MLB '11
 

I have very low expectations for the Dodgers this season. 1st year manager, no significant talent addition, the dreaded outfield "platoon" (i.e., no one is good enough to deserve the job outright), and of course the continued weirdness of the divorce. An outstanding recipe for mediocrity.

Meanwhile, while the Dodger lineup doesn't excite me, I was excited to learn that MLB put out an app for my phone that allows me to stream live game audio! Can you believe this magical future we're living in! With just a small handheld device, I can listen to a LIVE audio broadcast of a baseball game ont the go. With no wires! It's truly a miracle of science.

I on the other hand am quite excited. 2012 is shapeing up to be a great season.

I know, I heard one of the prognosticators predicting at many as 78 wins for the Nationals. From there you can almost smell .500.

The good thing about the Giants is that everyone recognizes that a lot of things broke right last year and could easily break wrong this year. Starting out this year with injuries to Brian Wilson and Cody Ross will be a good test of the magic.

On the "baseball is a funny game" front, I doubt that when Ross was acquired last year that anyone expected to be heading out of spring training this year going, "Oh, sh*t, Cody Ross is hurt."

Perhaps the Nationals should move to the NBA Eastern Conference.

And I see your season is off to a rip-roaring start...

I don't think you read my post very carefully.

I was guessing that, based on the time of post, the game had not yet begun, but maybe I was wrong.

On the bright side, you are only one game below .500! (Paraphrasing a comment GD made in the past that I am unable to locate)

I think you are still missing something.

[raising my hand emphatically]I know, I know!

Well, I haven't been following the news lately (I've been having a tough enough time following my own life), so fill me in

In trying to see if I could find something, I ran across this amusing article:

It's currently 2011. I'm looking forward to 2012

Wow, am I an idiot or what?!?
 

:blush:

What a fiasco. Exposed on the first day of the season. At least now I know I don't have to pi*s away six months.

Well, keep in mind that it was only at the end of last season that they really showed a lot of potential and that was aided by the collapse of the Padres.

So really, as long as they're only 6.5 games out by the end of August you'll be in the same position.

Plus, it wan't even their home opener

This makes me sad

WTF is wrong with people? At risk of playing the pop-psychology card I have noticed a marked increase in the last few years of the "we" type of fan, across MLB not just Dodgers. I have never liked that attitude and I'm not surprised to see this kind of behavior follow on its heels. Guess what people, "we" didn't do anything. "We" sat on our asses, drank beer, ate some peanuts, and yelled. What an amazing set of accomplishments for "us".

After one game the A's are on pace for 810 errors. Five errors on opening night.

It took the Giants two whole games to reach that many, the slackers.

WTF!

An attack that vicious hasn't happened at a hockey venue [yet] but there are some venues you take a risk of getting [expensive crappy stadium beer] dumped on you or shyt thrown at you for wearing the opposing team jersey.

We may be watching the best of the best get paid millions of dollars to play a game but that it's still a fvcking game people.

Really? Never ever?

I suspect that opposition fans have been assaulted physically and seriously at some point at pretty much every sports venue. This one being noteworthy for the added bad luck of the guy hitting his head when going down.

The true hockey fan just uses his wits, i.e., "Pelle's dead. Pelle's dead."

I failed Google.

There's no way that was Dodger fans involved with that attack. It happened after the 6th inning...

(not my joke)

Well, aside from Broxton continuing to disappoint, that was finally a good looking win. I suppose one could still say the Giants defense did more to give the game away again than the Dodgers offense did to win it, but I choose to look at it as the Dodgers exploiting a known weakness in Huff.

Yeah, I'm starting to wonder if Broxton is ever going to return to his previous form. Kemp, on the other hand, may be a whole lot of fun to watch this year if he keeps doing what he's been doing.

F*in' Bochy. You've got a former Cy Young Award winner in there. The smart money says you let him finish.

Manny Ramirez abruptly retires.

A sad end to what could have been a great career.

I don't suppose there's any possibility that this is going to prompt sensible calls to either allow these performance enhancers or to outlaw other performance enhancers like cortisone shots, Tommy John surgery, ice packs, sunglasses, or laser eye surgery.

Ugh. It usually takes a few months before the Dodgers look this bad. Yeah, I know it's early, but geez!

You think that's weird, how about this? The Cleveland Indians are leading their division.

With KC right behind them.

Yeah, I must admit that's pretty strange.

The Nationals are above .500: it doesn't get any weirder that that!

You know what else is weird? The Mariners are at the bottom of their division.



Oh wait. That is prefectly normal.

Carry on.

On the drive home, I was wondering if Don Mattingly will still be managing the Dodgers at the end of this season.

AND MLB has just taken control of the Dodgers. Wow.

Yeah, I just heard about that. Glad that McCourt is gone, I just hope they hold on to Colletti. According to a USA Today article I just skimmed, he doesn't know if he still has a job.

Got to watch today's Dodger game (spoilered iin case anyone is planning on watching later)

Sigh. It's a shame Kemp and Ethier are doing so well. There's just such a slim chance of the Dodgers remaining long term contenders. With a league appointee in charge they, they're not in a position to make the roster moves and trades that they'll need to. So those two are poised to have monster years on a team that's going nowhere.

