MLB playoffs suck (at picking the best team)
- Thread starter Phil Plantier
- Start date
Maybe they are not actually the best team if they can’t win when it matters.
True, but this season it didn't make a difference. Seattle, Texas, and Houston all would have been playing for the division anyway. Miami and Arizona were tied for the 2nd and 3rd wild card spots, so the same number of teams were in contention.
If this season were played under the 2 wild card per league rules, the Astros and Rangers would have played a one game playoff for the division with the loser playing the Rays in one game wild card. In the NL, the Diamondbacks would play the Marlins in a one game playoff to determine the second wild card before heading to Philly to play them in the one game wild card round. That would have been awesome. But instead we get a meaningless last day of the season and a bunch of boring 3 game wild card rounds.
Since reducing the number of teams is never going to happen, here's my suggestion:
Wildcard round is one day. Double header in which the road team has to win both to advance. Home team wins game 1 and it's over.
Division series expands to 7 games.
Everything else remains the same.
Instead of 5+ days off, the teams that earn byes get 2-3 days off just like the division winners did prior to 2022. Rewards the best records with time to set their rotations and makes their first opponents burn through at least one starter if not two, not to mention stress their pen.
Wildcard round is one day. Double header in which the road team has to win both to advance. Home team wins game 1 and it's over.
Division series expands to 7 games.
Everything else remains the same.
Instead of 5+ days off, the teams that earn byes get 2-3 days off just like the division winners did prior to 2022. Rewards the best records with time to set their rotations and makes their first opponents burn through at least one starter if not two, not to mention stress their pen.
One difference here is that the Cups aren’t just the same teams as the leagues. A big part of the romance of the FA Cup is that lower division teams take part and theoretically could win it all, while the Champions League features top teams across Europe. It would be fun to have a baseball tournament that featured a mix of MLB and college and minor league and independent league teams, or a baseball tournament featuring the best teams across different country leagues, but I don’t think you could get Americans to care
I'm aware of the differences between European soccer leagues and the US. But the main point is the same, that we could just start placing more importance on the regular season and enjoy the randomness of the playoffs, whether they include all teams or just the top X number. If you win the 162 game season that's a real accomplishment and if you win the tournament that's a different accomplishment that doesn't mean the best team in the regular season failed or their fans should be very disappointed. You could also get more excitement towards the end of the regular season instead of everyone resting / shutting down guys and getting their rotations set for the playoffs. Maybe you get fewer eyeballs / fans in the first round or two of the playoffs but you would probably make up for it with better attendance in September.
Now that they have mostly balanced schedules in MLB I think it would be great if they got rid of divisions, had a tournament with the top 8 teams in each league getting in and then gave a real honor to the teams that win each league's regular season (the pennant, which we used to care about). Until you set up something like that there is always going to be weird upsets and like I said sooner or later a <.500 team is going to win the world series. But I really prize fairness and most people don't care that much.
Now that they have mostly balanced schedules in MLB I think it would be great if they got rid of divisions, had a tournament with the top 8 teams in each league getting in and then gave a real honor to the teams that win each league's regular season (the pennant, which we used to care about). Until you set up something like that there is always going to be weird upsets and like I said sooner or later a <.500 team is going to win the world series. But I really prize fairness and most people don't care that much.
It was said upthread, but consider the difference between MLB and the NFL.
162 games in the MLB, 17 in the NFL. One game in the NFL is 9.53 games in MLB.
A 94-win MLB team has a winning % of .580, which is equivalent to 9.9 wins in the NFL. Call it 10 for the sake of discussion. Now a 10-7 team going up against a 9-8 team in football....nobody bats an eye if the 9-8 team beats the 10-7 team. Nobody says something is "wrong" with the system. But that would be, in MLB, of a 94-win team losing to an 85-win team. People kind of freak out over that but it's no different.
To make it better...
A 103-win MLB team (.636) is equivalent to an 11-win (10.8) NFL team. How many people would think it's crazy for a 9-8 team to knock off an 11-6 team? Still not crazy, right? Well, that's like an 85-win team beating a 103-win team in MLB.
More often than not the 103-win team will beat the 85-win team. But there's still a sizable percentage of the time that the 85-win team will defeat the 103-win team. Especially when the best players on the 103-win team all suddenly completely no-show.
And in the case of the Dodgers, consider that two of their three best players (Mookie, Freeman, Kershaw) have pretty poor postseason numbers compared to their regular season numbers.
