Pon de Replay

So this past weekend the left field line umpire clearly missed a seemingly easy fair/foul call that robbed Joe Mauer of a double. Instead, he got a single later on in the at bat. The next batter got a single, and one would assume Mauer would have scored. Instead, the Twins got no runs that half inning and eventually lost the game.

At the end of the day the Twins didn't really lose too much because they would have eventually lost the series to the Yankees anyway, and if you can't win the series, nothing matters, right?

This opened up the debate of expanding the parameters of instant replay. Purists claim if you allowed more things to be reviewed, a) the game's "rhythm" would be disrupted and b) there would be no end to what can be reviewed.

Though I don't agree with either of these arguments, I do believe there needs to be a change. The bottom line is that human error by an umpire should never factor into the outcome of a game.

So how do you do it? A typical baseball game has four umpires - one at each base. In the playoffs they add two more to left and right field on the fair/foul line. I propose that you have one more official at all times in a booth. He will watch the game as the fan at home sees it, with replays. At any time, at his discretion, he can stop play and overrule any review eligible call made on the field if he believes a wrong call was made. Obviously, he will be advised to err on the side of the call made on the field and to reverse only when there is clear visual evidence the call made on the field was wrong.

This solution addresses both arguments.

1. The game's rhythm is not disrupted. Changes will be made without prompting from the manager, so they can be made promptly. The fact of the matter is that play is stopped when there is a close play because one of the managers runs on to the field to talk to the umps. During this time the replay ump can watch the replay, and chances are he will have the correct ruling by the time the first words of the on-field conversation between ump and manager are even spoken.

2. Where do you draw the line? In the NFL there are plays that cannot be challenged. The same will be the case in this system. Any calls that are based on judgement (balls and strikes, interference, running outside the basepath) cannot be reversed by the replay umpire. Fair/foul, safe/out at a base, check swings all should be able to be reviewed and corrected by the replay official.

Major League Baseball needs a system like this. This will ensure that the "rhythm" of the game is not interrupted and it will also ensure that as many calls as possible are made correctly.

Stumbling to the Finish Line

The MLB Postseason starts on Wednesday. Many an expert has said that momentum heading into the playoffs is key to winning the World Series. I wondered just how legit that statement is, and what the norm of "hotness" is for teams that do win the World Series.

Here are the past 10 World Series winners and their record for the last 20 games heading into the postseason.

2008 Phillies: 14-6
2007 Red Sox: 10-10
2006 Cardinals: 8-12
2005 White Sox: 12-8
2004 Red Sox: 12-8
2003 Marlins: 14-6
2002 Angels: 11-9
2001 Diamonbacks: 12-8
2000 Yankees: 5-15
1999 Yankees: 13-7

The average W-L is 11.1-8.9
The mode W-L is 12-8
The median W-L is 12-8

This season's postseason contenders?
AL
New York Yankees: 12-8
Boston Red Sox: 11-9
Anaheim Angels: 11-9
Detroit Tigers: 10-10
Minnesota Twins: 16-4

NL
Los Angeles Dodgers: 11-9
Philadelphia Phillies: 11-9
Colorado Rockies: 10-10
St Louis Cardinals: 7-13

I don't know about you, but I'm surprised to see that 6 of the 9 teams are playing .500 or .550 ball. In fact, all of the teams except for the Twins have winning percentages that are less than their overall winning percentage. In a sense, almost all of the teams have been playing below par.

I posted postseason picks before, but here is an update:
Yankees over Tigers in 4
Angels over Red Sox in 4

Dodgers over Cardinals in 4
Rockies over Phillies in 3

Angels over Yankees in 6
Dodgers over Rockies in 5

Dodgers over Angels in 7

BOOYEAH!

Safety First

Everyone knows David Wright got beaned in the head hardcore style a couple of weeks ago from Lookalike Friday Alum Matt Cain. Some may have heard about this new batting helmet that he said he would be willing to wear because it can withstand a 100mph pitch. By withstand, I'm guessing that means the helmet stays intact and the wearer suffers damage less than that necessary to cause a concussion.

