OnlyBucs

Well, looky looky!



It's a thread about the playoff series.  Our man, Surg, calls me out for not making any comments about a single play during it thus far.  I plead guilty.



How many comments about how many plays in this series has anyone else made other than him?  Fewer than 1% of all board members.



How many comments about plays has my accuser made?  A grand total of one- about a play that he thinks should have been made.



Doing the math, I have made one fewer comment than he has.  Maybe it's because I wasn't aware of the rules.  99% weren't made aware of the rule, either.



In the end, he makes a big deal of something that's such a miniscule deal yet again.



Not the first time that he's been called out for trolling behavior.

396F796D627868636E794B6C666A626725680B0 wrote: I like all of them.  They're the best..  I dont like teams that lose 100.


[highlight]I don't like a league whose business parameters ensure that about five teams are all but guaranteed to get 2-3 of the final four spots.[/highlight]  Every once in a while an outsider team will sneak in which is useful to keep up the charade. 



But more specifically in this case, you have the Known Cheaters, the Dodger$$$, The Tomahawk Chop, and (ugh!) the Red Sox.  The Sox I mostly dislike their fanbase and how much they complain about how everything is unfair. 


We can all complain about the many things wrong with baseball but what you pointed out is the one I think is the biggest problem.  An owner like Nutting is really bad for Pittsburgh but the inequity between the franchises is even worse because it affects the entire game by minimizing so many of the franchises.


Presented mostly for information. 



Since the current playoff system was implemented in 2012, which gives ten opportunites for teams in each league to have made it it to the semi-finals....



9 of the 15 American Leaague franchises have advanced to the ALCS.   

The Astros have made it to half of them- 5.



The Yankees and Red Sox have made it to 3.  They're large revenue, but are the Astros as high in revenue as the those two clubs?  I doubt it.  Regatdless, five beats three.



The large market Royals have been to 2.  So have the Blue Jays and Tigers.  Detroit's big, but it isn't NYC, LA, or Chicago.



The Orioles, Rays, and former Indians have have been there.  None strike me as being all that huge compared with others.

==========================



The National League results are different, and more pertinent, because this is where the Pirates are.



8 franchises have advanced to the NLCS in the past 10 seasons:



The Dodgers lead both packs with 6 appearances.



But, St. Louis is mid-America, and nowhere near as large as NYC, Chicago, or LA.  The Cardinals have been to 4.



The Cubs-3.



Both especially formidable because we go against them for any chance for winniing the division,



The Braves and Giants- 2.  Both pretty large markets, and I would think revenue, too.



Brewers, Nationals, and Mets- 1.  A Milwaukee team (also, in our division) has made it to the NLCS as often as the NYC team in our league has.



Personally, i can agree with the argument of "advantage'" to a certain extent.  But, I also see no reason why we can't do at least near what the more midwestern clubs have done.



Talk finances, sure.  But, talk competence, too. 

Teams that have not been to the LCS since the adopton of the second wild card:



Not in any particular order-



White Sox

Twins

Mariners

A's

Angels

Rangers



Phillies

Marlins

Reds

Pirates

Padres

Rockies

Diamondbacks

People try to sell me on how "balanced and fair" leagues like the NFL are by comparison.  "If only MLB had a salary cap" yada, yada, yada.



That's true, but only to a point.  Let's do the comparison over the same timeframe- the past 10 years.



12 of the 16 NFC teams have been to the LCG at least once.  That's a litlte more "balanced."

But, of those 12 teams, the Packers and 49ers were in it four times each.  Two teams were in it twice each, and the other eight teams made it only once.  Four teams never made it.  That's still heavily slanted to two teams- in a supposedly level playing field.



In the AFC, only 9 of 16 clubs have been to the LCG.  Guess what.  The Patriots made it 8 times and Chiefs, 3.  Those two teams account for more than half.  The Broncos and Ravens made it twice each, and five teams, once.



Even with a cap system, let's see the effect.  The Patriots, Packers, 49ers, and Chiefs have been more successful in recent years than most other teams, and it has little to do with money because they operate under a salary cap system.  Why haven't teams like the Lions and Bengals done as well? 