Mookie
- career regular season: .294/.373/.527/.900
- career postseason: .251/.333/.377/.710
Kershaw
- career regular season: .695 win%, 2.48 era, 1.00 whip
- career postseason: .500 win%, 4.49 era, 1.11 whip
Freeman
- career regular season: .301/.388/.514/.902
- career postseason: .285/.394/.520/.914
Freeman has been good in the postseason but Mookie and Kershaw have had a history of being very spotty. Not surprising that they came up small this postseason.
162 games in the MLB, 17 in the NFL. One game in the NFL is 9.53 games in MLB.
A 94-win MLB team has a winning % of .580, which is equivalent to 9.9 wins in the NFL. Call it 10 for the sake of discussion. Now a 10-7 team going up against a 9-8 team in football....nobody bats an eye if the 9-8 team beats the 10-7 team. Nobody says something is "wrong" with the system. But that would be, in MLB, of a 94-win team losing to an 85-win team. People kind of freak out over that but it's no different.
To make it better...
A 103-win MLB team (.636) is equivalent to an 11-win (10.8) NFL team. How many people would think it's crazy for a 9-8 team to knock off an 11-6 team? Still not crazy, right? Well, that's like an 85-win team beating a 103-win team in MLB.
More often than not the 103-win team will beat the 85-win team. But there's still a sizable percentage of the time that the 85-win team will defeat the 103-win team. Especially when the best players on the 103-win team all suddenly completely no-show.
And in the case of the Dodgers, consider that two of their three best players (Mookie, Freeman, Kershaw) have pretty poor postseason numbers compared to their regular season numbers.
Mookie
- career regular season: .294/.373/.527/.900
- career postseason: .251/.333/.377/.710
Kershaw
- career regular season: .695 win%, 2.48 era, 1.00 whip
- career postseason: .500 win%, 4.49 era, 1.11 whip
Freeman
- career regular season: .301/.388/.514/.902
- career postseason: .285/.394/.520/.914
Freeman has been good in the postseason but Mookie and Kershaw have had a history of being very spotty. Not surprising that they came up small this postseason.
Does anyone REALLY think expanding the Division Series to 7 games is really going to change anything? It just means the favorites that sucked ass would have to lose 1 more game (and likely would have, resulting in 3 4-0 series and a 4-1). You want to be a great team? STEP UP AND DO IT! And don't whine about it when you can't step up.
Everyone knows the situation going into the playoffs. If you can't win, it's on you, not the format, the number of teams, or any other bullshit excuse you want to come up with. To me, that's all it is, a bunch of excuses and whining.
Nothing needs to be fixed except the attitudes of everyone that complains that the top teams are getting screwed.
Boston fans, did having a 7 game first round help the Bruins last year after their historic regular season? Actually it hurt them after running out to a 3-1 lead and then blowing 3 in a row. So now you want your cake and eat it too??
This doesn’t take account that practically every team wins 60 games in MLB and very few win over 110
NFL is much different
There are bigger differences between great and awful teams in terms of winning percentage
the analogy does not work at all imho
I agree!
It's why I said "address the perceived problem." I meant "shut people up." I don't think there's a "problem" to be solved. Back in the old days, people would say those teams "choked." Then we became enlightened to small sample sizes. Now, that's apparently not good enough. I think it's a combination of too much airtime to fill by morons with too much hot air to expel; and lots of newly-legal gambling money getting people pissed off. (YMMV as to both; but Deep Throat is usually right. "Follow the Money.")
I'm glad that a lot of the favorites lost, and only wish that Houston had also been eliminated. The favored teams losing is no reason to change the format.
I don't think the format is great and think it could be improved, but it won't be. Money.
If I was able to change things, then there are a number of things that have been suggested that I would like to see. I understand that almost none of these will ever happen.
1. Shorten the regular season to 154 games. The regular season should never start in March and should end in late September. Fewer games would improve the product and we'd have fewer games where players need to be rested.
It's also the traditional number--- if it was good enough for Napoleon Lajoie and Mordecai Brown, then by god it's good enough for these soft, lazy, overpaid modern players!
It's sort of similar to another change proposed in the past, where the higher-seeded teams would get to choose which opponent they would play. I love that, I wish that was the rule. It would add controversy, and some teams and fans feeling disrespected, and managers getting trashed for making the wrong decision, with no real downside that I can see. Free storyline for the media to make a big deal over!
To me, this would be way more fun and exciting than having predetermined automatic matchups.
