The 5.5 Hole

In 1951, the Giants came back from a 13 game deficit in August to force a one-game play-off with the Brooklyn Dodgers. What makes this moment in history special is less the comeback itself and more the urgency. The loser was not granted a conciliatory play-off spot. The loser was not stripped of home field advantage. The loser went home and was forced to watch the World Series, rather than play. That was on the line in 1951. Not simply a play-off spot, but the World Series. The goosebumps-inspiring walk-off home run blasted into the New York night by Bobby Thompson will forever be the greatest walk-off shot in history. It capped the Giants improbable comeback and, much like the ball Thompson hit, rocketed the Giants somewhere special. But this magical moment in baseball history is not the rallying cry for reduced play-off teams or continuance of the status quo.

I've tried to sit back and let the play-off expansion conversation play out, but there has been an influx of articles lately bashing not only the idea, but the current postseason format. Not only is this line of thinking closed-minded, but it is based in fallacy. It is based on the idea that things that have been should continue to be. We are a progressive country where things are always changing and if you don't change with it, you are left behind.

When the league was made up of 12 teams, a drive straight from the regular season into the World Series made sense.  With 28 teams in the league, an eight-team play-off scheme worked.  The Wild Card worked.  But with the parity in baseball, this year not withstanding, and with 30 teams in the league, the play-offs need to be expanded.  If the game does not change for the better, it stays the same and gets worse.  But I understand there will be concerns.  So far, I've heard three distinct concerns, and I will cover each of those.


1) We will lose the excitement.

Why?  This year there are no true races aside from the Rangers and the Angels.  While I agree, this year's play-offs would be a watered down version if there were two more Wild Card teams, we would at least have additional races to discuss.  There was a similar fear when the current system was put in place.  There was a fear of cheapening a play-off appearance.  But the system we have has worked out pretty well.  Just ask the Wild Card teams that have won the World Series.  Baseball is harder than it has ever been.  Athletes are bigger and stronger.  Players and managers are smarter.  An expansion of the play-offs does not cheapen the thrill of the postseason.  It does not reduce the excitement.  It enhances it.  Almost every year we would have stories of comebacks, fights to the finish, and races that last until the last day of the season.  In memory of the chills that Bobby Thompson's home run brings, this would be a good thing. 

2) The season would be too long.

No argument here.  The 162 game season is a long one.  It spans from April to October.  Yet, it is a far cry from the NBA season, which has virtually no off-season.  It is incomparable to the NFL, which only plays once a week.  The season is a long one, but we are fans of the game, are we not?  To ask for less seems counter-intuitive to what we want.  We want baseball.  Yet, I agree the season is too long.  I agree that adding another layer of play-off baseball will extend the season a little bit longer than we'd all like to see.  So, shorten the season by four games.  It won't happen, but four games is nothing in the grand scheme of ticket sales, play-off races, and player contracts.  However, four games/four days is huge in finding room for an additional round of play-offs.  With the most widely discussed option for the two additional Wild Card teams to be pitted against each other in a best-of-three, four extra days could cover the entire series.  But considering this will never happen, we will set this argument aside.  You got me on this one critics, let's move on.

3) We can't add two Wild Cards until realignment takes place.

I'm not sure I understand this argument.  If the true argument is fairness to the leagues, we already see unfair play-off positioning.  The American League gets four teams out of 14, while the National League gets four teams out of 16.  So let's add the two additional Wild Cards.  Things would not get any less fair in doing so.  Add the Wild Cards and figure out realignment later.  To allow this as a sticking point makes no sense.  Let's look at an example.  Next year, after the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is ratified, let's assume an agreement was not reached on realignment.  We would still have 14 teams in the A.L. and 16 teams in the N.L.  Adding two new Wild Card teams does not affect the unbalanced leagues.  Then, in a few years baseball and some team in the National League agree to have that team moved to the American League.  We still have the two additional Wild Card teams, but things have only gotten more fair between the leagues.  Where's the issue?


I am often shocked at the arguments for staying the course.  These people, so afraid of change they would rather keep the world suspended in time, forget what change has brought us.  It has brought us freedom, an end to slavery, modern technology, and medicine to save lives.  By no means am I comparing baseball to these other things that actually mean something.  I am simply saying, change is good.  Those demanding the norm forget that if things didn't change, life would be a whole lot worse for all of us. 

Open your minds and give this a chance.

We are still a couple months away from handing out the hardware, but everyone and their mother is talking about the Cy Young and the MVP. Rather than just pick my favorites, I'm doing something a little different. I am creating an entirely new award. I've touched on the subject briefly when discussing a pitcher as an MVP. Here's the gist; I believe a pitcher should be able to win the MVP and the Cy Young as long as there is an overall best position player award.

So, in that vein, I created The Ripken Award. Cal Ripken Jr. spent much of his career playing for bad teams. But he was always great. The Ripken Award will go to the best overall position player in each league without concern about that player's team's record. This is truly an individual award for the best position player. We will still discuss the MVP and Cy Young awards as well. So, here we go:

A.L. MVP:
Justin Verlander - Let's face it, the Tigers would not be anywhere near the top of the division without Justin Verlander. They would probably be under .500, looking up at the Indians and White Sox. His 21 wins so far blows away the competition and his WAR leads all pitchers. If you are truly picking a player who has performed amazingly well and been the key to his team's success, Verlander is that player.

