2024 MLB thread

[Logwyn]

Well. As a Braves fan, that was some painful shit to watch. At least I'm used to postseason letdowns.

Still...10-0 in the top of the first. This happened in Atlanta. A lot of Braves fans paid money to see this game.

The hope is in Atlanta United.

[PickleballAce]

Happy Yankee Elimination Day.

[draynay]

Nice to see Houston lose.

Congratulations Washington.

[Kokolums]

World Series favorites (by looking at gambling odds) as of opening day almost NEVER win the world series.

2018:
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/n...d17imhvh3gwky4
Astros were favorites at 7/1
Red Sox were 7th at 17/1 and the worst odds of any division champ

2017:
https://fansided.com/2017/03/28/worl...d-sox-dodgers/
Red Sox were favorites at 4.5/1
Astros were 7th at 14/1 and the worst odds of any division champ

2016:
https://fansided.com/2016/03/27/mlb-...d-series-odds/
Cubs were favorites at 9/2 with the best odds and won it all

2015:
https://www.ibtimes.com/mlb-2015-sea...totals-1870940
Nationals were favorites at 6/1
The Royals were 30/1 (despite winning the American League the prior year) and had the worst odds of any division champ

2014:
https://fansided.com/2014/03/31/mlb-...-betting-odds/
Dodgers were favorites at 6/1
The Giants were 24/1 and had the worst odds of any division champ

2013:
https://www.ibtimes.com/mlb-2013-wor...-title-1163871
Angels were favorites at 8/1
The Red Sox were 35/1 and had the worst odds of any division champ

2012:
https://www.ibtimes.com/mlb-opening-...preview-434202
Phillies were favorites at 5/1
The Giants were 8th at 18.5/1

2011:
http://www.sportsoddshistory.com/mlb...=mlb&a=ws&o=p2
Phillies were favorites at +350
The Cardinals were 11th at +2500

2010:
http://www.sportsoddshistory.com/mlb...=mlb&a=ws&o=p2
Yankees were favorites at +325
The Giants were 12th at +2500

2009:
http://www.sportsoddshistory.com/mlb...=mlb&a=ws&o=p2
Yankees were +500 with the best odds and won it all

--------------------

What are the odds for 2019?
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/w...nkees-dodgers/

Astros 6/1
Red Sox 6/1
Dodgers 7/1
Yankees 7/1
Cubs 10/1
Indians 10/1
Braves 12/1
Brewers 12/1
Cardinals 16/1
Nationals 16/1
Phillies 18/1
Athletics 30/1
Rockies 30/1
Mets 30/1

The rest of the choices are 40/1 or higher and those never win the world series pretty much.

First, I'd remove the top 5 teams

Nationals:

Don't be down on the Nationals this year. They added some starting pitching with potential this offseason in Patrick Corbin and Anibal Sanchez. Could be interesting if that works out, but the team could be trying to win immediately to lessen to sting of losing Bryce Harper.

This was the correct strategy again this year for finding the world series champion. World series winners come from the pool of teams that, on opening day, had better than 40-1 odds AND were also not among the top 5 favorites odds-wise on opening day. The group of 9 teams left on the board produced the world series winner in the Nationals who had the 10th best odds on opening day. 5/9 also made the playoffs.

- - - Updated - - -

Here are the current odds for the 2020 world series (altho we will actually use the opening day odds)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb...son/ar-AAJuV4d

Astros 9/4
Yankees 5/2
Red Sox 5/1
Indians 6/1
Rays 10/1
Twins 10/1
Athletics 15/1
White Sox 30/1

These odds say the 2020 world series winner will be either the Rays, Twins, Athletics, or White Sox. Usually I strip out the top 5 but since the #5 spot is a tie at 10/1, I added both teams to the list. The odds will change by April.

