MLB 2018 Season

[Its DJOver]

The NBA and NFL.

This past season, the Nuggets would have been the 6-seed in the East but didn't make the playoffs.

The 2016 Bulls had the same record as the 6-seed in the West but missed the playoffs.

The 2015 Thunder missed the playoffs but would have been 6th in the East.

The 2015 Jets missed the playoffs with a better record than 4-seed Houston.

In 2014, the Eagles, 49ers, Chiefs, Chargers, Texans, Bills and Dolphins all had a better record than playoff-bound Carolina.

Arizona missed the playoffs with a better record than the Packers in 2013.

This is only going back a few seasons. Sure, some of these are cross-conference but it's not as uncommon as you'd think.

Admitted my lack of knowledge about football.

As for the NBA, I would treat the different Conferences like the different Leagues in Baseball.  As it stands, the A's should have a complaint against the Indians, not the Braves or D backs. 

Also, isn't the NBA considering changing their playoff format because of the unbalance between the two Conferences (not trying to make this an NBA thread I swear). 

[Its DJOver]

Because there is no real fair way.  How can you schedule the post season without divisions in a 16 game schedule?

Again not a football expert, but couldn't you treat it more like baseball, where you play every team in your division twice, and then only play other teams in your conference?  You'd still come up two games short, but it's better, because you would play the teams that you're competing with for a playoff spot.  Maybe do one cross over game so you can keep the NY or LA rivalries going, but is a week 16 Eagles Raiders game the equivalent of a week 16 Vikings Packers game?

Just looking at last year, Baltimore, Buffalo, Tennessee, and LA all finished with the same record, but only 2 went to the playoffs.  I don't know the tiebreakers but looking at Baltimore's schedule, they played and lost to Tennessee, but didn't play either Buffalo, or LA.  If they had them on the schedule instead of an NFC team, would that have made a difference?

[MerrittsMustache]

Unless a sport does away with leagues/conferences and divisions and has every team play every other team the same number of times, both home and away, and puts the top X number of teams into the postseason, there's no truly "fair to all" way to determine postseason berths. The systems that the major pro sports currently have in place are about as good as it can possibly be.

[MU82]

Admitted my lack of knowledge about football.

As for the NBA, I would treat the different Conferences like the different Leagues in Baseball.  As it stands, the A's should have a complaint against the Indians, not the Braves or D backs. 

Also, isn't the NBA considering changing their playoff format because of the unbalance between the two Conferences (not trying to make this an NBA thread I swear).

There has been talk about the NBA just going with the 16 best teams, but that hasn't happened and the commissioner said recently that travel would make it unlikely to happen. In other words, he doesn't want teams from the East Coast and West Coast having to criss-cross the country for first-round series.

[Its DJOver]

There has been talk about the NBA just going with the 16 best teams, but that hasn't happened and the commissioner said recently that travel would make it unlikely to happen. In other words, he doesn't want teams from the East Coast and West Coast having to criss-cross the country for first-round series.

You mean like the Philadelphia v Los Angles series that would be the NLDS right now?  Not trying to shoot the messenger, but that's a lame excuse.  If baseball can make it work, so can basketball.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

  Maybe do one cross over game so you can keep the NY or LA rivalries going, but is a week 16 Eagles Raiders game the equivalent of a week 16 Vikings Packers game?

Depends. What if the Eagles & Raiders are both competing for home field advantage while the Packers & Vikings are both out of the playoff hunt?

[Its DJOver]

Back on baseball, do we really need to see the Brewers play the Reds 19 times per year.  Play everybody in your league 8 times for 112 games.  Play everybody in the other league twice for 30 games. 142 game season, the players are happy because they get more off days, and the season doesn't go into November.  I don't think the total attendance would drop as dramatically as some think either.  A lot more people would come out to see Mike Trout play, or Justin Verlander pitch if they know they only had one chance per year to see that.  You would also have fewer Rays Orioles games that attract all of 14 people. 

[Its DJOver]

Depends. What if the Eagles & Raiders are both competing for home field advantage while the Packers & Vikings are both out of the playoff hunt?

The point is that the Eagles and Raiders wouldn't be competing with each other for playoff position, while the Packers and Vikings potentially could.  You'd still have bad games every week, but it would reduce the number of them, and the cross over games would all be geographically based. Philly v Pittsburgh, or Oakland(Vegas) v San Francisco, so the games with teams not in the same conference would still be rivalry games.

[GGGG]

You mean like the Philadelphia v Los Angles series that would be the NLDS right now?  Not trying to shoot the messenger, but that's a lame excuse.  If baseball can make it work, so can basketball.

Just remember that when teams travel from coast to coast in baseball, they set up shop for 3 games.  It would be different for basketball.

[Its DJOver]

Just remember that when teams travel from coast to coast in baseball, they set up shop for 3 games.  It would be different for basketball.

NLDS is 2 2 1.  Basketball seven game series would be 2 2 1 1 1.  Still more travel time for basketball, but a flight from NY to LA is only like 6 hours these days.  That's not bad. Considering the luxury they'd be flying, I don't think the travel would be too strenuous.

[GGGG]

NLDS is 2 2 1.  Basketball seven game series would be 2 2 1 1 1.  Still more travel time for basketball, but a flight from NY to LA is only like 6 hours these days.  That's not bad. Considering the luxury they'd be flying, I don't think the travel would be too strenuous.

My apologies.  I thought you were talking regular season.

