why no Rockies hype?

[brett]

I've seen 3 national media sources list their world series "contenders" and they all are going 5-6 deep and none has mentioned the Rockies.

Its the Dodgers, Phillies and Cards in the NL for all of them.

Rocks are 61-28 in their last 89 games, they have 5 starters who will rack up 180+ innings with a 100 or better ERA+ and 10 guys who will probably hit 10+ home runs.

Gonzalez, and Seth Smith are rising superstars, and they won't even have room for EY junior or Dextor Fowler in the starting lineup when everyone's healthy, and I personally have Tulo as a top 5 MVP candidate and one of the top 5 guys under 25 in all of baseball.

[STLCards2]

I've seen 3 national media sources list their world series "contenders" and they all are going 5-6 deep and none has mentioned the Rockies.

Its the Dodgers, Phillies and Cards in the NL for all of them.

Rocks are 61-28 in their last 89 games, they have 5 starters who will rack up 180+ innings with a 100 or better ERA+ and 10 guys who will probably hit 10+ home runs.

Gonzalez, and Seth Smith are rising superstars, and they won't even have room for EY junior or Dextor Fowler in the starting lineup when everyone's healthy, and I personally have Tulo as a top 5 MVP candidate and one of the top 5 guys under 25 in all of baseball.

The Rockies are very good and could very well beat any NL team, but would you personaly pick them in a 5 or 7 game series over the Hamels/Lee/Happ Philies or the Wainright/Carpenter/Pinero Cardinals if you had too? If not, why call others out who aren't willing to do so either?

Also- they aren't even guaranteed to beat out the Giants who are only 2 behind. It would be silly to trumpet the chances of the mighty Rockies for a month only to have the Giants make it.

[brett]

Actually I think that the Rockies starters are perhaps the most underappreciated by the national media. Even though its not the same old Coors field (with the humidor), it still is a high run setting and therefore it tends to be very taxing on pitchers, plus their stuff doesn't break the same so its harder to stay consistent.

I think that Ubaldo's 136 ERA+ through 195 IP in Colorado could easily be 150 somewhere else.

Carpenter kind of snuck up this year but when he's healthy he's a hall of famer.



IP/ERA+
Jimenez: 195/136
Marquis: 189/123
Hammel: 151/104
DeLaRosa: 149/100
Cook: 145/101

Happ: 149/155
(Lee: 207/143)
Hamels: 162/99
Blanton: 166/113

[9RoyHobbsRF]

rockies are playing great baseball

[STLCards2]

Carpenter... healthy



Like oil and water.

As far as Hamels - haven't really disected what his ussue is this year (high BABIP most likely?), but he is a scary 99 ERA+, thats for sure!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The Rockies are very good and could very well beat any NL team, but would you personaly pick them in a 5 or 7 game series over the Hamels/Lee/Happ Philies or the Wainright/Carpenter/Pinero Cardinals if you had too? If not, why call others out who aren't willing to do so either?

Also- they aren't even guaranteed to beat out the Giants who are only 2 behind. It would be silly to trumpet the chances of the mighty Rockies for a month only to have the Giants make it.

The Rockies won today and are now 4.5 games ahead of the Giants in the Wild Card race. The Giants and Rockies do meet up on Monday at AT&T Park for a three game series. But the Rockies are simply a more well-rounded team than the Giants.

[STLCards2]

The Rockies won today and are now 4.5 games ahead of the Giants in the Wild Card race. The Giants and Rockies do meet up on Monday at AT&T Park for a three game series. But the Rockies are simply a more well-rounded team than the Giants.

Didn't know that they were up 4.5. You are right, they are more well-rounded, but I wouldn't count out the Ginats yet. Of course the series with the Rockies will be there last stand.

[DodgerBlue8188]

The way things are going the last 3 games of the season will crown the division winner. Dodgers Rockies last 3 games.

[DiggerODell]

The Rockies won today and are now 4.5 games ahead of the Giants in the Wild Card race. The Giants and Rockies do meet up on Monday at AT&T Park for a three game series. But the Rockies are simply a more well-rounded team than the Giants.