I haven't been able to look it up: is Colletti still around? Even if he is, he will be too neutered to be able to do anything, I just hope they don't lose him.

I don't think the team is as horrible as some are making it. Even with all of the injuries, we are still playing better ball than I expected, with one glaring weakness right now - our bullpen. We'd easily have another five wins under our belt and probably be in first place if we had a healthy Kuo and Padilla and if, for the love of God, someone could figure out how to fix Broxton between the ears.

Still, even with all of the ownership turmoil and such, we're only 3 1/2 games out of first and we've had a grueling schedule against some pretty tough teams. And considering who we are getting ready to play, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Dodgers put together a pretty good win/loss record in the weeks to come.

You're right, the team is doing great , but it's all but innevitable that at some point in the season, to either make the playoffs or be real contenders in the playoffs will require some big roster moves. It's very very rare that any team that advances far does so without benefit of an important late season move. Whether it's a trade, grabbing someone off waivers, having the balls to send someone down even if they're out of options. All of which are far less likely to be done under league control. The league will be looking to just hold things together and ride out the storm. I'm happy they're doing well for now, but am not holding my breath.

Oh suuuuure, if you're going to bring realism into it...

My apologies to Mr. Ethier. Last night I said to CP that some time in mid June, approximately 26 games from now, I might (I did say might) be forced to attend a Dodger game.

So yeah, my fault.

While watching yesterday's Dodger game, even though they won and put up a lot of runs, I couldn't help but notice that, yet again, they followed up an inning in which they scored runs by immediately giving runs back in the very next half inning. I didn't have any proof, but I felt like the if anything summed up their season it was the frequency with which it seemed that was happening.

So being an entirely normal, not a all obsessive an geeky individual - I wrote a program to mine game results from mlb.com and see if my impression was right.

The Dodgers have scored in 83 innings this season. 25 times, their opponent scored in the very next half inning. That's 30.12 percent of the time, and they "lead" the National League. A close second is Arizona at 30% even (90 innings scored, 27 following innings scored against). Third place is the Cardinals at 26.67%. The NL average is 23.11%.

The Phillies, who have the best record in the NL, also have the 2nd lowest percentage at 18.82%. The clear winners in this category are the Giants at an impressive 13.33%.

So now that I have a database of teams' runs scored by inning for every game (at least in the NL, need to do the same for AL), anyone want to know anything?

When you win in the bottom of the Ninth, ain't much of a chance to give it back.

Good point. Doesn't happen often, so I don't expect significant change in the data, but I should rework my calculations.

You need to compare that against the rate at which the Dodger's give up runs in the next half when they didn't score. If that also is is around 30% then it doesn't show any particular propensity of the Dodger's to give up runs right after they score them, just a propensity to give up runs (i.e., if the Dodger's allow the other team to score in 100% of the innings you could say "Every single time the Dodger's got some runs they immediately gave them back but there wouldn't really be any connection between the two).

Also, you can calculate some confidence intervals as 83 innings doesn't seem like a big sample to rule out random bad luck (which is important for assigning blame).

Well hey, that's actually a higher percentage. 41.25%.

Interestingly, that's an almost universal pattern in the NL. All but 2 teams are more likely to give up runs after an inning in which they did not score than they are when they have scored. The only two teams that aren't are the Cardinals and the Brewers (and in both cases the two percentages are very close, within 5% points).

The Dodger's ~6 point difference is well below the average difference of over 11 points, so I guess it's not that big a weakness.

Wait, nope, error in calculation.

First off, recalculating the first percentage with SL's observation that the last half-inning of the game shouldn't be counted brings the after-scoring percentage for the Dodgers to 35.0%, still in the lead.

The Alex percentage (percentage of times the Dodgers gave up runs in the half inning immediately following a half inning in which they did not score themselves) is 28.45%.

Barring issues with sample size (I never did get a grasp of how to calculate standard deviation, confidence intervals, margin of error, et al), that looks like a notable difference to me. It's the 3rd highest absolute disparity in the NL (most teams have a lower percentage after not scoring).

Translated: Dodgers suck! Giants rule!

Speaking of the Giants.....

Looks like the PoPo's caught up with the Dodgers fan that put the Giants fan into a coma.

I ran across this on CNN today....

While there are obviously some obstacles to that plan which a Councilperson can't overcome on their own, what to do think of the general idea? Should the Dodgers go the way of Greenbay?

I have heard that Steve Garvey is interested in getting investors together to buy the team. I like that idea.

Yes, no risk of any marriage-related embarrassments with him.

As an aside, much as he always sort of made my skin crawl, I do think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

I've got a lovely locker room photo of my nine year old self snuggled up next to a sweaty, wearing just a towel, Steve Garvey.

Baseball Tonight just reported that there have been early talks between owners and the players' union about realignment. The proposal is to even out the leagues at 15 teams each (currently it's 16 in the NL, 14 in AL). Then do away with divisions all together with the top 5 teams in each league going to playoffs. I can't quite wrap my head around what a 5 team playoff looks like.

The speculation on Baseball Tonight was that Houston is the likely team to switch leagues. It would create a rivalry with the Rangers and they're likely up for sale soon anyway.

