there are a couple reasons i dont like interleague play. first, interleague matchups are kinda unfair with different rules. NL rosters aren't built for a DH and AL teams aren't built to play without a DH. second, i LIKE having there being so few historical matchups between, say, the phillies and royals. the honor of playing the other league should be something that happens by getting to the world series.

BatFlipsFTW wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

stevelxa476 wrote:I miss them being separate entities and only playing against each other in the All Star Game and World Series.

I discovered the other day that there are still honorary presidents of each league. Frank Robinson was the AL president until his death and the NL president is Bill Giles.

You could have generations of kids that never get to see stars like Mike Trout play in person or other players like that.

Drive to Baltimore if you want to see him that bad.

Sounds like a great strategy for MLB when people don't even go to their own teams games.

For some reason when looking at the standings today, I noticed the Orioles had allowed more runs than any one team has scored.

Then I wondered: have they scored fewer runs than any one team has allowed? (The answer is: No. While they are mediocre-bordering-on-incompetent at scoring runs, their true artistry in the realm of sucking is in allowing them).

Then I wondered: in a full season, has ANY team managed both to score fewer runs than the best team at preventing runs in its league allowed, AND also permit more runs than the best team in its league at scoring runs put on the board?

Has any team, in other words, ever been truly, perfectly awful?

The 2018 47-115 Baltimore Orioles? Nope. They were very bad at both, but Houston was truly elite at pitching - the Orioles scored a pathetic 622 runs - and Houston allowed nearly 100 fewer (534).
The 2003 53-119 Detroit Tigers? Nope. They were also very bad at both, but the Rangers somehow were even WORSE at pitching.
The 1962 40-120 New York Mets? Nope. They allowed runs to score at a league-setting pace, but scored more than the Astros.
The 1988 54-108 Baltimore Orioles? Nope, although they came the closest of these three. They stunk at everything, finishing last in the AL in runs scored and runs allowed, but their specialty was offensive offense. The Orioles scored just 550 runs, while the best pitching team in the league, Milwaukee, allowed 616. However, although the Orioles allowed 789 runs, they weren't as bad as allowing them as the Red Sox were at scoring them - Boston scored 813 in 88.

This told me that a team that pulled this off would have to be even worse than I'd imagined, so although I kicked the tires on the Phillies worst modern-era (1903 & later) seasons, I don't think they got there. When they were in their greatest depths in the 20s and 30s, playing in Baker Bowl assured they would never score so few runs. I checked the seasons in the 40s but they didn't get there.

The one team that I did find that accomplished this was a Philadelphia team however:

the 1916 Philadelphia Athletics.

They went 36-117. They scored 447 runs - the best pitching team in the AL in 1916, the Red Sox, allowed 480. They allowed 776 runs - the best scoring team, the Tigers, put up 673 runs. That is, the Athletics allowed 15% more runs than the best offense in the league.

I don't know if any other team has accomplished this. I can't keep searching right now. At home, I have this book. I really need to read it.

EDIT: Wait, I made a mistake.

The 1962 New York Mets were in fact perfectly bad. They scored less than the best pitching team (Pittsburgh) allowed (617/626) and allowed more than the best hitting team scored (948/878).

What fooled me was that despite this total incompetence, the Houston Colt .45s scored even fewer runs than the Mets (592).

So, while the Mets were both worse at preventing runs than the best hitting team was at scoring them, and worse at scoring runs than the best pitching team was at preventing them, they were not actually the worst at both in the entire league.

That honor still goes to the aforementioned Athletics.

Good stuff. Makes one wonder if it's good for baseball to always have a Washington Generals type squad out there, where for just one night (or far more if they're in your division!) any random team can hope t perform ,like the best in the league.

I just love, love going through old baseball statistics.

Let's talk about the 1931 Philadelphia Athletics and New York Yankees.

The Yankees allowed 760 runs that year, nearly 5 a game. Perhaps too many. But on the other hand, they allowed 34 fewer runs than the league average of 794 ('twas a good year for offense). A little less than a quarter of a run per game less than league average.

They also scored 1,067 runs - a record that stands to this day. That's good for a +307 run differential, and a Pythagorean record of 100-53 (they didn't make up one game). If you are counting at home, the last team to hit the magical +300 was, unsurprisingly, the 116-48 2001 Seattle Mariners. They hit it on the nose. The last to top +307 was the 1998 Yankees (+309).

The 1931 Yankees actually finished 94-59. 0.614 ball. In today's game, 99-63. Very, very good. Not all time great.

Meanwhile, the 1931 Philadelphia Athletics scored a very good 858 runs - 5.5 per game - but also over 200 runs shy of the Yankees. They pitched a whole bunch better than those Yankees: 626 runs allowed, 4 runs a game, good for best in the AL. Run differential: +232, excellent, but not the stratospheric +307 by the Yankees. Pythagorean record: 97-55 (they didn't make up two games).