I was out at Coors Field today to see the 7th win in row over the Reds 5-1. It's a little scary that Jose Contreras left after three innings with a right quadriceps strain, he was looking strong from my center field vantage point, in filling in for the injured Aaron Cook. So far, all the injuries lately, they have had someone they could plug right in and not miss a beat. Time will tell. It is a fabulous problem not knowing what to do with Dexter Fowler, EY junior now that Seth Smith & Carlos Gonsalez have properly matured into fine ballplayers. Can't sit the only everyday player who made the all-star team in Brad Hawpe. Looks like they'll all be in a platooning situation the balance of the season. Jason Giambi has been a pleasant shot in the arm as well, he damn near cranked one out late in the game today, with a ball hit to deep right-center that Stubbs (I believe that is who it was) went up and hauled in. at 3rd you have the delimma of Garret Atkins (who homered for the first time at Coors since April this afternoon) or Ian Stewart . . . another pleasant problem to have. All that makes for a strong bench come playoffs and/or world series, something they did not have in '07 against the Red Sox.

I hope, much like 2007 they sort of go under the radar (much like they have and the basis of this conversation is about). If they have both sinker pitchers in Cook & Marquis going strong and Ubaldo Jimmenez (sp?) & De La Rosa on fire, I really like their chances. Hammel ain't no slouch either, after pitching a masterpiece into the 7th last night. It's a 7 inning game pretty much with starters and having Morales & Street to finish the 8th and 9th. Baseball is always fun in Denver, winning is merely icing on the cake as I have always said . . . but winning damn sure puts a grin on your mug when it's as consistent as it has been since June 3. Like brett mentioned, 61-28 ain't to shabby.

Also, I hope they stay close to the Dodgers . . . so the final 3 game series in early October mean something so far as the division winner is concerned.

[CandlestickBum]

Well, I call Tracy names at least once a week, does that count?

:grouchy TRACY!

It's feeling like '93 again, Giant's win, Rockies win. Damn Rocks won't lose

Ah, we were playing over our heads I suppose, but damn, do we have a nice pitching staff or what? But our lineup makes opposing pitching look even better! :grouchy

:hp

[Rich the Giants fan]

Do or die 6 games coming up for SF against the Dodgers and Rox. They pretty much must sweep 'em both.

[brett]

Well, I call Tracy names at least once a week, does that count?

:grouchy TRACY!

It's feeling like '93 again, Giant's win, Rockies win. Damn Rocks won't lose

Ah, we were playing over our heads I suppose, but damn, do we have a nice pitching staff or what? But our lineup makes opposing pitching look even better! :grouchy

:hp

'93? Braves and Giants you mean like 103 wins wasn't enough.

I actually thought that the Giants would be the real threat IF they got into the playoffs, but with the Rockies, what I've seen is just a balanced and deep team. Since there are really no primadonas people are willing to play for the win. A lot of guys have worked more than their share of walks this year-really everyone but Barmes is drawing league average+ walks.

I wish I could get a breakdown of their stats for the last 89 games. 61-28! Is that better than even the Yankees for that stretch?

Its just a freaky team that could literally lose ANYONE and play BETTER without them for a week.

[DodgerBlue8188]

'93? Braves and Giants you mean like 103 wins wasn't enough.

I actually thought that the Giants would be the real threat IF they got into the playoffs, but with the Rockies, what I've seen is just a balanced and deep team. Since there are really no primadonas people are willing to play for the win. A lot of guys have worked more than their share of walks this year-really everyone but Barmes is drawing league average+ walks.

I wish I could get a breakdown of their stats for the last 89 games. 61-28! Is that better than even the Yankees for that stretch?

Its just a freaky team that could literally lose ANYONE and play BETTER without them for a week.

In a 5 game series I think the Giants would have the advantage with Cain and Lincecum. Zito still has good outings as well.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think people overestimate the Giants potential in a short series. The 1990's Braves and the A's of the early 2000's each had three outstanding starters plus good offenses. And both teams struggled to win playoff series.

