2025 MLB Thread

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Catch one

"Look, Ma, no hands!" I have never seen that before. Maybe a catch between arm and torso, but never between the legs.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Catch 2 & 3

One must look carefully to realize that these are two different plays and not multiple replays.

[monkeyman576]

Seattle vs Milwaukee might not be a great world series for market size but it would be great for storylines

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Seattle vs Milwaukee might not be a great world series for market size but it would be great for storylines

I would tune in. I have had enough of Dodgers vs. Yankees. (Did I say that? Yes, I did. )

[Westheim]

My World Series wishlist:

1) Meeeets!

2) None of those perpetual participants (at least up to the LCS) like Dodgers, Stinkees, 'stros, Barves (I think that last item is not a danger this year)

3) TWO of those perpetual participants, because then I can just hate on everybody (like last year) and can be amused when one team lays itself a giant egg that is good for weeks' of content on Youtube (see: 2024 Yankees)

Worst case is always something like the Fudgers going against a cutesie team like the Tigers.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Worst case is always something like the Fudgers going against a cutesie team like the Tigers.

There is something to this, I agree. Unless, of course, the cutesie team wins. Then it's spectacular!

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Westheim

2) None of those perpetual participants (at least up to the LCS) like Dodgers, Stinkees, 'stros, Barves (I think that last item is not a danger this year)

Interesting. Immediately after reading the above I was thinking, "isn't it honestly just more fun if there's at least one perpetual participant (PP) vs a non-PP?". However, assuming the Dodgers and Yankees are PPs that we don't normally root for and the Mariners and Brewers are non-PPs we also don't normally root for, I think this is how I'd rank them (from most preferred to least):

Mariners-Brewers
Yankees-Brewers
Mariners-Dodgers
Dodgers-Yankees

I would really like to see a Mariners-Brewers WS, but of course some people might be different, some might rather see at least one PP. I was surprised by how many people complained about last year's WS as I enjoyed it immensely, or at least I did the first few games before it seemed like the Yankees had no chance of coming back.

The absolute worst WS match-up to me would just be the two teams with the worst attendance numbers. No offense to the die-hard fans who support their team through thick and thin, I'd just like to see as many people happy as possible. My ideal WS match-up would, of course, just be Jays vs anyone as they're the team I primarily root for.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by kq76

Interesting. Immediately after reading the above I was thinking, "isn't it honestly just more fun if there's at least one perpetual participant (PP) vs a non-PP?". However, assuming the Dodgers and Yankees are PPs that we don't normally root for and the Mariners and Brewers are non-PPs we also don't normally root for, I think this is how I'd rank them (from most preferred to least):

Mariners-Brewers
Yankees-Brewers
Mariners-Dodgers
Dodgers-Yankees

I would really like to see a Mariners-Brewers WS, but of course some people might be different, some might rather see at least one PP. I was surprised by how many people complained about last year's WS as I enjoyed it immensely, or at least I did the first few games before it seemed like the Yankees had no chance of coming back.

The absolute worst WS match-up to me would just be the two teams with the worst attendance numbers. No offense to the die-hard fans who support their team through thick and thin, I'd just like to see as many people happy as possible. My ideal WS match-up would, of course, just be Jays vs anyone as they're the team I primarily root for.

Seattle fans might not be known for the best attendance, but they are known for their crowd noise, oddly enough.

[Westheim]

Mariners-Dodgers would mean that more people are watching from Japan than in the US, no matter how hard Rob Numbfred tries to not go up against a Week 8 Packers game.

[low]

It's Brewers vs the Cubs and Umps so far this series.

[Déjà Bru]

I can see how this happened and the spontaneous emotion involved, plus while ducking away, Robles missed the pitcher's reaction; it was obviously unintended. But no, you cannot throw a bat in retaliation. The suspension is deserved and should be served.