Not sure how I feel about it. The guys on BT made some good points (the weirdness that is the 4-team AL West and 6-team NL Central, the fact that the poor bastards in the AL East always have to fight against NY and BOS). They also liked that it would do away with so many games against in-division teams, but I quite like the drawn out LA/SF rivalry.

I also think they should just sent the Brewers back to the AL.

They were careful to reiterate that this was JUST an idea floated, currently "less than 50/50" chance it will actually happen.

Would the five games playoff be the thing Selig was talking about were essentially there'd be two wildcard teams that have a one game playoff to see who gets to go to the real playoffs. That could be converted to the 4th and 5th place teams doing that.

As for realignment and eliminating the divisions, I think I could get behind that. Though I'll pretend that they need to eliminate interleague to get my support.

The way they were talking it seemed like it would probably mean more interleague games since teams would no longer be playing 18 games against in-division teams.

Yeah, thinking about it more I think odd-number of teams would mean that interleague would have to pretty much be continuous throughout the season.

Either that or teams are gong to have to have regular weekend days off (since at least one team has to be sitting every day) and I doubt owners would go for that.

So, unless that is resolved I retract any tentative support.

I never could quite figure out the reason for the 16-14 imbalance. Thank you.

The more I think about doing away with divisions the less I like it. While it probably technically puts more teams in contention (well, having 10 playoff teams instead of 8 clearly does that), I think from a fan's perspective, teams are going to feel out of contention much earlier in the season. It's one thing if a team is 10 games back in a division. With only 2 or 3 teams ahead of them they can get past one or two of those teams with 1 good win streak. But in a 15 team league, that same team would have to leapfrog past 5, 6, 7 teams to reach the playoffs. While their statistical odds might be better, from a psychological standpoint I think fans might loose interest quicker.

That doesn't seem to hurt the NBA does it?

NBA has more teams in the playoffs (8 from each conference). Plus, fans don't have the other system to compare to. I guess that's only an issue for the first few seasons until people readjust, but fans have spent a long time viewing their mediocre teams' chances the current way, it could be a pretty big shock to the system, attendance could suffer in those markets for a while.

I wonder how often this system would produce a better chance for a cellar dweller than the existing.

Currently the A's are 8 games out in the AL West (ugh) and 10 games out of the wild card. Under the system above the A's are 8 games out of 5th place. So it's a wash.

Whereas Toronto is currently 7.5 games back in the AL East, 5.5 games out of the Wild Card and only 3.5 games out of 5th place in the AL so it would somewhat improve their hopes.

Anyway, if they kept it a 14-16 split so that there was no need to increase interleague I guess I'd support it (and no, that wouldn't be entirely fair to NL teams since they'd have more competition, but that's true now it is just that the penalty isn't split evenly through the league.

Any fan of the NBA East 5-8 seeds that was excited about their team making the playoffs should be embarrassed. Four teams in the baseball playoff is more than enough. You can't remove the exquisite agony from fandom, (see 1993 NL West division race,) and you certainly shouldn't do it on behalf of mediocre teams.

I agree. I'd happily go back to eliminating the divisions and then going back to 1963 and sending the top team from each league directly to the World Series.

Or elimination of the Wild Card altogether. But so long as the Wild Card does exist, I do kind of like the extra playoff game for determining who the Wild Card is and putting them at a little bit of a disadvantage to the other division champions. Plus, there's no way in hell baseball is every going to reduce the playoff schedule so I'm judging among the imperfect options.

Looking at 1968 (the last season before divisional play) the fifth place teams in each league had records of 83-79, .512, 20 games out and 81-81, .500, 16 games out. Putting such teams in the playoffs would be NBA-like and gross. I would think the league would want to keep the divisions--perhaps even add three or four--to bury just how inferior some of these playoff teams are.

Not hiding it too much with these records all making the playoffs in the last decade:

82-80, 83-78, 84-78, 85-70, 86-76, 88-74 (3 times), 89-73

The records are the records, but the mediocrity is diluted by the fact that bad teams are "division champions" or finish just a couple of games out in their "competitive" division.

Ah, yes. I see, I misunderstood you.

Which is what my original point was. From a marketing perspective, divisions make a lot of sense.

Texas Rangers draft paralyzed Georgia player; Houston Astros draft paralyzed pitcher

The whole feel-good story.

The feel bad story is Steven Selsky who was the next player drafted, essentially being told "as a baseball player you're slightly less valuable than a guy who likely will never walk again, now get out there and show some hustle."

They could both be starters for the Nats.

And if they came to bat, most big league pitchers would still work the count full trying to nip at the corners with cutters.

They drafted these guys to make them feel better? Wouldn't that make you feel worse? "Hey, you're drafted! You're going to be a big baseball player! You're going to....oh wait no, you're totally f'd, and because of a freak accident! Sucks to be you!" Maybe I'm messed up in the head, but that would be my reaction. "Feel-good stories" just don't jive with me, I guess.

What the hell?

Nats down 5 to 1 with 2 outs in th 9th. Fairly normal for them except for one small thing. They came back for the win.

Wow.

And in other news, the temperatures in Hades are reported to be plummeting...

