My call is the Sox win 105 games this year, the Division as well.

Hilarious. He adds in that the Sox win the division as if there was any ambiguity about it, like the Yankees or Rays winning in the 100's as well.

It's been a long time since a team won 105 games. The 2001 Mariners and 1998 Braves were the last ones if I recall correctly. I can't imagine a team playing in a division with three other very competitive teams having even a decent chance of winning 100+. The '01 Mariners and '98 Braves played in mediocre divisions*.

*The A's were near 100 wins I believe but the Rangers and Angels were sub-.500.

2004 Cardinals?

I'm guessing that's the team Schilling was thinking about when he threw out that number, anyway. What a great year that was, right up till the end.

Wieters will not allow another team to win 100 games in his division. When will Bud appropriately re-name the division to Mr. Wieters' taste?

Anyway, the Jays play them tough too. The Red Sox were also below .500 on the road...

Completely forgot about the '04 Cardinals and '98 Yankees. Thanks #2 and 3.

95 he meant...

The '01 Mariners and '98 Braves played in mediocre divisions*.


This is the opposite of the truth, as far as the M's are concerned. The A's won 102 games that year, and no team won fewer than 73 games. That may have been the gnarliest division in the history of baseball, last year's AL East included.

I'm shocked and disturbed that whatever he said about Varitek didn't make the excerpt. I'm going to rta and see how grave an injustice this is...

Well color me red with embarassment. I mostly skimmed but I didn't seen a single mention of Tek as the god of catcher preparedness who kid hit .035 and still be great.

I'm not sure I buy a lot of what he's saying in regards to the prospects he mentioned, but I give him credit for doing so. A lot of blowhard major leaguers wouldn't give prospects and the importance of player development the time of day. Also liked this:

Anytime you hear ‘middle of the rotation’ mentioned in a prospects accolades it means three things.

1) We may never hear his name again
2) He could be an ace
3) Not one of his pitches wows you.

I wonder how much off that he sees in himself. I was too young to be a prospect hound when he was in the minors, but it's not hard to believe that he was a #3 mid rotation starter and could have easily gone the way of #1 instead of #2.

Huh, went to check his minor league numbers at b-ref but they don't have Ks for his years. His last year in the Sox system he had a really mediocre K rate - something in the 5/9 range iirc. Probably wasn't getting many "wows" with any of his pitches that year and people who saw him would be shocked at the career he had.

The A's won 102 games that year, and no team won fewer than 73 games.

I noted that the A's were really good.

The '01 Rangers (73 wins) had no pitching -- their best starter was Doug Davis with a 4.45 ERA. Second-best? Rick Helling at 5.17. They only had two relievers with a sub-4 ERA.

The '01 Angels (75 wins), outside of Troy Glaus, had no offense. Jarrod Washburn was their only starter significantly above-average.

Winning 75 / 73 games -- .463 / .451 winning percentages -- is bad. Not Pittsburgh Pirates bad, but pretty bad.

Winning 75 / 73 games -- .463 / .451 winning percentages -- is bad. Not Pittsburgh Pirates bad, but pretty bad.

That's like saying winning 87 makes a team good (not New York Yankees good, but pretty good). Most cellar-dwellars win less than 70 games.

The 2001-2003 AL West was probably the strongest division ever. In '02, the A's won 103, the Angels won 99, and the M's won 93. In '03, the A's won 96, the M's won 93, and the Angels and Rangers were at 77 and 71. Even '04 was very strong, with the Angels, A's, and Rangers winning 92, 91, and 89 games.

2002-04 teams != 2001 teams

That's like saying winning 87 makes a team good (not New York Yankees good, but pretty good).

It does! 87 wins puts you in playoff contention most of the time. :)

2002-04 teams != 2001 teams

I'm just saying that, one-year flukes aside, the 2001-2003 AL West consistently fielded multiple top-notch teams. In 2002 , any of the top three finishers would have won many other divisions. The top teams those years weren't just good, but great. I'm not sure what your point is.

75 wins is a below average team, but it's not bad. In the other AL divisions in those years, there were teams like the Rays, Orioles, or Tigers who could be consistently beaten up upon.