I looked up what this legendary batting helmet looked like. Ladies and gentlemen the Rawlings S100.



I had read that players were reluctant to wear the hat because it made them look silly. Ryan Dempster said he felt like it was his "own bobblehead night" while he wore it. I saw the above picture of the batting helmet and thought, "OH God! Here comes the athlete invincibility complex. If I were a baseball player I would wear this thing in a heartbeat."

I watched some video from Rawlings executives outlining the safety features of the helmet and wondered why they never showed a picture with someone wearing it. I got my answer tonight.



Here is David Wright in his first game back from injury and immediately I thought, "OH God! No wonder they don't wanna wear that thing. It makes you look like the Great Gazoo."



After looking at the size of the helmet I was actually disappointed that it wouldn't protect you from something worse than a 100mph fastball. I would have expected something like that to protect you from a falling piano or a hand grenade. The fact that Jon Broxton could still hurt you despite wearing that helmet is a bit disappointing.

Would I still wear this helmet? Absolutely. I would rather look like a fool than risk my career. But I think I would swap out to the more traditional hard hat when on the basepaths.

I think they really need to consider making at least some kind of reinforced hat for pitchers to wear. I'm talking about less protection than the hats first and third base coaches wear, but more protection than a wool 5950 New Era cap.

Wag the Dog

Billy Wagner today OKed a trade from the Mets to the Red Sox. It was previously thought that he wouldn't accept the trade because even though the Red Sox were willing to decline their team option for next year, they wouldn't agree to not extend him arbitration.

Basically Waggles wanted to be a free agent as soon as possible so he can rack up as many saves as possible before he retires. Playing for the Mets or the Red Sox doesn't give him opportunities to close, so he'd rather this year end as soon as possible and become a free agent.

That was until today. He woke up this morning and decided he would like to play for a contender.

I was thinking, usually it's the other way around, isn't it? Guys say they don't care about personal accomplishments and would rather have the opportunity to play for a championship (Wagner has never been to the World Series)

Wagner was the other way around until today, but even if he hadn't accepted the trade to the Red Sox I wouldn't have blamed him.

Think about it. Just because you get traded to a team that hasn't been eliminated from postseason contention doesn't mean you're going to win a title. In fact, even if you get traded to a team that is IN the playoffs, that doesn't remotely mean you're going to win a title. Even if you're traded to one of the two World Series teams, there's no guarantee you're going to win the title.

If I was Billy Wagner, would I sacrifice the chance to get up the saves list for the outside chance of maybe winning a championship? Maybe not.

Billy Wagner is in a position to make a push for the Hall of Fame. If he can get 25 saves for three more years, he will be fourth on the all time saves list behind Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera, and Lee Smith - two guys who will be in the HOF and one guy who somewhat has a case. Not to mention that he'll be the saves leader for lefties, which will bolster his chances that much more.

Sometimes you have to weigh the odds and set your priorities. In the case of Billy Wagner, winning a championship and racking up 70 or so more saves both help your chances of getting into the HOF, but if you have to pick one, I think it's a no-brainer.

Besides, the Red Sox aren't going to be playing mid-October baseball anyway.

Playoff push

Sorry for the lack of entries these days. There hasn't been too much to blog about recently. I don't want to talk about Brett Favre because the worst thing you can do for an attention whore is to talk about him, so I will not proceed any further.

Instead, let's take a look at October baseball in the horizon.

Here are the relevant MLB standings as of Wednesday, August 19, 2009:

AL

West	East	Central	Wild Card
Angels 73-45 Rangers 67-52 (-6.5)	Yankees 76-45 Red Sox 68-51 (-7)	Tigers 63-56 White Sox 62-59 (-2) Twins 58-62 (-5.5)	Boston Rangers (-1) Rays (-3) Mariners (-6.5) White Sox (-7)

NL

West	East	Central	Wild Card
Dodgers 71-50 Rockies 67-53 (-3.5) Giants 66-54 (-4.5)	Phillies 68-49 Marlins 64-56 (-5.5) Braves 63-57 (-6.5)	Cardinals 69-53 Cubs 61-57 (-6)	Rockies Giants (-1) Marlins (-3) Braves (-4) Cubs (-5)