I booked a trip to see Erica and Susan joined Facebook. I'm pretty sure Hades already froze over. But I do see some pigs outside my 2nd story window...

There are some who call him . . . . . . . . Tim.

Took the kids to their first Giants game yesterday. Twelve K's from Lincecum, a little torture from Brian Wilson and some Little League style fielding by Pablo Sandoval made for a pretty good first outing.

Continuing the theme.... WTF?

It's late June and the Nats are sitting right at .500 having won 11 of the last 12. This can't be right.

Oh wait, here it comes.....

After Thursday's win over the M's, Jim Riggleman walked away as Nats' manager

Ahhh, that's more like it.

He just respected the city too much to stay on while he couldn't consistently deliver the type of baseball that fans have come to expect.

Sh*tty.

This is a chart of the AL West teams and their standing in relation to .500 over the course of the season. I'd like to thank the Mariners for suddenly and unexpectedly making me feel better about the A's.

The Mariners will get interesting when, in a few days, a bored Ichiro will begin his quest to close out the season by breaking DiMaggio's hitting streak.

It's late July, the Nats are comfortably below .500, dead last in the NL-East and have lost their last three in a row.


All is right with the world.

It looks like the upside of the McCourt divorce is that the Dodgers will at least finish the season with the stars in place and perhaps make it through one more. Between not having the cash around to pay for decent replacements if they do trade away big talent, and the realization that getting rid of Kemp or Ethier or Kershaw would destroy the scrap of good will Dodgers fans have left, I think everyone involved realizes leaving things the eff alone is the best choice right now.

Also, I haven't seen any high def replays. But was that last call in the 19-inning Pirates/Braves game as awful as it looks on my phone?

CNN has already added it to their list of MLB's worst blown calls, so umm yeah.

It's an interesting one.

From the angle that most closely matches the angle the umpire had...completely blown. Absolutely likes like he got him on the leg 3 feet before the plate.

From the 2 angles on the other side, though? I have my doubts. If he did get him, he JUST brushed his leg with the fingertips of the mitt. It's shocking how much closer the call looks from that angle. I honestly think that, with those other 2 angles, neither a safe nor an out call would have been overturned with replay.

ETA: Nah, just took another look at the original angle (and a 4th one I had not seen). He blew it. From the first base angle it still looks like he might have missed it, but from behind the 3rd base angle, and from behind the plate (the ump's angle), it's clear.

You know the catcher made the tag because he didn't go, "Whoops. Good thing this guy's still three feet from home plate so I can try again."

And now, some time travel:

2005: When did the Mets become Al Davis, signing people because they produced great post-seasons? Guy's gotta be juicing.

2011: We got Beltran!

Look out: the Mariner's snapped their 17 game losing streak today; they're on a comeback

Now that I've seen it, the runner also didn't make sure he'd touched home until after being called safe.

That was just as bad as it looked on my phone.

I'll be sad to see Furcal go. He's a solid player, with an awesome attitude. But it's the right move. He's near the end of his career and Dee Gordon deserves a shot and has the raw talent to become the kind of player that Furcal was in his prime.

Enjoy St. Louis, Raf.

Funny you should say that. Here is a sneak peek of Seattle's newest motto for next season.

The Seattle Mariners: Making you feel better about your baseball team since 1977.

Well, the Mariner's were my baseball team ("my" team is whichever I can watch in person most easily most regularly) from '90 to '98. So they failed for a while.

I've been sad ever since I woke up yesterday morning to check the trade news. Not a shock, probably a good move, still completely bummed.

I hope Dee pans out. He's exciting to watch, no doubt. But, from what I've seen so far, he's not ready from a hitting perspective.

Nope. But the only thing that will help that is experience, and now is the perfect time go gain that experience. Maybe he never will get there. The only way to know is experience.

Furcal was going to be needed to be replaced sooner rather than later. So the sooner they find out of Dee can be that replacement, the better.

All good points.

Out of curiosity, How do you feel about them getting rid of Trayvon Robinson? I was a little surprised, but I guess they are convinced that Sands is the future left fielder.

Haven't followed Robinson at all, so I have no opinion. I do know that I liked what I saw from Sands when he was up.

The Mariners may not be helping A's fans feel good today. Check out this moment from the first inning.

http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/news...s_sea&c_id=sea

That's awesome.

That's some head's-up base running

If only the catcher had been drawn into desperately trying to cover third base.

That'll go in the A's demonstration reel for The Highs and Lows of Fielding.

Others in the file are:

Derek Jeter being where no one expected him.
Whatever game it was where the A's won in a walkoff because the guy on third scored after the pitcher, angry about the pitch call, took a half-hearted stab at catching the throw back from the catcher, missing it.

video


On the subject of defense - James Loney doing it like a boss.

Two amazing feats: thanks for posting those!

Here's the game recap from the missed throw back to the pitcher. August 11, 2005.

If anybody can find video of that ending I'd appreciate it (my searches aren't turning it up. The ESPN story has a link to video but it is 404.

And as Kershaw and the Phillies big three fade a bit, Tim Lincecum puts himself in line for a third Cy Young with another dominating performance.


[Sob.]

So, how many days until opening day for 2012?


I need something to look forward to...

