I have frequently reported here how MLB and the mainstream media egregiously fall short in covering EFL teams as fully as they do other major league baseball teams. But my flinty heart has been softened by a desert shower of compassion today, looking at the poor standings published on the MLB website.
For example, here is a synopsis of the MLB-published standings for the NL West:
|
W | L | PCT | GB | WCGB | RS | RA | RUN DIFF | X-W/L | |
| Colorado | 1 | 0 | 1.000 | – | – | 8 | 5 | 3 | 1-0 | |
| San Diego | 1 | 0 | 1.000 | – | – | 8 | 7 | 1 | 1-0 | |
| Arizona | 0 | 1 | 0.000 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 8 | -1 | 0-1 | |
| LA Dodgers | 0 | 1 | 0.000 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | -3 | 0-1 | |
| San Francisco | 0 | 1 | 0.000 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 8 | -1 | 0-1 |
What do you see — or not see?
First, the obvious: No Peshastin Pears or Portland Rosebuds. No fruit, no flowers. In fact, not a single piece of vegetation — as if the division was all desert sand!
This is the price of shunning the EFL teams in the division. Maybe if we had sent them the Cascades and the flinty Tornados, they’d fit in better, but we have planted those franchises in other divisions needing diversity and color.
Second: look at those sad, wooden standings. 1 – 0 or 0 – 1. Just two options. Cramming every team into one of only two boxes obscures so much interesting, colorful information. For example: the Rockies’ solid win over the Dodgers is indistinguishable in the standings from the Padres’ intense, close victory over the Diamonbacks, or the the Giants’ heartbreaking, tense loss to the Mariners. True, some information is available in the RS v RA column, but you don’t see it reflected in the actual standings.
And without more accurate standings, the Giants somehow have been placed in the cellar, purely by accident of alphabet. The MLB approach may not have been meant to be discriminatory, but it suspiciously favors the rich and powerful Dodgers at the expense of the less rich and less powerful Giants. So inaccurate! So inequitable! So unnecessary!
If these were EFL standings, they’d look like this…
|
|
EFL W | EFL L | EFL PCT | GBH | RS | RA | |
| Colorado | 0.7 | 0.3 | .719 | 0.00 | 8 | 5 | |
| San Diego | 0.6 | 0.4 | .566 | 0.15 | 8 | 7 | |
| Arizona | 0.4 | 0.6 | .434 | 0.29 | 7 | 8 | |
| San Francisco | 0.4 | 0.6 | .434 | 0.29 | 7 | 8 | |
| LA Dodgers | 0.3 | 0.7 | .281 | 0.44 | 5 | 8 |
…except they’d have the Pears and Rosebuds, too — once we get our Commissioner trained in doing modern updates.
Notice how the standings are no longer blocky and static. They are fluid and dynamic! You can see how the Rockies really are off to a better start than the Padres, and by how much. You can distinguish the Dodgers’ pathetic start from the D-Backs’ and Giants’ near-misses.
You can enjoy watching the mighty Dodgers grovel in last place — at least while it lasts. And that’s the critical thing: you don’t miss this opportunity because the standings obscured Dodger abjection!
And here’s an even finer point. Note how the MLB standings require 9 columns of data to report what we report in 6. Of the other three columns, two are redundant, and the third (RUN DIFF) is misleading, worse than useless. It is NOT run differential that determines pythagorean (ie, real) standings. It is more accurate to track run ratio. We go straight from RS and RA to the resulting standings, without sending you on the RUN DIFF wild goose chase.
We even have COLORS.
So be of good cheer. Spring is definitely here. The sun is shining, or very soon will be. I know we have to be patient for a short time while our staff makes final preparations for our premium quality standings. You are all among the leaders in patience, which makes me very proud of you. It will pay off when you finally get to see the finest in standings and results, which no one else will give you because — and here we need to have Easter-tide compassion — they are trying to avoid embarrassment.