2025 MLB Thread

[Westheim]

Brewers and Mets both appear to call up any volunteer fancying himself having a go at pitching today.

Thing is, only one of those teams can afford it...

[Amazin69]

I trust Uncle Stevie is firing David Stearns RIGHT THE **** NOW.

Remember, Danny Jansen gave the Brewers the lead before our carefully-constructed bullpen (including the guy we traded Butto, Butthole, and Blade to get) imploded.

Pa-THET-ic.

And maybe Moron Mendoza shouldn't have pulled Manaea (whom we are paying $25,000,000 per season for a reason, I presume) after only FIVE outs, without yielding a run or even a HIT. Fire that ****er, too, as is obvious.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

I trust Uncle Stevie is firing David Stearns RIGHT THE **** NOW.

If that's what today's shambles gives us, it was worth eating a snoutful of Florida dirt against the Miami Rookies.

Ron Darling: "Usually I have a good idea what the pitching plan is. But today I don't have a plan what they're doing."

Neither do they.

Boom-Boom pitching in the FIFTH. Down by FOUR.

WAT.

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Remember, Danny Jansen gave the Brewers the lead before our carefully-constructed bullpen (including the guy we traded Butto, Butthole, and Blade to get) imploded.

Even as a sucker for alliterations, I will stick to Tennessee Power Tool.

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Pa-THET-ic.

Amen.

[Déjà Bru]

Woof. I see the reason for the fur-pulling: If the Mets and the Reds both lose today (as looks likely right now), the Reds have the wild card based on the season series tiebreaker (Reds, 4-2).

[Amazin69]

Which is, of course, more Manly Manfred mangling the game.

I mean, neither we nor Stinkinnati deserve to make the post-season and the #6 spot is an abomination, BUT…deciding an entire season on a stupid tiebreaker instead of having teams play it out, as has been the rule since 1908, is just ASS.

Ironic that this should screw the Mets just as Pete Alonso has tied Bobby Thomson, the hero of the 1951 playoff, for career HRs. Doubly ironic that the Mets are getting boned out of a possible game #163 against the only team they've ever played a game #163 against.

Guess what? The Reds went 4-2 against the Mets during the regular season in 1999. But because we settled things on the field back then, Al Leiter got to pitch the best game of his life. (And yes, I know he threw a no-hitter and won three World Series before he got to the Mets.)

And the 1951 Brooklyn Dodgers won 13/22 games from the Giants. But there was no ****ING TIEBREAKER, so we got "The Shot Heard 'Round the World"

[Amazin69]

Oh, and Greg Amsinger, Harold Reynolds and Dan Plesac need to be fired, too. Watching them "anchor" MLBN's coverage is excruciating. I literally have no cruciate ligaments left because of them.

[Amazin69]

Crud, I got mixed up. Some of this venom is more suited to the Mets-specific thread; I will port them over there.

That said, the tirade against tie-breakers is a general point. The Tigers have just set the record for Largest Lead Ever Blown To Lose a Pennant (League or Divsion), and if the Tribe doesn't pull-out the win, they will lose the Central on…a tie-break.

The 1978 Red Sox are on that "Biggest Choke" list, too. The Yankees won the season series, 8-7. (Blame Bobby Sprowl, if you must.). But the Red Sox won the same 99 games the Yankees did ("Thank you, Rick Waits") and so they got one final chance to right their wrongs. No stupid tie-breakers involved.

[Amazin69]

Okay, so Plesac and Amsinger are now talking about Game 163 in 1999 and lobbying to bring back settling things on the field, so that's good.

Also, Amsinger rightly pointed out that regardless of the Mets' staff's struggles, they lost the #6 spot by scoring a grand total of ZERO runs when the chips were down. Absolutely true.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Ties remain for the AL East & Central leads. Toronto win, Cleveland win gives them the divisions. Yanks loss or Tigers loss also gives them the title. New York & Detroit must win & have the Jays/Guardians lose to claim 1st place. Winner of East also wins home field advantage.

Cleveland wins, Detroit loses giving the Guardians the Central outright. Toronto & Yanks win, but Jays get the East title & home field advantage.

Reds & Mets win remaining tied for the final spot in the NL. Cincy win or NY loss eliminates the Mets. They need to win plus Cincinnati to lose claim the final WC.

Both Cincy & NYM limp to the end w/an L. But the Reds year continues into the playoffs thanks to the tiebreaker.

