Tiger337

Martinez/Castellanos would not have been kept forever, just until there were viable replacements. I am not a fan of completely tearing a team down without getting a decent return on your players and being left with a horrible team for years and years. I want to see them try to be reasonably competitive every year.

It's something Bill James came up with a long time ago based on the assumption that all teams are equal with every game having a 50% probaility of a win for each team.

I'd much rather have had the Tigers perform like the Braves during my lifetime.

The Braves just don't want it enough. They don't know how to win.

Anything is possible. Maybe the Tigers would have made the playoffs with some random luck. Maybe if the kept Candelario and then added Verlander at the deadline and had fewer injuries.

He had an 820 OPS his last four years with Detroit. He wasn't good, because he couldn't field, but he was hitting OK. The guy I really wish they kept though was Martinez.

I don't really like it. It's more a matter of not liking the status quo. I don't like that playoffs have become the only thing that matters, but that's not going to change. So, I would consider alternatives to the current structure.

They would have been better than Cabrera plus that multi-position flavor of the year.

Yes, it can be a very different team by September. However, one thing that used to make baseball special is that generally only teams that were great all season made the playoffs. A team had to come to play for 162 games or it would miss the playoffs. I know there are some exceptions, but that was the case moreso than today. It's stupid to have a 162-game season if all anybody cares about is the playoffs. If you want to have a playoff of the best teams at the current time, then have a shorter season where players don't beat themselves up by the time the post-season tournament comes around. Or have a split season with two playoffs.

Should of kept Castellanos.

Within 7 games is randomness. Not 20 games.

I think the point is that it should be hard for an 85 win team to beat a 105-win team. Otherwise, why play 162 games? Big upsets are fun if they are unusual like in baseketball. If they happen all the time, then it makes the whole process look random.

That was back when they had no playoffs, so it was logical that you couldn't sell even an eighth place team. Now, an eighth place team is most likely in the race late in the season. To your point, a colleague who knows nothing about baseball did notice that the Red Sox were in last and the Tigers were in second. I was able to explain to him in seconds why the Tigers were in no better position than the Red Sox at the time. Of course, he's very good a math and logic, so that may have been the reason.

I hope they keep the leagues based on tradition and history. By 8-teams, I meant 8-teams in each league (since I assume they are headed in that direction). Have two big leagues with no divisions. I would think that would be easier for fans since they wouldn't have to look at two sets of standings to know where their team stands.

I don't understand that. Are fans really that dumb that they think an 88-win team 5th place team is less appealing than a 78 win second place team? It would be a lot simpler with no divisions. Just take the top 8 teams (since I are know they are going to 8 teams in each league). If your team can't contend with that many teams getting in, then sell it

He has 13 years and 2511 innings as a Tigers and 6 years and 720 innings as an Astro. I don't think number of championships has a lot to do with choosing a Hall of Fame team, so I think he's do in as a Tiger. I don't really care though. The HoF is an individual honor, not a team honor.

Are you guessing or assuming?

I read it. It's not quite as good as the top 100, but it's worth reading. It's got a little less depth than the previous book, but some really good stories surrounding baseball's great moments.

That is usually my line!

I second that. It's one of the best baseball books I have ever read. Like you said, I expected to read a lot of stuff about these guys I've already heard before, but it was mostly new. It's a perfect blend of stats and stories. People shouldn't read it as a definitive list. He admits at the outset that it's impossible to do that. It's just great sories.

The Rangers have balls and spent money and made trades at the right time but it's hard to find fault with the Orioles turn around the last couple of years. The Orioles had a great season and should have a good future and more opportunities to win championships. I think it's OK that they didn't trade their prospects this year.

They can still keep track of the wins and losses and stats over the 162 games of both halves combined.

Now that they have close to a balanced schedule, they should eliminate divisions and just take the top six (or how ever many teams they feel is necessary).

But if there are two sets of playoffs, then it doesn't really matter what happens to a team in the second half. They can win their first half championship and fans can feel good about it. There doesn't need to be a set up where we glorify one champion whether it be the third wild card team or an 85-game divison winner. Some years, a team wins two championships in one year, and that will be special like winning the Triple Crown in horse racing or multiple majors in golf.

Unlike other sports, underdogs winning is not really a story in baseball because it happens so often. It all feels random to me which I don't find entertaining. I think the only solution is having fewer teams in the playoffs, so that only geat teams make it most years. That's not going to happen. In fact, I am pretty sure there will be more teams soon.