Crashburn, if your definition of a bad division is one in which the last place team wins 75 games, then just about every division in history was a bad division. The 2001 AL West was 80 games over .500. That's not a mediocre division. That's one of the best in history.

BP looked at the best divisions of the Wild Card era.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8288

By winning%



By BP's Hit List factor (averaging of their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order wins):

To expand on #13, the 75-87 Angels were 10-29 against the Mariners and A's, and 65-58 against the rest of MLB. The 73-89 Rangers were 15-24 against the top 2 and 58-65 against everyone else.

I'm shocked and disturbed that whatever he said about Varitek didn't make the excerpt. I'm going to rta and see how grave an injustice this is...

Well color me red with embarassment. I mostly skimmed but I didn't seen a single mention of Tek as the god of catcher preparedness who kid hit .035 and still be great.

I took the beginning as about Tek:

Terry Francona will manage the personnel to their maximum effectiveness, regardless of what any second-guessing couch potatoes want to think or know. Tito knows more than you about his players, and always will.

So don't you dare think your (or my) second guessing, couch potato inflated butt is right when we think Tek should sit more against RHP...

<<The '01 Mariners and '98 Braves played in mediocre divisions*.>>

"BP looked at the best divisions of the Wild Card era.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8288
By winning%


Year Division W-L WPCT
2002 AL West 367-281 .566
2001 AL West 366-282 .565"

Wow, one of the best 'Baseball Think Factory' Slap Downs ever!

BP looked at the best divisions of the Wild Card era.

The 2001 AL West was 80 games over .500. That's not a mediocre division. That's one of the best in history.

Of course, that is almost all Mariners and Athletics, and very little Angels and Rangers. If the criteria for a tough division is to have half of the teams be really good, then we can put a lot of divisions in this category.

The Mariners and A's combined to be 132 games above .500; the Angels and Rangers combined to be 28 games below .500.

Are you serious with this?

It's perfectly understandable that, as an NL East fan, you didn't remember the 2001 AL West very well when you first posted. But then it was pointed out to you that the A's won 100+ games and the division as a whole was really good. Rather than just acknowledge that you were wrong, you clumsily try to show that the Angels had a bad offense and the Rangers had bad pitching.

You're then shown that the 2001 AL West was one of the two best divisions in the 3 division era, clearly disproving your claim that the Mariners "played in mediocre divisions." You come back with "~Yeah, but the division wasn't that good if you just look at the two worst teams."

Since every division will be .500 in intradivision play, the measure of how good a division is is how well it does against the rest of the league.

In 2001, the A's, Angels, and Rangers combined to go 174-138 against the non-AL West. That's a .558 winning percentage, or a 90.3 win pace.

And that's not even including the 116 win Mariners, who went 76-28 against the rest of MLB. As a whole, the AL West was 250-166 against the rest of baseball. That's a .601 winning percentage, or a 97 win pace.

The idea that the 2001 AL West was "mediocre" or "not tough" is absurd.

2001 Extradivisional Records:

Seattle: 76-28
Oakland: 70-34
Anaheim: 58-46
Rangers: 46-58

But then it was pointed out to you that the A's won 100+ games

I acknowledged this in my original post.

the division as a whole was really good

Two teams does not a division make. It's like saying the 2007 AL East was really good because of the Red Sox and Yankees. It was actually a buttery-soft division outside of those two teams, just like the '01 AL West.

you clumsily try to show that the Angels had a bad offense and the Rangers had bad pitching.

They were not good teams. Bad teams have bad offense and/or bad pitching.

You're then shown that the 2001 AL West was one of the two best divisions in the 3 division era

I don't buy the BP methodology posted above. It just mashes together the teams' winning percentages. The West comes out really high because of the Mariners and Athletics, hiding the fact that the other two teams were poor.

In 2001, the A's, Angels, and Rangers combined to go 174-138 against the non-AL West. That's a .558 winning percentage, or a 90.3 win pace.

Why do you lump the A's in there? I never denied that the A's were good. It's hard to win 100+ games and be "just okay."