Have a selection show immediately after the end of the last regular season game with reps from each team. The rep from the AL's top wild card round seed (this year it would have been Tampa) would come on TV and announce which of the 3 other teams they want to play (this year it would have been Minnesota, Toronto, or Texas.)
Repeat for the NL.
For the next round, as soon as the last Wild Card game is over, another selection show. Top seeds have to announce who they want to play.
And the team with the best overall record in the majors should get an additional trophy and celebration, and would be the higher seeded team with home field advantage in the world series if both pennant winners make it.
At first, fans and the media would reject and ridicule these pennants and celebrations, but I think if MLB kept pushing and celebrating them, it would eventually catch on.
If you want another reward, it could be something like... MLB pays for all the tickets for one home game the following season-- the team declares one home game is Pennant Celebration Day, and all tickets for that game are free to fans, with the lost revenue paid out by MLB. It would "only" be a million or two for each team, but the fans would be the ones who benefit, not the owners. Might make fans care more about winning this.
This idea could be tweaked, but a reward that goes directly to the fans would be ideal and help more fans care about winning the regular season pennant.
So the changes (that will never happen) that I'd like to see:
154-game regular season
Pennants and celebrations for the teams with the best records over the course of the season
Higher seeded teams could choose to enter the first round of the playoffs if they are dumb enough to
Higher-seeded teams have to choose their opponents
7-game divisional series
I don't want any of these because I'm mad the good teams lost, I want them because I think they would be more fun, and would value baseball's unique, really long regular season more.
I don't think the format is great and think it could be improved, but it won't be. Money.
If I was able to change things, then there are a number of things that have been suggested that I would like to see. I understand that almost none of these will ever happen.
1. Shorten the regular season to 154 games. The regular season should never start in March and should end in late September. Fewer games would improve the product and we'd have fewer games where players need to be rested.
It's also the traditional number--- if it was good enough for Napoleon Lajoie and Mordecai Brown, then by god it's good enough for these soft, lazy, overpaid modern players!
I agree, I'd prefer 7-game series. Baseball teams are more evenly matched than in other sports, so longer series are better. And if your team sweeps, but their next opponent goes 7, then you get a rest that actually could make a big difference, as your pitchers won't be as worn down. More postseason games is good, especially if you go to a 154-game season.
Sure, that would be fun if a team ever chose to play in the opening round. If they really want to, why not? None would, so it wouldn't make any difference except to shut up some of the whining-- but that would be an improvement.
It's sort of similar to another change proposed in the past, where the higher-seeded teams would get to choose which opponent they would play. I love that, I wish that was the rule. It would add controversy, and some teams and fans feeling disrespected, and managers getting trashed for making the wrong decision, with no real downside that I can see. Free storyline for the media to make a big deal over!
To me, this would be way more fun and exciting than having predetermined automatic matchups.
Have a selection show immediately after the end of the last regular season game with reps from each team. The rep from the AL's top wild card round seed (this year it would have been Tampa) would come on TV and announce which of the 3 other teams they want to play (this year it would have been Minnesota, Toronto, or Texas.)
Repeat for the NL.
For the next round, as soon as the last Wild Card game is over, another selection show. Top seeds have to announce who they want to play.
Yes, yes, yes! Best record in AL over the course of the season is the AL pennant winner. Best record over the course of the season in the NL is the NL pennant winner. Both teams get trophies and banners and number-one seed in the postseason. MLB and the winning teams should celebrate this big accomplishment and encourage fans and the media to as well.
And the team with the best overall record in the majors should get an additional trophy and celebration, and would be the higher seeded team with home field advantage in the world series if both pennant winners make it.
At first, fans and the media would reject and ridicule these pennants and celebrations, but I think if MLB kept pushing and celebrating them, it would eventually catch on.
No, no, no. Last year was last year. No need for this IMO.
If you want another reward, it could be something like... MLB pays for all the tickets for one home game the following season-- the team declares one home game is Pennant Celebration Day, and all tickets for that game are free to fans, with the lost revenue paid out by MLB. It would "only" be a million or two for each team, but the fans would be the ones who benefit, not the owners. Might make fans care more about winning this.
This idea could be tweaked, but a reward that goes directly to the fans would be ideal and help more fans care about winning the regular season pennant.
Yes, giving teams more to play for is good. Giving fans more to be excited about is good.