[Los Bravos]

We're just two years past the Rockies last Feel Good Story and it's subsequent collapse in the Series. No one wants to see them beat better teams in the NLDS and NLCS only to then be fed into the wood chipper by a superior AL team.

[brett]

I think people overestimate the Giants potential in a short series. The 1990's Braves and the A's of the early 2000's each had three outstanding starters plus good offenses. And both teams struggled to win playoff series.

Yea. Different things are important in the playoffs, but top 3 starters is a little overrated. Bullpen matchups, bench etc are all important.

[Mr_Clutch]

We're just two years past the Rockies last Feel Good Story and it's subsequent collapse in the Series. No one wants to see them beat better teams in the NLDS and NLCS only to then be fed into the wood chipper by a superior AL team.

And yet is it not true that anything can happen in a short best of 7 series? Who knows, they could do better this time around. Assuming of course they make the playoffs.

[DiggerODell]

And yet is it not true that anything can happen in a short best of 7 series? Who knows, they could do better this time around. Assuming of course they make the playoffs.

Mr_Clutch, I could not have put it more succinctly!

[bob]

'

I wish I could get a breakdown of their stats for the last 89 games. 61-28! Is that better than even the Yankees for that stretch?

Yep, Yankees are 60-29 in the last 89 games, although since the all star break the Rockies (34-19), Angels (35-18), Cards (35-15) and Yankees (40-13) are the 4 dominating teams.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

We're just two years past the Rockies last Feel Good Story and it's subsequent collapse in the Series. No one wants to see them beat better teams in the NLDS and NLCS only to then be fed into the wood chipper by a superior AL team.


I would suggest if they beat the other team the other team "was not better"

[Imgran]

Depends on the circumstances. I could bring up 2006 where a vastly inferior Cardinals squad humiliated the golden child Tigers.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Depends on the circumstances. I could bring up 2006 where a vastly inferior Cardinals squad humiliated the golden child Tigers.

Golden child?

The only thing inferior about that Cardinals team was their injury-driven record.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Depends on the circumstances. I could bring up 2006 where a vastly inferior Cardinals squad humiliated the golden child Tigers.

lol

1) they weren't vastly inferior, (they did have a poorer w/l record, but as someone pointed out, that is because they battled thru an injury plagued season)

2) why play the series then and just award it to who has the better regular season record? sound good to you?

3) why play any post season series, just let them advance based on better regular season w/l record

4) or play the games and the winner "is the better team"

[STLCards2]

Depends on the circumstances. I could bring up 2006 where a vastly inferior Cardinals squad humiliated the golden child Tigers.

That Cardinals team won 205 games the previous 2 years, had 9 past, present or future All-Stars (including the reigning league MVP and Cy Young winner), and were 17 games over .500 in mid-June before a rash of injuries on the scale of the 2009 Mets occured: Pujols DL, Edmonds DL, Rolen, Eckstien DL, Encarnacion, Molina DL, Mulder DL, Isringhousen DL, and many more. Not suprisingly, when everybody got healthy right at playoff time, they started winnig at the rate they did through mid-June.

Not saying they are the 1998 Yankees as they did get lucky with Jeff Weaver, but they had a lot more talent, and a lot more of a winning pedegree (the same core players had been in the playoffs 6 of the previous 7 years) than a lot of teams that have won the W.S.

Not only was that Cardinals team far superior than the Tigers in the years leading up to 2006, they have a had a better winning% since too. Not saying that the Cards were better than the Tigers in 2006, but a lot of evidence indicates that they weren't that far apart either.

Can't just look at W-L record without looking at the circumstances.

[Milt on Tilt]

His point, that I agree with, is that it is reasonable that an inferior team can defeat a superior team in a playoff series. I don't think the Cardinals were the best team. I think the Mets were.

And Roy, your 'debate' tactics are quite annoying.

