The National League playoff picture hasn't exactly clarified over the last couple of weeks, but what has long been a muddled awards chase in that circuit seems to have settled. In fact, I would suggest that the toughest pick in the awards derby is actually in the American League, where the only pennant race drama we've had is about who gets to host the wild-card game.
Baseball doesn't start giving out its awards until mid-November, but with the regular season wrapping up this weekend, it's the perfect time to assess the candidates, while everything is fresh in our minds, and we don't know who will, or won't, succeed in the postseason. Besides, ballots are due before the playoffs begin.
A few weeks ago, I shared my formula for ranking players, called the Awards Index, and it's through that system that I've watched the races gain a measure of clarity. Today, I'm going to share my virtual ballot for each major award. These selections will be guided, but not dictated, by the Awards Index.
Along with the Awards Index leaderboards, I've listed the leading candidates based on the latest odds out of Las Vegas, courtesy of Bovada.
NL MVP AWARDS INDEX
1. Christian Yelich, Brewers (4.54)
2. Jacob deGrom, Mets (4.42)
3. Max Scherzer, Nationals (4.34)
4. Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks (3.92)
5. Aaron Nola, Phillies (3.77)
6. Freddie Freeman, Braves (3.43)
7. Kyle Freeland, Rockies (3.37)
8. Lorenzo Cain, Brewers (3.35)
9. Javier Baez, Cubs (3.34)
10. Matt Carpenter, Cardinals (3.07)
Bovada: 1. Yelich (1/1), 2. Baez (7/5), 3. Nolan Arenado, Rockies (11/2), 4. Carpenter (7/1), 5. Goldschmidt (17/2).
My ballot: 1. Yelich, 2. deGrom, 3. Freeman, 4. Baez, 5. Scherzer.
The race for the top spot on the Awards Index board is pretty much over, since deGrom isn't likely to take the mound again. I would have had no problem voting for deGrom for this award, even though he's a pitcher and even though he's on a bad team. However, the incredible run that Yelich has put together in September, when the Brewers needed him most, clinches it for me.
Given Yelich's place on the Index, this isn't all about soft factors. He has objectively had an incredible season, with elite contributions across the board. There is a two- to three-WAR gap between Yelich and deGrom in favor of the latter, both in the Fangraphs and the Baseball-Reference.com versions of the metric. That is going to win the pitcher a lot of support. Win shares, which is part of the value component of the Awards Index, doesn't give as much credit to pitchers as the other systems, and that holds deGrom back here.
DeGrom actually outpaces Yelich in win probability added, but where Yelich swamps him is in the championship probability added metric from baseballgauge.com that I use as part of the context component of the formula. Only Goldschmidt outpaces Yelich by that measure among NL players; deGrom ranks 49th. It's not his fault, of course, but it is what it is. Yelich's contributions have simply meant more in terms of the championship race than deGrom's.
Yelich has three more games against the Detroit Tigers to pad his numbers. Here's a wild thought: If he goes off this weekend, for, say, four homers and something like 11 RBIs, he'd win the National League Triple Crown. It won't happen, but there's a nonzero chance that it does. We don't give MVP votes based on Triple Crowns any more (do we?), but it would be a nice bullet item on his resume.
Also: You might have noted that Arenado has the third-highest odds to win the award according to Vegas but did not make the top 10 in the Awards Index. He's 11th.
AL MVP AWARDS INDEX
1. Mookie Betts, Red Sox (5.58)
2. Alex Bregman, Astros (4.96)
3. Mike Trout, Angels (4.95)
4. Jose Ramirez, Indians (4.08)
5. J.D. Martinez, Red Sox (3.80)
6. Francisco Lindor, Indians (3.70)
7. Matt Chapman, Athletics (3.41)
8. Chris Sale, Red Sox (3.32)
9. Justin Verlander, Astros (3.29)
10. Mitch Haniger, Mariners (3.26)
Bovada: 1. Betts (1/2), 2. Trout (3/1), 3. Martinez (5/1), 4. Ramirez (7/1).
My ballot: 1. Betts, 2. Bregman, 3. Trout, 4. Martinez, 5. Ramirez.
I'm fairly shocked that Bregman doesn't get some love from Vegas, but he should get plenty of support from the voters. For No. 2, that is, because Betts is the clear winner here, having already cracked 10 WAR at Fangraphs. And he has done that for a team on pace to win 109 games.