So the changes (that will never happen) that I'd like to see:
154-game regular season
Pennants and celebrations for the teams with the best records over the course of the season
Higher seeded teams could choose to enter the first round of the playoffs if they are dumb enough to
Higher-seeded teams have to choose their opponents
7-game divisional series
I don't want any of these because I'm mad the good teams lost, I want them because I think they would be more fun, and would value baseball's unique, really long regular season more.
Everything you said makes perfect sense.
Which is why MLB won't make the changes.
You had one division winner come down to the final game, plus if i am not mistaken, three teams in the NL fighting for the last wild card spot on the final day of the season, or at least the final weekend of the season.
That keeps fans engaged/rear ends in the seats/money being spent.
I'll watch the ALCS, but won't bother with the NLCS, I could give a shit less which of the two remaining wild card teams win and end up in the World Series, Dodgers/Braves would have had my full attention.
Which again speaks to your point about the quality of the individual playoff series.
Why are every.everyone's knickers in a twist about best of 3 or best of 5 series when the NCAA basketball and the NFL are a series of one game eliminations? Does it make a difference if the Dodgers lost in 5 instead of swept in 3?
Those are different sports, so not especially relevant. But it is worth noting that upsets in the NCAA tournament are exciting but almost always make the next game/rest of the tournament much worse.
I don't think series length is such a big issue, the one game wild card thing had to go. Obviously nothing is going to actually change, but I'd prefer to dump divisions and let every team that wins a certain number of games (90? 92?) qualify for the postseason, ordered by record within each league. If you don't win that many games, you don't make the postseason.
Because individual baseball games are much more random in their outcomes than individual NFL and NCAA games. So random that 3 games series are still more random than individual NFL games. Maybe 5 and 7 games series too.
I just don't understand anymore the point of playing games almost every day for six months only to have the playoffs that determine the champion decided by inherently random sets of small sample sizes.
MLB plays 2,430 games each season to eliminate 60% of its teams. It then plays a maximum of 53 games to decide which of the 40% is the champion.
If we are going to conclude that winning in the playoffs is a particular skill, and not just Billy Beane small sample size luck, then an individual’s postseason performance should from now on be a major factor in HOF voting. Not just regular season stats.
The regular season is a marathon. The post-season is a sprint. The overall objective is to build teams that are capable of winning both types. I can see why there is some concern with three 100 game winners taking an early exit but, given that those three teams combined went 1 - 9 tells me that the length of the series had nothing to do with the outcomes.
There might be something to the idea that the week off due to the Wild-Card series' contributed to the loss of momentum. Isn't that really part of the leadership of each of those teams to make sure that they're ready. It's not like LA and Atlanta haven't been in the playoffs lately.
There might be something to the idea that the week off due to the Wild-Card series' contributed to the loss of momentum. Isn't that really part of the leadership of each of those teams to make sure that they're ready. It's not like LA and Atlanta haven't been in the playoffs lately.
I just fail to understand the problem. The regular season determines seeding for the playoffs, which determines the World Series matchup, which determines the World Series Champion. That’s all that anyone cares about, I couldn’t care any less who the best team was.
Look at 2001. The 116 win Mariners lost in the ALCS to the 95 win Yankees after the Yankees beat the 102 win A’s in the ALDS. The Diamondbacks won 92 and beat the 93 win Cardinals, the 88 win Braves (who had swept the 93 win Astros in the NLCS), and the 95 win Yankees to win the World Series. The 2001 Mariners are an historic team. They won 116 games! And no one cares, no one thinks of it as some problem with the playoffs, and all anyone cares about that year is that the Dbacks won and the Yankees lost.
Baseball is an insanely random game, way more random than any other major sport. If the point is for the champion to be the best team, then the regular season team with the best record should just get it, but then people would say a 106 win team in the AL is actually better than 108 win team in the NL and they should play a series. And then you get playoffs again. The point of the playoffs is to determine the World Series Champion, not the Best Baseball Team. I can’t comprehend the problem.
Look at 2001. The 116 win Mariners lost in the ALCS to the 95 win Yankees after the Yankees beat the 102 win A’s in the ALDS. The Diamondbacks won 92 and beat the 93 win Cardinals, the 88 win Braves (who had swept the 93 win Astros in the NLCS), and the 95 win Yankees to win the World Series. The 2001 Mariners are an historic team. They won 116 games! And no one cares, no one thinks of it as some problem with the playoffs, and all anyone cares about that year is that the Dbacks won and the Yankees lost.