According to this page, at least, Lincecum isn't even in the top 10. Meanwhile, Kershaw and Halladay have almost identical numbers in the 1 and 2 spot.

Take out the closers, the victory bonus points and the weight given to so-called "wins," and I'll bet he is in the top ten.

Did this formula predict Felix Hernandez's Cy Young last year?

You can see what it predicted back to 2002 (there's a year drop down that lets you change it).

2002 - Correctly predicted both winners (Barry Zito, Randy Johnson)
2003 - Missed both. Roy Halladay won but was predicted 2nd. Eric Gagne won but was predicted 2nd.
2004 - Correctly predicted AL winner (Johan Santana) but Roger Clemens won though predicted 2nd.
2005 - Correctly predicted NL winner (Chris Carpenter) but Bartolo Colon won though prediced 2nd.
2006 - Correctly predicted both winners (Johan Santana and Brandon Webb).
2007 - Correctly predicted both winners (CC Sabathia and Jake Peavy)
2008 - Correctly predicted both winners (Cliff Lee and Tim Lincecum)
2009 - Missed both. Zack Greinke won though predicted 2nd. Tim Lincecum won though predicted 4th.
2010 - Correctly predicted NL winner (Roy Halladay). Felix Hernandez won though predicted 6th.

So it has been a pretty good predictor though with two larger misses recently.

One would think that after the Greinke, Lincecum and Hernandez wins, the formula would have changed to recognize that wins have somewhat less emphasis among the voters.

If you do that the only thing they're being judged on (in this formula) is how far below 5 their ERA is, how many people they strike out, and if they pitch complete game shutouts (which nobody particularly does any more (with Cliff Lee being the one one with more than 2).

And it is important to keep in mind that Bill James is not saying his formula reflects how pitchers SHOULD be judged (got knows he's not a fan of wins as an important stat), just that the formula does a pretty good job of predicting how people will vote.

But if we limit the formula as you describe above:

1. Clayton Keshaw - 67.4
2. Roy Halladay - 66.3
3. Cliff Lee - 73.8
4. Tim Lincecum - 63.2
5. Cole Hamels - 58.5
6. Matt Cain - 53.0
7. Johnny Cueto - 52.1
8. Tim Hudson - 48.7
9. Hiroki Kuroda - 47.9
10. Ian Kennedy - 47.3

Note this assumed that in addition to removing the wins part of the formula you'd also remove the losses part. If the losses part is kept in then Lincecum would fall behind Hamels.

Looks reasonable to me, and it all more or less holds up when you factor in WHIP and BAA. When you consider that Lincecum's put up his numbers without the benefit of pitching against the Giants, I say he wins.

I think the "make it to the playoff" bonus is b.s. It's easier to pitch on a team that scores 4.5 runs/game and tends to win. 15 wins on a team like that? Big deal. But 15 wins on a team that's 11 games < .500 and scoring 3 runs per game? That's a skilled pitcher!

Cry me a river. The Dodgers are averaging half a run per game more than the Giants.

Are you saying it is BS that the formula contains that or it is BS that the formula needs to contain that to better predict voters?

But then we live in a world where Derek Jeter has five Golden Gloves and by some weird coincidence the "most outstanding player in collegiate football" is almost always a quarterback or running back and has only once ever been a defensive player.

That's why we need to go to purely algorithmic awards and thus enter into the calm pax statistica that has been pioneered by the BCS.

In as much as I was at all serious - the latter.

It wasn't a good day at the ballpark when you're up 7 to 1, eventually score 9 runs and lose by 13.

Yay, another year with Vinny!

He probably has to keep working if he ever hopes to get paid.

Most of the time when a balk is called I can watch the replay 100 times and never see anything. But those two last night seemed like textbook examples to me, I don't know what Tracy is whining about.

Man, it takes a special brand of suck to be as bad as the Dodgers while carrying a legitimate Cy Young candidate and possible 40-40 center fielder.

With 15 (16 if they or the Nats somehow claw back into contention....so 15) games left, at least there's still hope that they'll finish > .500 AND maybe even make up the 4.5 games on the Giants.

Sadly (in that they haven't been playing like this all season), they've been playing pretty decently lately (the last two games not withstanding). They just came off a pretty good road trip.

If your hope for the season is in any way related to the Nats not performing well, I see good things in your future.

Mostly against the Rockies, the Padres, the Nats, and the Giants. Yeah, the Cards and the Braves were thrown in there, but most of their success came against teams that have either been terrible all season, or the Giants who have been playing like crap for a while now. Hard to get too optimistic about it.

That said, there does seem to have been a pretty noticeable turn around since Dave Hansen took over as batting coach. Also, their improvement coincided with that game where James Loney warmed up as an emergency reliever and then got like 4 RBI in the game. I seriously expected to start seeing him warming up in the bullpen every game after that.

Crazy game tonight, but at least Kershaw somehow got the win and might still be the first 20 game winner for the Dodgers since Ramon Martinez in 90.

I've loved the way the Dodgers have been playing of late. Juan Rivera turned out to be a pretty good addition, Janson is impressive, Gordon and Sellers are fun to watch. Meanwhile, Kershaw and Kemp have made a bad season still enjoyable to watch.