What a season it has been for Betts. He's in the 30 homer, 30 steals club, is going to win the AL batting title and has 21 defensive runs saved. His 137 runs created (Fangraphs version) leads the majors. There is no other choice.
NL CY YOUNG AWARDS INDEX
1. Jacob deGrom, Mets (4.42)
2. Max Scherzer, Nationals (4.34)
3. Aaron Nola, Phillies (3.77)
4. Kyle Freeland, Rockies (3.37)
5. Patrick Corbin, Diamondbacks (2.74)
6. German Marquez, Rockies (2.43)
7. Jeremy Jeffress, Brewers (2.36)
8. Zack Greinke, Diamondbacks (2.16)
9. Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers (2.16)
10. Josh Hader, Brewers (2.15)
Bovada: 1. deGrom (1/3), 2. Scherzer (14/5), 3. Nola (19/2).
My ballot: 1. deGrom, 2. Scherzer, 3. Freeland, 4. Nola, 5. Corbin.
I don't know how many seasons there would be in which Scherzer would post the exact same campaign and still not be the leading Cy Young candidate. There can't be many. But deGrom beats him because of unprecedented consistency and dominance.
Personally, I'm happy that deGrom will finish with a winning record and crack double digits in wins with a 10-9 final mark. It shouldn't matter, but hopefully it's enough that we won't have to fixate on that aspect of his resume. His game score record, or the number of outings in which he posted a better game score than his counterpart starter, is 24-8. Some facts about that:
• Only four pitchers had 24 or more game score wins: Along with deGrom in the National League, there was Scherzer (26). In the American League, Corey Kluber (26) and Justin Verlander (24) did it. That's it.
• The gap between deGrom's actual win total and game score wins is 14, the largest in the majors. Corbin is second at 12.
• Only Scherzer, Kluber and Verlander surpassed deGrom's mark of being 16 games over .500 in game score wins.
One final note: How about those Rockies starters?
AL CY YOUNG AWARDS INDEX
1. Chris Sale, Red Sox (3.32)
2. Justin Verlander, Astros (3.29)
3. Blake Treinen, Athletics (3.23)
4. Blake Snell, Rays (3.00)
5. Corey Kluber, Indians (2.95)
6. Trevor Bauer, Indians (2.90)
7. Edwin Diaz, Mariners (2.64)
8. Gerrit Cole, Astros (2.56)
9. Luis Severino, Yankees (2.25)
10. Mike Clevinger, Indians (2.04)
Bovada: 1. Blake Snell (2/3), 2. Chris Sale (3/2), 3. Justin Verlander (15/2), 4. Corey Kluber (11/1).
My ballot: 1. Verlander, 2. Snell, 3. Sale, 4. Treinen, 5. Kluber.
For me, this is the toughest race to call. I was on the Sale bandwagon, even though he's not going to qualify for the ERA title. However, it is troubling that he has thrown just 17 innings since the beginning of August and just 29 since the All-Star break. I'm not sure how much that should really be held against him. Boston had a headlock on the AL East by the time he went down, and his contributions were a big reason for that. If Sale had a clear edge in the Awards Index, I'd be fine with overlooking his deficit in volume. But his edge has dried up over the last couple of weeks.
There are only a pair of 200-inning guys in the top 10 -- Verlander and Kluber. Both of those players have an edge in game score wins over Sale (21) and Snell (22). Sale, on the other hand, has a far better FIP and xFIP than the other leading starters, which is why he leads the AL in Fangraphs WAR (fWAR). However, volume is more important in Baseball-Reference WAR (bWAR) and win shares, which both have Snell in the lead.
However, I also suspect that Snell has gotten more help from his defense than the other stars. Based on Statcast data, I calculated how many hits each pitcher has allowed on balls in play (minus home runs) against what he should have, according to expected batting average, which in turn is based on quality of contact. I'm calling this measurement "hits saved by defense," though we can't be sure it's really all defense. It could just be dumb luck. Still, it is an assessment of quality of contact allowed.
Pitcher, hits saved by defense
Blake Snell, 13.2
Blake Treinen, 9.4
Corey Kluber, 8.6
Gerrit Cole, 6.6
Luis Severino, 4.7
Edwin Diaz, 1.5
Justin Verlander, 1.3
Mike Clevinger, -0.5
Trevor Bauer, -6.3
Chris Sale, -8.7
None of this even addresses the top closer, Treinen, who leads the majors in win probability added, is 9-2 with 37 saves and a 0.79 ERA and ranks fifth in championship probability added. Where would the A's be without Treinen? Surely not in the playoffs. Surely they wouldn't have a record of 30-13 in games decided by one run.