[Nellise]

Here are the current odds for the 2020 world series (altho we will actually use the opening day odds)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb...son/ar-AAJuV4d

Astros 9/4
Yankees 5/2
Red Sox 5/1
Indians 6/1
Rays 10/1
Twins 10/1
Athletics 15/1
White Sox 30/1

These odds say the 2020 world series winner will be either the Rays, Twins, Athletics, or White Sox. Usually I strip out the top 5 but since the #5 spot is a tie at 10/1, I added both teams to the list. The odds will change by April.

Those are only the odds for winning the AL, not the World Series. I thought it was a bit odd the White Sox would be that high, they're actually 19th to win the WS.

One reason that baseball isn't as popular as football is that it isn't nearly as gambling friendly. Unlike a lot of other sports, the worst teams still usually beat the best teams now and then. And the playoffs are an even bigger crapshot because of the short series and teams don't play the same way they do in the regular season (Corbin relieved 0 times during the season, but 5 times in the playoffs mitigating Washington's biggest problem, their bullpen).

As for this World Series, I'm glad Washington won, but feel bad for Greinke. He's fun to watch pitch and he was doing amazing and got taken out at only 80 pitches.

[Lilly32]

Wish they would stop giving Trout MVPs. Hes not even that good. Next year will be his 10th season and hes got ONE hit in the postseason. Compared to other greats of the last decade hes terrible. The true greats shine in October. Hes also not very bright either. Signed a 12 year deal to stay on a terrible team thats never gonna amount to anything. He could have easily signed with the Yankees or Dodgers where at least you actually have a chance to be good and play in October.

[Espo]

Wish they would stop giving Trout MVPs. Hes not even that good. Next year will be his 10th season and hes got ONE hit in the postseason. Compared to other greats of the last decade hes terrible. The true greats shine in October. Hes also not very bright either. Signed a 12 year deal to stay on a terrible team thats never gonna amount to anything. He could have easily signed with the Yankees or Dodgers where at least you actually have a chance to be good and play in October.

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but I'll bite anyway.

1. The MVP is a regular season award.
2. Blaming poor Angel's front office performance on Trout?
3. Trout is one of the best players--ever. Every single stat/advanced stat/eyeball says this. If you think otherwise you are objectively wrong and have questionable baseball IQ.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

Wish they would stop giving Trout MVPs. Hes not even that good. Next year will be his 10th season and hes got ONE hit in the postseason. Compared to other greats of the last decade hes terrible. The true greats shine in October. Hes also not very bright either. Signed a 12 year deal to stay on a terrible team thats never gonna amount to anything. He could have easily signed with the Yankees or Dodgers where at least you actually have a chance to be good and play in October.

He's easily the best player based on consistency and how complete he is. I'm definitely sick of hearing them talk about Trout like he's the 2nd coming of jesus though. His first 10 seasons aren't even comparable to Pujols' 10 first seasons and you never had to hear so much crap about Pujols.

I think it's due to a lack of top talents at the moment in baseball. 15 years ago you had 15-20 guys that were absolute superstars. Now you have Trout, a couple other guys, and they even had to juice the baseballs to make the game more exciting because a guy with 36 home runs could lead the league.

[Espo]

He's easily the best player based on consistency and how complete he is. I'm definitely sick of hearing them talk about Trout like he's the 2nd coming of jesus though. His first 10 seasons aren't even comparable to Pujols' 10 first seasons and you never had to hear so much crap about Pujols.

I think it's due to a lack of top talents at the moment in baseball. 15 years ago you had 15-20 guys that were absolute superstars. Now you have Trout, a couple other guys, and they even had to juice the baseballs to make the game more exciting because a guy with 36 home runs could lead the league.

If you mean they aren't comparable because of how much better Trout's are then I totally agree--but I know that isn't what you mean.

You're comparing a first baseman to a center fielder. You can't just look at the big 3 offensive stats when you do that.

Over the first 8 years of Trout's career (he only played 40 games his first), he's averaged a WAR of over 9. There have only been 130 instances of a player having a WAR over 9, in a single season, in the history of baseball and Trout has averaged it. He's had seasons comparable to greats like Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams. Pujols was at around 8--still exceptional, but there's been almost 280 instances of that.

