Major League Baseball 2011

[ampersand]

What a difference 20 degrees make. From one run nail bitters to slugfests.

[The Cid]

Did anyone else think they heard Albert Pujols' bat make cash register sounds during each of his home runs?

[ampersand]

Orel (Oral?) Hershiser said as much on the radio broadcast. And for a while I thought Allen Craig would become the most obscure World Series MVP winner ever. Not after last night.

Pujols' line: 6 AB, 4R, 5H, 6RBI, 0 BB, 0 SO. Yikes.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to locate which gutter in St. Louis did my Cardinal fan friend is waking up from last's night reverie.

[Deacon]

Anyone else annoyed by the umpire shouting what very much sounds like "BALL!" when he's indicating strike?

[Deacon]

Go Rangers! It's a best-of-3 series now...

[The Cid]

Just a reminder: the reason the Rangers only have one game at home, as opposed to two and homefield advantage, is that the American League lost the All Star Game. So just in case you still thought that using the ASG to decide homefield in the World Series was a good idea, consider the implications of it now.

Not for nothing, but the Rangers had a better regular season record and actually won their division. And the American League was dominant in interleague play (yet again), so that (and the trend for pitching numbers to decrease when one moves to the NL) kind of implies that the AL Is the tougher league to win. But hey, might as well tie homefield advantage to a meaningless exhibition wherein teams are allowed to actively hold their players from taking part.

(Sorry, my football nerd rage spilled over from the NFL thread. Let's try that again. Watch the parentheses.)

YEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHH! (Cue up the guitar riff from Won't Get Fooled Again.) There's nothing in any other major sport quite like a pitcher dominating a postseason game. It's different from, say, an NFL defense dominating a game (which is kind of a violent swarm) or a goalie taking over a Stanley Cup Finals game (which is a little like watching extreme juggling). The Cardinals, just the night before, looked like an unstoppable slugging machine led by a legend in the making. (For the record, if his career ended today Pujols would be a borderline HoF case in my book. But let's not go nuts with these "he's going to break every record" predictions. Don't forget what happened to Griffey, and yes, he was every bit this good if not better.)

When a pitcher takes over like that, it doesn't matter who his opponent is. He's just going to stand there and deal until the manager comes out to make him stop.

A word on Neftali Feliz: John Mayer was once interviewed about Stevie Ray Vaughan. When he was asked if he could play guitar like Vaughan, he thought for an instant, smiled, and said something along the lines of "for about five seconds, and then I'm out of energy." Well, for about two or three outs at a time, Feliz can look a bit like Pedro Martinez. If the Rangers are wise, they will just ride that and not try to see how much longer he can hold the impression.

[collegestudent22]

So just in case you still thought that using the ASG to decide homefield in the World Series was a good idea, consider the implications of it now.

I didn't know they did that, but it sounds stupid even without what happened this season. Why don't they just play on a neutral ballfield for the bloody Championship?

[The Cid]

Why don't they just play on a neutral ballfield for the bloody Championship?

Because baseball's different than football or other sports in that every playing field has different dimensions. It's not even so much a crowd thing as homefield advantage by way of "we're used to the shape of our outfield." (Also, the ball "carries well" in warmer weather, which amplifies the advantage of Texas playing in Texas.)

In this case, there are only subtle differences in ballpark shape, but they're not insignificant.
1) Busch Stadium has more foul territory. You might wonder why that matters. Well, it means that fewer pop up foul balls go out of play in St. Louis than in Arlington, which makes them easy outs. (Important especially for fly ball specialist pitchers and fly ball hitters such as Texas' Mike Napoli.)

2) Center field in Arlington is much larger than in St. Louis. Notice that in Texas, the wall seems to flatten out in center field while the Busch Stadium fence seems to keep a continuous arch. (Which is probably not a St. Louis thing and more of a "this is how most ballparks look" thing.) That means that a hitter has to give the ball a bit of a ride to get it over the center field fence in Texas as opposed to St. Louis. It also means a center fielder has that much more ground to cover when the Rangers are at home.

Weather is also a factor. Baseball is a warm-weather sport, and a lot of the players come from parts of the world a bit closer to the equator. When a team plays in St. Louis all year long, players get more used to chilly April and October weather than they would in Arlington, where the temperature is more "baseball-like." (Thus, St. Louis has a slight advantage, as they aren't going to have to adapt to the weather in games six and seven.)

Then there's the fans. Remember, the Cowboys were playing at home yesterday as well. So add "crazy traffic" to the noise level of the ballpark.