Still, volume is a crucial factor for me when it comes to Cy Young balloting. If Treinen had a clear Awards Index advantage, I'd go with him. He doesn't. No one does. For me, Verlander checks the big boxes more emphatically than the others: volume, effectiveness and context. But it's a tight race.
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AWARDS INDEX
1. Ronald Acuna Jr., Braves (2.05)
2. Brian Anderson, Marlins (1.90)
3. Juan Soto, Nationals (1.83)
4. Walker Buehler, Dodgers (1.74)
5. Harrison Bader, Cardinals (1.69)
6. Jack Flaherty, Cardinals (1.09)
7. Dereck Rodriguez, Giants (1.02)
8. Jeff McNeil, Mets (0.85)
9. Reyes Moronta, Giants (0.81)
10. Yoshihisa Hirano, Diamondbacks (0.81)
Bovada: 1. Ronald Acuna Jr. (1/3), 2. Juan Soto (12/5).
My ballot: 1. Acuna, 2. Soto, 3. Bader, 4. Buehler, 5. Anderson.
Before I get into Acuna versus Soto, let's give a nod to Anderson, who lands the second spot in these rankings based on volume. He's the only rookie to exceed 600 plate appearances, during which he has created more runs than either Acuna or Soto. The latter pair have created more runs per game, of course, but Anderson has had a fine season.
Soto and Acuna have a similar number of plate appearances, but Soto has created a few more runs (86 to 83) in a roughly identical run-scoring ballpark. Acuna has been better defensively and on the bases, enough to give him the edge in both versions of WAR, as well as win shares. Soto has been better situationally, in terms of win probability added, but Acuna's numbers have contributed to a division title.
It's a great race, but Acuna checks just a couple of more boxes on his resume.
AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR AWARDS INDEX
1. Shohei Ohtani, Angels (2.05)
2. Joey Wendle, Rays (1.70)
3. Gleyber Torres, Yankees (1.66)
4. Brad Keller, Royals (1.22)
5. Miguel Andujar, Yankees (1.20)
6. Lou Trivino, Athletics (0.84)
7. Nick Martini, Athletics (0.73)
8. Jaime Barria, Angels (0.63)
9. Shane Bieber, Indians (0.55)
10. Ramon Laureano, Athletics (0.55)
Bovada: 1. Miguel Andujar (4/5), 2. Shohei Ohtani (6/5), 3. Gleyber Torres (5/1), 4. Joey Wendle (45/1).
My ballot: 1. Ohtani, 2. Torres, 3. Andujar, 4. Wendle, 5. Keller.
First off, how about those Oakland rookies? Trivino is ailing right now, but he has been a huge part of the Athletics' dominant bullpen. Meanwhile, neither Martini nor Laureano have played enough to get consideration for the rookie award, but the fact that they still show up on this leaderboard tells you why Oakland's outfield situation has improved so much over the second half of the season.
Ohtani wouldn't win the award for either his batting or his pitching, but he does win it for the combination of the two. Othani ranks fourth among AL rookies in runs created, but his WOBA (.392) dwarfs that of Andujar (.357) and Torres (.351). Andujar's 89 runs created leads this group by a good margin, but he gets dinged for his minus-24 defensive runs saved.
One last thing: Wendle probably won't get the award, but don't overlook how good he has been for the Rays. Wendle leads AL rookies in win shares and bWAR.
NL MANAGER OF THE YEAR EARL RATING
(Note: The Earl Rating is the difference between a team's actual record and the record the team should have had based on its day-by-day roster ratings. Bovada did not provide odds on the manager races.)
1. Brian Snitker, Atlanta Braves (16.6)
2. Bud Black, Colorado Rockies (11.9)
3. Craig Counsell, Milwaukee Brewers (11.4)
4. Mike Shildt, St. Louis Cardinals (5.6)
5. Clint Hurdle, Pittsburgh Pirates (4.3)
My ballot: 1. Snitker, 2. Counsell, 3. Shildt, 4. Black, 5. Hurdle.
There are some great candidates in this race, but I'm good with Snitker. The Braves were a surprise contender, but not only did they end up winning the NL East, Atlanta was one of baseball's most consistent teams. And the Braves got better as the season went along. I nudged Counsell ahead of Black because of his handling of the Milwaukee pitching staff and his success in aligning his defenses.
