Otto von Ballpark

GB/FB numbers are worth considering, but for one game, it's really hard to predict their effects (see Odorizzi's starts vs NY already this year). I can't see GB% trumping the other basic factors, such as having a fully rested pen available for game 3 instead of just a mostly rested pen for game 2. (Or looking ahead, having the game 2 starter available on full rest for a potential game 5 -- which we were more likely to need after losing game 1.)

I know Duffey's been great for us the last few months, but -- why turn to him first in game 2, the night after he threw 25 pitches in game 1? Throwing Stashak, Gibson, and even Graterol the night before -- wasn't the whole point of that to keep Rogers, Romo, and May fresh for game 2? So you wouldn't necessarily have to rely on Duffey again right away? Not to mention the whole "over-exposure" risk -- Didi's GS was on the 41st Duffey pitch seen by the Yankees within 24 hours. Especially since the quick hook for Dobnak wasn't exactly a surprise -- it's just so weird that they'd plan on this kind of usage for Duffey, after game 1.

Again, catching up... Does that 93.7% reflect the current run scoring / HR environment? Not that it would make a huge difference, but the odds of making up 3 runs in 2 innings in 2019 would presumably be slightly greater than a few years ago, or perhaps even seasons with higher scoring but a lower HR rate. Not that I think bringing in Gibson was necessarily the biggest mistake -- leaving him in to give up 3 runs was definitely a mistake, though. Our win expectancy was down to 1% by the end of that inning. Gibson should have had some kind of hook, and 3 walks with the top of the Yankees lineup coming up again should have triggered it. By that point, we were going to need someone else to pitch the 9th regardless, might as well ask them to get an extra out rather than trying to milk a single extra out from Gibby. An even bigger mistake was probably using Stashak in a 1-run game -- his inning took our win expectancy down from 26% to 11%. (And when it was still a 1-run game in the top of the 6th, simply getting a runner on 1st with no outs got our win expectancy up to 40% -- that will be lower with fewer outs remaining, of course, but it illustrates the real value in keeping it a 1-run game.)

Sorry I'm just catching up on the conversation... Doesn't this have it backwards? Isn't it much more important to *avoid* the 0-2 hole, rather than worry about who starts for you in game 3 if/when it gets to 0-2?

I don't think those pejoratives are remotely comparable. I am sure Yankee fans have said bad things to players, but "Uber" is not one of them.

Yes, Monday's Twins game will be on FS1. (The only other MLB Network game this postseason is Monday's Astros-Rays game.)

Berrios would be on short rest for game 4, right? Might still be our best option, but I'm not sure how confident I'd be. If we could win games 3 and 4 (a big "if"), we'd have some major momentum going for game 5 at least, regardless of starter. (None of this is meant to justify Dobnak in game 2, of course.)

Yankees roster, for those wondering:

See my post above yours, with Twitter link.

Rosters in! Arraez and Adrianza -- and no Perez.

I know Paul Bunyan Cable in Bemidji carries it, and I don't think that cable company is quite as big as its namesake. https://getmlbnetwork4.viewerlink.tv/

Also, to those saying "MLB is bad for spreading their postseason games across too many networks" -- the only two MLB Network games are on the only two days of the postseason when there are FOUR games going on. By comparison, the NFL playoffs never have more than 2 games in a day, and the length of those games is mostly fixed. Given the variable lengths of these MLB games, those are probably the best days to spread them out across networks as much as possible. I remember 1995, when MLB tried overlapping postseason broadcasts, and they were pilloried for it!

I understand your frustration, but I'd take that with a grain of salt. I know MLB Network is available on some smaller cable companies -- they even have a web site where you can check: https://www.mlb.com/network/get-mlb-network Was this in reference to the free preview? I could see logistical problems with trying to offer that to lots of small providers. As for regular carriage, MLB and cable providers might disagree about what tier to offer the channel on too, aside from cost. Out of curiosity, what is your cable company?

Look at what happened here -- with this game on MLB Network, there were news articles about MLB Network, and lots of folks petitioned Comcast about it and even got them to reverse a decision (albeit just about the free preview.) The same might happen in Houston and Tampa for their upcoming ALDS game on MLB Network. That's what MLB wants to happen, rather than essentially selling this single game's stream for a couple bucks to us cordcutters. And it makes sense in the current environment. No one in their position is selling a la carte or bypassing providers and going direct to the consumer with that level of content. Someday it might make sense, but at this point, the criticism seems more like wishing than any kind of questionable decision on MLB's part.

