owbc

They have a racist mascot, so I'm not surprised.

I mentioned this in the RR thread, but I think it's important to reiterate that a new pitching coach would be the Brewers' 4th pitching coach in 4 years. The Brewers are already not known as an organization that excels at pitching, and I think it looks even worse to cycle through a new pitching coach every year. Then again, if they are really going to commit to a new philosophy as an organization, then it might be better to have a coach that shares RR's ideas. I do not know what those ideas actually are though.

I agree that Conan seemed back to his usual self from Late Night. The show will probably do well. Like he said, they named it "Conan" so it would be harder to find a replacement this time ;-) Any guesses on how long the show lasts before Conan moves back to network TV? I'm sure CBS would love to have him take over for Letterman at some point...

I think this comment on Deadspin sums it up:

We broke our record cold maximum temperature in Miami today. The high was 67. A week ago it was still around 90. The record low tonight is 53 from 1907--and that is likely to be broken also by a few degrees. I almost put on a sweater. As for you guys in Wisconsin, it's going to be a La Nina winter, which usually means above-normal snowfall and unusually large fluctuations between seasonally mild and cold temperatures.

Yeah, I'm definitely frustrated. I do understand that the Yankees got where by running their organization the right way. But I do not think you can fairly compare them to the Cubs in 2010. The Yankees payroll was $60 million more than the Cubs--which is too big of a different to put them in the same category. The Yankees have an incredible margin for error. It all depends on what you consider to be fair, I guess. They run their organization well and are popular, so does that mean they deserve to get all the top free agents? I think it has created a cycle where the Yankees continue to get better, richer, and more popular, while everyone else gets left behind. I think it's gotten to the point where MLB's popularity is skewed by the Yankees. If the Yankees are involved, MLB is very popular--high TV ratings, dominant in the news/sports conversations, etc. If the Yankees are not involved, the World Series is blown away by Monday Night Football. If some of the less popular MLB teams played in the World Series, the ratings would be abysmal. Obviously, you would never expect a Brewers/Tigers World Series to draw the same audience as a Yankees/Dodgers World Series. But the point is that you can only exclude people from success for so long before they stop caring--and for many MLB teams, the time between successes is becoming so long that people are going to stop caring. After Tiger Woods starting winning everything, the PGA started "Tiger-Proofing" their golf courses to level the playing field. I think MLB needs to invest in some "Yankee-proofing" to allow other teams to have a chance to share in the limelight.

Selig has had 15 years to change things, so MLB in 2010 is essentially his creation. The Yankees didn't make the playoffs 90% of the time in the 1980s/early 1990s, but they did during the post-strike years. 16 out of 17 seasons. The luxury tax was designed to appease the small markets without upsetting the status quo. I have no doubt that Selig cares about small markets and promoting baseball, but he is too focused on the revenue numbers and is missing the bigger picture. Thus, the Yankees get additional attention every October that other teams only get every few years. They always are given the prime time TV slot. MLB directly controls that. The Yankees are relevant every single year. They will never again have a sub-.500 record under the current system, much less a 90-loss season. In order for other teams to get attention, the Yankees need a few years where they fade into oblivion by July. You can't just ignore teams like the Rangers and Giants for 90% of the season and then expect them to draw ratings. The only time any of these guys get attention is the All-Star game. The Sunday night baseball game on the last day of the season was Yankees-Red Sox, not Padres-Giants. There was no build up toward anything except "Can anyone beat the Yankees this year?" This is like the housing market in the mid-2000s. There are serious problems with MLB and the way it is run, and it is only a matter of time before things get out of control and people lose interest.

I think those stats are distorted because high HR and high OBP teams tend to score lots of runs in big outbursts. A stolen base isn't going to help you much in a 7-3 game but it could really help you in a 2-1 game. Were the Padres really lucky for winning all those close games, or did they have the skill set and game plan needed to win them? Also, the Brewers offense is specially equipped and can fit into both the fast and power-hitting categories. Usually home run hitters are slow runners, but Braun, Weeks, and Hart can all run also. A top offense is useless if it is as inconsistent as the 2010 Brewers' offense. They couldn't beat elite pitchers and they couldn't win close games, but of course they could blow out the Pirates to distort their stats.

They designed a system that lets them make the playoffs over 90% of the time. They allowed them to be so good for so long that they became far more popular than any other team. Yes, fans do complain about the same teams, but they are the minority.