[MerrittsMustache]

The point is that the Eagles and Raiders wouldn't be competing with each other for playoff position, while the Packers and Vikings potentially could.  You'd still have bad games every week, but it would reduce the number of them, and the cross over games would all be geographically based. Philly v Pittsburgh, or Oakland(Vegas) v San Francisco, so the games with teams not in the same conference would still be rivalry games.

In the past few years, the NFL has made it a point to schedule division and conference games in the last few weeks of the season as much as possible in hopes of creating more games "that matter" as late as possible. 

Also, do you think Bears-Colts, Lions-Browns or Panthers-Titans "geographic rivalry" games are going to move the needle?

[Its DJOver]

In the past few years, the NFL has made it a point to schedule division and conference games in the last few weeks of the season as much as possible in hopes of creating more games "that matter" as late as possible. 

Also, do you think Bears-Colts, Lions-Browns or Panthers-Titans "geographic rivalry" games are going to move the needle?

I think they have the potential to more so than other "crossover" games in my never gonna happen proposed scenario.  The lower the travel distance, the more opposing fans show up, which certainly helps rivalries pick up steam.

[MU82]

You mean like the Philadelphia v Los Angles series that would be the NLDS right now?  Not trying to shoot the messenger, but that's a lame excuse.  If baseball can make it work, so can basketball.

I understand. I don't think the travel should be an impediment. These guys travel in total luxury. But I am just saying what the commish said, and maybe it's just a convenient excuse to keep status quo. I don't really see a need for a change, but a change wouldn't bother me.

142 game season, the players are happy because they get more off days, and the season doesn't go into November.

I love the idea of shortening the season. Now, can the players be convinced to give up 12.3% of their pay and can the owners be convinced to give up 12.3% of their revenue?

The latter might actually be much lower because, theoretically at least, giving fans less might make more of them come out to more games - except for the few teams that always sell out, of course.

But the former ... there is absolutely no way the owners would agree to this unless the players took a commensurate pay cut, and there is nothing that has happened in the history of the player-owner relationship that leads me to think the players would accept such a pay cut.

So, as Lou Piniella used to say, the point is "mute."

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

The point is that the Eagles and Raiders wouldn't be competing with each other for playoff position, while the Packers and Vikings potentially could.

I understand your point.  I just disagree with it.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Back on baseball, do we really need to see the Brewers play the Reds 19 times per year.  Play everybody in your league 8 times for 112 games.  Play everybody in the other league twice for 30 games. 142 game season, the players are happy because they get more off days, and the season doesn't go into November.  I don't think the total attendance would drop as dramatically as some think either.  A lot more people would come out to see Mike Trout play, or Justin Verlander pitch if they know they only had one chance per year to see that.  You would also have fewer Rays Orioles games that attract all of 14 people.

Or play everyone in your league 10 x's, the other league 2x, voila, 160 game schedule.

Go to 9 x's (3 3 game series) for 126 games, plus 30 vs other league for a 156 game schedule. 

problem with the 30 games vs the other league is that is a bunch of 2 game series.  but with the new days off schedule, that might work out better.

At the end of the day, every team knows the rules going into the season.  and (currently), it comes down to playing your division opponents more than the other divisions/league.  want to be in the playoffs, beat the teams that know you best.

[TallTitan34]

When baseball goes to 32 teams, I have a feeling leagues will be no different than conferences in basketball or hockey.  Everyone plays everyone.  I also think this is what will bring the DH to the NL.

[buckchuckler]

James Shields has 10 quality starts in his last 13, and has pitched into the 7th inning in 9 of them. 

Joakim Soria has given up 2 runs (earned or otherwise) since the beginning of June, and they were in the same outing.  During that stretch he is K-ing just under 13/9.  BAA of .178 and a WHIP of .93  He is sporting an OPS against him of .428.  Not too shabby. 

These 2 are probably the Sox best 2 trade chips, assuming Abreu stays on South Side.


Oh, and with the Nats under .500 and 7 games out, I wonder if they would entertain the notion of trading Harper...

[buckchuckler]

Well, I put the hex on Shields for tonight.  Also, I, for one, was surprised that the Mike Trout vs. Chris Volstad matchup ended in a Home Run.

[jesmu84]

https://www.barstoolsports.com/chicago/the-cubs-need-jacob-degrom

Baez for Degrom

Discuss

[MU82]

https://www.barstoolsports.com/chicago/the-cubs-need-jacob-degrom

Baez for Degrom

Discuss

Trade the best slider and the best tagger in the history of baseball?

Insanity! Especially with my sources saying he also is top 3 in scratchin' and top 5 in spittin'!!

[wadesworld]

Trade the best slider and the best tagger in the history of baseball?

Insanity! Especially with my sources saying he also is top 3 in scratchin' and top 5 in spittin'!!

And most exciting player.

[🏀]

https://www.barstoolsports.com/chicago/the-cubs-need-jacob-degrom

Baez for Degrom

Discuss

In a heartbeat.

[MerrittsMustache]

https://www.barstoolsports.com/chicago/the-cubs-need-jacob-degrom

Baez for Degrom

Discuss

Neither team would make this deal.

Baez has been the Cubs best player this season. With Bryant's nagging shoulder injury, there's no way they'd deal Baez.

The Mets have Rosario at SS and their top prospect is also a middle infielder. Not to mention, if they're going to trade DeGrom, they're going to expect a lot more than 1 player in return.

Pointless, clickbait article.

[CTWarrior]

I'd do it if I was the Mets, even if Baez in reality was only the second or third best tagger.  Everyday player is more reliable value.  I doubt either would do it though.