Prospect Rankings - Page 4

Roxpert · March 1st, 2007, 01:46 PM

Personally, I'd want to be in charge of an AL West team every year. There's nothing like competing in a 4-team division, compared to our 5-team division or, heaven forbid, a 6-team division such as the NL Central. That's one of the things that's unfair about MLB right now. The A's have an unfair advantage, while the Astros have an unfair disadvantage just based on the number of teams they need to finish ahead of to capture a playoff spot (not counting the wild card).

sg8335aa · March 1st, 2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Personally, I'd want to be in charge of an AL West team every year. There's nothing like competing in a 4-team division, compared to our 5-team division or, heaven forbid, a 6-team division such as the NL Central. That's one of the things that's unfair about MLB right now. The A's have an unfair advantage, while the Astros have an unfair disadvantage just based on the number of teams they need to finish ahead of to capture a playoff spot (not counting the wild card).

Technically yes......however in reality:
2006: AL West division winner had 93 wins
NL Central division winner had 83 wins

2005: AL West division winner had 95 wins
NL Central division winner had 100 wins

2004: AL West division winner had 92 wins
NL Central division winner had 102 wins

2003: AL West division winner had 96 wins
NL Central division winner had 88 wins

2002: AL West division winner had 103 wins
NL Central division winner had 97 wins

2001: AL West division winner had 116 wins
NL Central division winner had 93 wins

Moral of the Story: Despite fewer teams, its actually harder to win the division in the AL West. 4 out of the past 6 years, its taken a higher win total to be division champion than in the NL Central.

Its not about the number of teams you "have to jump over".......its about getting 90-something wins. Do that, and you're in good shape.

In fact, you could argue that between the two divisions........Oakland had the toughest time back in 2001. Seattle was dominate and ended up with 116 wins......Oakland finished 2nd with 102 wins (in a 4 team division). Oakland had the 2nd best record in all of baseball that year.

I'd much rather be in the NL Central than in the AL West. The number of teams only matter if you're mediocre. If you're a good team, it really doesn't matter. Get to 90 wins.

In the past 6 seasons, there have been nine 90-win teams that have missed the playoffs. 6 of those teams came from the AL while only 3 from the NL.

Once again.....I'd rather be in the NL Central. I don't really think it ultimately matters all that much.

Roxpert · March 1st, 2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sg8335aa

Technically yes......however in reality:
I'd much rather be in the NL Central than in the AL West. The number of teams only matter if you're mediocre. If you're a good team, it really doesn't matter. Get to 90 wins.

That's such flawed logic, SG. Get to 90 wins and you're likely to get the wild card spot in the playoffs even if it isn't enough wins to take the division.

The issue is NOT regarding the quality of the actual teams the past several seasons. Rather, the issue is that a league is only fair if each team in a league has schedules of similar strength and the same number of opponents in their respective "horse races". Even if you're a thoroughbred horse, I think you'd rather be in a race with 4 horses than one with 6 horses. More can go right under those circumstances.

In other words, I'd rather be in the NL Central ONLY IF the unbalanced schedule in that division is weaker than the alternative. In all other cases, OF COURSE I'd rather be in the smaller division. Simple logic, SG.

sg8335aa · March 1st, 2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

In other words, I'd rather be in the NL Central ONLY IF the unbalanced schedule in that division is weaker than the alternative. In all other cases, OF COURSE I'd rather be in the smaller division. Simple logic, SG.

In theory....yes I agree.

The point that I was trying to make was that in actuality, the case is quite different. Due to the consistant quality of teams in the AL West, there isn't an issue with it being only 4 teams.

At the same time.....due to a consistant poor-quality of many of the NL Central Teams, there hasn't been much of an issue.

Just because something is theoretically unbalanced, doesn't mean that in reality it is the same way. That was the point I was trying to make.

The 4-team division is also helped by the fact that they play in the same league as Boston/NY. Meaning, to get far in the playoffs, you've typically had to go through either Boston or New York, which is something the AL West teams (save Anaheim) have been terrible at trying to accomplish.

Baseball has far bigger and more important problems than the 4/6 team division situation. It really doesn't matter all that much.

hiaspire · March 1st, 2007, 03:43 PM

I'd personally rather be in a division with more teams that are weaker in general than a smaller division with a couple of very strong teams. The schedule works in your favor even with a lot of weaker teams in a large mediocre division where you can rack up the wins versus 4 solid teams beating each other up. I don't think the A's were at much of an advantage going against stronger competition more often than division winners in far weaker divisions that had more teams to pile up easy wins against.

