I love the work you all do on this site. Great insight and analysis! And I recognize I'll sound like a curmudgeon (or maybe just a dick) for saying this....but I'll say it anyway. Can you run your articles through something like Grammarly? It should catch a lot of the little mistakes that, well, bug the shit out of me.
Again, I really appreciate how quickly you've made this such a robust site for incredible analysis. Thanks again for your work!
Watching this 29 year old Perdoma pitch in person in spring training and in the minors, I was really pulling for him because he is even bigger than Oneil Cruz. He was not impressive on the games I saw. Looking at his numbers and strike out rate, I better re-evaluate. You may have something here. Thanks for the article.
Funny I was thinking about Perdomo as I was making my 2023 40 men roster just this week (yes I have a problem!). Kept telling myself that he is a good cutter away from being dominant!
Yeah i think perdomo is a keeper for sure. Especially with our less certainty related to starting pitching, i think we need to keep any and all viable bullpen arms in the org rather than selling off
I agree Wilbur. My positive thoughts are he is 29 and hoping/assuming no bad injury has finally figured it out. The negative thoughts are he is another reliever (found all throughout the league) who just had their career hot stretch but can't maintain those new or perfect mechanics /change after an off-season or injury recovery.
So four terrible teams two years ago and three bounced back hugely. Meanwhile, Cherington punted a fourth straight year, and in his postseason presser he was downplaying talk of contending, and referring to “competing” rather than winning.
Regarding the World Series, this seems to be a good year to promote this idea.
I’m of the opinion MLB should have not one, but two, championship trophies. The first, and best, trophy to win is the World Series trophy given to the team who wins the WS.
The 2nd trophy goes to the MLB team who wins the most regular season games. Let it be called the Bobby Cox trophy, as that seems appropriate to me.
The WS winner was always won by one of the two best teams, because they were the only two who played in October. Then it went to four. Now it’s up to 12 teams. Nobody looking at the results of the regular season would call Texas or Arizona the best team in MLB this year, but one will be crowned champion.
The other benefit of awarding the best regular season record with a trophy is it causes the best teams to continue playing hard, even after securing a division title.
That is more fair than the current system and I like it too. I'm guessing it would generate less money than the current system. I think MLB is more interested in getting fans and making money.....than actually being fair.
I think it might generate more, although I honestly have no idea. Or at least the same amount. You lose the best of 3 with the 5/6, but you’ll also get more dough with the division, League and World Series all being best of seven.
I can see the argument for this. If the purpose of the postseason is to identify the best team, then what happened over the 6 month regular season should weigh heavily into that question. For as we saw, in baseball anything can and does happen in small samples. Remember that two week stretch the A’s looked good this year?
I am going to screw these numbers up, but you will get the point. I think I heard the favorite s in NBA win their series about 80% (which seems a little high to me). If you wanted that 80% result in baseball, statisitically it would have to be something like a best of 75 series. In a small sample a team with a 62% winning percentage doesn't have big advantage over a team with a 57% winning percentage. Baseball is much different than football and basketball.
I actually think the opposite(but just my opinion). I think whatever MLB deems are playoff teams should start even(and if you scroll down am in favor of fewer teams) because in the current world of balanced schedules some wild card teams were 'better' than division winners. Rays were a 4 seed / wild card(playing the same schedule) with 9 more wins than the 2 seed and 12 more than the 3 seed. People are building up Rangers being the 5th seed but were tied for the 3rd best record. In all sports (when there were fewer playoff teams), I always viewed wild card teams as a way to ensure the 1 or maybe 2 teams that didn't finish first but by ' luck' of the draw were in deeper divisions were given a chance to prove it come playoffs. With the balanced schedules there is no reason to keep divisions and the question becomes what is the right number of teams to make the playoffs that still makes the regular season relevant.
I think we both understand each other's opinion and look at it differently which makes good discussion. The most fair thing to do for a world series is just have the Orioles play the Braves, but few would like that. I like divisions better because it creates more races during the season (even though we know how unfair it is). I am not a fan of a balanced schedule because (as you mentioned), it takes away the concept of divisions. They call it a balanced scheduled, but it is really not. Teams play their own dvision teams 13 times. They play teams from the other 2 divisions 6 or 7 times. They play teams from the other league 3 times.
At some level I see the point, but I guess I just don't see competitive players / fans / ownership groups really caring about the regular season best record if they then lose in the playoffs. They already fly division champion / league champion flags in the stadiums so in many ways it is already remembered. Braves are remembered for their long stretch of success but I am sure would trade 5 banners (or more) for another championship. To the broader point of (my words) too many making the playoffs. I have always been in the less is better but realize $ talk. I would rather debate over a very worthy team missing the playoffs than teams that win about 11/20 games battling to deserve the last playoff spot and a chance to show they were the best. It is exciting in real time (battling for the last spot) but counter to truly crowning a full season champion.
After giving it more thought, the only way organizations, players, and fans care about it is if there’s benefit beyond a piece of metal.
For example, if MLB set aside X number of $ for teams to distribute to players with best record in each league, the players would start caring about it. And if MLB moved up these teams draft position and/or increased the IFA budget, than teams and fans would start caring more, too.
I love the work you all do on this site. Great insight and analysis! And I recognize I'll sound like a curmudgeon (or maybe just a dick) for saying this....but I'll say it anyway. Can you run your articles through something like Grammarly? It should catch a lot of the little mistakes that, well, bug the shit out of me.
Again, I really appreciate how quickly you've made this such a robust site for incredible analysis. Thanks again for your work!