Baseball is an insanely random game, way more random than any other major sport. If the point is for the champion to be the best team, then the regular season team with the best record should just get it, but then people would say a 106 win team in the AL is actually better than 108 win team in the NL and they should play a series. And then you get playoffs again. The point of the playoffs is to determine the World Series Champion, not the Best Baseball Team. I can’t comprehend the problem.
You couldn't have picked a worse year as an example, the Yankees were then three time defending WS champions winning nine straight postseason series, only losing 8 total games along the way (33-8). That 102 win A's team was actually much better than that in the second half, they had the best post-ASG record of any team ever (58-17), SEA as mentioned won the most regular season games ever (116-46), and the D'backs had the best two-man postseason SP combo of my lifetime in Schilling and Johnson. The fact that NY came two outs from beating all three of them in a row was a tribute to just how good NY was in that era, nothing else. Honestly almost any other year would have been a better example.
The problem is that people think those two are the same thing, you just said it yourself. Again I don't like criticizing a system without having a better alternative to suggest, but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing at least.
This is a good article from The Ringer on the subject:
Playoff Randomness Isn’t the Only Explanation for This Year’s MLB Upsets - The Ringer
What people are really upset about is these particular playoffs thus far have lacked drama because so many of the series were sweeps and not a single one produced a winner-take-all game. It happens. Complaining that the playoffs doesn't result in the best team winning all the time is silly, because that went out the window the moment it was decided to have a playoffs going back to the first World Series. The 1906 White Sox (93-58) were not a better team than the 1906 Cubs (116-36), but they were in the six games they played to decide the World Championship that year. And if you're going to point out that that might just be indicative of a difference in strength between the two leagues, then explain the 1954 Giants (97-57) sweeping the 1954 Indians (111-43), a team that beat out a 103 win MFY team that spent most of that decade crushing the championship hopes of NL teams in the World Series.
Upsets happen, and they are often fun. The only people who really should be complaining about them are the fans of the team with the better record who may feel "cheated" that their team's brilliance during the regular season wasn't reaffirmed in the short series. But those things go both ways. The example of the 2001 MFYs from above, or the 2006 Cardinals, an 83 win upset winner of the World Series that year, which was a team comprised of players that had won 205 regular season and 12 playoff games over the previous two seasons but had lost in 2004 and 2005 to teams that were, at least by regular season and Pythagorean records, inferior to them.
I don't know about 2005, but I'm sure most of the people here aren't complaining about that result from 2004.
Playoff Randomness Isn’t the Only Explanation for This Year’s MLB Upsets - The Ringer
What people are really upset about is these particular playoffs thus far have lacked drama because so many of the series were sweeps and not a single one produced a winner-take-all game. It happens. Complaining that the playoffs doesn't result in the best team winning all the time is silly, because that went out the window the moment it was decided to have a playoffs going back to the first World Series. The 1906 White Sox (93-58) were not a better team than the 1906 Cubs (116-36), but they were in the six games they played to decide the World Championship that year. And if you're going to point out that that might just be indicative of a difference in strength between the two leagues, then explain the 1954 Giants (97-57) sweeping the 1954 Indians (111-43), a team that beat out a 103 win MFY team that spent most of that decade crushing the championship hopes of NL teams in the World Series.
Upsets happen, and they are often fun. The only people who really should be complaining about them are the fans of the team with the better record who may feel "cheated" that their team's brilliance during the regular season wasn't reaffirmed in the short series. But those things go both ways. The example of the 2001 MFYs from above, or the 2006 Cardinals, an 83 win upset winner of the World Series that year, which was a team comprised of players that had won 205 regular season and 12 playoff games over the previous two seasons but had lost in 2004 and 2005 to teams that were, at least by regular season and Pythagorean records, inferior to them.
I don't know about 2005, but I'm sure most of the people here aren't complaining about that result from 2004.
This is another bad example though, the 2004 Red Sox post-deadline were a decidedly better team than the 2004 Yankees post-deadline, who were starting Jon Lieber as their #2 SP, and those two were (IMO at the time anyway) both clearly better than STL, no matter what W/L records said.
There is a lot of randomness in short series baseball, but also a a lot of these big win teams that lose to lesser teams run out of healthy, quality SPs. The Dodgers and Braves didn't hit at all, but also they were down to one quality SP between them in Strider.
If we're not using records, both actual and Pythagorean, to say the "better team" lost, then the conversation is even more worthless than I was trying to suggest.