A difference in competence is one of the leading factors. 



Yet, "money" is what we hear when it comes to baseball.

6F5A4D4D467F4D4D46414D280 wrote: People try to sell me on how "balanced and fair" leagues like the NFL are by comparison.  "If only MLB had a salary cap" yada, yada, yada.



That's true, but only to a point.  Let's do the comparison over the same timeframe- the past 10 years.



12 of the 16 NFC teams have been to the LCG at least once.  That's a litlte more "balanced."

But, of those 12 teams, the Packers and 49ers were in it four times each.  Two teams were in it twice each, and the other eight teams made it only once.  Four teams never made it.  That's still heavily slanted to two teams- in a supposedly level playing field.



In the AFC, only 9 of 16 clubs have been to the LCG.  Guess what.  The Patriots made it 8 times and Chiefs, 3.  Those two teams account for more than half.  The Broncos and Ravens made it twice each, and five teams, once.



Even with a cap system, let's see the effect.  The Patriots, Packers, 49ers, and Chiefs have been more successful in recent years than most other teams, and it has little to do with money because they operate under a salary cap system.  Why haven't teams like the Lions and Bengals done as well? 



A difference in competence is one of the leading factors. 



Yet, "money" is what we hear when it comes to baseball.


But the reason for that is: there is no player in baseball that has such a massive effect on the outcome as the quarterback does in football. There was a roughly 16-year period starting in 2001 where the AFC representative in the Super Bowl had a quarterback named either Brady, Manning, or Roethlisberger. (The exceptions being Rich Gannon in '02 and Flacco in '12.)



Same issue in the NBA or NHL because the rosters are so small. If you happen to draft Sidney Crosby you have a good shot at contending most years.



A salary cap would work better in baseball than it would in any of those sports.



Which is why it's a shame it probably won't happen.

The analogy you use makes me wonder how good the teams around those types of players in football or hockey have to be compared to how good the teams around a single superstar baseball player would have to be - a guy like Bonds. I suppose you can surround Crosby with a dead average team and still do really well and likewise surround a guy like Brady with a dead average football team and do well. But you put Bonds on an average baseball team is that a playoff contender?

I can agree with that, at least in theory.  We've seen examples of how one stud pitcher can neuter a potent offense on occasion, but to your point, that stud pitfcher doesn't appear in every game like a quarterback or basketball and hockey players do. 



I don't necessarily agree that one or two studs can carry NBA, NHL, or NFL clubs anymore.  Those days have passed.  Even with five players at a time in the NBA and NHL, the better clubs have three or so top players these days.  Maybe not the very best in the leauge, but guys that most teams would take in a heartbeat.



There are a couple reasons why we won't see a cap in MLB.  One is because to put any teeth in it, there has to be a floor, too.  NWIH that happens. 



Secondly, what are we REALLY talking about?  We're talking about maybe five or six teams that aren't in the game.  Seems like each of those handful of clubs have their individual issues.

6E6B6C6A6268716C6576707D040 wrote: The analogy you use makes me wonder how good the teams around those types of players in football or hockey have to be compared to how good the teams around a single superstar baseball player would have to be - a guy like Bonds.  I suppose you can surround Crosby with a dead average team and still do really well and likewise surround a guy like Brady with a dead average football team and do well.  But you put Bonds on an average baseball team is that a playoff contender?


I think the issue with baseball is that Bonds would need those couple of "position" guys with him....but, those pitchers only play in every fifth o sixth game.  In the other sports, all of the better playrs play in most games. 

Does this make sense? 



3 (of the 8) darned good position players + 3 darned good SP + 1 effective RP?  Might depend on what positions those three play? 



Do you think this is what it takes these days?  What say you?



Announcers and Managers are nice but optional.   

7471767078726B767F6C6A671E0 wrote: The analogy you use makes me wonder how good the teams around those types of players in football or hockey have to be compared to how good the teams around a single superstar baseball player would have to be - a guy like Bonds.  I suppose you can surround Crosby with a dead average team and still do really well and likewise surround a guy like Brady with a dead average football team and do well.  But you put Bonds on an average baseball team is that a playoff contender?


Mike Trout?