1) they weren't vastly inferior, (they did have a poorer w/l record, but as someone pointed out, that is because they battled thru an injury plagued season)

ok, then provide some evidence. Its a debatable topic, not cut and dry.

2) why play the series then and just award it to who has the better regular season record? sound good to you?

3) why play any post season series, just let them advance based on better regular season w/l record

Who said anything about this? Your hyperbole goes so off track and has nothing to do with what anyone is every saying.

4) or play the games and the winner "is the better team"

So by your logic there has never been an upset. Ever.

Instead of just laughing off someone else's remark, provide your own insight on the matter since you are such a debate expert.

[DownUnderDodger]

The way things are going the last 3 games of the season will crown the division winner. Dodgers Rockies last 3 games.
The Rockies are truly flying under the radar without a lot of fanfare probably because they not in a high profile city. I have been concerned about them since they started winning so many games, and I commented some time ago that it was not a WC situ with them and the Goiants,m it was still an open pennant race...the Giants are falling by the wayside, however I still believe that the last 3 games of the NL West will decide the pennant.

[Captain Cold Nose]

His point, that I agree with, is that it is reasonable that an inferior team can defeat a superior team in a playoff series. I don't think the Cardinals were the best team. I think the Mets were.

And Roy, your 'debate' tactics are quite annoying.

1) they weren't vastly inferior, (they did have a poorer w/l record, but as someone pointed out, that is because they battled thru an injury plagued season)

ok, then provide some evidence. Its a debatable topic, not cut and dry.

2) why play the series then and just award it to who has the better regular season record? sound good to you?

3) why play any post season series, just let them advance based on better regular season w/l record

Who said anything about this? Your hyperbole goes so off track and has nothing to do with what anyone is every saying.

4) or play the games and the winner "is the better team"

So by your logic there has never been an upset. Ever.

Instead of just laughing off someone else's remark, provide your own insight on the matter since you are such a debate expert.

But what about the golden child crack?

I don't think the Cardinals were inferior. Injuries had really hampered the cardinals that year, whose record was well below what they had done the previous five years. The year they happened to win was actually a poor indicator, talent-wise, of that team, based on their records from the previous few seasons as well as their record that year when so many key players were not sidelined by injury. Were the Mets better? Maybe. Not when it truly mattered, though. It wasn't a huge upset for the Cardinals to make the world series that year based on what happened when things were status quo for them.

Experience was also a big advantage in their favor against the Tigers. Yes, the Tigers had some vets like Kenny Rogers and Ivan Rodriguez (who was not as good as he was in 2004 or 2005.) But they were a young team for the most part just three years removed from 119 losses (with much of the same personnel) and who made the World Series after finally getting hot come playoff time after a terrible August and September. Looking beyond the records, I'd hardly call that much of an upset.

The Rockies are a dangerous club. They deserve to be acknowledged as such.

[STLCards2]

I don't think the Cardinals were the best team. I think the Mets were.



Without Pedro Martinez? Not sure. With Pedro, the Mets would have very likely won the 2006 NLCS.

[brett]

Rockies are 62-28 in their last 90.

In the last 90 games they have:
116 OPS+
120 ERA+
(.662 pythag winning percentage using OPS+ for relative offense)

Just since the all star break, which eliminates their hottest stretch of the year we have the following pitching stats:

ERA and (ERA+ using season long environment)
Ubaldo: 2.60 (173)
DeLaRosa: 3.21 (140)
Marquis: 3.66 (123)
Hammel: 4.13 (109)

DeLaRosa has some killer stuff with over 9 Ks per 9 IP but has to stay in control. The STAFF has 7 Ks per 9 IP for the season.

They have 8 guys with double digit home runs, 2 more on the way, and Giambi.

They have outscored the Phillies and have given up fewer runs and that is with their terrible 20-32 start!

[STLCards2]

Rockies are 62-28 in their last 90.

