Otto von Ballpark

Shouldn't be. Kirilloff has been unable to earn a full season of service time since about August 13th. He probably passed the usual "super 2" cutoff by Labor Day.

I suspect they were favored in 2006 vs the A's, but I haven't been able to find definitive proof yet. But there's this: https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/mlb-main/?y=2006&sa=mlb&a=al&o=r Yes, Liriano was injured, but we still had Johan and home field advantage. And Oakland was a huge Pythag over-performer that year.

Plus 2 more on ESPN2, and another on ABC. So that's the rights to 7 games, in one day, all purchased by the same company. If ESPN is giving MLB a billion dollars and wants those start times staggered, then that's what MLB is going to do.

It's going to be a long postseason, so they'll need both eventually if they're going to be successful. Given Hill's age and health history, it looks like he might be able to handle a longer layoff better (and may even benefit from the extra rest), while Berrios might need the regular work more. And while neither has much recent work out of the pen, Hill worked predominantly out of the pen from 2010-2015 so he might be better suited for that assignment than Berrios too.

When I say "MLB" in this context, I don't just mean "owners." Any money lost or gained from these decisions is lost or gained from the players pockets too. (Also, most observers think expanding the postseason will also have a negative impact on player compensation, discouraging teams from spending more -- so the players trading that for a shorter regular season would almost be a double-whammy against them.) That's fair! I don't mean to be such a pessimistic realist -- I just like to chime in to correct some common misconceptions about the business of baseball. I like the year-round idea, with an off day in leap years. Really emphasize starting rotation depth.

The primetime game is the most valuable. The more you overlap that, the less it is worth (so the less money MLB receives). The afternoon games have less to lose by overlap. And I suspect a lot of viewers can watch multiple games at one time now, through streaming. YouTube TV, Fox Sports, ESPN, etc. all have tablet/phone apps. (Hence why TVs generally don't have their own "picture in picture" mode anymore.) I know the ESPN app on Apple TV can also play 4 games at once on your TV too.

If it's just up to the fans in the local market, sure every game should be on at 7 PM local time or whatever. And that's what happens during the regular season, when local market fans are the primary target. But in the postseason, the audience widens. Hence why ESPN and Fox and Turner pay billions for national TV deals, and in turn get big money from national commercials. Compare that to the regular season, when Fox Sports North pays the Twins $43 mil for the local rights and gets a free breadstick for every Pizza Ranch ad they show.

Maybe all the folks that have to miss it live could set a time to start watching the MLB.TV replay together on Tuesday evening.

Very few closers are truly "lights out" and in modern MLB, with starters pitching so few innings, you need bullpen depth.

But 20 is more significant. Unless those 10 teams are actually losing money during cold-weather season, and I have seen no evidence that is true, it doesn't make any sense for MLB to drop games from 20 profitable locations just because 10 locations are... less profitable.

I don't think anyone liked it. Look at the 1995 playoffs: AL Division Series 3-0 Cleveland Indians over Boston Red Sox AL Division Series 3-2 Seattle Mariners over New York Yankees NL Division Series 3-1 Atlanta Braves over Colorado Rockies NL Division Series 3-0 Cincinnati Reds over Los Angeles Dodgers ALCS 4-2 Cleveland Indians over Seattle Mariners NLCS 4-0 Atlanta Braves over Cincinnati Reds Fans in Minnesota got Cleveland-Boston during the DS round, because Cleveland was a "midwest" team in the American League. Even if the series went 2-0, Minnesota fans were locked into that, rather than potentially checking out another more competitive series. (Or if the network switched you to watch a more competitive series, undoubtedly you'd alienate some fans who wanted to keep watching Cleveland-Boston until the end.) What if the White Sox qualified as a wild card -- which game would we get, Cleveland or Chicago? What if the Brewers qualified in the NL -- should we get their game over, say, the White Sox? It gets worse in other places. With both Cincinnati and Cleveland qualifying, and surviving until the CS round, what game should get broadcast precedence in Ohio? What about Texas, where no team close to them qualified? What about Iowa and the many other states without a MLB team of any kind? Now this was broadcast TV -- limited to one network. With the move to cable in 1996, baseball has many more networks to deliver simultaneous games -- but the value of each of those games broadcast rights is greatly diminished if it has to compete with other games. TBS will pay a fair amount for any exclusive MLB postseason game -- but they're not going to pay nearly as much if they have to broadcast MIN-OAK while Fox is broadcasting LAD-CHC or something like that.

Hard to tell -- by the time July 2020 rolled around, casual fans were probably just desperate for a new entertainment option!

September minor league call ups have already been reduced -- the normal roster size in 2020 was supposed be 26, and only expand to 28 after Sep. 1st. There are few problems with trying to make season length adjustments based on weather: 1. Bad weather games still generate revenue. TV revenue is unaffected (and may actually improve with poor weather, especially for good teams in September), and even if the park is mostly empty, season tickets and suite sales drive the revenue there. 2. Seasonal weather changes aren't predictable enough to produce a meaningful effect by shaving just a couple weeks off the front or back of the schedule. You'd probably have to shave off a complete month (September and/or April). 3. There may only be ~10 teams that are in true "cold weather" climates without domes. Even if cold-weather-season games were just break-even in those places (doubtful), MLB overall would be losing a lot more games in southern, coastal, or dome cities. And speaking as a frugal fan, cold weather games are a great value proposition on the secondary ticket market!