Brock, I've repeatedly said there is no *technical* issue preventing this. I know it would be easy for MLB to flip a switch and stream it from their servers. I appreciate that! But that's not the issue at all. I don't know where you got the idea that I thought that was the issue. First off, Wikipedia says cable and satellite companies were offered a minority share in the network, so it may not be exclusively MLB's decision to make. I guess MLB could buy them out, but that's just going to risk it getting dropped by providers. Here's an article that had MLB Network in 67 million households, at $0.28 each: https://sportstvratings.com/how-much-more-does-espn-make-in-affiliate-revenue-than-the-other-sports-networks/5737/ If providers decided to offer just 8 cents less for MLB Network, it would take a million standalone subscribers at $5 per month to make up the lost revenue. (And most of those subscribers would only subscribe for October, or at best April through October, so you'd probably need a lot more than 1 million of them. And if you made the single-month price higher, like $20, or $60 for the year, you can imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the folks on this thread.) And I suspect it wouldn't just be an 8 cents across the board cut -- some providers would simply drop it, or for providers who don't already have it, they would be less likely to add it in the future, or even go along with MLB on this "free preview" thing. MLB Network (and MLB.TV) are not big revenue generators, they are primarily promotional tools. Look at the free previews, the low carriage rates, the numerous free and discounted MLB.TV subscriptions, the limited number of unique MLB.TV commercials. Selling MLB Network directly to superfans has minimal revenue potential, and a lot of risk that it would constrict their promotional reach.

$5 is an inflated price? How many networks sell their channels directly to the consumer, as well as have wide cable carriage? It doesn't happen, and it's not because all networks are dumb. It's a tight business and Comcast and others aren't going to pay any carriage fees they don't have to.

It's not an infrastructure issue at all. I agree it would be easy, technology-wise, for MLB to offer MLB Network for streaming. (Just like it would be easy, technology-wise, for Fox to put an MLB game on an OTA digital subchannel.) But it's not a practical business decision right now. Providers would drop MLB Network if MLB was selling it to customers directly (after all, they're not going to pay X cents per subscriber when the people who really care about the channel are already getting it elsewhere), and it doesn't matter how powerful MLBAM is -- there's no way that the niche audience of us diehards would make up the lost revenue *and* the lost eyeballs/exposure/accessibility/etc. MLB already has most diehards hooked, one way or another -- with MLB Network, they want to get their channel in front of lots of non-fans too. Look at the free previews they've done in the postseason -- four years in a row. TV ratings are down, but I don't think that many people are "abandoning sports as a whole." Sports are still huge. The landscape is evolving, and competition is growing, but they're still huge, and MLB would be pretty much alone in abandoning major TV providers to sell direct to the consumer right now, and would likely suffer for it. I do agree about Amazon -- I too was hoping they'd get the Fox RSNs, and at least offer them in something close to Sling's base package price. Maybe it wouldn't have made financial sense, but it would have been fun, with much greater importance than however MLB chooses to distribute their MLB Network.

You may have seen the other thread, but MLB Network is available on YouTube TV, and they have a free 7 day trial. They support pretty much every device these days too. After the trial, if you want to pay $50 for the month, you'd get all the postseason games over YouTube TV too, including DVR (to skip the numerous commercials!).

That's not realistic. Relatively few people would sign up for that, compared to the number that already get it through their TV provider, and a direct offering would diminish the value of the network so those providers would drop it and MLB would lose their revenue. And even if your $5 per head could make up the subscriber revenue, in the end it would put MLB in front of a vastly smaller audience. This argument reminds me of the "MLB.TV should have no blackouts!" crowd. Networks currently pay BILLIONS for the exclusive rights that lead to those blackouts -- and there's no way MLB.TV subscribers would ever be numerous enough, and/or pay enough, to replace those billions.

Here's an old article on the MLB Network strategy: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mlb-network-playoff-gamble-pays-off-aids-viewers/ They've done free previews for each of the last 4 postseasons. I don't think they are being particularly unreasonable or fan unfriendly in this instance.

It's not a matter of OTA space. Have you seen what's on most digital subchannels? It's not a place where networks want to place any content of value (either MLB baseball or the primetime programming it would displace). I love OTA TV, but baseball (and basketball, and hockey -- basically everything but the NFL) are cable sports, and have been for a very long time. Most anyone with any interest in the Twins or baseball already knows that, so they're already prepared. The biggest bandwagon jumpers probably won't get on until the World Series anyway, which will still be OTA. (Some ALCS games might be OTA too.) Edit to add: also, internet doesn't have to be too "high speed". I've got a pretty limited connection, but I've been able to stream MLB.TV and other services just fine (albeit not usually at max quality).

There might be something to that. MLB Network games aren't blacked out during the season either, unless it's your local team and they have their own broadcast. Not sure how that's supposed to apply to the postseason, though. Something for folks to try out Friday, I guess!

Maybe that's why they re-branded.

Yes, any full season MLB.TV subscription should continue to work into the postseason -- except blackouts still apply. And all postseason games should be blacked out in the US, so you'd be left listening to the radio stream only or watching them after they're over. I've never tried it, but you can apparently authenticate with a pay TV provider through MLB.TV to watch postseason games too: https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe/postseason Not sure how your phone managed to play it, but more power to you if that's the case!

Yes, I am sure you can get it on traditional DirecTV, but I was referring to "DirecTV Now", the streaming service. But even that reference was outdated, as it is now apparently "AT&T TV Now" -- but it's also hella expensive. $93 base package, and $110 for the package with MLB Network -- yuck!