You aren't factoring in how complete a player Trout is. Defense, Baserunning--including stealing, etc. He has virtually no weaknesses. He hits for average, power, walks a lot, has speed on the base path, has a cannon arm and makes outstanding defensive judgements.

Pujols had a great first decade (and career), and I'm not trying to discredit him--but he is not remotely close to the complete player that Mike Trout is (when comparing their first 9-10 seasons).

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

If you mean they aren't comparable because of how much better Trout's are then I totally agree--but I know that isn't what you mean.

You're comparing a first baseman to a center fielder. You can't just look at the big 3 offensive stats when you do that.

Over the first 8 years of Trout's career (he only played 40 games his first), he's averaged a WAR of over 9. There have only been 130 instances of a player having a WAR over 9, in a single season, in the history of baseball and Trout has averaged it. He's had seasons comparable to greats like Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams. Pujols was at around 8--still exceptional, but there's been almost 280 instances of that.

You aren't factoring in how complete a player Trout is. Defense, Baserunning--including stealing, etc. He has virtually no weaknesses. He hits for average, power, walks a lot, has speed on the base path, has a cannon arm and makes outstanding defensive judgements.

Pujols had a great first decade (and career), and I'm not trying to discredit him--but he is not remotely close to the complete player that Mike Trout is (when comparing their first 9-10 seasons).

You don't know how WAR is calculated otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up to compare players from different positions who had their prime years in different times.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention Pujols is superior in every offensive statistic except stolen bases. Not just avg, hrs, and rbis. Pujols was also a much better 1st baseman than Trout is a center fielder. Trout will never win gold glove and pujols was one of the best defensive 1st basemen for years.

[Espo]

You don't know how WAR is calculated otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up to compare players from different positions who had their prime years in different times.

I mean--you just compared the two of them, no? And I know exactly how it's calculated--the internet is a wonderful tool. I didn't say it's a perfect stat (hence me mentioning a few others), but using WAR as a comparison between those two players is completely viable. They didn't play in drastically (keyword).

Instead of trying to insult me, why don't you give us some really solid objective facts as to how Pujols's early career was so superior to Trout's. The answer is likely that you can't--but I'd honestly love to hear it. I'm always open to hearing a different point-of-view that is grounded in some solid facts.

Edit: appreciate the more thorough response. I can probably agree that Pujols is a better pure hitter--but there's plenty of stats that can argue Trout is still a better overall offensive player (wRC+ for one--but it's really close)--but that's about it. He was a great 1B, but I'll take a borderline elite defensive CF over the same variety of a 1B. I would have liked to have seen how Pujols evolved if he hadn't damaged his arm and had been able to play 3B, as dominance there would put him somewhere completely different.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

I mean--you just compared the two of them, no? And I know exactly how it's calculated--the internet is a wonderful tool. I didn't say it's a perfect stat (hence me mentioning a few others), but using WAR as a comparison between those two players is completely viable. They didn't play in drastically (keyword).

Instead of trying to insult me, why don't you give us some really solid objective facts as to how Pujols's early career was so superior to Trout's. The answer is likely that you can't--but I'd honestly love to hear it. I'm always open to hearing a different point-of-view that is grounded in some solid facts.

Edit: appreciate the more thorough response. I can probably agree that Pujols is a better pure hitter--but there's plenty of stats that can argue Trout is still a better overall offensive player (wRC+ for one--but it's really close)--but that's about it. He was a great 1B, but I'll take a borderline elite defensive CF over the same variety of a 1B. I would have liked to have seen how Pujols evolved if he hadn't damaged his arm and had been able to play 3B, as dominance there would put him somewhere completely different.

It's not close.



Pujols was an elite first baseman. Had 114 defensive runs saved through 9 seasons, accumulated UZR was 61.5, best single season was 24.5.