No offense, but "started and ended with Joe Nathan" seems like the kind of thing a clueless national media figure would say about the Twins bullpens of the 2000s. Before Nathan even came here, the 2002 playoff bullpen had 5 very good pitchers. 2004, 2006, and 2009 probably did too, at least by this criteria. (Be sure to look beyond K/9 which has been increasing league-wide.) 2010, Nathan was hurt yet our pen may have been 6 deep that postseason. Bullpens were largely a strength of the Gardy/Anderson years, and generally did not hold us back in the postseason either (outside of a single-game blow-up by Rincon in 2004, and another by Nathan in 2009). The 2019 and 2020 bullpens may indeed be deeper, although starters are throwing less now too -- successful postseason pens of the 2000s didn't need to be deeper than 5. Also note that, like the Maeda vs Liriano comparison above, the 2020 pen so far has only faced 1 team ranked above 20th in run per game which might be boosting their stats relative to pitchers who faced a more balanced schedule of opponents.

Liriano was absolutely an ace for a single season in 2010 using this criteria. He ranked 14th in the AL in ERA, and 2nd in FIP. Even that difference in ERA rank is distorted by 2020's heavily unbalanced schedule. Maeda only faced 1 team ranked better than 20th in runs per game, CHW for 2 starts out of his 11 (18%). By comparison, Liriano had 21 such starts out of 31 in 2010 (68%). Maeda is a very good pitcher having a very good season, but I don't think it's possible to draw a line that marks him as a ace right now but excludes 2010 Liriano. (At least not until Maeda carries us to the World Series! )

That's a cool stat, although it's worth remembering that overall league batting average is near an all-time low, which means WHIPs are naturally lower. The league this year hit just .245, lowest in the modern era since "year of the pitcher" 1968. Compared to Pedro's 2000, where MLB non-pitchers hit .275, the highest mark of the modern era! Combined with the small sample of 2020, and this isn't surprising that the 2020 leaders look good in this stat. Of the top 10 lowest WHIPs among qualified starters since 1961, 3 were in 2020, another was in 2019, and another 2015. Still good pitchers, and good seasons, but I'm not sure how to compare them historically.

Here in the USA & Canada, MLB.TV subscribers can still listen to the live postseason radio broadcasts, watch the archive games (90 minutes after they end), or watch live if they authenticate with a participating pay TV provider: https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/postseason/2020providers In the USA, though, it is easier to just get YouTube TV for $65. That will have every game (with DVR!). Subscribe Tuesday Sep. 29, cancel right away (turn off renewal), and it will last through Game 7 of the World Series.

Yup. And international viewers (outside the USA & Canada) should be able to see all of these games through their normal MLB.TV subscription.

Actually longer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_League_Division_Series_broadcasters I think our 2006 ALDS games on ESPN games were simulcast locally on ABC (KSTP). Otherwise, we haven't been national on broadcast TV since the 2004 ALDS.

I mentioned above, but in 1995 -- the first wild card postseason -- they tried overlapping prime time games. So people only saw their "regional" game in the first round. The response was not good. The next year, 1996, was the first year they had postseason games on cable, so they were no longer limited to the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, etc.) and they could air all games nationally.

Is "PrimeTime Live" just the Dish DVR? YouTube TV has FSN and also offers unlimited DVR (plus on-demand content, if you forgot to DVR something). And no contract!

To be fair, they try to stagger all of the games. They tried overlapping postseason games back in 1995 I think, and it was roundly critized. (Yes, they do give prime time preference to the biggest markets, but I am not sure what criteria to use for that, beyond time zone.)

FWIW, it counts as an unearned run. But if they want to continue this rule, this might be a worthy scoring tweak.

Objectively, seems like the game 2 SP matchup could be a wash. Valdez 11 G, 70 IP, 83 ERA-, 65 FIP- Berrios 12 G, 63 IP, 89 ERA-, 91 FIP- (If they go Urquidy, he is definitely more of a wild card with the small sample, although he was quite effective last postseason.) Frankly, McCullers vs Pineda seems close too. Pineda has better rates this year but in a much smaller sample. McCullers has been pretty consistent when healthy, and has been excellent in the postseason (while Pineda has never pitched in the postseason). Even Greinke may not be that far off Maeda — by FIP-, they are about equal, 64 vs 67. (ERA- is 94 to 60, though.) Greinke almost won WS game 7 last year. Twins will obviously have the home field advantage, and on paper have the better offense and bullpen. SP was actually a strength for Houston, even without Verlander — Twins may still hold an advantage there too but less than the other factors.

Dust off that antenna, folks: the Twins 2020 postseason debut is over the air on ABC (albeit at 1 PM on a Tuesday, pre-empting some soap opera, presumably?): Twins-Astros: Game 1: 1 p.m. Tuesday, ABC Game 2: Noon Wednesday, ESPN2 Game 3: TBA Thursday