The pipe-dream-optimist in me notices that the Dodger's magic number is 12

Huh? Only a team leading a division can have a magic number.

Their elimination # is 1. Meaning if they lose 1 game or the D-backs win 1 game, they cannot possibly win the division. Elimination # from the wildcard is 2.

It was mostly in jest, but...

I took it from the Wild Card Games Behind stat here. Since the post was meant to be silly, I didn't go into the explanation that it was for securring the wild card spot.

Sheesh

Erm, okay I guess. Magic number and games behind are 2 very different things, so I didn't understand at all what you meant.

Oh, and that ejection was bee ess.

Welke's been around long enough. That pitch in no way looked like an intentional bean ball. Dude's throwin a 1-hitter with 52 pitches, he's looking to get the guy out, not put him on base. Yeah, there was sh*t yesterday, but there's no way that he should have been tossed for that.

Good for Mattingly for letting Welke have it (and judging from how little Welke was responding, I think he knew pretty immediately that he blew it).

Well, I guess Colonel Muttonchops, suh, deserves it.

By Colonel Muttonchops, of course, I mean Balkton Balkshaw.

By "it," I mean the Cybalk Youngbalk award.

I like my pitchers to just throw the damn ball. Like that brute from the eighth inning, for instance. Somebody give that guy a cup to p*ss in.

Fudge.

I'm comforted by the fact that I can once again root for a National League team in the World Series this year.

Well, I think that should solidify Kershaw's Cy Young. Tied for first in wins, first in strikeouts, ERA, batting average against, and WHIP. Short by one out of first in innings pitched. There has never been a pitcher that got the triple crown (first in wins, Ks, and ERA) that DIDN'T win the award.

It's been a frustrating but hopeful couple of months. Frustrating to see a winning percentage of 65.7% since 8/21 (when Loney warmed up as an emergency reliever). Where was that all season? Of course, possibly more relevant to the improvement than Loney's bullpen session was Dave Hansen taking over as hitting coach in late July. He certainly looks like a genius (he definitely knows about hitting, nice that he seems to be able to translate that into effective coaching).

There's finally a legitimate ace to anchor the pitching staff. The bullpen got its act together in a big way. Solid veteran role players in Miles and Carroll. Impressive rookie play. And, even with financial uncertainty, Prince Fielder's name is being seriously kicked around (aided by friendships with Kemp and Gwynn).

It would be a miracle to get Fielder AND keep Loney, but Loney's said he'd be willing to play left in that situation. That's a tantalizing thought. Loney (assuming continuation of his late-season success), Ethier (assuming successful rehab), Kemp, Fielder. Damn.

Is it april?

I hope they decide to keep Barajas. I'm not all that impressed with our other options behind the plate. They can go ahead and let Velez go without me shedding a tear.

Ellis has some upside, but is definitely not ready to be the every day starter. Hopefully Kershaw likes Barajas. Something tells me if Kershaw likes him, he'll stick around.

I know it's not going to happen, but I'd love to see Ted Lilly go away. The only pitchers that gave up more HRs than him the the National league were a Cub and an Astro, and they've got a good excuse pitching where they do. Lilly just can't keep the damn ball down.

W...T...F?!??! That was unexpected. Yeesh, lost focus a couple outs early there.

Yeah, that was kind of messed up

I can't really blame Guerra for being a little unfocussed. 5 run lead in the 10th inning of the second to last game of the season, the closer can't be thinking he'll be throwing any pitches. He's mind was no doubt half way back to the hotel when the bullpen phone rang.

So at this point, it's possible we could have two playoff games on Thursday to fill the wildcard spots. That would be fun.

And in other news the Nats finished below 500 again this year, but on the bright side they were below 500 by the slimiest of margins a clear improvement over last year.

I think the blame lies squarely with Hawksworth, who took his time getting to first on that ball hit to Loney. That lack of hustle lost us the game. We should never have needed Guerra.

Nobody ever needs Guerra. But sometimes Guerra can't be avoided as he is simply the continuation of politics by other means.


(I'm feeling odd today.)

What the heck.

I don't watch much baseball on TV, I prefer it on the radio and when I do watch on TV it is the local A's broadcast.

But I thought I would check out the Boston game on ESPN. What the **** is up with the superimposed strike zone? I had to change the channel it was so annoying.

Who the heck would like that thing, it adds no useful information and just distracts. I'm not opposed to digital enhancement, the first down and line of scrimmage lines for football is about the best TV enhancement ever. But that conveys something useful.

But it isn't hard to tell if the ball was near the strike zone. Beyond that all that matters is what the umpire calls. Ugh. It's enough to turn me into George Will.

If anybody does watch regularly, does the strike zone shown adjust to the batter? Does it reflect the fact that the strike zone is a cube and not a square? Does it adjust for the fact that the center field camera is not centered correctly for simply drawing a line around the strike zone?

The only time I watch ESPN coverage is when they show the Dodgers, which was very little this season. And that thing annoyed the crap out of me, almost as much as their coverage team.

I have no idea how accurate it is and if they adjust for all possible factors.

Well, despite that stupidity, quite a night of baseball.

Or not.

Stupid Nationals.

