2011 MLB Season Discussion: Joey Votto MVP Edition

[archibaldcrane]

This. If Fielder does leave (which is pretty likely now), they'll probably move McGehee to 1st and bring Gamel up to to third. Braun has looked awesome defensively for the past few years now.

Gamel is playing at 1b this season in AAA, they're almost definitely grooming him as Fielder's replacement.

Braun isn't anywhere near awesome defensively (check his UZR/150) but he's serviceable, especially with Gomez/Plush at CF.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Akiyama]

Hey Aki,

Spoiler: show

coming soon?


nah lol

lol'd. at least you can make fun of the Cubs.. and my god, I didn't realize that the division was all .500 or close lol

[Eliseos]

Gamel is playing at 1b this season in AAA, they're almost definitely grooming him as Fielder's replacement.

Braun isn't anywhere near awesome defensively (check his UZR/150) but he's serviceable, especially with Gomez/Plush at CF.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

Ah yeah, I had to google UZR as I'm not too familiar with the advanced stats. I guess when I meant awesome (and was a bit drunk) I meant he can make the tougher plays, like in the last Philly game where he had the catch to save a few runs back when we were still winning. Also won't have to worry about him being slow to the ball either, since he has pretty good speed.

[Cephius]

Defensive metrics are not great and shouldn't be taken as gospel, but if a guy consistently rates in the negatives you can reasonably assume he's not a good defender.

[Alderaan]

How idiotic is this whole 1 game winner takes all wild card nonsense?

[archibaldcrane]

How idiotic is this whole 1 game winner takes all wild card nonsense?

Should be 3 wild cards, first round byes for top two division winners, worst division winner plays worst WC team best of 3, other 2 WC play each other best of 3, winners play best of 5 vs. top 2 division winners, who play each other best of 7.

More teams have a chance, result is a maximum of one more game, makes everything matter more.

Basically, the NFL system (modified for 3 divisions).

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Conrad]

Or just remove divisions entirely and send the top 4 teams from each league to the playoffs, move an NL team to the AL (Milwaukee maybe, since they used to be AL) then change the schedule so you play each other team in your league an equal amount of times (plus interleague play too). Seems to make more sense to me, at least.

[archibaldcrane]

Nah, division rivals are more fun. 6-team NL central vs. 4 team AL west is dumb though. They can have St. Louis.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Soa]

How about we add 2 new teams, 4 divisions per league, division winners make the playoffs.

There's bound to be a Seattle Seahawks type team making it eventually with this setup, its perfect!!

[Demosthenes11]

How about we add 2 new teams, 4 divisions per league, division winners make the playoffs.

There's bound to be a Seattle Seahawks type team making it eventually with this setup, its perfect!!

why would anyone want the dodgers in the playoffs?

[Trichocyst]

What two markets would you put a new team into?

[archibaldcrane]

Las Vegas and... Charlotte? Or Memphis?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Cephius]

What two markets would you put a new team into?

New England needs another team, but the Red Sox would never give up their territorial rights. Other possibles I always thought could use a team were Carolina, New Orleans, Tennessee, or Utah.

[Demosthenes11]

What two markets would you put a new team into?

problem is, since baseball has no salary cap, they would have to be big market cities. I would say charlotte and portland

[Cephius]

problem is, since baseball has no salary cap, they would have to be big market cities. I would say charlotte and portland

Why do you say that? Arizona and Tampa Bay (the last two expansion teams) were anything but big market.

[Demosthenes11]

are you really going to argue that teams with less money are not at a disadvantage?

[Cephius]

are you really going to argue that teams with less money are not at a disadvantage?

That's completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. You said that a new team would have to be big market. Why? No one would expect a team to compete right away, but look at what the Marlins, Rays, and Diamondbacks have done within short time frames and small payrolls. Also, the small market teams have actually made profits... that accounting report released over the winter showed that the Pirates and Marlins were the most profitable teams (because their owners pocket revenue sharing money)

[Demosthenes11]

there is no way I'm typing this out for you lol. You are a yankees fan, so I don't blame you. It's 100% relavent

[Cephius]

Dude, don't give me that bullshit. I'm not stupid or blind to baseball's competitive imbalance, I know it's unfair with how payrolls are structured. But in terms of that affecting new teams? Why? I just gave you examples of small market teams that were added as recently as 1998, how small market teams can actually be profitable (so investors wouldn't shy away from putting money into a team/stadium) so I would love to hear more than "lol yankees fan" in response to that

[Demosthenes11]

smaller market teams have less of a chance because they have a smaller supply of money. smaller supply of money = lower chance of having good players. just because some teams have done fine does not mean it's equal. A team in omaha is not equal to boston or NY. When they win it's in spite of their money