Wolfgang622 wrote:

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.

Well he’s listed as “out with a personal matter” it just got leaked, in part because of the court papers he had to file.

Cubs/Cardinals in London next year, the second European series after Yankees/Sawx next month

Can't wait for Brits to be even more bored by baseball

Joel Sherman on the huge issues in the AL right now

It isn't even Memorial Day yet and the league has only six teams competing for the five playoff spots (Rays, Yankees, Red Sox, Twins, Indians, Astros)

I don't know, seems way too early to declare something like that. I mean, if you look at the wild card standings, there are 7 teams within 3.5 games of the second wild card, and the first wild card, the Rays, are a comical 14-6 on the road and only 12-10 at home. He's expecting them to keep that up because why exactly?

Just for example last season, after games played on May 17:

- The Dodgers were 17-26, finished 92-71
- The Angels were 25-19, finished 80-82
- The Tigers were 20-23, finished 64-98
- The A's were 22-22, finished 97-65
- The Dbacks were 25-18, finished 82-80

Rumblings the Mets are ready to fire Callaway

philliesphhan wrote:Can't wait for Brits to be even more bored by baseball

I'm a Brit and I love baseball.

ryan feieraband started for the blue jays today with vlad jr. playing third. his last start was 9/23/08 and he faced vlad sr.

Not sure where to put this, but the observation is both random and current, so here it goes. I have in past conversations and perhaps posts on this board ragged on the Indians for their poor attendance the last several years, particularly when their team was so good. Right now I am reading a book called Baseball: The Early Years (in some ways quite outdated, as it was originally written in the late 50s, but still some interesting information, worth a read), and I got to thinking about why it was that when the NL reduced from 12 teams to 8 for 1900, the AL only picked up 3/4 cities that got left out (Cleveland, Washington, and Baltimore [moved to NY and became the Highlanders, and then Yankees]), but wound up doubling up the NL in several cities (Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and eventually St. Louis and New York). Louisville, who’d had an MLB/NL team for most of the history of the enterprises to that point, got left out.

So I checked its historic population and the truth is that even at its apex it was not the equal of the other 3 cities occupied by the AL after the NL contraction; in the 1890s it was growing FAST but its population was only 204,000 at 1900. But offhand I didn’t know how it compared to a place like Cleveland at that time, so I checked. Cleveland was growing even faster then - its populations at the 1880, 1890, and 1900 censuses were 160,000, 261,000, and 381,000. Cleveland topped out at 914,808 in 1950 - and it has been a disaster ever since. The estimated population today is 385,525. Its metro area today is smaller than Columbus, and Indianapolis and Nashville will catch it soon.

I’ve predicted in the past the Indians will be the next MLB team to relocate to an entirely new metro area (I.e., the Athletics or Rays moving somewhere within their general locales don’t count). It really doesn’t look like the Indians can be sustainable there long term if current trends continue.

philliesphhan wrote:I don't know, seems way too early to declare something like that. I mean, if you look at the wild card standings, there are 7 teams within 3.5 games of the second wild card, and the first wild card, the Rays, are a comical 14-6 on the road and only 12-10 at home. He's expecting them to keep that up because why exactly?

Just for example last season, after games played on May 17:

- The Dodgers were 17-26, finished 92-71
- The Angels were 25-19, finished 80-82
- The Tigers were 20-23, finished 64-98
- The A's were 22-22, finished 97-65
- The Dbacks were 25-18, finished 82-80

Nice of you to leave the Phillies off that list.

Wolfgang622 wrote:Not sure where to put this, but the observation is both random and current, so here it goes. I have in past conversations and perhaps posts on this board ragged on the Indians for their poor attendance the last several years, particularly when their team was so good. Right now I am reading a book called Baseball: The Early Years (in some ways quite outdated, as it was originally written in the late 50s, but still some interesting information, worth a read), and I got to thinking about why it was that when the NL reduced from 12 teams to 8 for 1900, the AL only picked up 3/4 cities that got left out (Cleveland, Washington, and Baltimore [moved to NY and became the Highlanders, and then Yankees]), but wound up doubling up the NL in several cities (Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and eventually St. Louis and New York). Louisville, who’d had an MLB/NL team for most of the history of the enterprises to that point, got left out.

So I checked its historic population and the truth is that even at its apex it was not the equal of the other 3 cities occupied by the AL after the NL contraction; in the 1890s it was growing FAST but its population was only 204,000 at 1900. But offhand I didn’t know how it compared to a place like Cleveland at that time, so I checked. Cleveland was growing even faster then - its populations at the 1880, 1890, and 1900 censuses were 160,000, 261,000, and 381,000. Cleveland topped out at 914,808 in 1950 - and it has been a disaster ever since. The estimated population today is 385,525. Its metro area today is smaller than Columbus, and Indianapolis and Nashville will catch it soon.

I’ve predicted in the past the Indians will be the next MLB team to relocate to an entirely new metro area (I.e., the Athletics or Rays moving somewhere within their general locales don’t count). It really doesn’t look like the Indians can be sustainable there long term if current trends continue.

Theres a history thread

Another international series next year: Padres/DBacks in Mexico City

Joc Pederson has 14 HR, 2 triples, and 1 double

etched Chaos wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:Can't wait for Brits to be even more bored by baseball

I'm a Brit and I love baseball.