My Predictions:
AL
West: Angels
-Their lead is too big and they are such a complete team from top to bottom.
East: Yankees
-They are playing too well right now and they will keep it up enough to hold on
Central: White Sox
-I'm not sold on the Tigers' starting pitching outside of Edwin Jackson and Justin Verlander.
Wild Card: Rangers
-I really like the addition of Pudge. I think he's going to make their overachieving young starters that much better. Every team that makes a run to the World Series has an electric young player and Neftali Feliz fits the bill.

NL
West: Dodgers
-Just barely. They win the division by a game and a half, tops.
East: Phillies
-Two words: Cliff. Lee.
Central: Cardinals
-The Cubs aren't going to end up coming anywhere close.
Wild Card: Giants
-The Rockies are hitting on all cylinders now, but can they keep it up? I don't think so. The Giants starting pitching is too good and they will score just enough runs to make it in.

ALDS:
Yankees vs Rangers: Yankees in 6
-I want to pick the Rangers because I think they have potential, but picking them against this Yankees team would be tomfoolery.
Angels vs White Sox: Angels in 5
-They'll all be close games, but the White Sox just don't have enough to get by the Angels.

ALCS:
Angels vs Yankees: Yankees in 7
-An epic battle. Yankees will simply come up with more clutch hits. The most clutch of all will be...yes...A-Rod.

NLDS:
Cardinals vs Giants: Giants in 6
-Carpenter vs Lincecum, Wainwright vs Cain...those will be matchups to look forward to if this series does end up happening. I think the Giants have a better bullpen...and the older Molina.
Dodgers vs Phillies: Dodgers in 6
-The Dodgers are better offensively than last year vs the Phillies. The Phillies have better starting pitching than last year vs the Dodgers. The Phillies bullpen got worse, namely Brad Lidge. He blows two saves in this series and the Dodgers take advantage.

NLCS:
Dodgers vs Giants: Dodgers in 5
-The Giants train runs out of gas at the NLCS.

World Series:
Dodgers vs Yankees: Dodgers in 6
-C'mon. In the off chance that all of this ends up happening and if I picked against the Dodgers and they actually won it, do you know what kind of crap I would get? Not worth it. Go Dodgers.

Take Me Out to the Ball Game

I bought half season tickets for the Dodgers this season. It's the first time I've ever purchased any ticket plan for any professional team. I wondered how easily I could sell my unused tickets and how much I would lose overall. The state of the economy fueled most of my worries, but I went through with it anyway.

Thankfully, with 4 games left that I am looking to sell tickets to, I have been able to break even. Selling tickets has been easy on stubhub and I plan to get full season tickets next year.

I've been fortunate because attendance at baseball games is down. Even at Dodger Stadium, which has been consistently in the top 3 every year in attendance, some games you are surprised at how many empty seats there are.

You know, I always wondered what it must be like to go to a 18,000 person Florida Marlins game. It must be pretty freakin awesome if you're a Marlins fan.
1. Ticket prices must be dirt cheap.
2. If you shout at players they can actually hear you.
3. No crowded parking or concessions lines.
4. There aren't enough people to successfully execute a wave. (GOD I HATE THE WAVE)
5. If you go to an empty outfield section, as long as you are the first person to get to the home run ball, it's yours! You don't even have to catch it.

I took a look at the top 15 teams in attendance this year and calculated the percent change in attendance from last year to this year.

Club	% Change
Yankees	-13.8%
Dodgers	-2.4%
Phillies	+4.5%
Cardinals	-3.8%
Angels	-1.9%
Cubs	-1.2%
Mets	-23.3%
Brewers	+1.1%
Red Sox	+.8%
Giants	0%
Rockies	-3.6%
Tigers	-20%
Astros	-11.8%
Braves	-2.9%
Twins	+2.8%

I knew the Tigers were going to get hit, but not this hard. You can blame the decrease in the Mets probably on ticket prices and lowered performances by the team. The Yankees' ticket prices are well documented and account for their decline.