If they had been in contention, they'd have to play the makeup game with the Dodgers and give Kemp a final shot at 40/40. But nooooooo.

I feel bad for Pujols not getting a one game playoff last night as he ended with .299/99 RBI/37 HR ending his decade long streak of .300/100/30.

Watched essentially 10.5 of 12 innings in the Rays game and only saw one of their 8 runs.

I think the real story of the day is the Yankees deliberately tanking their game last night in order to screw the Red Sox.

Hey, Atlanta:

Go oh woh home! You ooh woo suck. Go oh woh home! You ooh woo suck.

You, too, Boston.

Megadittoes on that strike zone thingy.

I feel bad that the Mariners could not have played a drawn out extra inning game in which Ichiro came up 59 more times, which at a .272 clip, would have allowed him to extend his streak of 200 hit seasons.

Ok, I don't feel <i>bad</i>, especially since I'm guessing his current streak of eleven consecutive .299/99/30 seasons is just as unprecedented.

But to the extent that the arbitrary streak matters, he was awfully close to getting another chance at it and would have just needed to go 2 for 3 or 2 for 4 with an RBI.

Personally, I'm bummed for all the fans who don't get to be part of a one game playoff. I think my one experience with that was more exciting than any of the regular old playoff games I've cared about (for the most part the baseball season ended for me yesterday).

Yes, I'm also peeved that Kemp was robbed of those at bats.

Perhaps a dumb question, but how common is it for a team to not play 162 games in a season (strikes excluded)? It seems to me it wouldn't have been too hard to schedule a makeup of that lost game for today. Sure, it wouldn't have mattered in the standings, but both teams still got cheated out of a game.

And not that one cares too much in the overall scheme of things, but one must wonder how many millions of dollars this minor slippage is going to cost Pujols this off season.

Over the last decade there have been 14 games that weren't made up.

2011: 1
2010: 0
2009: 1
2008: 3
2007: 0
2006: 1
2005: 0
2004: 2
2003: 1
2002: 5

While I would prefer they all get played, if I only got scheduled 20 days off in the course of a 181 day season (3 of which are the All Star break), many of which are used to travel, I can understand not particularly wanting to give one of them up when it won't impact the standings (especially if the missed game is late in the season when real contortions would be needed to get the game in).

Wow, didn't realize it was that common. The advantages of living in sunny SoCal.

The big one for me was 2000.

That year the A's finished division 91-70. The Mariners were 91-71.

The A's didn't have to play the makeup to determine who won the division because regardless of outcomes both the A's and Mariners would go tot he playoffs. That is when I learned that if the division ended with a tie, but both teams would make the playoffs regardless, instead of playing a one game playoff they go to head-to-head record as a tie breaker.

So, since if Oakland won the makeup game they'd win outright, and if they they lost they'd still win because of head-to-head, they just didn't play the makeup.

I thought that was bogus (Oakland should ahve had to play the make-up and then if they lost a one-game playoff against the Mariners to set the playoffs pairings, even though this would have further exhausted the team).

(And it could have all been really screwy except the Indians lost their last game to finish 90-72. Winning that game would have given them a tie for the Wild Card as well.)

All of which, of course, was promptly forgotten in anticipation of the first Subway Series since 1956.

Perhaps it's an omen that the Judge handling the Frank McCourt bankruptcy case is named Kevin Gross.

So, if the American League wins the World Series, we'll have the following baseball trivia question:

Two teams met in the World Series. One of them won. Years later, they had an October rematch. The loser was sad, yet the winner did not win the World Series. Which are the two teams?

The Ducks and the Jazz?

No, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that my scenario was common in basketball and hockey with all the expansion and realigning of teams.

A good start to the Series. I'm somewhat torn about which team to root for. On the one hand, the Cardinals' run is the better story, they're the National League team, and they're not from Texas.

On the other hand, the Rangers are packed with Jews.

I just wanted to share this with the baseball fans. Right before the end of the season, the Mariners unveiled their Dave Niehaus statue. It is a wonderful likeness. There is a seat to his left that a person could sit in to get their picture with the statue. It is a wonderful tribute to a man that made Seattle baseball great.

I loved Dave Niehaus (he was my first "voice of baseball") but must admit I always thought the grandma mustard thing was the stupidest catchphrase ever. So while I'm glad to see him memorialized, I'm sorry to see that immortalized.

I happen to love Dave's catchphrase, and I miss it. Maybe I'll try to fly back to the west coast to take in a game next season.

I live in dread of the day that Vinnie isn't calling the Dodgers.

Seriously!

Wow, that was a hell of a game.

The opera ain't over 'til the fat lady chokes.

On a related note, while my internet research tells me that my eight year-old son was far from the first to make this observation, I had never noticed until he did that the Cardinals' best player was named Pooholes.

Heh, it IS funny how incorrectly the word "inevitably" is used there.

I watched the last 2 innings. I love it when a team wins at championship at home, regardless of the sport. Except hockey unless it's the Ducks ;)

Yay, Texas lost!

Nice job, Cards. Great series overall. And congrats to Furcal who finally gets a WS ring.

But "boo! LaRussa won."

Morbid prediction: Tony LaRussa's Hall of Fame induction will be posthumous.