In the last 90 games they have:
116 OPS+
120 ERA+
(.662 pythag winning percentage using OPS+ for relative offense)

Just since the all star break, which eliminates their hottest stretch of the year we have the following pitching stats:

ERA and (ERA+ using season long environment)
Ubaldo: 2.60 (173)
DeLaRosa: 3.21 (140)
Marquis: 3.66 (123)
Hammel: 4.13 (109)

DeLaRosa has some killer stuff with over 9 Ks per 9 IP but has to stay in control. The STAFF has 7 Ks per 9 IP for the season.

They have 8 guys with double digit home runs, 2 more on the way, and Giambi.

They have outscored the Phillies and have given up fewer runs and that is with their terrible 20-32 start!

Of course the Cardinals are something like 32-10 since Derosa came off the DL and Holliday and Lugo were acquired in late July. I wonder what their overall record would be if Holliday, Derosa, and Lugo were there for the first 4 months of the seasons instead of Chris Duncan, Joe Thurston, and Tyler Green? The Cardinals were also blitzed by injuries with DL stints by Ludwick, Ankiel, Carpenter, Loshe, Ryan, Derosa, and a few others. With reasonable health and the squad they have now, I wouldn't be shocked if they would win well more than 100 games.

Point is - I am sure we can come up with some reasons/stats/whatever to show any of these teams to be the favorites.

So, again, are you picking the Rockies to win the NL, or do you just want them discussed more? They are definitely under appreciated, but not picking them to win the NL is not a dig on them, necessarily. There are 4 really good teams in the NL this year - the odds of the Rockies making it are long, even if they are as good as the other 3.

[brett]

So, again, are you picking the Rockies to win the NL, or do you just want them discussed more? They are definitely under appreciated, but not picking them to win the NL is not a dig on them, necessarily. There are 4 really good teams in the NL this year - the odds of the Rockies making it are long, even if they are as good as the other 3.

I think the Rockies are the second best team to the Cards. The Cards kind of snuck up on me. Its amazing that Holliday is now I think over 24 win shares! I thought he was considered a disaster in Oakland.

The Rockies are just so deep. They have 6 guys who could start in the outfield. They have never had 5 starters on track for 175+ IP before.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I hate Heath Bell and Francisco Cordero.

[DownUnderDodger]

Perhaps the crunch is coming for the Rockies....they are only just over .500 in the NL West intra league games. As a Dodger fan I hope so!!

[OleMissCub]

I'm definitely on the Rockies bandwagon right now.

I'm a big, big Seth Smith fan too. That dude can straight up smack the hell out of the ball.

[bob]

You know who else is getting largely ignored, despite once again doing very well? The Angels. They dont have (m)any big stars but they have been playing great ball once again this year.

[Captain Cold Nose]

You know who else is getting largely ignored, despite once again doing very well? The Angels. They dont have (m)any big stars but they have been playing great ball once again this year.

The Angels need to do something in the post-season to really get noticed. Winning 100+ games then falling flat in the playoffs as they've done recently can put a damper on hype.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I'm definitely on the Rockies bandwagon right now.

I'm a big, big Seth Smith fan too. That dude can straight up smack the hell out of the ball.

After last night, I'd have to say a good curveball can slow him down. That was a lot of swinging and missing last night.

[Mr_Clutch]

You know who else is getting largely ignored, despite once again doing very well? The Angels. They dont have (m)any big stars but they have been playing great ball once again this year.

Getting owned by the Red Sox in October after October will do that to you.

[Imgran]

The Angels are going to get a lot more attention when they finally beat the Sox in a playoff series for the first time in their history.

Considering that in a short series you're stacking Lackey, Kazmir and Weaver against Beckett, Lester and Buchholz, it's going to be an interesting series -- but I think Boston has the advantage in each matchup, especially if Playoffs Beckett shows up. Boston also has a vastly superior bullpen, so I think we'll take a rain check on historic firsts this October.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So where is the S.F. Giants hype? :) They swept the Rockies about 10 days ago and could sweep them again. One game down, two to go. :dance

[spark240]

Also, I hope they stay close to the Dodgers . . . so the final 3 game series in early October mean something so far as the division winner is concerned.