The raw quantity numbers might be better in a smaller division, but the strength of teams is far more important IMO. Small division and weak competition within that small group would be best for assuring a playoff spot obviously, but you'll get no such assurances or greater odds if most of your small group division is very strong and pulling each other down. It all depends greatly upon the team strengths. As you mention with the AL East example and it's strength, if you only had a 3 team division with Boston, NYY, and whoever else the size of the division is utterly meaningless for the most part. Whether it is 3 teams or 7 teams it won't matter as much. The different team strengths are the biggest factor IMO above division size, but that's certainly not something to ignore either when picking the best spot.

Roxpert · March 1st, 2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiaspire

I'd personally rather be in a division with more teams that are weaker in general than a smaller division with a couple of very strong teams.

So would I. That wasn't the choice I was making, and in fact it's a false choice. If a league is set up from scratch and nobody really knows which franchises will be the strong ones, you'd choose to be placed in the 4-team division first, then one of the 5-team divisions, and the 6-team division last. That's the only point I was making.

I do agree that in the real world the lack of uniform schedules, even within the same divisions, is more problematic than the size of divisions. Of course, strength of opponents is a larger factor too.

hiaspire · March 1st, 2007, 04:05 PM

Then there isn't much disagreement as it seemed initially. It isn't a "false choice", though, because that is the reality of the situation described picking amongst existing teams and their given realities. Not some fantasy of starting everything over from scratch, which would be false to me.

But in any event, back to the Rox prospects. Seeing Iannetta in the top 100 helps with Ringolsby's chat where everyone was upset about the catcher dropping in team rankings. Iannetta wasn't top 100 individually in 06, but is in 07. So he's actually improving his personal stock, even if the team ranking went down. I still don't agree, but it makes it seem more reasonable within that overall picture and would have been a good way to describe the situation better for those at the chat concerned about Iannetta dropping. He is actually gaining in prospect rankings from BA individually.

March 1st, 2007, 03:43 PM	#50 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	I'd personally rather be in a division with more teams that are weaker in general than a smaller division with a couple of very strong teams. The schedule works in your favor even with a lot of weaker teams in a large mediocre division where you can rack up the wins versus 4 solid teams beating each other up. I don't think the A's were at much of an advantage going against stronger competition more often than division winners in far weaker divisions that had more teams to pile up easy wins against. The raw quantity numbers might be better in a smaller division, but the strength of teams is far more important IMO. Small division and weak competition within that small group would be best for assuring a playoff spot obviously, but you'll get no such assurances or greater odds if most of your small group division is very strong and pulling each other down. It all depends greatly upon the team strengths. As you mention with the AL East example and it's strength, if you only had a 3 team division with Boston, NYY, and whoever else the size of the division is utterly meaningless for the most part. Whether it is 3 teams or 7 teams it won't matter as much. The different team strengths are the biggest factor IMO above division size, but that's certainly not something to ignore either when picking the best spot. Last edited by hiaspire; March 1st, 2007 at 03:45 PM.

March 1st, 2007, 01:46 PM	#46 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	Personally, I'd want to be in charge of an AL West team every year. There's nothing like competing in a 4-team division, compared to our 5-team division or, heaven forbid, a 6-team division such as the NL Central. That's one of the things that's unfair about MLB right now. The A's have an unfair advantage, while the Astros have an unfair disadvantage just based on the number of teams they need to finish ahead of to capture a playoff spot (not counting the wild card).

March 1st, 2007, 04:05 PM	#52 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	Then there isn't much disagreement as it seemed initially. It isn't a "false choice", though, because that is the reality of the situation described picking amongst existing teams and their given realities. Not some fantasy of starting everything over from scratch, which would be false to me. But in any event, back to the Rox prospects. Seeing Iannetta in the top 100 helps with Ringolsby's chat where everyone was upset about the catcher dropping in team rankings. Iannetta wasn't top 100 individually in 06, but is in 07. So he's actually improving his personal stock, even if the team ranking went down. I still don't agree, but it makes it seem more reasonable within that overall picture and would have been a good way to describe the situation better for those at the chat concerned about Iannetta dropping. He is actually gaining in prospect rankings from BA individually.