MLB 154 game proposal

[Sibelius Hindemith]

Hey where have you been??? Haven't seen you since they missed the playoffs after starting 4-9. Fucking crazy how that works out isn't it???

But they easily could have made the playoffs if they hadn't vomited all over themselves in the final two months.

[DanielVogelbach]

Hey where have you been??? Haven't seen you since they missed the playoffs after starting 4-9. Fucking crazy how that works out isn't it???

4-9 is meaningless. I stand by that. And IIRC you dropped a stat that was "4-9 or worse" meaning the stat included 3-10, 2-11, 1-12, and 0-13. It was one of the worst stats I've ever seen. Goes right along with lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Now, back on topic, in a 154 season 4-9 would be slightly less meaningless.. but I'm talking slightly.

But they easily could have made the playoffs if they hadn't vomited all over themselves in the final two months.

Their division was weak. If there was ever a chance for a 4-9 team to make the postseason.... lol

1991 Minnesota Twins: Exactly 4-9 after 13 games. They finished 95-67, won the AL West, and beat the Atlanta Braves in a seven-game World Series.

There are a lot of variables. Who did you play in your first 13 games. Injuries? Close games or blowouts? How strong is your division? Trade deadline is always a factor. In the words of Pete Carroll, it ain't how you start, it's how you finish.

The Mariners started poorly and finished poorly, but they were in first place in July following that 4-9. This doesn't prove or disprove anything, because it's just one season for one team. I'm reminded of the stats they always show when a team falls behind 2-0 in a 7 game series. "Only 20% of teams ever come back from this deficit" or whatever it is. It's a meaningless stat. It's not a situation where looking at an aggregate has value. You have to look at the specific case and all the variables.

Anyways.... I've been following the teams somewhat. (Ms and Hawks) I saw some Montes blasts. I watched Anderson's debut. I saw yesterday's Seahawk's loss. It was the Seahawks loss that made me want to see how the forums were doing. I don't really have a comment on that game, though. I don't know what to think. I think the team is still good. They kind of gave that game away. Probably set themselves up for not having home field in the playoffs, which historically means they won't go to the Super Bowl, but maybe this will be the year they win the NFC Championship on the road. I'm in the wrong forum.

[DanielVogelbach]

Good points. I agree with all of that. Of course with a double header, they would make everyone leave and have to return to double the attendance revenue and the players union would respond that players should be paid triple for gulag like work conditions.....

The doubleheader wouldn't work though, I just realized it. Your whole pitching staff would be blown out, lol. It would defeat the purpose of consolidating the games, because you would need to add rest days after.

Best format would just be 2 WC teams play a 3 game series. The way they have it now is not terrible, but I just think it's weird how you can win your division and it's no different than WC1.

They could even do 3 games in a row with 2 venues and no travel day. Just play all the game 1s during the day, then travel to next city and play two night games at the second venue. They would never do that, though, cuz they want night games and there's always gonna be a travel day.

[D-train]

Hey where have you been??? Haven't seen you since they missed the playoffs after starting 4-9. Fucking crazy how that works out isn't it???

But they easily could have made the playoffs if they hadn't vomited all over themselves in the final two months.

Because of a division winner that had the worst record in the entire history of baseball....

[D-train]

Hey where have you been??? Haven't seen you since they missed the playoffs after starting 4-9. Fucking crazy how that works out isn't it???

4-9 is meaningless. I stand by that. And IIRC you dropped a stat that was "4-9 or worse" meaning the stat included 3-10, 2-11, 1-12, and 0-13. It was one of the worst stats I've ever seen. Goes right along with lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Now, back on topic, in a 154 season 4-9 would be slightly less meaningless.. but I'm talking slightly.

But they easily could have made the playoffs if they hadn't vomited all over themselves in the final two months.

Their division was weak. If there was ever a chance for a 4-9 team to make the postseason.... lol

1991 Minnesota Twins: Exactly 4-9 after 13 games. They finished 95-67, won the AL West, and beat the Atlanta Braves in a seven-game World Series.

There are a lot of variables. Who did you play in your first 13 games. Injuries? Close games or blowouts? How strong is your division? Trade deadline is always a factor. In the words of Pete Carroll, it ain't how you start, it's how you finish.

The Mariners started poorly and finished poorly, but they were in first place in July following that 4-9. This doesn't prove or disprove anything, because it's just one season for one team. I'm reminded of the stats they always show when a team falls behind 2-0 in a 7 game series. "Only 20% of teams ever come back from this deficit" or whatever it is. It's a meaningless stat. It's not a situation where looking at an aggregate has value. You have to look at the specific case and all the variables.

Anyways.... I've been following the teams somewhat. (Ms and Hawks) I saw some Montes blasts. I watched Anderson's debut. I saw yesterday's Seahawk's loss. It was the Seahawks loss that made me want to see how the forums were doing. I don't really have a comment on that game, though. I don't know what to think. I think the team is still good. They kind of gave that game away. Probably set themselves up for not having home field in the playoffs, which historically means they won't go to the Super Bowl, but maybe this will be the year they win the NFC Championship on the road. I'm in the wrong forum.

Obviously not impossible to make the playoffs after a 4-9 start but it is more unlikely than if a teams starts 9-4 or even 7-6 for two reasons.

1. A team has to make up for being 5 games under .500

2. A team that goes 4-9 to start the season probably isn't very good

And lo and behold that is EXACTLY what played out. Shocking. lol

[DanielVogelbach]

Obviously not impossible to make the playoffs after a 4-9 start but it is more unlikely than if a teams starts 9-4 or even 7-6 for two reasons.