Elsewhere: You're reading that right. Shildt ranks fourth in NL Earl for how well he has guided the Cardinals during his 66 games since replacing Mike Matheny. Matheny's Earl rating, in case you're wondering, was minus-2.5. If you want to do the math, Shildt's Earl prorates to 13.8 over a full season, right there between Snitker and Black.
AL MANAGER OF THE YEAR EARL RATING
1. Bob Melvin, Oakland Athletics (18.6)
2. Alex Cora, Boston Red Sox (16.2)
3. Kevin Cash, Tampa Bay Rays (8.9)
4. Scott Servais, Seattle Mariners (4.5)
5. Aaron Boone, New York Yankees (4.0)
My ballot: 1. Melvin, 2. Cash, 3. Cora, 4. A.J. Hinch, Houston Astros, 5. Servais.
Cora has done a phenomenal job as a first-time skipper in Boston. His team was loaded with talent, but it was not loaded with 109-win talent. I still give the nod to Melvin, who gets the benefit of winning with a team that was not expected to do so. It's a thing -- Oakland has far outperformed what could have been reasonably expected from the roster on hand. That bullpen management has played such a large part in the Athletics' rise is the deciding factor for me.
Cash would be an outstanding choice as well. The Rays have a minuscule payroll, have had constant roster turnover since the end of last season and ended up with the game's third-youngest roster. Then there is Cash's successful implementation of the opener strategy. But Melvin made that work as well when injuries piled up in his rotation.
Also there is this: Based on payroll figures from Baseball-Reference.com, only two teams have paid less than a million dollars per win. Cash's Rays have paid just $520,000 per win; Melvin's A's are at $740,000. If the Red Sox were paying just $520,000 per win with their $222 million payroll, they'd have 427 wins. Wait, that's impossible ... Anyway, the winning-on-the-cheap factor is close enough for me to go with Melvin because Oakland is in the postseason and Tampa Bay is not.
What the numbers say
Best of the best
I'm going to be listy with the numbers section this week. First off, using the Awards Index formula, I present my All-League teams for 2018. These are straight from the ratings, so they might conflict in spots with some of the reasoning laid out above.
AWARDS INDEX ALL-STARS
NATIONAL LEAGUE
1B: Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks (3.92)
2B: Javier Baez, Cubs (3.34)
SS: Trevor Story, Rockies (2.64)
3B: Nolan Arenado, Rockies (2.91)
C: J.T. Realmuto, Marlins (2.22)
LF: Christian Yelich, Brewers (4.54)
CF: Lorenzo Cain, Brewers (3.35)
RF: Brandon Nimmo, Mets (2.12)
UT: Ben Zobrist, Cubs (1.74)
SP: Jacob deGrom, Mets (4.42)
RP: Jeremy Jeffress, Brewers (2.36)
AMERICAN LEAGUE
1B: Matt Olson, Athletics (1.71)
2B: Jed Lowrie, Athletics (2.82)
SS: Francisco Lindor, Indians (3.70)
3B: Alex Bregman, Astros (4.96)
C: Yan Gomes, Indians (0.76)
LF: Andrew Benintendi, Red Sox (2.72)
CF: Mike Trout, Angels (4.95)
RF: Mookie Betts, Red Sox (5.58)
DH: J.D. Martinez, Red Sox (3.80)
UT: Jurickson Profar, Rangers (1.29)
SP: Chris Sale, Red Sox (3.32)
RP: Blake Treinen, Athletics (3.23)
Also: In my never-ending search for measures of consistency, I added a "mode" rating to my game logs this week. Mode, in statistics, is the most frequently occurring number in a data set. I'm not sure what this says about consistency, but the results are interesting. Here is each team's offensive mode, with the teams listed in order by runs per game. The mode in this context indicates the run total each team has ended up with most often this season.
Check the Cubs, who have been maddeningly inconsistent on offense this season. They have finished with exactly one run 26 times this season. And check out the Red Sox, who have been consistently outstanding at the dish.
Since you asked
Branching out in GM searches
A lot of what you do as a baseball analyst is to put yourself in the mindset of a general manager. Thus, it's slightly disconcerting when there are teams without a chief decision-maker in place. Right now, there are two such teams -- the Giants and Mets. Here are a couple of widely disparate snippets tracing back from the owners of those teams.