I was actually surprised to see a few teams actually increase. I guess it's no shock that the World Champion Phillies would see an increase in attendance, but they had essentially the same lineup as they did last year. And I don't think you get 2,000 more fans a game because of Raul Ibanez...unless they're fans of Slingblade and the Astronaut Farmer. So it looks like the notoriously hardcore sports fans of Philadelphia are somewhat bandwagoners after all.

Another surprise was Milwaukee. That team outside of Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun (who they both had last year) sucks. Did they just now find out about the awesomeness of Prince? Or maybe it's just because there really isn't crap to do in Milwaukee.

I really hope attendance figures can bounce back next season. A baseball game is such a fun time that I don't think enough people get to experience.

Don't Blow It

So I was thinking about blown saves the other day after Big Jon Broxton blew one versus the Braves.

As background info, here are the rules that govern a "save"

From MLB Official Rule Book 10.19:

A save is a statistic credited to a relief pitcher, as set forth in this Rule 10.19.
The official scorer shall credit a pitcher with a save when such pitcher meets all four of the following conditions:
(a) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team;
(b) He is not the winning pitcher;
(c) He is credited with at least ⅓ of an inning pitched; and
(d) He satisfies one of the following conditions:
(1) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning;
(2) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batters he faces); or
(3) He pitches for at least three innings.

The rules are pretty self explanatory. If you have a hypothetical situation where you're not sure if it should be a save, please post it.

So it seems pretty simple.

Get the last three outs of a ball game with up to a 3-run lead. Yet, how many times do you find yourself shouting at the TV, "Oh my God, I wicked hate you *closer*. You ALWAYS blow saves!!! If we had a good closer, we would have won this game."

Well, let's take a look at some notable closers and their save percentages to see what is an acceptable save percentage.

Name	Saves	Save %
1. Trevor Hoffman	579	89%
2. Mariano Rivera	514	89%
3. Lee Smith	478	82%
4. John Franco	424	81%
5. Dennis Eckersley	390	85%
6. Billy Wagner	385	86%
Francisco Rodriguez (K-Rod)	232	86%
Joe Nathan	229	89%
Jonathan Papelbon	140	89%
Bobby Jenks	139	87%

The first 6 are the top 6 all time leaders in saves, and the last 4 are current closers widely considered to be "automatic"

Two things jumped out at me:
1. How many players have a save percentage of 89%
2. There are no players over 89% in save percentage.

A typical closer makes about 50 appearances in save situations per year. Therefore, each percentage point drop results in a loss of half a save.

So in conclusion, as long as your closer is saving games at a rate in the mid- to high-80's, you can't really ask for more.

About Schmidt

Tomorrow Jason Schmidt returns to the pitcher's mound for the first time since June 16, 2007 - a little more than two years.

Here are the major questions that need to be answered.

1. How will his shoulder hold up?
The length of his start will obviously depend on his effectiveness, but if the Dodgers can stake him a big lead early, we will be able to get the best idea of where he is health-wise.

2. What kind of pitches will he throw?
This is Jason Schmidt's pitch distribution with his best years in San Francisco:

Year	Fastball	Changeup	Curveball	Slider
2002	73.4%	8.2%	7.0%	11.5%
2003	75.7%	13.5%	4.2%	6.6%
2004	64.6%	25.8%	3.6%	5.7%
2005	63.0%	23.3%	6.6%	6.7%

As you can see, Schmidt was a primarily fastball-changeup guy. He would overpower you with the fastball and keep you off balance with the changeup. He has a slider, but used used it less often as the years went by.

Obviously Jason Schmidt has to reinvent himself if he wants to succeed. He can't blow guys away anymore, so he's going to have to find other ways to get them out.

He can stick to his fastball-changeup routine, but he's going to have to start nibbling at corners and pitching smarter than he ever did before. Greg Maddux used a fastball-changeup combo and basically nothing else and everyone knows how well he fared with it.