The article I read said he's up for consideration in 2013 along with Joe Torre and Bobby Cox, so I guess the five-year rule does not apply to senior citizen managers.

Yep, just looked it up. Did not realize that the 5-years retired rule gets reduced to 6 months if you're over 65.

The rules don't mention that specifically for players, I guess we'll know the chemicals are winning when it becomes necessary.

Guess I'll have think about my prediction (though he won't be inducted until 2014 since the committee for managers is bi-annual).

Three Gold Gloves announced for LA and McCourt finally agrees to sell.

It's a good day to be a Dodger fan.

It keeps getting (potentially) better: Peter O'Malley joins list of potential bidders for Dodgers

He should move the team. Los Angeles just isn't a supportive enough baseball market to support that many teams.

Back to Brooklyn I say.

The other encouraging rumor is that Steve Garvey and Orel Hershiser are trying to put together an investment group.

So who gets the keep the (estimated) $1,000,000,000 from the sale? Is McCort the sole owner or just the lead figure in a consortium?

Well a lot of it will be going to the creditors he owes.

Including Marquis Grissom.

According to this story:

I saw in today's paper that he owes (of all people), Fernando Valenzuela about $20M.

Man, Moonie, I know the Nats are desperate to get better, but I'm not sure their off season negotiation tactics are really the way to go.

With thoughts for him and his family, I hope this episode ends well.

1. I really don't want to have to pay even a bare minimum of attention to what is going on with the Astros. Which I'll have to do with them in the AL West.

2. I really don't want season long and expanded interleague play, but 15-team leagues means it can't be avoided.

3. We talked about the MLB Cy Young Predictor at ESPN a few months back. It looks like it nailed them both (not that it was a hard year for predicting).

Trying to focus on the good news, but hard with Colletti once again blowing it on off season roster moves.

^ Yep.

Sigh. In September I said this on a friend's Google+ post about the NL MVP

Sometimes I hate being right.

On that subject, we had a discussion earlier about the role of a team's status as a playoff contender in Cy Young voting, but what about MVP?

I actually lean towards agreeing that being on a contending team should carry some weight. Sure, a contending team tends to have better players, meaning their contribution to the team my not be as "valuable", and I understand the whole "protection" argument (Bruan's going to get more balls to hit because the pitcher is loathe to walk him and have Prince Filder come up with a man on). But on the flip side, when the next best RBI total on the Dodgers after Matt Kemp was half of Kemp's total, I don't think pitchers are spending too much time worrying about pitching around Kemp. Even with his amazing numbers, he averaged less than 1 RBI per game. So when no one else is a threat to produce a run, who cares if he's making contact? So you give up a run to him every couple games, big deal.

And then there's the whole pressure/meaningfulness factor. Would Kemp have attempted as many stolen bases had an out here or there meant the difference between playoffs and an early autumn vacation? Would he have been uppercutting as many swings to get homeruns if games actually mattered? Would he have kept his numbers up under the pressure of a late season playoff battle? Those are pretty important what-ifs. It's "easy" to put up big numbers when you're just messing around, with your only goal really being to put up big numbers and nothing else on the line.

Kinda contradicts my thoughts on the Cy Young side (though my earlier comments were kinda facetious really). But I feel like it's a little different. Pitchers really do seem to live more in-the-moment, with individual games being more important than the overall picture. Obviously there's added pressure in must-win situations, but since they can't go out and fail 60% of the time and be considered great, then I have an easier time saying that a pitcher who pitches well through the season on an overall crappy team deserves the same consideration as one on a great team.

PLEASE not Dennis Gilbert.

Please.

^ What have you heard?

Only what the news is reporting. That he's interested and apparently Larry King has joined as a minority investor.

Now Magic Johnson wants the Dodgers? Oy vey

He's not my first choice, but I'd be happier with him than a Dennis Gilbert. By a long shot.

Hairston and Harang. I like both of those (assuming Harang happens). So the off season isn't a total loss.

Pujols is heading for L.A.


I'll never get used to calling the Angels an "LA" team.

A 10 year deal? For a 32 year old whose numbers have been steadily declining? DH or not, that is bloody stupid.

Stupid or not, it must be nice to follow a team that sometimes can say "screw it, let's spend some money and try to buy our way out of trouble."

Or into trouble. See Barry Zito.

It depends on how you look at it. In essence they are just stretching out the payments they are making for the few good years he does have. It saves the Angles cash in the long run and gives him guaranteed income well into the future. Like a annuity payment from a lottery.

Don't. Because as long as they are in Anaheim they are NOT an LA team.


Yes, that is all I have to contribute to this discussion. I have no idea who Pujols is.

Except the price is $255 million. So giving him the benefit of the doubt, 5 more years of productivity - that's ~$50 million per real year assuming he even lasts that long. I don't care how long you stretch it out, that's a ridiculous number. I see this hurting them in the long run.

On the plus side, I will get the joy of hearing his name spoken aloud more often.

Pujols.

Oh, sure, pick on the Jew. It's probably just his asthma medicine.

Glad to see Gwynn get a two year contract. He plays hard and has a great attitude. Definitely seems like the kind of guy that a team wants around.

Really Loney? Bumped your head? Yeah, that sounds reasonable.