PLAYOFF BYES

AL Toronto (1) & Seattle (2)
NL Milwaukee (1) & Philly(2)

WC Rounds

AL Detroit (6) vs Cleveland (3) Tues 1pm ESPN
AL NY Yankees (4) vs Boston (5) Tues 6pm ESPN

NL Cincy (6) vs LA Dodgers (3) Tues 9pm ESPN
NL San Diego (5) vs Chi Cubs (4) Tues 3pm ABC

[monkeyman576]

Wild Card Series
Cleveland d. Detroit 2-1
Boston d. NY Yankees 2-1
LA Dodgers d. Cincy 2-1
San Diego d. Cubs 2-0

LDS
Seattle d. Cleveland 3-1
Boston d. Toronto 3-2
Dodgers d. Philly 3-2
Milwaukee d. San Diego 3-2

LCS
Seattle d. Boston 4-1
Milwaukee d. LA Dodgers 4-3

World Series
Seattle d. Milwaukee 4-2

[Déjà Bru]

I will be rooting for Seattle. I think it's time for them.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

LAD's Will Smith currently leads the NL in BAVG w/.308. He would be only the 5th C to win the NL title, 1st since Buster Posey. It would also be the lowest ever to win the NL title, stopping short of Tony Gwynn's .313 in '88. He and Xavier Edwards are the only 2 in the NL above .300. Which is significant because Smith has been bobbing above and below the 3.1 PA threshold.

I think it is a shame that getting a hit has lost its importance in the game.

Trea Turner ends the year as the only NL'er to finish above .300 (.304). Will Smith finished 66 PA short of qualifying, but still was @ .296. Only 5 in the NL batted .290 or above besides Turner.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

It's that. But it also isn't entertaining. Do they have a BB:K ratio for hitters stat somewhere? We used to criticize batters who struck out often. And now the math nerds have romanticized the walk so much they don't care if it leads to more k's.

This year, 71 batters have already struck out 100 x's. In 2000, only 57 did so the entire season. In 2000, 16 players got 100 BB. No one has reached that mark yet in 25. And it looks like they are only going to match 2000's total. And among those that did reach 100 walks, only half struck out more than they walked. In 2025, only Kyle Tucker & Geraldo Perdomo look like they will reach 100 walks w/a positive BB:K ratio.

In short, this strategic hitting philosophy isn't for everyone. In basketball, sure having a physical specimen like LeBron James is ideal for success. But not everyone can be 6'10" w/handles of a guard and strength of a center. In baseball, not everyone can try to get it over the wall every at bat. Not everyone can afford to wait until there are 2 strikes before they swing. Only the exceptional can. The rest need to learn to put the ball in play & make contact. Make the D have to do something instead just watching the 1 & 2 play catch.

153 this year K'd 100x's or more. Only 5 walked 100+.

Geraldo Perdomo was the only player in the top 170 in BB's to have a positive BB:K ratio (94:83). After him, you would have to drop all the way to #175 Luis Arraez (34:21) to find another w/a plus ratio. Kyle Tucker came up just short (87:88).

[low]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I will be rooting for Seattle. I think it's time for them.

Seattle vs. Milwaukee is the only acceptable World Series for me.

[Cobra Mgr]

So I was wondering if the modern approach to offense did indeed lead to more runs. And the answer is no. In 2000, a total of 24,971 runs were scored. in 2025, 21,494. So why is baseball so stubborn about this hitting philosophy?

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So I was wondering if the modern approach to offense did indeed lead to more runs. And the answer is no. In 2000, a total of 24,971 runs were scored. in 2025, 21,494. So why is baseball so stubborn about this hitting philosophy?

edit

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So I was wondering if the modern approach to offense did indeed lead to more runs. And the answer is no. In 2000, a total of 24,971 runs were scored. in 2025, 21,494. So why is baseball so stubborn about this hitting philosophy?

You would think with the new rules there would be more runs

[Westheim]

Maybe 2000 is not a good year for comparison.

How many runs were there in, say, 2012?

Answer: 21,017

[Hrycaj]

For the second consecutive year the tiebreaker has come into play. I feel the league is missing out on some exciting drama by not having teams actually earn their way in with a tiebreaker game. Would it be such a big deal to have tiebreakers today and start the playoffs on Wednesday or Thursday?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Hrycaj

For the second consecutive year the tiebreaker has come into play. I feel the league is missing out on some exciting drama by not having teams actually earn their way in with a tiebreaker game. Would it be such a big deal to have tiebreakers today and start the playoffs on Wednesday or Thursday?

If I remember correctly, the possibility of rain outs delaying things further was an issue. Then if both teams are in the playoffs anyway, what's the point? And plus, they didn't want teams with a bye sitting around getting rusty, since timing is so important.