Unless one of the other teams trailing behind in the NL "wild card standings" gets very hot very quick, the Oct. 2-4 Rockies at LA series can't mean much. The loser still advances. Perversely, the Twins at Detroit (four games, Sept. 28-Oct. 1) is more meaningful at this point than any games involving the first-place teams in either league.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The Giants beat the Rockies again last night 10-2! That's six straight victories over the Rockies in the past month. :) The Rockies lead is down to 2.5 games.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Unless one of the other teams trailing behind in the NL "wild card standings" gets very hot very quick, the Oct. 2-4 Rockies at LA series can't mean much. The loser still advances. Perversely, the Twins at Detroit (four games, Sept. 28-Oct. 1) is more meaningful at this point than any games involving the first-place teams in either league.

cant wait to see which team the Tigers or Twins finishes above .530

[Captain Cold Nose]

cant wait to see which team the Tigers or Twins finishes above .530

Probably both. But finishing first is what is important there, not the winning percentage. The point is, it's down to the wire for that one. Negative spins won't change that.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Probably both. But finishing first is what is important there, not the winning percentage. The point is, it's down to the wire for that one. Negative spins won't change that.

it is not a negative spin, it is reality

that is what you get with watered down expansion., screwed up scheduling and too many divisions

if it is not the AL Central, it would be another division, like the nL central or the nl west

congrats to the .530 division winner

[9RoyHobbsRF]

PS in case you have not checked, the Twins are at .503 and the Tigers are at .535

YAWN

the Twins have a better record than all of 6 teams in the 14 team AL

[Milt on Tilt]

PS in case you have not checked, the Twins are at .503 and the Tigers are at .535

YAWN

the Twins have a better record than all of 6 teams in the 14 team AL

RoyHobbs complaining about how things were better back in the good ole days.

YAWN

[Captain Cold Nose]

PS in case you have not checked, the Twins are at .503 and the Tigers are at .535

YAWN

the Twins have a better record than all of 6 teams in the 14 team AL

I've checked. So what? A race is a race is a race. Just because you don't care about it doesn't diminish what is going on.

Sunshine is a mighty disinfectant. But if the ointment works, why shove flies in there if we don't need it?

[BoweryBoys]

I've checked. So what? A race is a race is a race. Just because you don't care about it doesn't diminish what is going on.

Sunshine is a mighty disinfectant. But if the ointment works, why shove flies in there if we don't need it?

And to be fair, just because some people do care about it does not mean that makes it a great or even interesting pennant race for all fans or some how the system today is any better then systems past. At best it means it is interesting for Twins and Tigers fans but that in no way diminishes the idea that the current system will allow for teams close to around .500 in the playoffs.

[BoweryBoys]

RoyHobbs complaining about how things were better back in the good ole days.

YAWN

People bothered by those who feel past ways were better...

YAWN

Especially when it may be someone that wasn't even around at the time to experience it first hand. (Not saying that applies to you in particular, don't know if you were and don't care)

Who's really a bigger bore? Someone who was around at a particular time and era and remembers the excitement he felt first hand at the time, or someone who can't really know what they are talking about because they weren't even around then so they have no real frame of reference to judge whether or not old ways were or were not better? Especially those who were not around then but just insist new ways just have to be better or more interesting or exciting today? You'll never convince me that anything happening this particular season is in any way more interesting, more exciting, or better then it was for AL fans in 1967 or NL fans in 1951 or 1962 or 1966, or in many other numerous past seasons one could list.

[Captain Cold Nose]

And to be fair, just because some people do care about it does not mean that makes it a great or even interesting pennant race for all fans or some how the system today is any better then systems past. At best it means it is interesting for Twins and Tigers fans but that in no way diminishes the idea that the current system will allow for teams close to around .500 in the playoffs.

True, but another argument altogether. The bottom line is regardless of records there is a divison that vwery well could go down to the wire and the two (or three, counting the not-out-of-it Chisox) teams involved will be playing each other to decide who wins.