You couldn't have a neutral World Series because there's no such thing as a neutral field in baseball. Let's just say that it was Fenway Park's turn to host a neutral World Series. The Rangers--who get to play there at least three times per season--would have an advantage. If it were in Dodger Stadium, the Cardinals would have that same advantage. In the other sports, homefield advantage is 100% environmental: the crowd, the travel, the weather and things like that. That's not true of baseball. Bigger parks favor pitchers and teams with strong defense. Smaller parks favor power hitters. Some places have weird additions (Houston has a hill in CF, Tampa Bay has low-hanging catwalks that fly balls tend to hit, there's a ladder on the Green Monster...) that require their own special rules.

Then there's this: notice that both of the ballparks for this World Series have small mounds of grass in dead center field. This is done to aid the batter--the ball will come out of the pitcher's hand against a green background, making it easier for a hitter to pick up. Now notice that there are quite a few places in Major League Baseball that allow people to sit in dead center field. Now think of the ball leaving the pitcher's hand directly in front of a couple of people wearing white shirts. Harder to pick it up, right? Especially if you play in a place where the ball is always coming off of a green backdrop, or a black one, or a blue one. Baseball is a game of routines and subtleties. Neutral World Series fields would take a lot of the subtleties away.

[collegestudent22]

Why don't they just play on a neutral ballfield for the bloody Championship?

Because baseball's different than football or other sports in that every playing field has different dimensions. It's not even so much a crowd thing as homefield advantage by way of "we're used to the shape of our outfield."

I understand that, but wouldn't a field where neither team is more used to the dimensions (by means of playing home games there - which amount to quite a lot) mean the same thing - neither team has a comparative advantage. Which should be the ideal for a one-shot, winner-take-all series, right?

You couldn't have a neutral World Series because there's no such thing as a neutral field in baseball. Let's just say that it was Fenway Park's turn to host a neutral World Series. The Rangers--who get to play there at least three times per season--would have an advantage. If it were in Dodger Stadium, the Cardinals would have that same advantage.

I wouldn't think that playing two vs. three or four times in a park makes a big difference in terms of familiarity when so many games are played each year. Better yet, don't limit it to one field. For example, have it be 2 in Fenway Park, 2 in Dodger Stadium, the one in each, with the seventh game's field (if needed) decided in some completely random manner (coin flip, etc.),by W-L record or some other way.

[Deacon]

That's way too complex and unnecessary. The way the NBA does it makes more sense. Plus, football is the only sport I can think of off the top of my head that holds a single championship game and that in a neutral location.

[The Cid]

I wouldn't think that playing two vs. three or four times in a park makes a big difference in terms of familiarity when so many games are played each year.

You might not think that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Go take a good look at photos of some of the parks out there and tell me that annual experience--even three games per year (and remember the annual part)--wouldn't help you manage the quirks of a park more. Did you know that there's no regulation on the color of the roof of a dome? So it could be--as was the case in the old Metrodome--roughly the color of a baseball. If you have to play three games in a place like that every year, you learn to adapt. If you never have played there, or you only play there once every six years or so in interleague play, you might not be as used to the park. So it's still not neutral. You'd need a site devoted just to holding the World Series, something that college baseball has but no other sport I can think of does.

You might also have overlooked that many parks favor certain types of teams. Left-handed power hitters in the new Yankee Stadium can hit some of the easiest home runs in the league. Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia favors a team that can hit for power, as do other small fields like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park, while the cavernous parks in Seattle, San Diego and Detroit favor teams that can run the bases and play "small ball."

Better yet, don't limit it to one field. For example, have it be 2 in Fenway Park, 2 in Dodger Stadium, the one in each, with the seventh game's field (if needed) decided in some completely random manner (coin flip, etc.),by W-L record or some other way.

It's 2-3-2 in baseball. But what's wrong with just giving the homefield advantage to the team with the better regular season record and/or the team that isn't a Wild Card? That would be an advantage, but a deserved advantage. After all, you can't just erase everything that happened before the championship round if "fairness" is your goal, since the Rangers and Cardinals did not finish the season on even ground.

Which should be the ideal for a one-shot, winner-take-all series, right?

Not exactly ideal for the fans of the teams involved, is it?

[collegestudent22]

I wouldn't think that playing two vs. three or four times in a park makes a big difference in terms of familiarity when so many games are played each year.

You might not think that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Go take a good look at photos of some of the parks out there and tell me that annual experience--even three games per year (and remember the annual part)--wouldn't help you manage the quirks of a park more. Did you know that there's no regulation on the color of the roof of a dome? So it could be--as was the case in the old Metrodome--roughly the color of a baseball. If you have to play three games in a place like that every year, you learn to adapt. If you never have played there, or you only play there once every six years or so in interleague play, you might not be as used to the park. So it's still not neutral. You'd need a site devoted just to holding the World Series, something that college baseball has but no other sport I can think of does.