Trout is an average center fielder, far from elite. He has 8, EIGHT defensive runs saved through 9 seasons with a total UZR of 11.1, and his best single season was 9.9. You can't even compare him to actual elite center fielders like Pillar who has a UZR of 26.6 with 45 drs, Buxton with a 25.8 UZR and 43 drs, and even less Kiermaier with a 56.3 UZR and 117 drs.

So again, Pujols was better in every offensive category except base running, and defensively it's not even close. The only argument people have when it comes to Trout and Pujols' start is WAR. According to WAR Brett Gardner's 11 seasons have been just as good as Carlos Delgado's 17. Nobody in their right mind, not a single person, would ever take Brett Gardner over Carlos Delgado.

[draynay]

Another fun stat is WAR7 which baseball-reference tracks as the WAR from the top 7 seasons of a player's career. Pujols has a WAR7 of 61.7 which is second all time among 1B behind Lou Gehrig; Trout has a WAR7 of 65.4 which is third among CF behind Willie Mays and Ty Cobb, we are talking about two of the all-time greatest players there isn't much that separates them.

[Nellise]

So again, Pujols was better in every offensive category except base running, and defensively it's not even close. The only argument people have when it comes to Trout and Pujols' start is WAR. According to WAR Brett Gardner's 11 seasons have been just as good as Carlos Delgado's 17. Nobody in their right mind, not a single person, would ever take Brett Gardner over Carlos Delgado.

You do know your image shows that Trout has been better offensively right? OPS+ for Trout is 179, Pujols it's 174. MLB averaged 4.7 runs per game during Pujols' time listed, it was 4.4 during Trout's years.

The only argument people have when it comes to Trout and Pujols' start is WAR. According to WAR Brett Gardner's 11 seasons have been just as good as Carlos Delgado's 17. Nobody in their right mind, not a single person, would ever take Brett Gardner over Carlos Delgado.

Delgado had 6 seasons of being not good at all (first 3 and last 3), while Gardner has been good to very good for 10 of his 12 seasons, so they've actually had about the same number of productive seasons. Delgado also played in a super high scoring era and Gardner hasn't (until this year).

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

You do know your image shows that Trout has been better offensively right? OPS+ for Trout is 179, Pujols it's 174. MLB averaged 4.7 runs per game during Pujols' time listed, it was 4.4 during Trout's years.



Delgado had 6 seasons of being not good at all (first 3 and last 3), while Gardner has been good to very good for 10 of his 12 seasons, so they've actually had about the same number of productive seasons. Delgado also played in a super high scoring era and Gardner hasn't (until this year).

OPS+ depends on how good the rest of MLB is. Pujols had stronger competition than Trout. OPS+ cannot be used to compare players from different times.

Carlos Delgado wasn't good defensively his last 3 seasons, or ever for that matter. Offensively he was still one of the best hitters in baseball. Which is why WAR is complete nonsense. Nobody would ever take Gardner over someone hitting 35 hrs, driving in 115, hitting .270-290 with a .350-390 obp. There's a reason why managers and former pro players who are now analysts don't give a crap about WAR.

[draynay]

OPS+ cannot be used to compare players from different times.

Why not? That's what its for.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

Why not? That's what its for.

Because what it does is compare the player with the rest of the league that year. The numbers that got Trout 179 OPS+ from 2012-19 would get him a totally different OPS+ if he played in the early 2000s when there were a lot more offensive stars compared to this last decade. There were also several ballparks in the early 2000s that were replaced by ballparks with smaller dimensions. Pujols OPS+ would have been around 190 if his prime years were from 12-19, assuming he would put up the same exact numbers. That's why OPS+ can't be used to compare players from different times.

Just took this from the 1st google result that came up.

OPS+ takes a player's on-base plus slugging percentage and normalizes the number across the entire league. It accounts for external factors like ballparks. It then adjusts so a score of 100 is league average, and 150 is 50 percent better than the league average.

