MLB World Series 2018: Eh. Dodgers/Boston. Eh.
- Thread starter Timby
- Start date
- Status
No, we don't. I hope MLB never goes the route that some of the other pro leagues have. I mean, good lord, look at the NBA to see how many teams qualify for the playoffs. Some of those teams are barely above .500
Ridiculous.
Last edited:
Wins and RBI are still meaningful to a degree. They still do represent player ability. Yes, they are dependent on other players and yes, a pitcher can win a badly pitched game and lose a brilliantly pitched game but I can't simply dismiss them completely as indicators of player value/worth.
You are seeing others (including the wild card one game)
2017 - Astros, Cubs, D-backs, Rockies, Twins, Indians
2016 - Giants, Mets, Blue Jays, Orioles, Nats, Indians, Rangers
2015 - Cubs, Pirates, Mets, Blue Jays, Rangers, Astros, Royals
2014 - Giants, Pirates, Angels, Tigers, Cards, Royals, Orioles
etc
etc
Except wins and losses are inherently misleading. A pitcher could have an incredible outing with double digits strikeous, but gave up one run because of a walk and a double and ended up with the loss because his team didn't give him any run support (as happened frequently to Sale this season). Conversely, a pitcher could pitch horribly, such as five runs in five innings with lots of walks and no strikeouts, but got the win because his team was scoring even more. Wins and losses are useless and meaningless.
Wins were somewhat meaningful in 1906 when complete games or at least long starts were the norm. In the days of injury consciousness they’re just arbitrary.
How come nobody has questioned that runs-hits-errors are the primary score line? Walks and total bases at the very least would give more of a sense how the game is going, or ‘baserunners’.
I think NBA playoff format is perfect for NBA because it’s a sport where the better team wins more. I would keep playoffs the same and shorten the regular season. For MLB it wouldn’t make sense, I think just best of 8 with all 7 game series would work best.
To me more important than the number of teams is having all rounds the same length. I hate when I hear suggestions of making early rounds shorter. If less good teams want to upset better teams, they should have to earn it just as hard as the team they play in the final.
How come nobody has questioned that runs-hits-errors are the primary score line? Walks and total bases at the very least would give more of a sense how the game is going, or ‘baserunners’.
I think NBA playoff format is perfect for NBA because it’s a sport where the better team wins more. I would keep playoffs the same and shorten the regular season. For MLB it wouldn’t make sense, I think just best of 8 with all 7 game series would work best.
To me more important than the number of teams is having all rounds the same length. I hate when I hear suggestions of making early rounds shorter. If less good teams want to upset better teams, they should have to earn it just as hard as the team they play in the final.
Well no. Not completely useless and meaningless. The scenarios you mentioned do illustrate the flaw of wins and losses but when a pitcher pitches well and gets a win, that means something. Conversely, when a pitcher pitches poorly and loses, that also means something. It is an indication of effectiveness or lack thereof. Can it be misleading? Are their times when the W/L record does not tell you the real story? Absolutely, but it's not always so.
Losses have a tiny bit more statistical significance than pitcher wins do. But not much.
Explain this one to me.....
You can only rack up RBI if you're fortunate enough to be batting when someone in front of you has gotten on-base. It's a stat dependent entirely upon luck.
Is it?
You still have to hit the ball in the right location/with enough force to drive in the run...
Except in the case of a solo HR
I understand it is a bit of an antiquated stat. But I still think it is a bit of an important indicator stat, showing you can get guys across the plate.
Last edited:
I tend to disagree.
Some of the best hitters in history have ridiculously low RBI totals because they played on awful teams. Tony Gwynn, for example, is one of the greatest guys to ever hit a baseball. but his RBI totals are small because ... well, he played on a shitty team that was terribad at getting on base..
And? RBI isn't the be all, end all stat. Very few are. I still think it is indicative of a hitter that takes advantage of his opportunities with men on base.
That's a meaningless statement, because any hitter will "take advantage of his opportunities" no matter what, considering his entire job in the first place is to, at least, get on-base.
Okay. You win. RBI is meaningless.
Yeah, you don't have much to stand on there. If there's a man on second when you get up, and you hit a single, you may get an RBI. Unless he's slow and fat, in which case you don't get one. You didn't do any better or worse in that situation. If there's no one on base and you crush a single, no RBI. You get 4 for a grand slam, 1 for a solo shot, you hit the same ball with the same skill. What's the difference?
Pitcher losses tell you a tiny bit, but not much. Wins are almost completely useless, as they depend on YOUR offense (which you don't have much to do with, zero in the AL) instead of the opponent's offense you're pitching against. If you leave after 8.2 scoreless innings in a tied game, next guy gets 1 out, and then your offense scores in the next inning, he gets a win and you get nothing. David Price went 4.2 innings the other night and was winning when he left, reliever got the next out, reliever gets the win. Stephen Wright gave up 10 runs in 5 innings earlier in the season and got a win because the Red Sox offense is nuts. W/L is pretty pointless. About the same as a Save.
Pitcher losses tell you a tiny bit, but not much. Wins are almost completely useless, as they depend on YOUR offense (which you don't have much to do with, zero in the AL) instead of the opponent's offense you're pitching against. If you leave after 8.2 scoreless innings in a tied game, next guy gets 1 out, and then your offense scores in the next inning, he gets a win and you get nothing. David Price went 4.2 innings the other night and was winning when he left, reliever got the next out, reliever gets the win. Stephen Wright gave up 10 runs in 5 innings earlier in the season and got a win because the Red Sox offense is nuts. W/L is pretty pointless. About the same as a Save.
- Status