> While the bullpeen has been a lot better than expected, any Mariner ERA
|> is suspect, due to the phenomenal number of unearned runs they've been
|> giving up (leading the league in that department).
Understood. That is why their record is so bad right now. But!
The key here is that the *bullpen has been a lot better than expected.
in terms of ERA.* So if the defense get in shape, the bull pen can at
least get its job done.
- Chung Yang
Chung-Hsiung Yang
|> On Fri, 20 May 1994 03:19:20 GMT, Charles W Saeger (saeg...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
|> Sadly, Lou Piniella, who is completely clueless about OBP, has been
|> taking "advantage" of this two-month spurt of activity by batting Reggie
|> and Felix sixth and ninth, and leading off with Eric Anthony (OBP .303)
|> and occasionally Turang (.238). So Griffey's magnificent exploits aren't
|> resulting in any runs, because there's no one on base. Now that Edgar
|> Martinez is back, he's using his excellent OBP in the five slot. And Lou
|> wonders why we don't score runs. Last week, you could almost hear the
|> wheels turning in his head as he pored over the stat sheet and announced
|> to the press: "we've got to start getting on base more, but we can't do
|> it by drawing more walks." Sorry, Lou, nice try, but....
Lou is trying anything at this point which the kind of injuries that
the Mariner's have suffered. I do agree thought, putting
louis Sojo at 2nd at bat and putting E. Martinez at (5? 6?) is a bit
ridiculous. Edgar should be batting second where he belongs when he
gets healthier of course.
|>
|> > Three of him aren't worth Omar Vizquel, however. And, well, I can't
|> > believe that anyone would think Felix Fermin would be worth anything, much
|> > less a Gold Glove shortstop with a decent on-base percentage and good
|> > fundamental play.
|>
|> The Mariners seem to be amazed that using a perfectly-good-utility-
|> guy-but-that's-all journeyman 2B (Amaral) and Fermin instead of Vizquel is
|> producing a terrific flood of errors. Sigh.
|>
|> This is all the same old story with the M's -- the new owners come in and
|> make a huge noise about finally showing a commitment to winning, and then
|> after the hoopla dies down they start running things on the ultra-cheap
|> just like the last guy. It was exactly the same with Argyros and Smulyan.
|> They're never going to win until they start thinking like winners. The
|> stuff they put out about how much money they lose is hogwash -- their
|> amortized depreciation allowance for player contracts more than covers
|> all of their supposed losses; and Seattle is NOT a "small market". They
|> just act as if it is. One good sign: they finally signed their first-ever
|> cable TV contract, which is important not just for the $3 million or so
|> bucks it brings, but for the marketing value in their vast MLB-granted
|> territory -- Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, etc.
|>
|> But moves like Vizquel/Fermin & Jefferson and Boone & Hanson/Ayala and
|> Wilson make them look stupid, and belie any "forward-looking commitment
|> to winning" that gets announced in the papers.
The Vizquel move, I agree is truly cost cutting measures. I think
another consideration in this is the fact that the M's are really waiting
for Alex Rodreguz to blossom. It will make the short stop replacement
easier.
But Boone and Hanson had their problems. Lou do not like either of them, so
he gets rid of them. I don't know if anyone agrees with me, but
Ayala is a gem of a closer. He is young and he has very good stuff. I
think he will be the Mariner's closer for years to come. Wilson while
not an improvement on offense, did show that he can play the D pretty well.
Also, he is a young player.
The Mariner's actually do have a pretty strong offense. But the
starting pitching has to start and get on track soon. Once this happens,
this will be a very good team. But now, the fans are still waiting.
- Chung Yang
Tony Lima
>is that one of these teams will be in the playoffs at the end of the year wit
>what kind of year they have. They just happened to be in the wrong division.
VA>Down with re-alignment!!!
Ahem. Realignment has nothing to do with it. Just last year
the Giants won 103 games and went nowhere after the season was
over. The only equitable solution is to get rid of leagues,
divisions and playoffs (including the World Series). The team
that wins the most games during the regular season is the
world champion. Period. (That started out to be a joke, but
now I'm not so sure...) -- Tony (tony...@toadhall.com)
david adams
: Dan-o
Seems to me Vizquel is now injured, sooo...
--
David E. Adams "I never liked this present age...
david...@m.cc.utah.edu I am alive now, yet I would rather have
been born at some other time"-Petrarch
david adams
: for a *paltry* sum ($1 million?) with the Red Sox, they let him
: walk and acquired Dan Wilson. Dan Wilson is not a major-league
: quality hitter. He is good defensively, but *nobody* is *that*
: good defensively (c.f., Tony Pena). He should be a back-up
: somewhere, not a starter.
break, your description of Wilson is exactly what is said about Valle,
good defense, no hit. Trust me, by the end of the year everyone in Boston
will be laughing at Valle's 210 average.
: While Ayala may be good, he is still only a reliever.