The Angels and Rangers combined to go 104-104 against the non-AL West. That's a .500 winning percentage, or an 81-win pace. That's more honest, but it's still a flawed methodology because it doesn't count how badly the Mariners and A's trounced the Angels (4-15 and 6-14, respectively), and how badly the Mariners trounced the Rangers (5-15; the Rangers were 10-9 against the A's).

2001 Extradivisional Records:

Seattle: 76-28
Oakland: 70-34
Anaheim: 58-46
Rangers: 46-58

It is ridiculous that the A's were 36 games over .500 outside of their division and they still finished second. That's a 109-win pace!

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

the division as a whole was really good

Two teams does not a division make.

Right, which is why I showed that the division--as a whole--was really ####### good. I also showed that the division--even if you ignore the 116 win Mariners--was really ####### good.

You, on the other hand, seem to only be judging the division by looking at two teams. You also don't seem to grasp the concepts of intradivisional play definitionally being .500 or strength of schedule.

Your original claim, which you're sticking to, once more for comedic effect:

The '01 Mariners and '98 Braves played in mediocre divisions*.

You're not doing a good job of refuting my claim. Your methodology is flawed and instead all you're doing is pointing to what I'm saying and emphatically sighing.

I'm completely open to the possibility I might be wrong, you just have to show me why.

which is why I showed that the division--as a whole--was really ####### good.

You showed this with a flawed methodology wherein you simply looked at their extra-divisional records, which ignores how awfully the Angels and Rangers got whooped by the Mariners and A's. Even so, the two teams were .500 in extra-divisional play and well under .500 against the Mariners and A's.

At this point, it's become a game of semantics, but a division isn't good if half the division gets trounced by the other half. That's not competitive. Two teams were really good in the '01 AL West; two teams were below-average.

I also showed that the division--even if you ignore the 116 win Mariners--was really ####### good.

You didn't show anything. Just because you cite some numbers -- flawed ones at that -- doesn't mean it's literal proof. I don't buy your numbers; I'm skeptical of them. If you want to change my mind so bad, do a better job of providing evidence.

You, on the other hand, seem to only be judging the division by looking at two teams.

Really? You're going to go to a strawman right after quoting me?

I said, "Two teams does not a division make."

Quite obviously, I've been looking at all four AL West teams from 2001. That's really the only way you can conclude that it wasn't the great division it was cracked up to be. :)

Your original claim, which you're sticking to, once more for comedic effect

You are not going to change my mind by mocking me. All you're going to do is make me more unwilling to listen to what you have to say. As I said, I'm very open to the possibility I might be wrong, but I'm not going to fold up the tent just because Danny logged onto BBTF and told me to; you need to prove why I'm wrong. You haven't done that, so I'm not going to change my viewpoint.

As always, I enjoy debating here on BBTF but this is one of the sillier arguments I've been in, and I have completely forgotten the point to this argument. I don't think there was one.

At any rate, I think the fact that the Angels and Rangers were so poor against the Mariners and A's shows the competitive imbalance within the '01 AL West. Using winning percentage where you mash the teams together and come up with an average is very flawed. One of your demonstrations:

In 2001, the A's, Angels, and Rangers combined to go 174-138 against the non-AL West. That's a .558 winning percentage, or a 90.3 win pace.

[...]

2001 Extradivisional Records:

Seattle: 76-28
Oakland: 70-34
Anaheim: 58-46
Rangers: 46-58

As shown above, the Angels and Rangers were .500 outside of their division, so the A's do all the heavy lifting in making that extra-divisional record on pace for 90.3 wins.

The mean isn't always a good tool to use as it is prone to being affected greatly by outliers. For instance, I can change those extra-divisional records around and still get the same mean record of 62.5-41.5 (.601):

Seattle: 96-8
Oakland: 90-14
Anaheim: 38-66
Texas: 26-78

Mean: 62.5-41.5 (.601)

Using your methodology, we would still find that division to be "great."

Overall, there may not be any one definitive way to measure a division's so-called "greatness."

The real question is, what's your criteria for a great division?

The real question is, what's your criteria for a great division?

Yeah, this is really the crux of the matter. I think I have a different definition than Danny, if not most people. I don't think there's a wholly objective way to define a "great division."

