2016-17 Hot Stove Thread

He's fun to watch for sure. One of those guys who looks like he's balking on every delivery.

 

The whole deal. Lots been posted here already.

http://www.mlbplayers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=34000&ATCLID=211336390

 

Yes, I know it alternated. Did so for decades. My question is: 1) when did that start?; and 2) that first year, how'd they decide who got home field?

 

Hunting around, it appears that both the 1934 and 1935 World Series started at Navin Field (Tiger Stadium) in Detroit, even though the Tigers had the worse record in both of those World Series. As far as I can tell, the NL team had home-field in every even year from then until the strike in 1994, then picked it up again in 1995. In 1923, the Yankees and Giants alternated games, with Game 1 at the brand-new Yankee Stadium, Game 2 at the Polo Grounds and so forth. That was the third consecutive year in which the Giants and Yankees played in the World Series. In 1921 and 22, when both teams were playing in the Polo Grounds, the Giants had homefield both times (possibly because the Yankees were their tenants).

Before those, there are appears to have been a whole bunch of different formats. The 1920 Series was played 3-3-1, with the first three in Brooklyn, the next three in Cleveland and Game 7 in Cleveland (in at least one account I read, the location of Game 7 was determined by a coin flip before Game 6).

Working from the first modern (AL/NL) World Series forward, Boston (AL) had Game 1-3 of the best-of-9, Pittsburgh had 4-7, and Boston won the series at home in Game 8, so it's likely they would have hosted a Game 9 if needed. In 1904, the Giants told everyone to go (fornicate with) themselves. In 1905, the teams alternated the first 4 games until the Polo Grounds had 4 and 5. In 1906, both teams were from Chicago, so they alternated, with the Cubs hosting first. In 1907, the Cubs hosted the first 3 games, then the last two were in Detroit. 1919, the last best-of-9, looks like it was 2-3-2-2 (with Games 1-2 in Cincinnati, 3-5 in Chicago, etc.). 1918 (Cubs-Red Sox) was 3-3 again, with the deciding Game 6 played in Boston. There appears to have been some attempts to alternate, but the changes in that pattern don't appear to be based on records. My guess is it didn't develop any sort of regularity until the 30s.

 

Gorman: Trading McCutchen would be a betrayal by Pirates

Local column from Pittsburgh criticizing owner Bob Nutting for the Pirates' aggressive attempts to trade Andrew McCutchen. Gorman calls it a betrayal of both McCutchen and the fans. The suggestion is that McCutchen took below market value when he signed his six-year deal with the Pirates in 2012 because he wanted to stay there. Last January, Nutting said he hoped McCutchen would spend his entire career in Pittsburgh.

Regarding the fans, McCutchen is extremely popular in Pittsburgh, and it would be like saying the Pirates don't get to have star players. I think Gorman gives McCutchen a bit too much credit for the team's turnaround, but he certainly was the centerpiece. I also have a hard time calling this a betrayal of the fans because they should have known better, but I do see Gorman's point.

I think it is an interesting take on the situation, though I think it might be premature given that McCutchen hasn't been traded yet.

Edit: The trade seems a tad less likely now that I see this. The Nationals tendered a contract to arbitration-eligible infielder Danny Espinosa. The rumor had been that the Nationals wanted to acquire McCutchen before tonight's deadline because they would then non-tender Espinosa and move Trea Turner to shortstop. now that would push Espinosa to the bench.

Nationals non-tender Ben Revere, tender Danny Espinosa

 

I appreciate how they've managed the farm system, but at some point, the Nats need to push chips into the middle of the table and swing big.

We need a bat. Turner is a step back at short, but McCutchen is an upgrade in center.

And if the Pirates will take Gio, you give them Robles and walk away happy.

 

I'm guessing that is the problem. The Nationals might be offering that package, but I'm guessing the Pirates prefer Robles and one of the younger pitchers.

 

Maybe the fans have a gripe, but nobody forced McCutchen to sign that deal without a no-trade

 

No, but perhaps he was misled just as the fans have been misled.

 

According to this article, the method of alternating the starts of the Series between leagues began in 1925, when Judge Landis ordered it. Until then, the owners decided on the opening game, and sometimes the deciding game, based upon a coin flip.

http://research.sabr.org/journals/files/SABR-Baseball_Research_Journal-31-Bevis.pdf

The 1920 series, like the 1903, 1919 and 1921 series, was best five out of nine. Cleveland beat Brooklyn in the series 5-2.

In that series, according to the article I linked, Cleveland actually won the toss, but they were doing construction work on League Park to expand the seating for the Series (a common thing back then) and asked to delay the series a few days. Instead of delay, the owners had Brooklyn start the series as host.

Also in the article answers your conundrum about the 1930s Tigers. In 1935, the NL pennant race went down to the wire with three teams, while the Tigers won the AL easily, so, rather than deal with issues over trying to make accommodations with three NL cities, Landis ruled the Series could start in the AL park again and then go to the NL the next year and go back to flip-flopping.

 

A best-of-9 seems kind of cool, but modern minds would tire of that quickly.

 

Thanks! I figured it was some tangle that made using the All-Star game look somewhat reasonable by comparison.