-- "[Mets owner Fred] Wilpon favors an experienced baseball person with roots in scouting and player development over the industry trend of hiring younger executives with a slant toward analytics. The younger [Jeff] Wilpon would prefer a more analytics-savvy general manager, according to sources." (New York Post)
-- "[Giants CEO Larry] Baer said the franchise is looking to hire the 'next-gen' baseball mind who will bring a fresh approach to baseball operations." (San Jose Mercury News)
If you've been following along, it won't surprise you to find that I favor the Giants' approach more than that of the elder Wilpon. In this day and age, with the rivers of information flowing through the sports world, I cannot imagine a general manager who does not traffic in data. He doesn't have to be Bill James or straight from Wall Street or a denizen of Silicon Valley. But he has to create a culture in which data is leveraged for all it's worth, along with new technologies from all sorts of disciplines, whether it's sports medicine, sports psychology or even virtual reality.
At the same time, as someone who isn't privy to the minute details of how today's front offices operate, I have a growing concern about an emergent group think. Increasingly, executives are hired from similar backgrounds, at similar ages and for similar reasons. Sure, it's about who you know. It has always been like that. But it's also about how you've come to know what you know, if that makes sense.
I think to a certain extent, the best evidence of groupthink is in the style of baseball being played today. Some teams are better than others, to be sure, but there seems to be less diversity of playing styles and in-game strategies than I can ever remember. Teams are looking for the same skill sets in players, and that's trickling down into the minor league development and into the offseason, where teams are valuing players in a similar fashion. It has trickled down to the product we see on the field.
Whether this is due to the analytics revolution is hard to say, but it seems like it has to be a big factor. So my concern is: If you're a team owner, looking for a new baseball chief, how do you swim against that stream? Where will the fresh ideas come from?
Speaking of James, in his book on managers, he wrote how all skippers could more or less be hung on three primary managerial trees: Connie Mack, Ned Hanlon and Branch Rickey. You can perform the exact same exercise with general managers. What follows is the result of one afternoon's research, but it seems like the branches do all tend to lead back to a small group of trees.
Take John Hart, the former Indians and Braves general manager. One of his professional offspring is Rangers GM Jon Daniels, who was a college fraternity brother of Padres GM A.J. Preller, who worked under Daniels before moving on to San Diego. Two other Hart offspring are Pittsburgh's Neal Huntington and Toronto's Ross Atkins. Another is former Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd, who in turn had underlings in Jerry Dipoto (Seattle) and Jeff Bridich (Colorado) ascend to the big chair.
Longtime executive Mark Shapiro is another Hart offspring, though he also had ties to Hank Peters, who figures into all of this. Shapiro has spawned Indians VP of baseball operations Chris Antonetti. Antonetti has his own branch going, with former underling Derek Falvey overseeing things in Minnesota -- along with Thad Levine, who worked with Daniels in Texas.
That's eight men who are currently the chief decision-maker for their team, who can all quickly be traced back to John Hart. (Who, himself, traces back to Peters, who probably was most influenced by Bill Veeck Jr., who was influenced by his father, who was a sportswriter.)
Then there is the Sandy Alderson tree, which might or might not be extended depending on who ends up with the Mets job. Tracing Alderson to an earlier influence is tough, which is why I gave him his own tree. He started in baseball as a team counsel, then made the unlikely shift over to baseball operations. His lineage includes Oakland's Billy Beane, the dean of current baseball operations chiefs.
But that's just the start of Alderson's influence. J.P. Ricciardi, the former Toronto GM, worked under Beane. Ricciardi employed Alex Anthopoulos, who followed him in Toronto and is now the GM of the NL East champion Braves. Former White Sox GM Ron Schueler worked under Alderson and turned his job in Chicago over to Kenny Williams, who turned it over to Rick Hahn.
Then there is Walt Jocketty, who also worked with Alderson. Cardinals VP of baseball operations John Mozeliak worked under Jocketty, as did Astros GM Jeff Luhnow and Reds GM Dick Williams. Brewers GM David Stearns worked under Luhnow in Houston. All told, that's seven current chief execs with ties back to Alderson.
If you're keeping track, that's half the decision-makers in baseball, all traced back to two men -- Hart and Alderson. Well, at least that leaves the other half of teams. But the crazy thing is, you can trace back all 15 of those other guys -- with a bit of creative stretching -- to Rickey.