It's sad to see the bad ratings but then again, MLB sort of deserves it. The media cycle constantly drones on about the Yankees and Red Sox to the point that the playoffs have the same tone to them every year. After the almighty Yankees and Phillies were defeated, people were left wondering, "Why should I care?" Of course those who know baseball were interested in the series, but the average sports fan could probably name about 3 players combined from the Rangers and Giants. Heck, I bet 25% of America thinks that Barry Bonds still plays for the Giants. Contrast that with other sports like the NFL where teams are given more equal coverage. As a result, everyone knew about the Colts and Saints long before they met up in the Superbowl. ESPN's favorite team is the team that Brett Favre is on. If Derek Jeter was traded to the Brewers, ESPN would cover his first game and then forget about him. Look what happened to Johnny Damon, who does he even play for again? It all comes down to the economic system again. It would be good for baseball for the Yankees and Red Sox to have some 90-loss seasons so that the average baseball fan can forget about them for awhile and concentrate on some other teams. As long as the same teams keep winning, baseball's ratings will keep falling. Of course, speeding up the games and getting some intelligent announcers would help also.

ESPN Chicago is reporting that Cora finished a "strong second" to Roenicke.

I'm as shocked as everyone else, but I like the work that the Angels do and I look forward to the Brewers moving in a new direction. Based on Dale Sveum's comments and the Roenicke hire, I expect the 2011 Brewers to utilize their speed and focus on the fundamentals. I'm looking forward to the press conference.

This is a really terrible idea. This seems like an attempt to cover up baseball's terrible economic system instead of addressing the real issue. The payroll inequities are growing every season and as the big market teams learn to emulate the strategies of successful small market teams, the number of low payroll teams making the playoffs will continue to decrease. I believe that Selig is aware of this. In order to make up for the inequities, MLB will introduce additional teams to the playoffs and then play them off against each other in a short series. By reducing the sample size, you increase the probability of the underdog winning the series. In addition, it would solve the AL East problem but allowing the lower teams a chance to compete against each other for the final Wild Card. The "last team out" is already engaged in an exciting pennant race under the current format. The Padres certainly had an interesting September this year, but they would have instead enjoyed a less interesting September under the new format--and then would have been forced to battle with the Braves in a short series even though they already "beat" the Braves in the Wild Card race. How is that fair? In the AL, the Yankees would suddenly have been forced to play a short series against the Red Sox...or would they reject the Red Sox for being a 3rd place team and force the Yankees to play the #6 team in the league? It is just a complete disaster of stupidity either way. Judging by historical records, the new Wild Card will often be 4-5 games behind the current Wild Card. I also fail to see how this would benefit a team like the Brewers. Even with an additional Wild Card, the Brewers would have still missed the playoffs every year from 1993-2007.

I never liked the Giants because of Barry Bonds, but I think they have some of the best fans in baseball. Even in the down years they always drew large crowds. They even have a to go with this postseason.

Yep it got down to 955 mb in Minnesota. That would cause 110+ mph winds in a hurricane, but the winds are lower in mid-latitude storms because the pressure gradient is spread out over a larger area and friction from the land slows the wind down. I think this image helps put it in context. The storm is much, much larger than a tiny little mesoscale hurricane.

I'm sure Mark A. would love to have Valentine, but does he really want the job? Is he going to give it 100% or jump ship when a better job pops up in a few years? In terms of pure managerial skills, Valentine probably isn't the best choice, but if he can bring much needed national attention and free agents, it will be worth it.

I'm not very interested in this series, although I do expect it to be good baseball. The late postseason games just take too long and it is too frustrating to watch. I'll probably keep an eye on the score and watch the late innings if the games get interesting.

I think Sveum is just happy staying in Milwaukee even if it reduces his chance at a promotion. Does he really want to manage the Pittsburgh Pirates anyway?

I definitely did not see that coming, but I am glad the Rangers beat the Yankees. Also awesome to see Vlad jumping on top of the pile and the ginger ale celebration on the field.

From what I read, Hurdle got fired for being too much of a players manager. He had become too close to the players and the clubhouse took on an extremely casual atmosphere after the Rockies won the pennant.

The 4th win is always the hardest one to get. Especially when it is against a team with World Series experience. I expect both of these series to go 7 games.

Since it's narrowed down to four, that means that Valentine is out of the picture for sure, because there's no way he interviewed without it leaking to the media. Same with Sandberg. I agree that B. Melvin is probably on the final list. Judging by Listach's comments, he is probably also on the short list. I still like Wallach's chances, since he's an NL guy and a known players manager. The 4th candidate is probably either Roenicke or Cora. With Mark A. involved in the second round, it's hard to name favorites. D. Melvin probably does not have a front runner at this point either.

Judging by the reaction on the message boards, Cubs fans are happy that Sandberg wasn't hired, calling Quade the "lesser of two evils". The Cubs' real problems are higher up in the organization, which is confirmed by their decision to stick with the status quo in their coaching decisions.

So far I'm being proven wrong by the Rangers. I like it. Still 2 wins to go though.

Looking good again for the Rangers, up 5-0 again. It's only the 3rd inning, however.