Mariners' Victor Robles suspended after throwing bat toward pitcher following near-HBP in rehab game

Robles is expected to appeal his 10-game suspension, which must be served at the big-league level

He should have stuck with just throwing the bucket of sunflower seed packs. He did a great job with that.

[monkeyman576]

I think Robles just decided his six month injury rehab wasn't enough and he needed more time off

[low]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I can see how this happened and the spontaneous emotion involved, plus while ducking away, Robles missed the pitcher's reaction; it was obviously unintended. But no, you cannot throw a bat in retaliation. The suspension is deserved and should be served.


Mariners' Victor Robles suspended after throwing bat toward pitcher following near-HBP in rehab game

Robles is expected to appeal his 10-game suspension, which must be served at the big-league level

He should have stuck with just throwing the bucket of sunflower seed packs. He did a great job with that.

Agreed. You can't be chucking bats, man.

[mytreds]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybr...it-could-look/

Has no one here seen this yet? My apologies if this has been posted already.

But wtf? Can even the staunchest Manfred lover be okay with deleting the American and National leagues for a large mono-league where rivalries like the Giants/Dodgers and Cub/Cardinals are just destroyed?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by mytreds

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybr...it-could-look/

Has no one here seen this yet? My apologies if this has been posted already.

But wtf? Can even the staunchest Manfred lover be okay with deleting the American and National leagues for a large mono-league where rivalries like the Giants/Dodgers and Cub/Cardinals are just destroyed?

Can't see behind the paywall.

But one baseball's biggest weaknesses is the lack of rivalries. There are only 3 worth paying attention to. Creating more thank o geography is a good thing. MLB fans my age and above are too married to tradition. Even when it is hurting the game and is out dated.

[Amazin69]

I used one of three free Forbes articles to see it. Apparently Manly Manfred's idea is to expand to 8 four-team divisions "to cut down on travel" and get rid of the current "everybody plays everyone" crap, which I hardly object to.

But since he wants to put SIXTEEN teams in the playoffs (yes, four-team divsions where the two top teams make the post-season), he'd be ditching classic rivalries in order to have his micro-divisions, whereas four eight-team divisions in a classic league-based format would work much better. But manly Manfred needs his playoff bloat and doesn't want to admit how stupid it would look to have FOURTH-place teams making the post-season, hence the micro-leagues.

Alleged expansion front runners are Salt Lake City (really?) and Nashville, btw. Crikes.

If you have to go to 4-team divisions, why not stay within standard historic alignments? You can still cut down on travel by emphasizing in-division play

NL East: Mets, Phils, Pirates, Nats
NL South: Braves, Fish, Reds, Nashville
NL North: Brewers, Cubs, Cards, Rox
NL West: Giants, Dodgers, Padres, Snakes

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles
AL North: Tigers, 'dians, White Sox, Twins
AL South: Rays, Royals, Texas, Other Texas
AL West: Seattle, Utah, Vegas, Anaheim

You play each team in your division the proper 18 games (54 total)
You play two of the other three divisions in league 6 games apiece (24+24, 48 games total), and the fourth division (yearly rotation) 12 games each (48 more games)

This brings us to 150 games. I'd rather just give the final 12 games to spread around the league, but we're never getting rid of this inter-league ****, so just play one 3-game set with each team in the corresponding division in the other league. Yes, this means they Yankees and Mets only play in Queens in odd-numbered years and in the Bronx in the even-numbered ones, but who gaf? Yes, this means the Mets never play the Twins or the Angels again…but who gaf?

Better to keep Cards-Cubs and Dodgers-Giants alive than this butchery. JMO.

[kq76]

I think, and I hope, the 4-team "conceptual outline" is just clickbait. Even when you read the quotes they read more like their talking about 4 divisions of 8 teams each, like I suggested recently.

Manfred has been touting expansion and realignment for a decade now (see my story from 2015). “From a technical perspective, it would be easier to divide the schedule up by four,” Manfred said to me at the time. “Having five teams in the divisions is problematic from a scheduling perspective.”