Alternatively, Schmidt can bring back the slider and bring it into the mix, along with potentially his curveball. It goes without saying that he has to throw these pitches well, but if he can, it will place less of a burden on his being accurate.

Ideally, I would like to see Schmidt throw a 60-20-20 split of fastballs, changeups and sliders.

3. What can you expect from him?
I think if Jason Schmidt can give the Dodgers 6 innings and give up 4 runs or less, that should be considered a successful outing. The Ks don't matter. He can get 2 or 12, but I don't think it will mean much. Too many variables go into Ks to make any conclusions from one outing.

4. If he pitches well, will the Dodgers still go out and get pitching help?
In my opinion, the Dodgers absolutely should go get more pitching regardless of Schmidt's performance on Monday.

If he can consistently give the Dodgers at least 6 innings and 4 or less runs given up, then he will be just the fifth starter they've been looking for. McDonald and Weaver can move back to the bullpen permanently for this season as long guys. Hong Chih Kuo, Cory Wade, Ronald Beer Belly-sario and Will Ohman were all supposed to figure prominently this season in the bullpen. They're all injured. In their absence, Torre has turned to Brent Leach, Claudio Vargas, and Scott Elbert. That's not going to cut it.

The Dodgers have to make some moves, and a few relievers out there worth trading for are George Sherrill of the Orioles, Jason Frasor of the Blue Jays, and good old Joe Beimel of the Nationals.

If the Dodgers can get both Sherrill and Frasor, bullpen issues are OVER. Guaranteed.

It will be really exciting to see what Schmidt has to give, as well as his approach to facing batters. Even if he has a really bad outing, the Dodgers should give him a couple more chances to prove himself.

They owe him that much. (Along with $15.2 million in salary this year)

Oh I'm Halla Down

The Toronto Blue Jays have expressed that if someone is willing to offer them a large package (of baseball players) then they would be willing to consider it in exchange for Roy Halladay. They would be willing to part ways with their ace starting pitcher because they're not sure they would be able to re-sign him when he hits free agency.

This is becoming a more common move, particularly with smaller market teams who don't have the funds necessary to re-sign their stud pitchers. Usually they are traded for prospects, so the team giving up the current star has a chance to possibly land a future star.

There have been some notable moves in the past few years. Here are some I've come up with off the top of my head. Analysis will follow. Basically I'm going to judge whether or not the team trading the stud ended up getting anyone good from the trade.

(numbers in parentheses are the player's birth year, if pertinent)
Oakland A's trade Tim Hudson to the Atlanta Braves
Oak: Charles Thomas, Juan Cruz, Dan Meyer
Atl: Hudson

Charles Thomas: No longer in league
Juan Cruz (78): Now with the Royals, solid relief pitcher
Dan Meyer (81): Waived by A's, now with Marlins

Verdict: Oakland wasn't able to land anyone good enough to stay on their team, but Hudson has been an overall disappointment with the Braves as well. More or less a wash.

Oakland A's send Mark Mulder to the St. Louis Cardinals
Oak: Dan Haren, Kiko Calero, Daric Barton
StL: Mulder

Daric Barton (85): still too early to tell
Kiko Calero (75): released by A's

Verdict: Again, the A's sold at the right time, because Mulder hasn't done much with the Cardinals since being traded there. The A's absolutely got a gem in Dan Haren, who played very well for them. Speaking of Haren...

Oakland A's trade Dan Haren to the Arizona Diamondbacks
Oak: Brett Anderson, Dana Eveland, Greg Smith, Chris Carter, Aaron Cunningham, Carlos Gonzalez
Ariz: Haren, Connor Robertson
(Later Rockies trade Matt Holliday to the A's for Huston Street, Greg Smith, Carlos Gonzalez)

Brett Anderson (88): Solid in minors, no good in handful of appearances in majors
Dana Eveland (83): Very average, end of rotation starter
Chris Carter (82): In Boston organization now
Aaron Cunningham (86): Still too young
Greg Smith and Carlos Gonzalez: Used to get Matt Holliday from the Colorado Rockies

Verdict: The prospects are too young to tell. Had Matt Holliday not been a huge bust in Oakland so far this year, I would be inclined to say this was actually not a bad move. Essentially you're getting 4 prospects PLUS Matt Holliday for Dan Haren. Since they're going to probably end up trading Matt Holliday before season's end, the question of whether or not the Dan Haren trade was good for the A's will be more complicated than Avril Lavigne in an episode of Lost.