Baseball was in the Olympics starting in 1992, right? And in 1996, the Olympic Games were held in Atlanta. Shouldn't there be a baseball stadium there? Wait... the Braves use that one, don't they? Merde. Well, perhaps we can get the Olympics again, and they will put baseball back in, and build a stadium for that which can be used.

Better yet, don't limit it to one field. For example, have it be 2 in Fenway Park, 2 in Dodger Stadium, the one in each, with the seventh game's field (if needed) decided in some completely random manner (coin flip, etc.),by W-L record or some other way.

It's 2-3-2 in baseball. But what's wrong with just giving the homefield advantage to the team with the better regular season record and/or the team that isn't a Wild Card? That would be an advantage, but a deserved advantage. After all, you can't just erase everything that happened before the championship round if "fairness" is your goal, since the Rangers and Cardinals did not finish the season on even ground.

Alright 2-3-2. And sure, give the advantage to the team with the better record. Either way, the way it's done now is ridiculous.

Which should be the ideal for a one-shot, winner-take-all series, right?

Not exactly ideal for the fans of the teams involved, is it?

And? The Super Bowl will be in Indianapolis next February (and the stadiums are planned out all the way to Super Bowl XLIX in 2015). The Colts are one of the few teams that already are out of the running this season - way out. Yet the stands will be packed with fans from both teams that make it.

[The Cid]

And? The Super Bowl will be in Indianapolis next February (and the stadiums are planned out all the way to Super Bowl XLIX in 2015). The Colts are one of the few teams that already are out of the running this season - way out. Yet the stands will be packed with fans from both teams that make it.

Stop for a second. Let's think about these fans.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your Broncos make it to the Super Bowl and you decide you want to go. Super Bowl tickets are already sold out by the time the AFC Championship Game is over. So you're buying a Super Bowl ticket on the secondhand market. You and all the other thousands of people who suddenly want to go. Go to this event that people take vacations to go and see. What's more, it's your favorite team playing. What I'm trying to say is, the seller now has you by the short hairs. At the moment, you can purchase a Super Bowl ticket for just under $2,400. What direction do you think that price will head by the time the teams are actually set?

Meanwhile, as the World Series is not held at a neutral site, tickets do not go on sale until teams have qualified for the Fall Classic. Since many of these games fall on weeknights, it's a safe bet that the stadium is going to be filled with locals and diehard fans. (You can get tickets to games 6 and 7 for under $500. Right now. While the Series is going on.) If you put the Series at a neutral site, you can sell tickets before the season even begins, ensuring that the price will skyrocket by October.

And sure, give the advantage to the team with the better record.

Something something simplest solution is usually correct and something about a razor.

[collegestudent22]

And? The Super Bowl will be in Indianapolis next February (and the stadiums are planned out all the way to Super Bowl XLIX in 2015). The Colts are one of the few teams that already are out of the running this season - way out. Yet the stands will be packed with fans from both teams that make it.

Stop for a second. Let's think about these fans.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your Broncos make it to the Super Bowl and you decide you want to go. Super Bowl tickets are already sold out by the time the AFC Championship Game is over. So you're buying a Super Bowl ticket on the secondhand market. You and all the other thousands of people who suddenly want to go. Go to this event that people take vacations to go and see. What's more, it's your favorite team playing. What I'm trying to say is, the seller now has you by the short hairs. At the moment, you can purchase a Super Bowl ticket for just under $2,400. What direction do you think that price will head by the time the teams are actually set?

Meanwhile, as the World Series is not held at a neutral site, tickets do not go on sale until teams have qualified for the Fall Classic. Since many of these games fall on weeknights, it's a safe bet that the stadium is going to be filled with locals and diehard fans. (You can get tickets to games 6 and 7 for under $500. Right now. While the Series is going on.) If you put the Series at a neutral site, you can sell tickets before the season even begins, ensuring that the price will skyrocket by October.

That is a good point. However, I think there is a better solution to that issue - to sell the tickets through the box offices of the qualifying teams. Thus, they don't go on sale until the team makes it to the championship game/series, and then they are sold primarily to fans of the teams involved, although others can still buy tickets. It will never happen, but eh, I think it makes sense.

And sure, give the advantage to the team with the better record.

Something something simplest solution is usually correct and something about a razor.

[Deacon]

Well, Napoli's 2-run go ahead double sealed it for the Rangers at home. Here's hoping for a 6-game series...

PS Yes I got to watch the game from the hotel lobby here in Mexico City. In a Japanese owned hotel. I'm surprised I had to request they put it on the TV...