Races down to the wire are fun, period, if you're a baseball fan who can look beyond your own team.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

People bothered by those who feel past ways were better...

YAWN

Especially when it may be someone that wasn't even around at the time to experience it first hand. (Not saying that applies to you in particular, don't know if you were and don't care)

Who's really a bigger bore? Someone who was around at a particular time and era and remembers the excitement he felt first hand at the time, or someone who can't really know what they are talking about because they weren't even around then so they have no real frame of reference to judge whether or not old ways were or were not better? Especially those who were not around then but just insist new ways just have to be better or more interesting or exciting today? You'll never convince me that anything happening this particular season is in any way more interesting, more exciting, or better then it was for AL fans in 1967 or NL fans in 1951 or 1962 or 1966, or in many other numerous past seasons one could list.

i was there in 1967

a four team race for one playoff spot is better than a two team race to see which team finishes above .500 and defaults to a playoff spot in a league with 4 playoff spots

[ol' aches and pains]

there is a divison that vwery well could go down to the wire and the two (or three, counting the not-out-of-it Chisox) teams involved will be playing each other to decide who wins.

Thanks for pointing that out, I was about to do so myself. It ain't over till it's over. :waving:gt

[BoweryBoys]

True, but another argument altogether. The bottom line is regardless of records there is a divison that vwery well could go down to the wire and the two (or three, counting the not-out-of-it Chisox) teams involved will be playing each other to decide who wins.

Races down to the wire are fun, period, if you're a baseball fan who can look beyond your own team.

Quite true though I was merely trying to point out the subjective nature of this issue. Some argue that simply the fact that more teams qualify for the playoffs today somehow automatically makes the current system better and more interesting then systems past. I would submit what one finds better or more interesting is in the eyes of the beholder. At the same time I would submit there is also validity in the opinion of some who feel it is much more interesting to have 2, 4 or so teams fighting it out down to the wire where only one gets to qualify for the playoffs, i.e. claim the prize. Also, the system today has its flaws which can result in two basically mediocre teams, who may not have been anywhere near the playoffs in past seasons, racing down to the wire for a playoff spot with barely over a .500 winning percentage. If nothing else the current system does allow for what would have otherwise been a team finishing somewhere in the middle of the pack in eras past to get hot at the right time, win a few short series and wham they are WS champs. It does seem to water down somewhat the whole meaning of a long 162 game season. On the other hand there were runaway teams in eras past but there are also run away teams in this modern era as well. Again, subjective opinion if MLB is better because the fans of a couple teams may have a chance to bask in the glory of a barely over .500 champ. I've been a Cardinals fan for over 40 plus years, and speaking just as one fan, I take a lot more pride in the 67 Cardinals or even the 04 Cardinals then I do the 06 Cardinals.

[BoweryBoys]

i was there in 1967

a four team race for one playoff spot is better than a two team race to see which team finishes above .500 and defaults to a playoff spot in a league with 4 playoff spots

And I agree with you 100 percent and feel that the 1967 AL pennant race was much more exciting then any of the multiple races happening this season. I don't happen to believe that more pennant races automatically necessarily make for more exciting pennant races. However, there are some who counter that people like us are simply being "nostalgic". First, why would anyone be nostalgic for anything if they didn't know and experience first hand how good and exciting it was?
I wish I could get excited about something like the Dodgers, Rockies and Giants for example but when there is a good chance that at least two of those teams will be awarded with a playoff spot anyway, at least for me, it takes a lot of the drama out of it. However, I'm sure there are many Rockies and Giants fans today who in years ahead will look back with "nostalgia" at the great Rockies vs Giants race of 2009. The history books won't, the huge majority of MLB fans won't, it won't be looked upon and talked about in the same way as seasons past like 1951, 1962, 1967 and many others, etc.

