108 Years, It was a sign

Last night the Chicago Cubs won their first World Series in 108 years. Little did I know, and likely little did you know, that had we done the research we would have known it had to happen this year. Why? Because of the significance of 108 to the Cubs franchise.

A.G. Spalding was the first manager of the Cubs. Who was Spalding, the designer of the baseball which has 108 stitches.

Both corners of the outfield wall at Wrigley Field, home of the Cubs, are exactly 108 meters from home plate.

In 1990 there was film made by J.J Abrams called “Taking Care of Business”, in this film the Cubs win the World Series. That film is 108 minutes long.

Finally, for this article at least, the owner of the Cubs is the Ricketts family who also own TD Ameritrade. TD Ameritrade’s home office is located on 108th Street in Omaha, Nebraska.

If only I knew all this when I was in Vegas before the season started, I could have been a wealthy man.

Advertisements

Top 10 Longest Championshipless Streaks in MLB

With all the hype around the Indians and Cubs potentially having a shot to end their World Series Championship drought we thought we would take a look at that top 10 longest winless streaks in MLB.

(And yes we know that Championshipless is not a word, but who cares because it sounds cool.)

Seasons Team Last championship won Last World Series appearance
107 Chicago Cubs 1908 1945
67 Cleveland Indians 1948 1997
55 Texas Rangers never (franchise began 1961) 2011
54 Houston Astros never (franchise began 1962) 2005
47 Milwaukee Brewers never (franchise began 1969) 1982
47 San Diego Padres never (franchise began 1969) 1998
47 Washington Nationals never (franchise began 1969) never
39 Seattle Mariners never (franchise began 1977) never
36 Pittsburgh Pirates 1979 1979
32 Baltimore Orioles 1983 1983

What were the Dodgers thinking?

clayton_kershaw_2010_28229
By SD Dirk on Flickr (Originally posted to Flickr as “Clayton Kershaw”) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons
I meant to write about this the other day, but life got in the way so please excuse my tardiness. In game five of the Dodger and National NLDS Dave Roberts made some rather unconventional moves and many celebrated him for it, but I think one of them was absolutely wrong. That move was using Clayton Kershaw as his closer.
I have no problem using Kenley Jansen earlier than the ninth innings as managers have to manage in a deciding game like there is no tomorrow and Jansen is the team’s best reliever. But what was the team thinking when they brought in Kershaw to close the game?

Let’s not forget Kershaw spent an extended period of time on the disabled list this season, had never closed a game before and is your most expensive player on the roster. Now, many judge the move by the outcome and they won so it was a genius move. I on the other hand completely disagree. Let’s put aside the fact that you could have done serious damage to Kershaw pitching him in hat situation because he is not use to it, but what message are you sending to your other relievers. Basically we have such little faith in all of you that we are going to take a huge risk with Clayton and pitch him over you.

It all turned out for the best to this point, but this is a risk that no manager should take in the future. You have relievers for a reason and they get paid to do a job. If you don’t have faith that they can do their job then why are they on your post-season roster.

Theo or Tito, who gets it done?

Yesterday I wrote about Theo Epstein and the fact that if he ends the Chicago Cubs World Series Championship drought that we would have to call him a baseball genius. Then today I realized there is a good chance the 2016 World Series could be played by the Cubs and Cleveland Indians. Why is that of importance, two reasons.

First, if you were not aware the Cubs and Indians are the MBL clubs with the first and second longest period of time without a World Series Championship. Both have a realistic shot of ending their streak this year.

Second, Terry Francona and Theo Epstein were the dynamic duo that ended the Boston Red Sox historic World Series Championship streak. Both of them could now be the saviour of a new city.

It’s still to be determined if either of these teams will make it to the final series, but what if they both do? Would we have to call both of these men baseball geniuses or just the one who wins? And if one beats the other does that diminish the reputation of the loser? I know, it is a lot to think about, but it is a great thing to spend time thinking about while we wait for the Dodgers and Nationals game to start.

A Deeper Look at Deciding the MVP

 

Every season there is much debate about who should win the MVP award in the American and National Leagues. There are many out there who think that the award should go to a player on a contending team, while others say that is not the case. We decided to look a little deeper and share our opinion on the subject.

The official rules for voting by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America for the MVP award look like this: (1) actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense; (2) number of games played; (3) general character, disposition, loyalty and effort; (4) former winners are eligible; and (5) members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team. As you can clearly read in no way does the strength of the player’s team come in to the rules of voting. There is no mention of games won, a team being in playoff contention or anything else regarding the team a player plays for. So, why is it that so many people in the media and around the water cooler feel that the MVP needs to be on a contending team?

Does a player on a contending team play harder than one who is not? Or do opposing teams not give their best against players on non-contending teams? Of course not, so why care what the team’s performance has been for an individual award.

With all that being said there really is no argument in my mind as to how the MVP should be chosen. It is simple, use Wins Above Replacement or WAR. By definition WAR is a measure of how many wins, or how much value, an individual player brings to a team over a replacement level player. Higher the WAR, the more valuable that player is to their team. It’s a measure that takes team record and performance out of the equation and is strictly based on the individual.

Now that we have established how he MVP awards should be decided it’s easy to see that the National League MVP is Kris Bryant with a WAR of 7.3 and the American League MVP is Mike Trout with an MLB leading WAR of 10.0. Neither of these players isn’t already in the discussion for MVP, which just adds more credibility to the argument that WAR is the measure of who should be MVP.

On a side note, if you don’t realize it Mike Trout’s WAR of 10.0 is somewhat historic.

If you need more proof, then just look at the runner-ups in the AL and NL; Mookie Betts and Corey Seager. Both of them are also in the MVP discussion. Or maybe we should look at last year’s MVPs and where they fell in WAR. Bryce Harper lead MLB in WAR and Josh Donaldson was 5th. Not convinced yet? Ok, 2014’s MVPs Clayton Kershaw and Mike Trout were number one and two in MLB WAR.

Yes, there will be plenty who say I am oversimplifying the MVP award by using one stat as the deciding factor, but those people are just behind the times and don’t realize stats rule baseball.