First one: Washington's Mike Rizzo worked under Jim Bowden, who worked under Syd Thrift, who worked under Joe L. Brown, who worked under Rickey in Pittsburgh.
Next, consider Larry MacPhail, the scion of one of baseball's dynastic families. He got his start in the majors because of Rickey. This is a bit of a stretch -- he and Rickey didn't get along, and MacPhail got his first big league job in Cincinnati on a Rickey recommendation that might have stemmed from a desire to get rid of him. But it still started with Rickey.
MacPhail's son, Lee, is in the Hall of Fame for work as an executive, and his grandson, Andy, has run several teams, including two Twins clubs that won the World Series. Andy is the president of the Phillies these days and hired current GM Matt Klentak.
Lee MacPhail ran the Orioles for years before departing to work at the league office. His farm director and successor was Harry Dalton, who ran Baltimore when John Schuerholz got his start there. Schuerholz later turned out former Rays exec Chuck LaMar, who worked over Andrew Friedman, now the baseball ops chief for the Dodgers. In Tampa Bay, Friedman worked over current Rays GM Erik Neander. Another offshoot of this tree is Kansas City's Dayton Moore, who started under Schuerholz in Atlanta.
There's one more branch that is a bit of a stretch, but we'll go with it. Rickey helped the tight-fisted Warren Giles get his start. Giles later mentored longtime exec Gabe Paul, who helped usher in Houston's Tal Smith, of Tal's Hill fame. Smith's son, Randy, preceded Kevin Towers as the GM in San Diego. The late Towers ran the Padres front office, where Theo Epstein began his rise to prominence. Arizona's Mike Hazen is another member of this branch.
Now let's turn to former Braves manager Fred Haney. When he was running the minor league Hollywood Stars in the late 1940s, Haney convinced the Dodgers to add the Stars to their system. The guy in charge of the Dodgers at the time? Rickey. Haney went on to become GM of the Angels in the 1960s. Working with him was Cedric Tallis, a great executive with a hand in later building powerful teams with the Yankees and Royals. Tallis worked closely with Gene Michael, former player, manager and future GM of the Yankees.
Michael was running the Yanks when Brian Cashman started in the organization. Angels GM Billy Eppler worked for the Yankees under Cashman. And Marlins president Derek Jeter played for Cashman. I don't know if that matters, but it's the closest thing to a front office influence we have for Jeter. And, yes, I'm saying that Jeter, rather than GM Michael Hill, is calling the shots for the Marlins, at least the big shots.
One last one to complete the set: Haney also worked with longtime exec Roland Hemond with the Angels. Boston's Dave Dombrowski worked under Hemond. Baltimore's Dan Duquette and Detroit's Al Avila worked under Dombrowski. And that's it. All 30 teams, currently with chief decision-makers tracing back to Rickey, Alderson or Hart.
Obviously, nearly all of these men have worked for multiple teams and likely can point to numerous influences in shaping the way they view the game. I mean, how much Warren Giles is really in Theo Epstein? How much Branch Rickey is in Derek Jeter? All of these execs have various strengths, weaknesses and backgrounds. Nevertheless, the point is this: The executive world in baseball is a very small one and it might be getting smaller.
According to James, up until about 1925, the field manager and the general manager were generally one and the same. After that point, teams began to favor an approach more like the one we're used to, with a general manager who finds the players, and a manager who deploys them.
There has been a shift in this regard over the last few years and, again, it's likely an offshoot of the emphasis on data. That shift leaves today's field managers with less of a say in which players he uses, what lineups he prefers, how often he employs small-ball strategies, even how he deploys his pitchers. I don't know how extreme this shift really is, and I suppose it varies from team to team. But you ask most managers today what has been the biggest change in their profession, they'll refer to the need for collaboration.
This, too, contributes to groupthink. If the field managers today are largely extensions of the front office, and front offices are employing similar methods, that can't help but tamp down the diversity of ideas in the dugout. Thus, we've got what feels like a growing level of sameness from team to team.
So if I'm picking the person to run a team, like the Giants or Mets, this is what I want to be aware of. Groupthink is a pernicious foe. It's also an opportunity to innovate. Find someone who, sure, is good with analytics. But find someone who might just be able to grow some roots of their own.
Coming right up
History lesson
Playoffs! Well, eventually, after perhaps a gaggle of tiebreaker games. I can't tell you where I will be next week because of the National League. I've booked more rooms than Willy Loman. If I had a travel agent, he'd fire me.