[bob]

On the issue of wildcards and 8 team playoffs: In the old 2 team postseason where it was win the league or nothing you had some great races and they may have been more dramatic because of the all or nothing situation. But there were also years when with a month to go the league had already been effectively wonThe AL from '36 to '64 was pretty much a yankee playground, for every close race you had 2 years where someone (usually NYY) won by 8+ games. More teams with a chance going into the last week means more excited fans and that is what MLB overall wants.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

On the issue of wildcards and 8 team playoffs: In the old 2 team postseason where it was win the league or nothing you had some great races and they may have been more dramatic because of the all or nothing situation. But there were also years when with a month to go the league had already been effectively wonThe AL from '36 to '64 was pretty much a yankee playground, for every close race you had 2 years where someone (usually NYY) won by 8+ games. More teams with a chance going into the last week means more excited fans and that is what MLB overall wants.

that has been shown to be false

[Fuzzy Bear]

We're just two years past the Rockies last Feel Good Story and it's subsequent collapse in the Series. No one wants to see them beat better teams in the NLDS and NLCS only to then be fed into the wood chipper by a superior AL team.

I'm not convinced that this is the case this year. The Rox are streaking; they have been better then the Dodgers over the 2nd half.

[bob]

that has been shown to be false
I just checked. Since the wildcard there have been 15 AL teams end up being within 3 games of the division winner and 22 in the NL. Thats alot more fans with at least a small hope going into the last week that they can still win their division. How often were there close races in the 2 division era and then again in the pre-divisional era.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

I just checked. Since the wildcard there have been 15 AL teams end up being within 3 games of the division winner and 22 in the NL. Thats alot more fans with at least a small hope going into the last week that they can still win their division. How often were there close races in the 2 division era and then again in the pre-divisional era.

there have been numerous posts here on BB Fever that as many teams are within a reasonable amount of games (varies depending on the poster) going into September as possible post season participants in the era before 1969, 1969-1993, and the wildcard era. Some are like 8 games within first place with 4 weeks to go which is reasonable

The data was convincing

[BoweryBoys]

I will say this in regards to this season in particular. With about two weeks left the best that can be said for the current system as it is right now is that it has allowed for Twins, Red Sox , Rockies and Giants fans to stay in the playoff hunt through this point in the season. 4 out of 30 teams or 13.33%. I think if you study the history of MLB pennant and division races throughout all eras you will find many seasons when there were more then 13.33% of teams still in contention for a playoff spot.

The number of playoff spots and teams is irrelevant as what generates the excitement is, or should be, whether an individual team wins a playoff spot or not in relation to beating out its competition. For example, right now there is probably only 1 out of 6 divisions that has any kind of a real race and three games still separate the two teams. The WC has allowed one more race in the NL where 2.5 games separate the two teams. So the excitement at this point is rather limited to those two races.

Now it is true that in eras and systems past the excitement was limited to only two or four races to follow where now there are eight. However, I think some have a valid argument when they say that more races do not necessarily automatically equate with more exciting races. I think this season at this point in time offers some valid proof of that. MLB Network recently aired a program counting down what they felt was the top 20 pennant races of all-time and only one of the twenty was from later then 1993. (1995)

To get this on-topic, perhaps the current system is to blame for the Rockies not receiving more hype outside their fan base. After all they have the fourth best record in the NL and are battling the fifth best record for a playoff spot. Perhaps if the Rockies had been an NL team in say 1962 for example and were going down to the wire against the Giants for a playoff spot there would be more nation wide coverage and excitement among all fans in general. After all the analogy is apt as what they would be doing then is the same as they are today, fighting each other for a single playoff spot. Only then it was the only playoff spot and winning it meant one had the best record in their league.

Perhaps the best thing to be said for the current system is that it allows for higher levels of excitement throughout the playoffs. That and the fact that it keeps perhaps a more deserving team with a better record like the Red Sox from missing a playoff spot to teams with a lesser record like the Tigers and Twins. One thing I do hate about the current playoff system though is when some announcer says that so and so in the game holds the record for the most something in the history of the post season without also mentioning that there are also many more post season games today then there were in any era past.