For example, Miguel Cabrera's .895 OPS in 2014 was 50 percent better than the MLB average after being adjusted for league and park factors. As a result, his OPS+ was 150.

[Nellise]

Because what it does is compare the player with the rest of the league that year. The numbers that got Trout 179 OPS+ from 2012-19 would get him a totally different OPS+ if he played in the early 2000s when there were a lot more offensive stars compared to this last decade. There were also several ballparks in the early 2000s that were replaced by ballparks with smaller dimensions. Pujols OPS+ would have been around 190 if his prime years were from 12-19, assuming he would put up the same exact numbers. That's why OPS+ can't be used to compare players from different times.

You're assuming they would have exactly the same numbers though. It's not an accident Trout hit the most homeruns he ever has this year. He hit 4 more than in 2015 in 25 less games. That's what the + stats like OPS+ and wRC+ (and even WAR) try to account for: different seasons have different conditions that affect a player's offense outside of their own talent. Do you think everybody just decided to hit a ton more homeruns this year because they didn't feel like it last year?

[Haloswin]

You don't know how WAR is calculated otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up to compare players from different positions who had their prime years in different times.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention Pujols is superior in every offensive statistic except stolen bases. Not just avg, hrs, and rbis. Pujols was also a much better 1st baseman than Trout is a center fielder. Trout will never win gold glove and pujols was one of the best defensive 1st basemen for years.

Actually you seem to be the one that hasn't a clue how WAR is calculated. It's weighted to account for the differences in positions and is measured against their peers -- a 50 WAR player in 1950 and a 50 WAR player in 1990 is a 50 WAR player. Every position is weighted independently of each other to account for the differences between say a CF, or a SS, or a 1B. This is also why a DHs need to put up massive offensive numbers for their WAR to match a middle IFers. The really hilarious part about this is how you are using GG's as the measurement of anything -- it's basically a popularity contest. Rafael Palmiero once won a GG while being a full time DH...

- - - Updated - - -

OPS+ depends on how good the rest of MLB is. Pujols had stronger competition than Trout. OPS+ cannot be used to compare players from different times.

Carlos Delgado wasn't good defensively his last 3 seasons, or ever for that matter. Offensively he was still one of the best hitters in baseball. Which is why WAR is complete nonsense. Nobody would ever take Gardner over someone hitting 35 hrs, driving in 115, hitting .270-290 with a .350-390 obp. There's a reason why managers and former pro players who are now analysts don't give a crap about WAR.

OPS+ is normalized.... Because league average isn't a static statistic, it varies from year to year. An 800 OPS in 2000 and an .800 OPS in say 2014 aren't equal in terms of value by any stretch.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

Actually you seem to be the one that hasn't a clue how WAR is calculated. It's weighted to account for the differences in positions and is measured against their peers -- a 50 WAR player in 1950 and a 50 WAR player in 1990 is a 50 WAR player. Every position is weighted independently of each other to account for the differences between say a CF, or a SS, or a 1B. This is also why a DHs need to put up massive offensive numbers for their WAR to match a middle IFers. The really hilarious part about this is how you are using GG's as the measurement of anything -- it's basically a popularity contest. Rafael Palmiero once won a GG while being a full time DH...

- - - Updated - - -



OPS+ is normalized.... Because league average isn't a static statistic, it varies from year to year. An 800 OPS in 2000 and an .800 OPS in say 2014 aren't equal in terms of value by any stretch.

So you're just gonna repeat what i posted with different words and tell me idk what i'm talking about? Ok...

I mentioned gold glove to make a point, anyone who follows baseball knows ggs are a popularity contest hence why Jeter who was a mediocre fielder won so many ggs. You also totally ignored for your convenience, my post about Trout's defensive metrics and how they compare to actual good center fielders.

https://www.fangraphs.com/statss.asp...on=OF#fielding

Trout is an average fielder. If you want to argue with facts, that's on you. I'm out.