Anyway, every year about this time, I start to scan all the possible World Series matchups to see what historical rematches are possible. In fact, I spend way too much time doing this. This year, I decided to create a formula for rating these possible matchups. Don't be fooled by this attempt to create an objective structure for something that is completely subjective. This is all about my particular set of manias.
The ratings consider the following factors: Is this a rematch? Is it a rematch of multiple past series? Are the teams original 16 franchises? Are these teams playing in the same city they were in 1950? Are they in the same ballpark as 1950? The year 1950 is very big in this formula.
Those ratings created pools of matchups, then I broke the ties within each pool using a subjective rating. A perfect score is 10, which none of these matchups achieved. In fact, by the criteria I've laid out, a perfect 10 is impossible. For now.
Only two teams are playing in the same parks they were in 1950 -- the Cubs and Red Sox. So only a World Series between those teams could score a perfect 10. But remember: The formula looks for rematches. Chicago and Boston have in fact met in a World Series. They met in 1918, so this year marks the 100th anniversary of that matchup. What many don't know is that was not actually a Wrigley Field-Fenway Park series even though both clubs called those stadiums home in those days. In 1918, Wrigley was still called Weeghman Park, but that's not why there wasn't a Wrigley-Fenway Series. The Cubs decided to play their Series games against Boston at the larger Comiskey Park. Because of money, one would presume. There has never been a Wrigley-Fenway World Series. This year could be the first.
However, the formula doesn't just look for rematches, it looks for multiple rematches. To get a perfect score, however, you have to have met in more than one World Series. So if the Cubs and Red Sox meet this year, and make it to the playoffs next year, at that point they would score a perfect 10. See, I told you I spend way too much time thinking about this.
Here, then, is my ranking of the historical significance of every remaining possible World Series matchup in 2018.
1. Boston Red Sox (AL) vs. Chicago Cubs (NL) (rating of 9.00 out of 10)
2. New York Yankees (AL) vs. Chicago Cubs (NL) (8.50)
3. Boston Red Sox (AL) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (NL) (8.00)
4. New York Yankees (AL) vs. Los Angeles Dodgers (NL) (7.75)
5. New York Yankees (AL) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (NL) (7.50)
6. Boston Red Sox (AL) vs. Los Angeles Dodgers (NL) (7.25)
7. Cleveland Indians (AL) vs. Chicago Cubs (NL) (7.00)
8. Oakland Athletics (AL) vs. Chicago Cubs (NL) (6.75)
9. Oakland Athletics (AL) vs. Los Angeles Dodgers (NL) (6.50)
10. New York Yankees (AL) vs. Atlanta Braves (NL) (6.25)
11. Cleveland Indians (AL) vs. Atlanta Braves (NL) (6.00)
12. Oakland Athletics (AL) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (NL) (5.75)
13. Boston Red Sox (AL) vs. Atlanta Braves (NL) (5.50)
14. Cleveland Indians (AL) vs. Los Angeles Dodgers (NL) (5.25)
15. Boston Red Sox (AL) vs. Colorado Rockies (NL) (5.00)
16. Cleveland Indians (AL) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (NL) (4.75)
17. Oakland Athletics (AL) vs. Atlanta Braves (NL) (4.50)
18. Boston Red Sox (AL) vs. Milwaukee Brewers (NL) (4.25)
19. Houston Astros (AL) vs. Chicago Cubs (NL) (4.00)
20. Houston Astros (AL) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (NL) (3.75)
21. Houston Astros (AL) vs. Los Angeles Dodgers (NL) (3.40)
22. New York Yankees (AL) vs. Milwaukee Brewers (NL) (3.30)
23. Cleveland Indians (AL) vs. Milwaukee Brewers (NL) (3.25)
24. New York Yankees (AL) vs. Colorado Rockies (NL) (3.10)
25. Cleveland Indians (AL) vs. Colorado Rockies (NL) (3.00)
26. Houston Astros (AL) vs. Atlanta Braves (NL) (2.50)
27. Oakland Athletics (AL) vs. Milwaukee Brewers (NL) (2.25)
28. Oakland Athletics (AL) vs. Colorado Rockies (NL) (2.00)
29. Houston Astros (AL) vs. Milwaukee Brewers (NL) (1.50)
30. Houston Astros (AL) vs. Colorado Rockies (NL) (1.25)