
Email me at btimmermann@gmail.com
| Rank | Team | W | L | PCT | Division | 1 | Chicago Cubs | 97 | 64 | .602 | C1 | 2 | Philadelphia | 92 | 70 | .568 | E1 | 3 | Los Angeles Dodgers | 84 | 78 | .519 | W1 | 4 | Milwaukee | 90 | 72 | .556 | C2 | 5 | New York Mets | 89 | 73 | .549 | E2 | 6 | Houston | 86 | 75 | .534 | C3 | 7 | St. Louis | 86 | 76 | .531 | C4 | 8 | Florida | 84 | 77 | .522 | E3 | 9 | Arizona | 82 | 80 | .506 | W2 | 10T | Colorado | 74 | 88 | .457 | W3 | 10T | Cincinnati | 74 | 88 | .457 | C5 | 12T | Atlanta | 72 | 90 | .444 | E4 | 12T | San Francisco | 72 | 90 | .444 | W4 | 14 | Pittsburgh | 67 | 95 | .414 | C6 | 15 | San Diego | 63 | 99 | .389 | W5 | 16 | Washington | 59 | 102 | .366 | E5 |
| Rank | Team | W | L | PCT | Division |
| 1 | Los Angeles Angels | 100 | 62 | .617 | W1 | 2 | Tampa Bay | 97 | 65 | .599 | E1 | 3 | Chicago White Sox | 89 | 74 | .546 | C1 | 4 | Boston | 95 | 67 | .586 | E2 | 5 | New York Yankees | 89 | 73 | .549 | E3 | 6 | Minnesota | 88 | 75 | .540 | C2 | 7 | Toronto | 86 | 76 | .531 | E4 | 8 | Cleveland | 81 | 81 | .500 | C3 | 9 | Texas | 79 | 83 | .488 | W2 | 10 | Oakland | 75 | 86 | .466 | W3 | 11 | Kansas City | 75 | 87 | .463 | C4 | 12 | Detroit | 74 | 88 | .457 | C5 | 13 | Baltimore | 68 | 93 | .422 | E5 | 14 | Seattle | 61 | 101 | .377 | W4 |
Select a date:
New York
| W | L | GB | Yankees | 89 | 73 | Mets | 89 | 73 |
Baltimore/DC
| W | L | GB | X - Orioles | 68 | 93 | Nationals | 59 | 102 | 9 |
Chicago
| W | L | GB | X - Cubs | 97 | 64 | White Sox | 89 | 74 | 9 |
LA/Orange County
| W | L | GB | X - Angels | 100 | 62 | Dodgers | 84 | 78 | 16 |
SF/Oakland
| W | L | GB | X - Athletics | 76 | 85 | Giants | 72 | 90 | 4.5 |
X - Clinched
1. Washington (8/31)
2. Seattle (9/1)
3. Pittsburgh (9/6) *
3. San Diego (9/6) *
5. Baltimore (9/8)
6. Oakland (9/8)
7. Atlanta (9/9)
8. Kansas City (9/9)
9. Cincinnati (9/10)
10. Texas (9/13)
11. Detroit (9/15)
12. San Francisco (9/17)
13. Colorado (9/18)
14. Cleveland (9/19)
15. Toronto (9/21)
16. New York Yankees (9/23)
17. St. Louis (9/23)
18. Florida (9/23)
19. Arizona (9/25)
20. Houston (9/26)
21. New York Mets (9/28)
22. Minnesota (9/30)
23. Chicago Cubs (10/4)
24. Milwaukee (10/5)
25. Chicago White Sox (10/6)
26. Los Angeles Angels (10/6)
* - Teams eliminated at same time
If a player needs a home run for the cycle, the level of the alert varies depending upon the determination of the Cycle Detection Warning System, which is headquartered in Thief River Falls, Minnesota.
Baseball Toaster runs on some experimental software called Fairpole. It's still under development.
For more information, please visit the Fairpole blog, or read the FAQ.
Forget collective bargaining agreements and stuff like that. If you were deciding from scratch the number of players each major league team should have, what would you say? Is 25 the perfect number, as perfect as 90 feet between bases?
I definitely wouldn't want to expand the rosters and allow for even more specialization. In fact, I'd like to encourage more two-way players, from Babe Ruth to Brooks Kieschnick.
On the other hand, I don't want to contract the roster too much and have arms fall off. And I really enjoy watching managers make moves - I actually do "pay to see managers manage." So I don't want to rid the game of difficult decisions.
I don't know - maybe 22 per team?
Go to a four man rotation - that's one gone - get rid of that last man in the bullpen that you only use when the game is already decided - that's two - then get rid of that last position player on your bench who only pinch hits when the backup catcher is the alternative - that's three.
There is an unintended consequence, though, and that's the utter devastation of the Major League portion of the Rule 5 draft. A player would have to be flat-out, Major League ready before a team would even think about trying to acquire them via that route. I don't know if that's good or bad, to be honest, but it's definitely part of the deal in this scenario.
I would say keep it at 25 and add a five-man taxi squad for the emergency QB and kickers, oh and of course, to dump overpriced flops like Mo Vaughn.
What normally happens is that the starting pitchers take a rest and then there are lots and lots of middle relievers available.
Decade Lg Avg # Players % Increase
1950s AL 39.33
1950s NL 37.53
1960s AL 38.55 -2%
1960s NL 37.80 1%
1970s AL 37.53 -3%
1970s NL 37.21 -2%
1980s AL 38.43 2%
1980s NL 38.89 5%
1990s AL 42.86 12%
1990s NL 42.31 9%
2000s AL 45.07 5%
2000s NL 44.73 6%
Didn't Dave LaRoche go up and down with the Yankees and Columbus several times in 1981?
I'm pretty sure you're right here. I remember players being yanked (excuse the pun) up and down like yo-yos starting in the early Eighties. It probably happens more now, but it was not unheard of then.
Bigger rosters? That's just what we need--an opportunity for Tony LaRussa to trot out even more relief pitchers during the course of a game.
The roster size is just fine. The problem is more with composition, and that's an organization-specific problem in most cases.
Oh, and I think it was Dave LaPoint, not Dave LaRoche, to whom Bob T. is referring.
Thanks for comparing me to "Kitty" Kaat.
By the way, LaRussa's not the only one. The number of pitchers per game has been on a steady increase since the 1980s:
Decade LG P per G % Increase
1950s AL 2.23
1950s NL 2.36
1960s AL 2.59 16%
1960s NL 2.50 6%
1970s AL 2.34 -10%
1970s NL 2.60 4%
1980s AL 2.58 10%
1980s NL 2.88 11%
1990s AL 3.27 27%
1990s NL 3.39 18%
2000s AL 3.52 8%
2000s NL 3.75 11%
And both leagues reached all-time highs last season:
2004 AL 3.63
2004 NL 3.88
I don't like excessive pitching changes either, but I don't see how to stem the tide.
The above proposals would also serve to reduce the time of the game, another trend that has been growing over time.
To comment, please log in.
Not a member? Register!