: starting corps suddenly looks quite vulnerable.
: But the real laugher in this deal is the giving away of Boone.
: Here is a potential star-quality middle-infielder who was
: trashed simply because his manager didn't like him for whatever
: reason (c.f., Phil Plantier). When people look back on this
: trade in 10 years, what they will remember (if Boone pans
: out) is "The Reds got Boone and someone else for a middle
: reliever and a back-up catcher.
his team.
: } The trade to knock is obviously the Fermin/Vizquel deal.
The M's only have to get by for a year or two and the God himself
(the next Grif!?!) will be ready for the Majors, a shortstop to carry them
into the next century.
What can I say, I am a homey.
Sandra Vigil
>This is all the same old story with the M's -- the new owners come in and
>make a huge noise about finally showing a commitment to winning, and then
>after the hoopla dies down they start running things on the ultra-cheap
>just like the last guy. It was exactly the same with Argyros and Smulyan.
This is unfair.
I'm a huge Omar fan and I don't think there was anyone more upset to see
him go, but even I have to acknowledge that this trade was for the best.
The thing it, it's so multifaceted that you can't just look at the
players Omar for Fermin/Jefferson and call it done.
It's just not true that they new ownership was not willing to shell out
money. Randy Johnson would probably tell you differently, as would
Edgar Martinez and Greg Hibbard. I don't believe you can paint them all
with the same brush.
>They're never going to win until they start thinking like winners.
Actually, they're never going to win until their starting pitching gets
their collective butts in gear.
>But moves like Vizquel/Fermin & Jefferson and Boone & Hanson/Ayala and
>Wilson make them look stupid, and belie any "forward-looking commitment
>to winning" that gets announced in the papers.
Sorry. You just can't have your cake and eat it, too. Something has to
give.
/S
--
"You can either be a completely informed * *
baseball fan or you can have a life." Sandra Vigil
vi...@esca.com
- Thomas Boswell * *
Dano Paquette
>Look what the Mets got for Anthony Young, a much worse pitcher than
>Hanson: a really good young SS. That would have obviated the need for
>Fermin, and still left us with Omar and Boone to trade for what we really
>need, which is not more Reggie Jeffersons and Dale Sveums and Jerry
>Willards and Bobby Thigpens and Tory Lovullos.
Not to mention those wonderful table setters Eric Anthony and Luis Sojo.
Steven Thornton
> >This is all the same old story with the M's -- the new owners come in and
> >make a huge noise about finally showing a commitment to winning, and then
> >after the hoopla dies down they start running things on the ultra-cheap
> >just like the last guy. It was exactly the same with Argyros and Smulyan.
> This is unfair.
No it's not. You won't read this in the paper, but did you know that the
M's _made_ money last year? They claimed informally to have lost about
$10 million, but this as always includes a huge writeoff for player
depreciation -- in their case about $12 million. Not including any of the
other accounting shenanigans they undoubtedly performed, that means that
they _are_ a profitable team, and their big excuse for cheapness goes away.
> I'm a huge Omar fan and I don't think there was anyone more upset to see
> him go, but even I have to acknowledge that this trade was for the best.
> The thing it, it's so multifaceted that you can't just look at the
> players Omar for Fermin/Jefferson and call it done.
Hmm, I don't agree. I don't think it was for the best, and I don't think
it was "multifaceted", whatever you mean by that. They gave up more value
than they received, something that is common to nearly all Mariner trades.
> It's just not true that they new ownership was not willing to shell out
> money. Randy Johnson would probably tell you differently, as would
> Edgar Martinez and Greg Hibbard. I don't believe you can paint them all
> with the same brush.
First, overall they were explicitly not willing to shell out -- that was
all you heard about, was how much the payroll was going to be with this
player and that, this winter. But their statements about how much they
could afford were dishonest. Second, your point about Randy et al. proves
that they're not the Padres, but it says nothing about the process by
which they decided who gets the contracts and who doesn't. I think they
made bad decisions. They traded the wrong starter, for one -- Johnson has
never been, and will never again be, worth as much on the trading block
as he was this winter. I always seem to be attacking the Big Unit the day
after he pitches a shutout, but I still think all the hype about "premier
pitcher of the nineties" is hogwash -- he's had one good year, period, no
matter how many K's he piles up. And I think the balance on Wilson/Ayala
for Hanson/Boone goes tremendously against us, not because we are in
desperate need of Boone and Hanson (though they wouldn't hurt) but
because we got much less in return than practically any other team would
have.
Look what the Mets got for Anthony Young, a much worse pitcher than
Hanson: a really good young SS. That would have obviated the need for
Fermin, and still left us with Omar and Boone to trade for what we really
need, which is not more Reggie Jeffersons and Dale Sveums and Jerry
Willards and Bobby Thigpens and Tory Lovullos.
> Actually, they're never going to win until their starting pitching gets
> their collective butts in gear.
Agreed. Let's hope it's "until" and not "if"...