Minnesota Twins trade Johan Santana to the New York Mets
Minn: Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, Deolis Guerra
NY: Santana

Carlos Gomez: Starting CF for the Twins
Phil Humber (82): Has been very bad in a handful of appearances so far
Deolis Guerra (89) and Kevin Mulvey (85): Still too young

Verdict: If you can get any starter in one of these deals, I think it's a good deal. Carlos Gomez is a defensively good center fielder and quick on the basepaths, so any one of those other prospects who becomes a decent player is icing on the cake.

Cleveland Indians trade Carston Charles (CC) Sabathia to the Milwaukee Brewers
Cle: Matt LaPorta, Rob Bryson, Zach Jackson
Mil: CC, Michael Brantley

Matt LaPorta (85): Good in the minors, got called up earlier this year, still very young
Rob Bryson (87): Still too young
Zach Jackson (85): Not great so far in his starts

Verdict: Matt LaPorta will most likely be the only player of value gained from the Brewers. The only problem is that he is an outfielder and the Indians have three good or emerging young outfielders in Grady Sizemore, Shin-Soo Choo and Ben Francisco. His success as a Cleveland Indian remains to be seen.

Overall, these trades are usually, all things considered, productive ones for the team selling the star pitcher before he hits the free agent market.

I honestly don't think a Roy Halladay trade is going to happen because it seems like the Blue Jays want an incredible amount of talent in return for him, and the Blue Jays have been wearing him out this season so far. Both parties will not be able to come to an agreement over what is a fair trade for Roy Halladay. That is, unless the Blue Jays relax their demands or if a team gets really desperate to win this year.

The All-Popular Team

You may have heard the controversy recently surrounding Manny Ramirez potentially being voted to the All-Star team by the fans despite not having played a lot due to his suspension.

I think this exposes an inherent flaw in the way the MLB and the NBA determine their All-Star starters.

It's hard to reconcile that being an All-Star is prestigious, yet the starters are picked by fans, who will not always pick the best player. Typically they will pick the most popular.

This invariably creates situations where you're faced with players awarded a prestigious honor who have earned it more from being notable than from playing well.

Notable undeserving vote-ins:
NBA
2009 - Allen Iverson
2007 - Shaq (I'm not 100% sure about this, but I recall Shaq not really having that great of a year)
2003 - Vince Carter

MLB
2008 - Kosuke Fukudome
2007 - Ken Griffey Jr.

I know there are more, but I can't seem to remember.

The instituted remedy is that the manager or coach who is coaching the team is able to pick the rest of the players on the All-Star roster using his discretion, and thus those players who have played well are awarded the honor of being an All-Star.

This works to a degree, but the bottom line is that every spot taken by an undeserving player is one less for a player who does deserve it.

I suggest one of two fixes:

1. Fans and players combine to vote for All-Stars
The fan vote will account for 2/3 of the weight in determining the starters, and a player vote will account for the other 1/3 of the weight. You may have your occasional player who votes only for himself and those around him, but I think those players will be far outnumbered by players voting honestly.

For example, no baseball player would vote for Manny to be an All-Star this year, so even if he is voted in by the fans, he will not be able to survive the player vote factor. (Unless the player vote is absurdly widely spread out amongst outfielders)

This way, you still preserve the aspect of "being voted in by the fans" and yet are able to get the best players in there.

Or
2. All-Star Electoral College
This is a lot more complicated. Bear with me.

