Baseball is Here!! MLB 2012!!!!

[SlowwHand]

Detroit vs. St. Louis is OK by me.

[Guynemer]

The playoffs are a crapshoot, BUT...

Having a starting rotation of Verlander, Fister, Scherzer, and Sanchez loads the die pretty heavily.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Nationals had a pretty damned good rotation too

(and Hell, the Reds rotation was CRAZY good - I just looked at it and I'm , 127 ERA+ for the team, a rotation of Cueto, Latos, Bailey, and Arroyo).

[snoopy369]

Yeah, the Reds/Nationals crapping out was too bad. Either would be better competition for the Tigers, IMO... at least more interesting, and more national exposure for teams that don't get much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dunno why you are so underestimating the Cards (after all, they were the ones that took care of the Nats). Based on pythagorean records, they had the 2nd best in the NL (after Washington).

[-Jrabbit]

That's the cool thing about baseball: we will now get to see how these numbers are reflected in reality.

Which is the only thing that counts.

[snoopy369]

I dunno why you are so underestimating the Cards (after all, they were the ones that took care of the Nats). Based on pythagorean records, they had the 2nd best in the NL (after Washington).

If I wanted to discuss pythagorean records I'd be posting in Greek. I don't think the Cards are that good at this point, particularly with the injuries they're sustaining and the ages of many of their players - though clearly they did win, which I'm not arguing with.

Either way I'd rather have the Reds or Nationals on national TV getting better exposure than the Cards who have been there plenty of times...

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's the cool thing about baseball: we will now get to see how these numbers are reflected in reality.

Which is the only thing that counts.

There are many things that count .

Regardless of playoff results, the Washington Nationals were still the best team in the National League this year.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Either way I'd rather have the Reds or Nationals on national TV getting better exposure than the Cards who have been there plenty of times...

And I'd rather have Baltimore or Oakland on national TV getting better exposure than Detroit... but that's not happening either.

[snoopy369]

There are many things that count .

Regardless of playoff results, the Washington Nationals were still the best team in the National League this yearwon the most games in the National League this year.

Fixed...

[snoopy369]

And I'd rather have Baltimore or Oakland on national TV getting better exposure than Detroit... but that's not happening either.

Sure, but at least Detroit has a demonstrably better team (IMO). An underperforming team, but more talented. StL doesn't even have that... they're just those annoying kids that won't go away

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fixed...

Same thing, really. 162 games shows you who's the best. We just play this 5 and 7 game series because playoffs are unpredictable and thus a bit more fun.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sure, but at least Detroit has a demonstrably better team (IMO). An underperforming team, but more talented. StL doesn't even have that... they're just those annoying kids that won't go away

American League bias shining through here . This is the year that those "kids" showed themselves to be stars: Allen Craig had a phenonmenal year, as did David Freese and, to a lesser extent, Jon Jay. And Yadier Molina (who's only 29) showed himself to be one of the greatest catchers in the game. IIRC, I read something that StL has 65% of its playoff roster coming directly from its farm system - no other team in the playoffs even had 50%.

[snoopy369]

Same thing, really. 162 games shows you who's the best. We just play this 5 and 7 game series because playoffs are unpredictable and thus a bit more fun.

No, it shows you who won the most games. The best team in baseball could go 0-162 (in theory). We've had this argument a few times The team that is most likely to win any particular game may or may not win the most games, even over 162 - not only is their SoS to take into account, but they might just have injury problems, or chemistry, or who knows what.

You can of course define 'Best' however you want, and if you want to define it as 'Team that won the most', that's fine. But I think saying anything more than 'Probably is the best' is inaccurate based on record...

[snoopy369]

American League bias shining through here . This is the year that those "kids" showed themselves to be stars: Allen Craig had a phenonmenal year, as did David Freese and, to a lesser extent, Jon Jay. And Yadier Molina (who's only 29) showed himself to be one of the greatest catchers in the game. IIRC, I read something that StL has 65% of its playoff roster coming directly from its farm system - no other team in the playoffs even had 50%.

I'm well aware of Craig and Freese, but neither is all that consistent - good mixed with occasional terrible (and I rode Freese in fantasy for the non-Longoria times, so I'm well aware; Craig we started the year with but had to switch out for Freese when I had too many OFs and too few 3Bs). Molina has been well known for a while now, but his hitting isn't normally stellar.

It's certainly a well built lineup, though not totally smashing, but the pitching is still a big ??; they've done very well, but they're not really established power arms or anything like that. CIN and WAS both had much better pitching staffs. If Wainwright and Carpenter pitch up to their potential, then it's pretty good; but both are significant injury questions (and Carpenter is just barely coming back from missing the year). Lance Lynn is a big question mark - maybe he'll pitch a no hitter, maybe he'll give up a dozen - and while great for a first year starter (rookie, I think?), not someone you build a rotation around.

Anyway, I don't think the Cards are a bad team, but I don't think they're in the Tigers' league, figuratively or literally of course. The top two hitters for the Tigers are better than anyone on the Cards, and their young outfield has just as much potential as the Cards' young guys.