1. A team has to make up for being 5 games under .500

2. A team that goes 4-9 to start the season probably isn't very good

And lo and behold that is EXACTLY what played out. Shocking. lol

149 games left. Plenty of time to make up 5 games and many more. "Obviously not impossible" is the key observation. Teams have gone on to win 95+ games and won the World Series after losing 9 out their first 13 games. That's why you can't just look at 4-9. You need all the context.

"Probably not very good" is accurate. "Definitely not good" is inaccurate. Hence, meaningless stat without context. You had all the context. There was no reason for you to extrapolate post season probability from a 4-9 record when you follow the team closely. if that was your opinion based on your assessment of the team, then a different story and different conversation.

You dropped a stat that was "4-9 or worse", which meant it included 3-10, 2-11, 1-12, and 0-13. I think at 0-13 you're toast. 4-9 could be a few close games away from 7-6. You said something like they had a 5% chance of making the post season. You probably also were going off a historical number that wasn't factoring in 3 wild cards. But again, my point is more about why draw conclusions based on 4-9 when you can base them off your own knowledge of the team.

"Probably not very good" based on 4-9 is a fine thing to say if you know absolutely nothing about the team. Otherwise, on this forum, it's meaningless versus all of the other knowledge that we have about the team we follow closely, with yourself being someone that is paying close attention on a daily basis.

Taking everything into consideration, I objectively felt like they were at about 55% probability to make the post season at that point.

They were in first place on July 1st.

After the season concludes you can say "I told you so", but that doesn't mean 5% was the right probability 13 games in. That probability included teams with worse starts than 4-9, it didn't factor in a three wild card system, and it didn't consider the potential of the team to go on a run.

We didn't know Donovan was gonna get hit in the head during batting practice. Julio missed time. Naylor was playing injured. We didn't know Brash would miss the whole season. We didn't know Cal Raleigh was gonna suck all year. There was still 80% of the season left plus potential to make trade deadline moves. It was one of the most disappointing seasons in Mariners history, but it took more than 13 games to arrive at that conclusion.

You might've even said 2% or 3%. If I was biased at 55%, well it was at least 40%. With 3 wild cards. Come on now. 84 wins was all it took.

[DanielVogelbach]

Hey where have you been??? Haven't seen you since they missed the playoffs after starting 4-9. Fucking crazy how that works out isn't it???

But they easily could have made the playoffs if they hadn't vomited all over themselves in the final two months.

Because of a division winner that had the worst record in the entire history of baseball....

84 wins for WC3. (White Sox)

[D-train]

Obviously not impossible to make the playoffs after a 4-9 start but it is more unlikely than if a teams starts 9-4 or even 7-6 for two reasons.

1. A team has to make up for being 5 games under .500

2. A team that goes 4-9 to start the season probably isn't very good

And lo and behold that is EXACTLY what played out. Shocking. lol

149 games left. Plenty of time to make up 5 games and many more. "Obviously not impossible" is the key observation. Teams have gone on to win 95+ games and won the World Series after losing 9 out their first 13 games. That's why you can't just look at 4-9. You need all the context.

"Probably not very good" is accurate. "Definitely not good" is inaccurate. Hence, meaningless stat without context. You had all the context. There was no reason for you to extrapolate post season probability from a 4-9 record when you follow the team closely. if that was your opinion based on your assessment of the team, then a different story and different conversation.

You dropped a stat that was "4-9 or worse", which meant it included 3-10, 2-11, 1-12, and 0-13. I think at 0-13 you're toast. 4-9 could be a few close games away from 7-6. You said something like they had a 5% chance of making the post season. You probably also were going off a historical number that wasn't factoring in 3 wild cards. But again, my point is more about why draw conclusions based on 4-9 when you can base them off your own knowledge of the team.

"Probably not very good" based on 4-9 is a fine thing to say if you know absolutely nothing about the team. Otherwise, on this forum, it's meaningless versus all of the other knowledge that we have about the team we follow closely, with yourself being someone that is paying close attention on a daily basis.

Taking everything into consideration, I objectively felt like they were at about 55% probability to make the post season at that point.

They were in first place on July 1st.

After the season concludes you can say "I told you so", but that doesn't mean 5% was the right probability 13 games in. That probability included teams with worse starts than 4-9, it didn't factor in a three wild card system, and it didn't consider the potential of the team to go on a run.

We didn't know Donovan was gonna get hit in the head during batting practice. Julio missed time. Naylor was playing injured. We didn't know Brash would miss the whole season. We didn't know Cal Raleigh was gonna suck all year. There was still 80% of the season left plus potential to make trade deadline moves. It was one of the most disappointing seasons in Mariners history, but it took more than 13 games to arrive at that conclusion.

You might've even said 2% or 3%. If I was biased at 55%, well it was at least 40%. With 3 wild cards. Come on now. 84 wins was all it took.

That is complete and utter Bullshit. You are totally mischaracterizing my post. All I did past post factual historical data and allowed the readers to draw their own conclusions. I NEVER mentioned a thing about the M's specific probability, just mentioned something about it not looking great....

[Pharmabro]

Also proposed increasing the divisional series to 7 games which is fine but why in the hell would you leave the WC series at 3 with the absurd set up of not letting the lower seed have a single home game.

With 8 fewer games they can make it 5, 7, 7, 7 but if you are only going to lengthen one of the 2 make it 5, 5, 7, 7 instead of 3, 7, 7, 7

Common fucking sense.

Letting the higher seed pick their opponent is a goofy gimmick will lead to a bunch of smack talk BS. Lame AF.

I don’t care if they make 5 gamer for the WC but let the lower slot get game 2 and the ‘home team game 1&3: but I like the 5,5,7,7 vs, 3,7,7,7