has been the difference. I said it after the play in game, they have a good shot against anyone because of their bullpen. I think they will win it all.
has been the difference. I said it after the play in game, they have a good shot against anyone because of their bullpen. I think they will win it all.
I would include defense in there. Gordon was fantastic today. Esco saved an errant throw in the 9th. Moose made the great catch in game 3.
Waxing practically masturbatory over the joys of SMALLBALL!!! 1! It'll be the worst bout of that shit since they used to gawn over the late 2000s Mike Scioscia Angels.
Waxing practically masturbatory over the joys of SMALLBALL!!! 1! It'll be the worst bout of that shit since they used to gawn over the late 2000s Mike Scioscia Angels.
That's the best part. Not the smug Luddites gloating but the over the top stat guys like Dave Cameron losing their minds.
it was still a good season for y'all, you were an afterthought at the start of the season, you ran away with the East and got to the ALCS. Celebrate that, even if the exit takes a little time to recover from.
Not only because the Royals are a great story, but the networks are getting fucked - one team is already in the WS, and both leagues have played a grand total of TWO more games then the minimum possible (though if tonight's Cards/Giants score holds, they will get at least 6 games from that series)...
Can't see a SF/KC world series crack a 10 share...
a 162 game slog that irons out the flukes and ensures that high quality teams are your championship contenders. Not anymore. Now it's going to be just like football, where some middling team like the 2011 Giants (yeah, you heard me) suddenly gets hot for two weeks and plays way over their heads.
The Royals are one of the worst Series teams I've ever seen. Their lineup is mostly complete garbage and their rotation is, at best, slightly above average. Now they do have a truly dominant pen, and that has a magnified advantage in the postseason, but they still aren't particularly good.
the problem is that when you have the two largest fanbases in the game ignoring the postseason for a couple years running you shouldn't be surprised when your ratings are in the dumpster. LA in the postseason is a positive for the sport nationally and STL has a huge regional market, but the AL playoffs were all small and mid-market.
Nobody liked the Yankees spending $200+ when the pack was around half that but at least you had a team an awful lot of people loved and even more hated. Selig's brand of parity may (may not) sell more tickets but it will not drive ratings.
But that's even beside the point. If the Yankees aren't producing great teams, I'd like to at least see SOMEONE putting one on the field. I grew up when the Yankees missed the playoffs for 15 years straight, but I still watched a lot of postseason baseball and saw some terrific teams like the 1984 Tigers, 1986 Mets, 1990 As, 1992-93 Blue Jays. Look at who we get now - last year's Fluke Sawx, a collection of retreads and stiffs who somehow got 90% projection performance out of virtually all of them. That's a low quality champion, sorry. Worst to first back to worst again. Now we get the Royals.
with two strong regional markets. SF/Detroit pulled 7.6, SF/Texas an 8.4. If this one cracks 8 it'd be a coup. I want to see strong teams, but I want the sport to be sold nationally. The decline of power hitting (and the taint that accompanies most of the good power hitters) has made it even more difficult. Fernandez and Kershaw are marketable, as is Verlander, but they play just 1/5 games.
the O's got swept, but IMO, Showalter doing what he's done in Baltimore to turn that team around was as impressive (or better) than what Maddon did in TB.
This is like somebody coming in and making the Bills competitive.
Calling B'More a big market is a stretch. They used to dominate NOVA in addition to Maryland but with the Nats that's not really the case anymore. And the Angels technically hail from a big market but they're second fiddle in that market and just crack Top 10 in revenue. And the A's are below average for revenue and have been for a long time.
RE: The worst part of all this will be certain sportswriters
Waxing practically masturbatory over the joys of SMALLBALL!!! 1! It'll be the worst bout of that shit since they used to gawn over the late 2000s Mike Scioscia Angels.
You're probably right even thought the irony is they won by hitting HRs throughout the playoffs. It is very uncharacteristic for this ballclub.
I also hate that it will have people touting the "small market" winning as justification for the current system. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. KC hasn't won in 30 years because of ownership's refusal to spend money, especially to retain young rising stars. This is the one year in 30 where that didn't backfire.
I agree about Buck, but he has done that everywhere he went. We'll see how long it takes for the Orioles to decide his mantra is falling on deaf ears and they let him go. As far as I am concerned, Buck is on the of the 5 best managers in the game and has been for a very long time. He is the sole reason I was pulling for the Orioles.
Great points about parity and Selig and the state of the game. I grew up during the same period and was always watching the playoffs and the WS. There were great and intriguing teams in that span.
A key difference was that it wasn't just the Yankees spending money. It was a number of teams. The Royals, for example, kept their core stars for a number of years, which is in stark contrast to what they did from the late 80s on.
Most of the teams with low revenues, I have always contended, are more the result of poor management than anything else. This ranges from lack of spending, to low interest in winning, etc. How come, for example, when there was evidence of owners like Polhad in Minnesota pocketing the money from the luxury tax, the league took no action? How come other owners didn't complain?
But they've been mostly competitive over the past 15 years because they're well run. Same with Tampa in recent years. Yes, the financial advantage teams like the Yankees and Sawx have gives them more margin for error, but ultimately success comes down to how teams do business.
Kansas City was a garbage team for two decades because they were very poorly run. Simple as that.
I agree. The thing with Tampa is they were well run when they stunk. They drafted well to build a team that contended for a couple of years. However, they have crashed since that success without the high draft picks.
I would include defense in there. Gordon was fantastic today. Esco saved an errant throw in the 9th. Moose made the great catch in game 3.
That's the best part. Not the smug Luddites gloating but the over the top stat guys like Dave Cameron losing their minds.
Words cannot express how much I loathe Bud Selig. He has done everything in his power to ruin the game I love above all others.
Words cannot express how much I loathe Bud Selig. He has done everything in his power to ruin the game I love above all others.
If you just want the teams that won the most regular season games, why bother with playoffs?
Words cannot express how much I loathe Bud Selig. He has done everything in his power to ruin the game I love above all others.
There's always soccer. Or Hokie athletics.
/runs and hides
The Royals are one of the worst Series teams I've ever seen. Their lineup is mostly complete garbage and their rotation is, at best, slightly above average. Now they do have a truly dominant pen, and that has a magnified advantage in the postseason, but they still aren't particularly good.
Nobody liked the Yankees spending $200+ when the pack was around half that but at least you had a team an awful lot of people loved and even more hated. Selig's brand of parity may (may not) sell more tickets but it will not drive ratings.
This is like somebody coming in and making the Bills competitive.
Calling B'More a big market is a stretch. They used to dominate NOVA in addition to Maryland but with the Nats that's not really the case anymore. And the Angels technically hail from a big market but they're second fiddle in that market and just crack Top 10 in revenue. And the A's are below average for revenue and have been for a long time.
You're probably right even thought the irony is they won by hitting HRs throughout the playoffs. It is very uncharacteristic for this ballclub.
I also hate that it will have people touting the "small market" winning as justification for the current system. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. KC hasn't won in 30 years because of ownership's refusal to spend money, especially to retain young rising stars. This is the one year in 30 where that didn't backfire.
A key difference was that it wasn't just the Yankees spending money. It was a number of teams. The Royals, for example, kept their core stars for a number of years, which is in stark contrast to what they did from the late 80s on.
Most of the teams with low revenues, I have always contended, are more the result of poor management than anything else. This ranges from lack of spending, to low interest in winning, etc. How come, for example, when there was evidence of owners like Polhad in Minnesota pocketing the money from the luxury tax, the league took no action? How come other owners didn't complain?
Kansas City was a garbage team for two decades because they were very poorly run. Simple as that.