I was thinking it might work if we look at the dispersion of win totals in each division, with a lower standard deviation indicating a better division, but that doesn't work because the NL West last year had a smaller dispersion of wins. I don't think the '08 NL West is, in any way, a great division.

I thought for a while about what my criteria would be but I can't come up with a completely objective method. So it doesn't really matter what I think because it's only as valid as any other subjective criteria. A rough list of my criteria includes more than half (in the AL West's case, 3 of 4) of the teams being above .500 with at least half (in 5-team divisions' case, 3 teams) in the 90's in wins. Also, the "bad" teams still have to have been competitive within the division.

As I said, that's just a rough list so I'm sure it has tons of flaws (feel free to point them out). This is actually really interesting and I'm still going to try to think up an objective way to measure a division's "greatness".

Didn't the unbalanced schedule begin in 2002? It is harder to win 100 games in a very good division now than it was prior to the unbalanced schedule.

The Sox are my pick to win the division, but I'll put them down for 94 wins and give Curt 2-1 odds that my number is closer than his.

I was thinking it might work if we look at the dispersion of win totals in each division, with a lower standard deviation indicating a better division, but that doesn't work because the NL West last year had a smaller dispersion of wins. I don't think the '08 NL West is, in any way, a great division.

The problem with this is it pretty much eliminates any great team from ever playing in a great division. The 2001 Mariners would, by that distinction, almost have to play in mediocre divisions to compile such a tremendous overall record. With 58 division games and only 46 losses for the entire season, someone in the division is going to have to be on the receiving end of a lot of losses, creating that wider dispersion.

Edit: Mike, unbalanced scheduling began earlier than that.

I dont really care about the 2001 West division, but Crashburn youre twisting and manuevering of logic is a little preposterous.

#27, you're right; unbalanced scheduling started in 2001.

The premise of Yankee/Red Sox boosters is that their clubs are noticeably better than the other and the Rays and worlds better than the other two clubs in the division. Neither is true. It is a division with three very good clubs and two roughly average clubs. For any club to win 100 games will require very good health and good luck.

I dont really care about the 2001 West division, but Crashburn youre twisting and manuevering of logic is a little preposterous.

How so? I've been very honest about the various flaws in what I've been espousing, and I've been very clear with my methodology used to refute Danny's claims.

#27, another good point.

The 2001-2003 AL West was an awesome division. I also don't see how that can be argued against. Those were good times.

How so? I've been very honest about the various flaws in what I've been espousing, and I've been very clear with my methodology used to refute Danny's claims.

I just never saw you back off your initial claim that the 2001 West was mediocre

I thought for a while about what my criteria would be but I can't come up with a completely objective method. So it doesn't really matter what I think because it's only as valid as any other subjective criteria. A rough list of my criteria includes more than half (in the AL West's case, 3 of 4) of the teams being above .500 with at least half (in 5-team divisions' case, 3 teams) in the 90's in wins. Also, the "bad" teams still have to have been competitive within the division.

No, it's not subjective--at least not in this way.

Go back to your original point, your first post in this thread. You said the Mariners were only able to win as many games as they did because they played in a "mediocre division." The implication is that it was somewhat easy for the Mariners to accumulate wins within their division. The question we must then answer is how good the other three teams in their division were.

Your mistake (at least your main one) is that you are confusing the quality of the division with the competitiveness of the division. If we were looking at how hard it was for a team to win a division, we would want to know how competitive the other top teams are. But if we just want to know how hard it is to accumulate wins--which is what your original point was about--we only need to look at the overall quality of the other three teams.

In 2001, it was harder to accumulate wins in the AL West than in any other division in baseball. The other three teams in the AL West were--by any objective measure--above average as a group. The three teams were above .500 as a group, despite having to play the juggernaut Mariners so often. You aren't able to get past the fact that the Mariners did really well against the rest of the AL West, despite the fact that they were better against the rest of baseball than they were against the AL West.

It doesn't matter if the other three teams in the division were .600, .550, and .500 teams, or whether all three were .550 teams. Every win you take away from the A's and give to the Rangers makes it easier to beat the A's and tougher to beat the Rangers. It's a zero sum game.

