2019-2020 MLB Non-Phillies News/Notes Discussion

tom81 2020-07-24 13:42:21 UTC #1042

I do. I don’t want to see the Phillies run into a below-500 with 2 great starters and lose.

zambonir 2020-07-24 16:50:16 UTC #1043

That sub-.500 club with two bad pitchers is us! Though I don't think 29 wins makes the playoffs.

I still think the trade deadline will have some action, the returns just won't be as good for the sellers. But they'll want to unload salary. If a team is 20th in the league but low-budget they won't necessarily try to make a run, especially with no additional playoff revenue from hosting games (not that they'd get that anyway with no fans).

You could also argue that if you acquire a great player at the trade deadline this year it's like getting him for half the season, instead of 1/5th of the season.

andyb 2020-07-24 18:03:33 UTC #1044

Probably 50-50 there will be a sub-500 club in the playoffs. Now maybe the Orioles and Marlins are so bad that it elevates all the mediocre clubs a bit, but the best teams like the Dodgers could also end up winning a lot of games. It is just math and 8 of 15 is going to give you a sub-500 club in the playoffs fairly often.

And yes, the Phillies could easily be 29-31 with Nola and Wheeler. I think they are a bit better than that, but it is hard to say that is impossible.

andyb 2020-07-24 18:22:12 UTC #1045

The Blue Jays are now back in Buffalo after everything else fell through. It is possible the Phillies series will be their home opener, though it is also possible the field enhancements will not be ready by then and they will just play in Philly with Toronto as the home team.

zambonir 2020-07-24 18:39:09 UTC #1046

It's hard to know but I feel like the abbreviated schedule collapses things to the middle. Fewer high-win teams, fewer low-win teams. Even if you go back over the past 10 years the eighth-best club was pretty frequently .500 or better. Last year it was the Cubs at .519 (with the Phillies right behind them). In the AL Texas was under .500. But in the AL there were three 100-win teams, and three sub-.400 teams. In the NL just one of each.

andyb 2020-07-24 18:45:07 UTC #1047

Percentage-wise that is probably not true. There is probably a better chance for individual team to play better than .600 ball or worse than .400 ball in a short season than a longer season. Now we may not have teams dramatically folding at an earlier trade deadline in the past (which can create really bad teams), but I don't think that changes things much because September ball among teams out of the playoffs probably has its own "regression to the mean" random factor.

The biggest factor is always outliers. That is why the Orioles could help every NL East team win an extra game or two and push the 29 win teams to 30 or 31.

I do stand by the math though. 8 of 15 is going to produce sub-500 playoff clubs over time. Probably 1-2 each year on average counting both leagues.

zambonir 2020-07-24 18:53:22 UTC #1048

Yeah I guess over the past 5 years it would have happened more than a few times. If this was a permanent format - or even if it is just 12 teams - I might also argue for crossover wild cards at the bottom. In 2016 the NL would have had two sub-.500 playoff teams while 84 and 81-win AL teams sat out. But that's a topic for the next realignment/expansion, which may or may not be slowed now.

LoneStarPhan 2020-07-24 22:14:33 UTC #1051

I strongly favor making playoff series take place on consecutive days. This favors the better team over the team with one or two super starters.

I suspect some rearrangement to the playoff system for future years, but the momentum of sports in the 21st century is toward more teams making playoffs.

Please get rid of the starting a runner on second in extra innings rule after this season. It is the one and only rule that I positively hate. I put it in the same category as giving a fourth out in an inning as we saw in the summer camp exhibition games. It just spoils the game and messes with the stats, something of great importance to many baseball fans.

zambonir 2020-07-24 23:07:49 UTC #1052

The stats have always been a construct though (number of games in a season, mound height, park dimensions, changes to player usage). The fact that an RBI in the 13th inning with Roman Quinn on the mound counts the same as one in the first against Max Scherzer is itself kind of a construct. I'm afraid we're stuck with that one because neither the players nor the TV networks want those extra inning games. I also suspect this year will result in some long-term changes to the rain-out rules.

And I don't think you can take away off-days when more than one time zone is involved, and there's also no way to help it if one series ends before another. The question is would they go back to single-game or do 2 of 3 with a road game if they do a 12-team postseason.

andyb 2020-07-26 12:43:21 UTC #1053

Just remembering this comment from a few days ago after watching the Nats yesterday. Cabrera and Kendrick just don't seem to get old and the DH could really help them. I agree Castro is not great, but Kieboom could easily be their Bohm in the lineup.

There is no way to spin or replace Soto, but the flip side is that Victor Robles could take a major step up this season. Remember he was the top prospect a couple of years ago between the two before injuries slowed him down a bit. He is still just 23 years old. Would not be shocked if he put up an 800+ OPS season if not more with good defense and speed in CF. He must be in the top 5 of major breakout candidates now that he is healthy. They are starting him slowly at the bottom of the lineup but he could be batting 1st or 2nd shortly, pushing Castro towards the bottom of the lineup.

zambonir 2020-07-26 17:45:48 UTC #1054

It's only notable in the Phillies context, i.e. we had Asdrubal Cabrera for the only two months he stunk, and Kendrick was certainly not the stuff of playoff MVPs (nor healthy), and we traded him. Castro was also suggested - and mostly rejected - as a budget option for us, pre-Didi.

No question, we don't have a Soto or a Robles.

zambonir 2020-07-28 02:29:57 UTC #1055

andyb 2020-07-28 17:04:00 UTC #1056

Nats vote to NOT go down to Miami this weekend. Internal vote though. Decision with MLB.
https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/1288142815696957441

Lawman 2020-07-28 17:15:27 UTC #1057

So if MLB tells them to go and they say no, does that mean automatic forfeit?

Patchmk88 2020-07-28 17:20:25 UTC #1058

Marlins make the playoffs due to games forfeited against them.

zambonir 2020-07-28 17:24:53 UTC #1059

I feel like a player exodus is what could finally bring the season down. If you think the season is doomed anyway you can either take the risk of still playing to collect a little $ or take the risk of losing your service time should they somehow have a season after all.

bkeich 2020-07-28 19:23:41 UTC #1060

At this point if I was the players I would insist that the OWNERS must sit right in the middle of the dugouts during games. The game will not be played unless the owner is sitting there.

That should put a swift end to this silliness. There is NO WAY the owners will put themselves at any risk.

Squire 2020-07-29 14:29:16 UTC #1061

Kyle Lewis (OF, Mariners) making the Mickey Moniak pick look worse and worse.

tom81 2020-07-29 18:19:59 UTC #1062

There are many people that believe that if they are outside with a mask on there is little risk of catching COVID especially if they keep 6 feet away from others. I think a lot of owners would sit in the dugouts if required to.

zambonir 2020-07-29 18:30:15 UTC #1063

I don't think the dugouts are especially safe though. There's no distancing - they aren't even avoiding high-fives and there's a roof and walls on three sides. When they first released the tentative protocols it was suggsted a lot more players would sit in the stands.

I do think a lot of owners would do it though. More than half of them would probably do it just based on their general political/capitalist leanings. But would they join the travel party?