Actual record: 107-45 (Translates to 114-48 in the 162 game schedule).

They beat the Yankees for the pennant - a team that scored 200 more runs than they did, had a run differential 75 better than theirs, a team that set the all-time record for runs in a season - by 13.5 games.

Wow.

Really what I learn from these dives into early baseball is how much more balanced the game is. The craziest outliers not just in in things that have demonstrably changed (like pitcher wins), but in nuts-and-bolts things like best record, worst record, most runs scored, fewest runs scored, etc., are all bunched in the first half of the 20th century. The best and worst teams now relative to league average are so close; in the 40s and before, the gulf between best and worst was cataclysmic. I guess it is because a team with resources or that was at least in a cycle of winning that then drove revenue (more wins equals more gate) could drive that advantage in terms of player recruitment and development, and teams that were "out" were often embarrassingly so, with people who couldn't make A ball today much less MLB.

I further guess that as much as people sometimes complain that the Yankees and other big market teams derive insurmountable financial advantages because of their television markets and what that money means, the reality is that TV money actually leveled helped to even things out - because now teams were not solely dependent on gate receipts, and any national TV money was split among the teams, even if they got to keep their local TV money.

Marcell Ozuna, a free agent this upcoming offseason, left Bora$ for Melvin Roman / MDR Sports

The Twins have Jason Castro, Willians Astudillo and Mitch Garver in their starting lineup tonight. 3 catchers.

stevelxa476 wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

stevelxa476 wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

CFP wrote:It's pretty bad, yeah. Wrigley will be a blast though.

REPORT SO FAR:

Went to Wrigley last night. Looking to go to Guaranteed Rate Field on Tuesday. I'd call "Guaranteed Rate Field" Comiskey, only arguably the only thing worse than naming a ballpark after some dumb corporation is naming it after one Charles A. Comiskey.

Kinda late on this, but most of the things in that article about Comiskey are probably not true. It turns out that most of what is written in Eight Men Out, both about him and the scandal in general is made up.

Interesting. Sources?

I thought so as well. I always took Eight Men Out to be gospel. But I am in the middle of reading "The Betrayal" by Charles Fountain which talks about the Black Sox and how a lot of things, such as benching Cicotte when he needed 30 wins for a bonus were fabricated after the fact (Cicotte didn't have the bonus in his contract). There is also this article https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/8fbc6b31

Even when watching the movie, I found that part a little suspect. Speaking of that whole scandal though, I never understood why the White Sox were such favorites to begin with in that series. Sure, they had won two years earlier, but they weren't nearly as good, and the 1919 Reds were really, really good. The movie treated it like they were basically a joke.

They won 96 games in a 140 game season!

MoBettle wrote:I think it’s more just that they’re aren’t a lot of stars anymore. Bonds McGwire Sosa ect. always drew big crowds at their peaks.

Seems like a Yogi Berra quote, but I agree with this.

Goddamn the Rays are 24-15 DESPITE being 1-7 in 1 run games.

Urias was arrested overnight for suspicion of misdemeanor domestic violence/battery in a parking lot

Oakland is 1-15 in games where they don't hit a HR

Zobrist is taking time off because his wife filed for divorce? wtf

God forbid an athlete care about his marriage.

I don't understand why you need to take time off to deal with your marriage, especially if you make millions and can afford to hire a divorce lawyer. What does he need, time to cry? MLB is getting SOFT!

Stop saying weird shit, DIM

Wheels Tupay wrote:Stop saying weird #$!&@, DIM

I'm j/k, Zobrist is fine with me because Werth caught his lineout. He has all my love & support.

I actually had a similar situation at work, where one of my managers called out of a shift because he was fighting with his wife and thought they might get divorced. I couldn't get my head around it. I've also never been married. And I count that as a serious mark on this guy's permanent record. I let some of my married coworkers talk me out of firing him.

Ramon Gris wrote:I actually had a similar situation at work, where one of my managers called out of a shift because he was fighting with his wife and thought they might get divorced. I couldn't get my head around it. I've also never been married. And I count that as a serious mark on this guy's permanent record. I let some of my married coworkers talk me out of firing him.

At a regular job, I wouldn't recommend calling the boss to call out under the excuse "fight with my wife." If you have a personal or vacation day, take it. If all you have are sick days, then take one, but just tell the boss you're sick, for heaven's sake.

Baseball is of course not a regular job, and if you are ill you can't really call out. You'd better be hospitalized if you don't show. So I have no problem with this, it's just unfortunate that the reporting had to be so specific. I thought the blanket "attend to a family matter" would be used in these sorts of situations.