Another way to think about it is college basketball. If you want to know how good the Big East is, you can't look at games within the Big East. The conference will be .500 as a whole in conference play, just as the Patriot League will. To figure out how good the Big East is, you have to look at how Big East teams did outside of the Big East. Only then do we know that the Big East is better than the Patriot League, and that it's harder to accumulate wins in the Big East than it is in the Patriot League. If you put a middling Big East team in the Patriot League, they would win more games than they did in the Big East--just a middling team in the 2001 AL West would have won more games in a different division.

The problem with your "definition" of division strength is that it's actually an attempt to measure competitiveness or balance rather than an attempt to measure strength. If the Rays had swept the season series against the Yankees last year, that wouldn't have changed the strength of the division--it would only change the balance and competitiveness.

I just never saw you back off your initial claim that the 2001 West was mediocre

Why should I? No one has provided any legitimate evidence proving that it wasn't. As mentioned, I'm completely open to the possibility that I'm wrong but it doesn't mean I'm just going to flip-flop because someone posts some numbers. BP's numbers listed in #14 use a poor methodology, for instance. I'm going to be skeptical of everything until there is no reason to do so.

In 2001, it was harder to accumulate wins in the AL West than in any other division in baseball. The other three teams in the AL West were--by any objective measure--above average as a group.

I never denied how good the Athletics were. The A's are the only reason why the rest of the AL West is above-average. And, as I said before, two teams does not a tough division make.

If you were to say, "The '01 AL West was tough because the Mariners and Athletics were really good," I couldn't really argue with that. But it seems like you're trying to include the Angels and Rangers as factors in making that division tough when they were, in fact, moles in the Mariners' and Athletics' whack-a-mole game that season, so to speak.

You aren't able to get past the fact that the Mariners did really well against the rest of the AL West, despite the fact that they were better against the rest of baseball than they were against the AL West.

2001 Mariners...

vs. AL West: 40-18 (+22)
vs. AL Central: 33-11 (+22)
vs. AL East: 33-12 (+21)
vs. NL West: 10-5 (+5)

The problem with your "definition" of division strength is that it's actually an attempt to measure competitiveness or balance rather than an attempt to measure strength.

This is true for the most part, but I do list in my criteria that the teams have to cross a certain threshold of wins, which accounts for strength. As I said, my criteria are wholly subjective and probably flawed so I'm working on ironing those out. I might write an article some time soon hypothesizing ways to measure division strength.

2001 Mariners...

vs. AL West: 40-18 (+22)
vs. AL Central: 33-11 (+22)
vs. AL East: 33-12 (+21)
vs. NL West: 10-5 (+5)

By Winning Percentage:
vs. AL West: .689
vs. AL Central: .750
vs. AL East: .733
vs. NL West: .666

So, aside from the small sample of games against the NL West, the AL West teams performed significantly better against the M's than the other divisions did.

Why should I? No one has provided any legitimate evidence proving that it wasn't.

What divisions in what years were better? or do you have some strange definition of 'mediocre'?

edit: and what SOSH points out in #35 is what I was referring to in my earlier post (that "+22" garbage)

It does! 87 wins puts you in playoff contention most of the time. :)

This is the primary reason I'm an advocate of going back to 2 divisions. I can't stand these slightly better than average teams making their way into the LCS and WS. Between that and the unbalanced schedule, the regular season is so watered down to what it was when I was younger.

I researched it in more detail during last season. In the years (95-2007) of the WC era, the number of 90 or fewer win teams (arbitrary win total I know) that have made the LCS and/or WS was double the last 13 years (79-92) of 2-divisional play. Does anyone else see this as a problem?

Does anyone else see this as a problem?

No, and it's a moot point anyway. Plus, the worst AL wildcard team of the last 8 years was the Yankees, who won 94 games.

Plus, the worst AL wildcard team of the last 8 years was the Yankees, who won 94 games.

The worst team is not always the wild card. Look and see how many 83-90 win division winners we have had in the WC era. Usually WC teams have had a better record than the worst divisional winner, if not both other divisional winners. The concept of the WC was to allow more good teams in the postseason, think 2001 A's, and thus giving the best teams a shot at the WS. In actuality it's allowing more "under-qualified" teams to reach the WS.