Haha I never said they don't exist at all

philliesphhan wrote:Joc Pederson has 14 HR, 2 triples, and 1 double

It’s interesting to look up who are extreme anomalies still. I am sure statistically speaking we are still within an interval where there are at least 5 or 6 big time outliers.

Joc has been absurdly unlucky with his BABIP. Like, I think it’s .116 and the next hitter is like .167. Of course, he has a teammate on the other side of that spectrum too.

Wolfgang622 wrote:Not sure where to put this, but the observation is both random and current, so here it goes. I have in past conversations and perhaps posts on this board ragged on the Indians for their poor attendance the last several years, particularly when their team was so good. Right now I am reading a book called Baseball: The Early Years (in some ways quite outdated, as it was originally written in the late 50s, but still some interesting information, worth a read), and I got to thinking about why it was that when the NL reduced from 12 teams to 8 for 1900, the AL only picked up 3/4 cities that got left out (Cleveland, Washington, and Baltimore [moved to NY and became the Highlanders, and then Yankees]), but wound up doubling up the NL in several cities (Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and eventually St. Louis and New York). Louisville, who’d had an MLB/NL team for most of the history of the enterprises to that point, got left out.

So I checked its historic population and the truth is that even at its apex it was not the equal of the other 3 cities occupied by the AL after the NL contraction; in the 1890s it was growing FAST but its population was only 204,000 at 1900. But offhand I didn’t know how it compared to a place like Cleveland at that time, so I checked. Cleveland was growing even faster then - its populations at the 1880, 1890, and 1900 censuses were 160,000, 261,000, and 381,000. Cleveland topped out at 914,808 in 1950 - and it has been a disaster ever since. The estimated population today is 385,525. Its metro area today is smaller than Columbus, and Indianapolis and Nashville will catch it soon.

I’ve predicted in the past the Indians will be the next MLB team to relocate to an entirely new metro area (I.e., the Athletics or Rays moving somewhere within their general locales don’t count). It really doesn’t look like the Indians can be sustainable there long term if current trends continue.

I don't know, the Cleveland teams are all pretty well entrenched. The wiki page for Cleveland says it's part of the Cleveland–Akron–Canton Combined Statistical Area which is 15th largest in the United States. Not the very top, but certainly capable of having a baseball team. So much money is made by TV now rather than attendance so if they have a bad deal TV deal, then that could be a problem but otherwise I think they're fine.

That said, Portland area seems to be gaining quickly and should pass them if trends continue so it's kinda mind blowing that their two major sports teams are just basketball and soccer

philliesphhan wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:Not sure where to put this, but the observation is both random and current, so here it goes. I have in past conversations and perhaps posts on this board ragged on the Indians for their poor attendance the last several years, particularly when their team was so good. Right now I am reading a book called Baseball: The Early Years (in some ways quite outdated, as it was originally written in the late 50s, but still some interesting information, worth a read), and I got to thinking about why it was that when the NL reduced from 12 teams to 8 for 1900, the AL only picked up 3/4 cities that got left out (Cleveland, Washington, and Baltimore [moved to NY and became the Highlanders, and then Yankees]), but wound up doubling up the NL in several cities (Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, and eventually St. Louis and New York). Louisville, who’d had an MLB/NL team for most of the history of the enterprises to that point, got left out.

So I checked its historic population and the truth is that even at its apex it was not the equal of the other 3 cities occupied by the AL after the NL contraction; in the 1890s it was growing FAST but its population was only 204,000 at 1900. But offhand I didn’t know how it compared to a place like Cleveland at that time, so I checked. Cleveland was growing even faster then - its populations at the 1880, 1890, and 1900 censuses were 160,000, 261,000, and 381,000. Cleveland topped out at 914,808 in 1950 - and it has been a disaster ever since. The estimated population today is 385,525. Its metro area today is smaller than Columbus, and Indianapolis and Nashville will catch it soon.

I’ve predicted in the past the Indians will be the next MLB team to relocate to an entirely new metro area (I.e., the Athletics or Rays moving somewhere within their general locales don’t count). It really doesn’t look like the Indians can be sustainable there long term if current trends continue.

I don't know, the Cleveland teams are all pretty well entrenched. The wiki page for Cleveland says it's part of the Cleveland–Akron–Canton Combined Statistical Area which is 15th largest in the United States. Not the very top, but certainly capable of having a baseball team. So much money is made by TV now rather than attendance so if they have a bad deal TV deal, then that could be a problem but otherwise I think they're fine.

That said, Portland area seems to be gaining quickly and should pass them if trends continue so it's kinda mind blowing that their two major sports teams are just basketball and soccer

Portland doesn't seem like a baseball market. Basketball and soccer perfect for Oregon.

Interesting article on the baseball life of old friend Cody Asche

“I wish I had a somber story for you where I had a bad injury or bad luck or had a real excuse, but that isn’t the case,” he said.

“I just didn’t hold up my end of the bargain. I wasn’t a good enough everyday player for [the Phillies] to continue to invest in me, and that is just the way it goes,” Asche said.

Asche was always a pretty easy guy to root for (The Anti-Arrieta, if you will). Wouldn't be surprised to see him coaching or scouting or something when his playing days are over.

So the Eaton / Frazier thing is (kind of) because of Jimmy Rollins?