Lefty late inning reliever is a high priority this offseason
I still want Perdomo and Boruki to break with the team alongside said southpaw
Watching this 29 year old Perdoma pitch in person in spring training and in the minors, I was really pulling for him because he is even bigger than Oneil Cruz. He was not impressive on the games I saw. Looking at his numbers and strike out rate, I better re-evaluate. You may have something here. Thanks for the article.
Funny I was thinking about Perdomo as I was making my 2023 40 men roster just this week (yes I have a problem!). Kept telling myself that he is a good cutter away from being dominant!
Yeah i think perdomo is a keeper for sure. Especially with our less certainty related to starting pitching, i think we need to keep any and all viable bullpen arms in the org rather than selling off
He's really just throwing-a-few-more-strikes away from being dominant. I sure hope the elbow isn't . . . you know . . . .
I agree Wilbur. My positive thoughts are he is 29 and hoping/assuming no bad injury has finally figured it out. The negative thoughts are he is another reliever (found all throughout the league) who just had their career hot stretch but can't maintain those new or perfect mechanics /change after an off-season or injury recovery.
So four terrible teams two years ago and three bounced back hugely. Meanwhile, Cherington punted a fourth straight year, and in his postseason presser he was downplaying talk of contending, and referring to “competing” rather than winning.
Congrats AM on your Yardbarker gig.
Regarding the World Series, this seems to be a good year to promote this idea.
I’m of the opinion MLB should have not one, but two, championship trophies. The first, and best, trophy to win is the World Series trophy given to the team who wins the WS.
The 2nd trophy goes to the MLB team who wins the most regular season games. Let it be called the Bobby Cox trophy, as that seems appropriate to me.
The WS winner was always won by one of the two best teams, because they were the only two who played in October. Then it went to four. Now it’s up to 12 teams. Nobody looking at the results of the regular season would call Texas or Arizona the best team in MLB this year, but one will be crowned champion.
The other benefit of awarding the best regular season record with a trophy is it causes the best teams to continue playing hard, even after securing a division title.
Interested to hear your thoughts BoD readers.
I would rather see baseball try to put the wild card teams at a bigger disadvantage.
1) If 2 teams are tied for the final wild card spot(6 seed) on Sunday, have them play a tie-breaker game on Monday.
2) After the first 3 game series with all the wild cards on Tu, We, Th, do not give them a travel day on Friday. Start the next round on Friday.
I’m a fan of a one game WC 6-5, next day the winner has best of of three at the 4 seed. Winner of that takes on the 1 seed.
This makes staying out of 5/6 (and, to a lesser extent, 4) pretty important.
That is more fair than the current system and I like it too. I'm guessing it would generate less money than the current system. I think MLB is more interested in getting fans and making money.....than actually being fair.
I think it might generate more, although I honestly have no idea. Or at least the same amount. You lose the best of 3 with the 5/6, but you’ll also get more dough with the division, League and World Series all being best of seven.
I can see the argument for this. If the purpose of the postseason is to identify the best team, then what happened over the 6 month regular season should weigh heavily into that question. For as we saw, in baseball anything can and does happen in small samples. Remember that two week stretch the A’s looked good this year?
I am going to screw these numbers up, but you will get the point. I think I heard the favorite s in NBA win their series about 80% (which seems a little high to me). If you wanted that 80% result in baseball, statisitically it would have to be something like a best of 75 series. In a small sample a team with a 62% winning percentage doesn't have big advantage over a team with a 57% winning percentage. Baseball is much different than football and basketball.
I actually think the opposite(but just my opinion). I think whatever MLB deems are playoff teams should start even(and if you scroll down am in favor of fewer teams) because in the current world of balanced schedules some wild card teams were 'better' than division winners. Rays were a 4 seed / wild card(playing the same schedule) with 9 more wins than the 2 seed and 12 more than the 3 seed. People are building up Rangers being the 5th seed but were tied for the 3rd best record. In all sports (when there were fewer playoff teams), I always viewed wild card teams as a way to ensure the 1 or maybe 2 teams that didn't finish first but by ' luck' of the draw were in deeper divisions were given a chance to prove it come playoffs. With the balanced schedules there is no reason to keep divisions and the question becomes what is the right number of teams to make the playoffs that still makes the regular season relevant.
I think we both understand each other's opinion and look at it differently which makes good discussion. The most fair thing to do for a world series is just have the Orioles play the Braves, but few would like that. I like divisions better because it creates more races during the season (even though we know how unfair it is). I am not a fan of a balanced schedule because (as you mentioned), it takes away the concept of divisions. They call it a balanced scheduled, but it is really not. Teams play their own dvision teams 13 times. They play teams from the other 2 divisions 6 or 7 times. They play teams from the other league 3 times.
A la the NHL....the President's Trophy and the Stanley Cup...
Wasn’t aware of that, but sure sounds like it.
At some level I see the point, but I guess I just don't see competitive players / fans / ownership groups really caring about the regular season best record if they then lose in the playoffs. They already fly division champion / league champion flags in the stadiums so in many ways it is already remembered. Braves are remembered for their long stretch of success but I am sure would trade 5 banners (or more) for another championship. To the broader point of (my words) too many making the playoffs. I have always been in the less is better but realize $ talk. I would rather debate over a very worthy team missing the playoffs than teams that win about 11/20 games battling to deserve the last playoff spot and a chance to show they were the best. It is exciting in real time (battling for the last spot) but counter to truly crowning a full season champion.
After giving it more thought, the only way organizations, players, and fans care about it is if there’s benefit beyond a piece of metal.
For example, if MLB set aside X number of $ for teams to distribute to players with best record in each league, the players would start caring about it. And if MLB moved up these teams draft position and/or increased the IFA budget, than teams and fans would start caring more, too.