A.L. Cy Young:
Justin Verlander - Wins still mean something among baseball enthusiasts. I understand the argument that a pitcher only controls 50% of the outcome of a game (clearly that percentage fluctuates based on different situations, but 50% is pretty easy to use for this example). Runs are produced by the offense and runs are saved by the defense. The pitcher makes up a big part of the defense, but a small part of the offense. Therefore, the value of the wins stat is often minimized. But 130 years of baseball keeps wins as an important gauge to a pitcher's season.

We already know Verlander leads the league in wins, so let's focus on what else he has done. At 7.7 WAR, he leads Halladay by a full 1.3 WAR. Verlander also leads the league in hits per 9 by a wide margin at 6.215. Finally, his 224 strikeouts leads all of baseball by 12. And it gives him a decent shot at 250 on the year. All said, Verlander is the clear A.L. Cy Young winner.

A.L. Ripken Award:
Jose Bautista - Among position players, Bautista is dominating the WAR category at 8.1. The next closest in the American League is Dustin Pedroia with 6.7. His .449 OBP ranks number one and 19 points better than the next American Leaguer. His 39 home runs and 109 walks also put him tops in the A.L.

N.L. MVP:
Ryan Braun - His team has a death grip on first place, and he has been a major reason. He'd working on a 30/30 season. He just needs 5 more home runs to reach 30. He's already got 31 stolen bases. Braun's .987 OPS ranks him number one in the National League. So do his 93 runs scored. Finally, his 6.7 WAR puts him right behind Matt Kemp (we'll get to him in a minute).

N.L. Cy Young:
Cliff Lee - This was a close race with Clayton Kershaw. Lee's June and his August give him the edge though. Two undefeated months in any year will put you on the fast track to a CY Young. Lee is an outlier in an awards season picked by straightforward statistics. Lee only leads one category, shutouts with 5. But he ranks near the top in almost every other pitcher ranking. He's second in pitcher WAR with 5.7, sixth in ERA at 2.59, fourth in WHIP at 1.053, and fifth in K/9 at 9.15.  Cliff Lee is as complete an all-around pitcher as we have seen in a long time.  My apologies to Clayton Kershaw, but Cliff Lee gets my pick.

N.L. Ripken Award:
Matt Kemp - Kemp leads all of baseball with 8.4 WAR.  The next closest in the National League is Ryan Braun, a whopping 1.9 WAR behind.  Matt Kemp's triple slash is admirable by itself: .321/.399/.568.  He is third in the N.L. in hits with 163, and has a legitimate shot at 200.  He is tied for second in home runs with 31 and third in RBI's with 103.  If not for Ryan Braun and Jose Reyes, we'd be talking about Kemp pushing towards a triple crown.  Kemp is by far the best position player in the league, but he plays for the Dodgers.  They are only better than the Padres in the West and can barely draw any fans.  That's why he won't win the MVP, but he's a lock for the first annual Ripken Award.

There you have it.  The awards have been handed out.  I highly doubt we will see much change over the last month of the season.  I left out Rookie of the Year because the award has little meaning.  To be the best rookie simply means you play better than everyone else on a reduced scale.  An award that is presented to someone for less contribution would make no sense if not awarded to rookies.  So we'll leave that one to the voters.  

How much do runs actually matter?  You've heard over and over again about the American League Central.  Only one team has a positive run differential (scoring more runs on the season than their opponents).  Scoring runs clearly create wins, but how much does the amount of runs actually matter?  Taking the run differential totals, I re-ranked the teams in each division.  Some results are to be expected, but some are surprising.

First the American League:

A.L. East:
NY Yankees +185
Boston +157
Tampa Bay +51
Toronto +22
Baltimore -135

A.L. Central:
Detroit +4
Chicago White Sox -17
Cleveland -18
Kansas City -65
Minnesota -137

A.L. West:
Texas +101
Los Angeles Angels +24
Oakland -21
Seattle -70

Not many surprises here.  The Twins would actually rank lower than the Royals if run differential determined standings.  Yet, the Twins with their -137 actually sit 2.5 games better in the standings than the Royals. While the White Sox are a 1/2 game back of the Indians for second place in the A.L. Central, their run differentials would put them slightly ahead and in second place.  The A.L. East and West match up exactly with the standings.  

Now for the National League:

N.L. East:
Philadelphia +158
Atlanta +70
NY Mets -21
Washington -27
Florida -79

N.L. Central:
Milwaukee +54
Cincinnati +44
St. Louis +36
Pittsburgh -46
Chicago Cubs -101
Houston -158

N.L. West:
Arizona +9
San Diego +5
Colorado 0
Los Angeles Dodgers -9
San Francisco -15

There's a little bit more of a shake up in the National League.  Washington, while ahead of the Mets by a game and a half in the standings, would actually rank behind the Mets using this method.  Cincinnati, 3 games behind St. Louis for second in the Central, is actually better by 8 runs in differential.  Then there's the West.  See anything strange?  First, the defending World Series Champions rank dead last.  Second, the San Diego Padres, currently planted firmly in the cellar, rank second.  Interestingly, the West is also the only division on baseball to have no teams with a run differential of -50 or less.  The lowest total is -15. 

What does this all mean?  It means that runs are important, but not the only ingredient for success.  If standings were based on total runs for the season, or how well teams outscore their opponents, this would be a different conversation altogether.  If that were the case, we'd be talking about the Padres challenging the Diamondbacks for the N.L. West crown.  We'd be talking about the Angels barely hanging on. 

But in the end, runs don't matter as much as wins.