Thread: Major League Baseball: 2012

Originally Posted by Lionsfan780

Yeah the Rangers blew it down the stretch but there choke isn't as bad as the Red Sox and Braves last year because unlike those teams they still made the playoffs.

They made the playoffs on a technicality (extra wild card slot.) Had the rules been the same as last year (or every year previous in the history of the sport) they would not have made the playoffs. Had there been an extra playoff slot last year both the Braves and Red Sox would have made the playoffs. It's the same thing, just different year. An absolutely epic, unforgettable collapse.

The Angels were supposed to run away with the A.L west this year, so I still say they were the biggest chokers this year.

Not living up to expectations is not the same thing as choking. Having a 13 game lead and blowing it is choking. Losing 8 out of the last 10 games is choking. Losing the ALDS play in game is choking.

the Rangers will be fine.

The Rangers are getting older and losing pieces. I am sure they will be fine but fine doesn't equate to good. The decline has already begun...

Originally Posted by Bacchus

The Rangers are getting older and losing pieces. I am sure they will be fine but fine doesn't equate to good. The decline has already begun...

Their offense is going to decline, but their pitching staff will probably get better as time goes on. They have 4 starting pitchers between the ages of 24 and 27 and another good pitcher who is 23 that was in the bullpen this year and could become a starter (Robbie Ross). They also have an extremely deep farm system that is widely regarded as the best in baseball. I think it will be more of a retooling year next year for them though with the probable loss of Hamilton.

Did they make the playoffs on a technicality or an acutal rule change that all teams were aware of prior to the season? Had the rules been the same as 1993 (or every year previous in the history of the sport), the 2004 Red Sox and other wild card teams would not have made the playoffs or won the World Series. (I do get your point though as it is easier to draw comparision from the previous season)

With that said, I agree that the Texas collapse was much bigger than that of Boston last year. On October 1st, the Rangers had the best record in the AL. By the 5th, their season was over. Talk about a major kick in the reproductive organs.

Originally Posted by Treetrunk

Did they make the playoffs on a technicality or an acutal rule change that all teams were aware of prior to the season? Had the rules been the same as 1993 (or every year previous in the history of the sport), the 2004 Red Sox and other wild card teams would not have made the playoffs or won the World Series. (I do get your point though as it is easier to draw comparision from the previous season)

The reason for the wild card in 1993 was obvious - continuous expansion and eventual realignment. While the addition of the wild card can be debated vigorously, after nearly two decades it has been ingrained as part of baseball.

The entire existence of an extra wild card slot winner is less than a week old and it serves no purpose but to increase TV revenues. The "play in game" will never be the actual playoffs. It is one game that decides who gets to go to the division series - where the playoffs begin.

In any event, a comparison to teams in the exact same circumstance 12 months ago isn't much of a stretch. Bringing up a rule change 19 years ago is grasping.

With that said, I agree that the Texas collapse was much bigger than that of Boston last year. On October 1st, the Rangers had the best record in the AL. By the 5th, their season was over. Talk about a major kick in the reproductive organs.

The Red Sox failure last year would be akin to a shiny apple slowly decaying until it was inedible while the Rangers disastrous collapse this year could be aptly likened to the Hindenburg.

Originally Posted by Bacchus

The reason for the wild card in 1993 was obvious - continuous expansion and eventual realignment. While the addition of the wild card can be debated vigorously, after nearly two decades it has been ingrained as part of baseball.

The entire existence of an extra wild card slot winner is less than a week old and it serves no purpose but to increase TV revenues. The "play in game" will never be the actual playoffs. It is one game that decides who gets to go to the division series - where the playoffs begin.

In any event, a comparison to teams in the exact same circumstance 12 months ago isn't much of a stretch. Bringing up a rule change 19 years ago is grasping.


The Red Sox failure last year would be akin to a shiny apple slowly decaying until it was inedible while the Rangers disastrous collapse this year could be aptly likened to the Hindenburg.

I definitely get your point on the play-in, and I was just attempting to note that it is different than a technicality.

My White Sox were in a similar situation this year with a September lead, but I was able to see the writing on the wall before the Tigers eventually took the Central. I had time to prepare when I was able to watch perennial minor leaguers DeWayne Wise and Dan Johonson bat third and DH in the lineup for multiple games in mid-September while sub-par rookies took turns in the starting rotation.

Originally Posted by Treetrunk

My White Sox were in a similar situation this year with a September lead

Originally Posted by TheFeedMachi

If Oakland wins the WS, or even the AL, it won't be seen as a Rangers collapse but instead a surge by Oakland.

It would seem your less than two day old excuse "what if" scenario is already losing traction...

Don Kelly's sacrifice fly in ninth gives Tigers 2-0 series lead on A's

Originally Posted by TheFeedMachi

Interesting question now that the Rangers season is over. What happens to Josh Hamilton in free agency? It will be tough to give a 31 year old with as many personal issues as he has a long term contract, but I think someone will take that chance.

As much as I respect Josh Hamilton as a hitter, I hope it isn't Ben Cherington and the Red Sox who take that chance. While he can be the best player in baseball during a given week or month, he can be less effective than a defensive shortstop at the plate during his infamous slumps.

The Boston environ itself is another reason that Josh should not even be considered by Red Sox management. I think he would either fold under the constant bombardment (e.g. Crawford/Gonzalez) or be driven to drink (e.g. Beckett, Lester, Lackey.)