There is voting at stadiums, as usual. These votes are separated and represents that team's fans' vote. So all of the votes cast at AT&T Park are bunched under "Giants Fans Votes" and all of the votes cast at Citi Field are bunched under "Mets Fans Votes"

There is also online voting, as usual. You can trace the location of a voter by IP address, so you can split up the online votes into geographic regions, with each team getting a certain geographic region. So if I lived in Milwaukee or in close proximity, my vote would be bunched under "Brewers Fans Votes"

Those online voters from regions without a team nearby or with divided loyalty (N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Alaska, New Mexico, etc) get bunched under "other US". Those outside of the US get bunched under "international"

*For areas with two teams in close proximity, LA Dodgers & Anaheim Angels, Oakland A's & SF Giants, NY Mets & Yankees, you would split up that area in a way that makes sense, given the common allegiances.*

So at this point you have a vote for each team (online + stadium), a vote for "other US" (online) and a vote for "international" (online)

Then you run it just like the electoral college. Whoever gets the most votes of the 32 "states" gets to start in their respective position.

Even if 1 million people voted for Manny in the greater Los Angeles area, it wouldn't matter because there wouldn't be enough votes across the rest of America to make a difference, since the opinions of the Dodger fans would only account for 1/32nd of the overall vote.

This concept would also keep a guy like Kosuke Fukudome, who was undoubtedly fueled by the Japanese vote exclusively, out of the picture as well, as the international vote would only account for 1/32nd of the overall vote.

I really hope I've explained the process clearly enough because I think it would really work.

MLB Interleague Play

I wanted to do a post about MLB interleague play for a couple of days, but have had some amazing NBA playoff games to write about instead.

I enjoy interleague play. I like seeing matchups you don't see every day and I'm a sucker for nicknames like "Windy City Series" and "Beltway Series" and "I-70 Series" and of course the "Freeway Series"

The only thing I can't stand about interleague play is that it creates an environment for unfairness.

Interleague play is unfair because NL teams, for one, don't all play the same number of interleague games as each other. Some play 12, some play 15, some play 18. This is because the NL has 2 more teams than the AL. From this, strength of schedule discrepancies arise, and in a sport with only one wild card spot for the playoffs, every game counts.

Another thing that drives me crazy is that the NL has the pitcher batting and the AL as the DH. I don't care one way or another, but there's no reason to have the difference. If I had to pick I would have the NL switch to allowing the DH, but I won't go into that today.

The NBA doesn't have differences in strength of schedule. Each team plays 52 conference games (4 against every other team) and 30 non conference games (2 against every other team). Fair and elegant. Very nice Dave Stern.

The NFL has obvious disparity from team to team in strength of schedule, but when you have 32 teams and 17 weeks to play the games, a disparity is unavoidable unless you expand the schedule to 31 weeks. To help remedy this, there are two wild card spots for each conference for the playoffs. I don't hold it against you Roger Goodell, just stop this whole NFL games in Europe shenanigans.

The MLB has no excuse for a disparity in strength of schedule. There are 182 games in the season and they only have one wild card spot for each league. Either expand the playoffs or create a more even regular season.

My Proposal:
Move the Houston Astros to the AL West. Why does the NL Central have 6 teams and the AL West 4? This makes no sense to begin with. Make the divisions even in number.
Each NL team plays two 2-game series with each AL team (15 teams, 60 games)
Each NL team plays two 3-game series with each non-divison NL team (10 teams, 60 games)
Each NL team plays two 4-game series with each team in its division (4 teams, 32 games)
Vice-versa for AL teams.
That's 152 games. The MLB season is too long anyway, shorten it while you're at it.
Add two more teams to each league playoff and reward the best two teams with byes.

This combines the approaches of the NBA and the NFL and I think would make for a structure and schedule that makes much more sense. This creates 4 more playoff series, which equates to between 16 and 28 playoff games, which would more than make up for the lost revenue of the 10 games lost per team (150 games lost overall).

Would Bud Selig go for this? I don't see why not. He seems like a reasonable guy for the most part. Shortening the season would be the hardest sell.

I should find out his email address and let him know of my idea, but I'm sure he's heard a million ideas like mine before.

*edit* for some reason when I was writing the post I thought the MLB season was 182 games, probably thinking of the 82-game NBA season. anyway, the appropriate changes have been made.