Bolding mine. The first suggests to me 4 divisions total and the second suggests more than 4 teams per division. Or maybe it simply means 5 is a bad number, but that somehow even less isn't, but I doubt that.

"I think if we expand it provides us with an opportunity to geographically realign," Manfred said. "I think we could save a lot of wear and tear on our players in terms of travel. I think our postseason format would be even more appealing for entities like ESPN because you'd be playing out of the East, out of the West, and that 10 o'clock where we sometimes get Boston-Anaheim would be two West Coast teams. That 10 o'clock slot that's a problem for us sometimes becomes a real opportunity for our West Coast audience."

I think this suggests even more 8-team divisions would be preferrable. If you really want to realign for geographic and travel reasons, I don't think it at all makes sense to go with more divisions of less teams in a division because with the more divisions you're going to have either a tonne of games against your own division (of only 3 teams!) or a lot more games than you ideally want against intra-division teams. More and smaller divisions would be worse for geographic and travel reasons, not better!

I'm not exactly sure what the postseason talk might be referring to, but if you want more postseason games against geographic rivals I'm not sure it makes sense to go to more divisions either. But more importantly, I think the game time issue, during the regular season especially, becomes a lot more problematic with 8 divisions of 4 teams each.

Like say you're concerned about the Yankees and Red Sox schedules and you're set on the Mets and Phillies being in the same division as them as a lot of mock-ups have them. Why on earth would you have the Yankees and Red Sox playing say the Padres and Dbacks the same amount of times as say the Nationals and Orioles? That would be idiotic. Baltimore and Washington are a lot closer to Boston and New York. Just stick them in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox along with 4 other teams, do the same with the other teams, and then you've got all of the teams playing a lot of their teams close to home and often in the same timezone.

The only way I think you avoid that while going to 4-team divisions is if you have preferred intra-division match-ups. Like say the Yankees 4-team division plays more often against their division rivals as expected, but say they play more games against the Orioles' 4-team division than they play against the Dodgers' 4-team division. But why do that when you can just play more games against 7 other teams than just 3. Imagine how monotonous it would be if you're playing most of your games against only 3 teams. Yikes!

FWIW, Buck Showalter came up with a 4 division of 8 teams idea too and our ideas are pretty similar except his two central divisions are more split along north and south lines as opposed to my east and west. With MLB's talk of timezones I'm thinking they're more likely to go with option B from my post, but who knows.

[low]

I can live with less interleague games. I can live with eight 4-team divisions.

However, I can't live with half the teams making the playoffs. It's one of the biggest reasons I can't take the NBA or the NHL seriously. It's getting to the point where you might as well just ditch the playoffs entirely and the whole season just becomes a tournament. The more teams in the playoffs, the less meaningful championships become, IMO.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by low

However, I can't live with half the teams making the playoffs. It's one of the biggest reasons I can't take the NBA or the NHL seriously. It's getting to the point where you might as well just ditch the playoffs entirely and the whole season just becomes a tournament. The more teams in the playoffs, the less meaningful championships become, IMO.

Agree, except on one point. I would say, "The more teams in the playoffs, the less meaningful the regular season becomes." See if this sounds theoretical: If half of the teams make the playoffs, on average all that a particular team needs to aspire to is a .500 record; i.e., mediocrity. Utterly boring. Why watch or attend a regular season game? Wait for the playoffs.

[monkeyman576]

Playoffs? You're talking about playoffs?

[Hrycaj]

Isn’t the cat already out of the bag here? I’m hardly seeing anyone clamoring for 4 eight division teams where ONLY division winners make the playoffs. Let’s face it, people love the wild card teams and the crazy trading deadline is causes each year. I wholeheartedly agree the more you let in the more you reduce the impact of the regular season. However, on the flip I don’t think people are willing to give up all wild card teams and lose that drama. For that reason it is only a matter of time that we have a huge expanded NBA/ NHL style post-season in baseball.