And I wasn't suggesting the 2004 Sox beating your MFYs was an upset, since those Sox had a much better Pythagorean record (96-66) than your team (89-73). Your team's luck held up in that ALCS---until it didn't.
(As to both our teams that year being clearly better than those Cardinals, try having that conversation with a Cards fan.)
The I would argue that a Diamondbacks team that was on a 100 win pace during the part of the season that Gabby Moreno wasn't injured, and who had a full complement of their starting pitchers, is a better team than a Dodgers team down to the corpse of Clayton Kershaw, and Lance Lynn.
In the Kram article, he points out that the Phillies and Braves had pretty much the same record from the point Trea Turner got over his torpor and started hitting. (The Braves were only two games better in the second half of the season.) To your point, the Braves only having Strider healthy and the Phillies getting Ranger Suarez back in September in time to get in tune for the playoffs and give them three quality starters made the Phillies series win explicable.
As to that 2004 season, one thing you might hear from a Cardinals fan is, "Well, if Chris Carpenter didn't get hurt..." But championship teams have to overcome such setbacks. Sox fans can grouse about what might have happened in 1975 if Jim Rice had been able to play in the 1975 World Series (or Ted Williams hadn't had to play hurt through the 1946 Series, or Tony C had been able to play in the 1967 one), but the Oakland A's lost Reggie Jackson before the 1972 World Series and still beat that same Reds team with its collection of future Hall of Famers (including the one not permitted in).
The one change that MLB should consider is reseeding after each round. It's possible that the Braves might have been able to slip by the DBacks this round and then faced the Phillies (I'm assuming they would have trucked the pitching depleted Dodgers) in a seven games series with a healthier Fried and Morton, which would have given them a better chance.
Baseball is popular. The total attendance in 2023 was 70,747,365. That is a lot of butts in seats.
But baseball is popular in a different way than football. Baseball is very relevant to fanbases and not so relevant to the country as a whole (the way the NFL playoffs are).
So if you are MLB it makes all of the economic sense in the world to have expanded playoffs. As it sucks in more people. Which is ultimately good for the health of the game.
But baseball is popular in a different way than football. Baseball is very relevant to fanbases and not so relevant to the country as a whole (the way the NFL playoffs are).
So if you are MLB it makes all of the economic sense in the world to have expanded playoffs. As it sucks in more people. Which is ultimately good for the health of the game.
You know 100 times more about the 2023 Dbacks than I do. Can you please explain why someone who hit 7 hr in half a season with an OPS of .747 was this valuable. Is it defense? Calling a game?
I wasn't even alive for another two decades, but it still pisses me off to no end that the nonsense of alternating league home field advantage meant opening that series in the most absurd MLB ballpark of the 20th century. Sure, Cleveland got swept, but it would have been a very different series if the team with 14 more wins had been rewarded with home field. Instead, in Game #1, Vic Wertz crushed a majestic shot to straightaway center that would have soared out of just about any other ballpark and given Cleveland a late 3-run lead – it also would have given Wertz the only cycle in World Series history – but instead it turned into a 420 foot out. Then in the 10th inning, Dusty Rhodes hit a pathetic popup 270 feet – an embarrassing failure with two runners on base if it had been any other park – but this park gifted him a walk-off home run.
So, umm, yeah... there never has been nor ever will be a completely fair playoff format.
Bravo for this! I knew of both plays, but never considered how the kooky dimensions of that ballpark determined the fates of those two historic batted balls.
This whole thing blowing up into a major discussion is weird and dumb.
- I don't think 100 win teams are generally that much better than 90 win teams. But 100 has 3 digits or something?
- Even bad teams find a way to win some games against the best teams in the regular season. They might even take some series against them.
- Teams with better regular season records not winning playoff series is nothing new.
- Even a 7 game series is a tiny sample vs a 162 game regular season.
- The Phillies-Braves series was fantastic. The fact that people are whining the Braves didn't advance is sort of disrespectful to the Phillies. They're great.
Among players who caught 70 games, he is 2nd in average and 7th in OBP, and is a solid baserunner. I know .747 OPS seems low, but it isn't an empty OPS, and when you can get production like that offensively from your catcher spot, it goes a long way toward lengthening the lineup.
Defensively, he is probably the best in the league at controlling the running game. He is 100th percentile in RTO%, had a .997 fielding percentage and allowed only 1 passed ball all season. There is a good argument that he is the best defensive catcher in the game (I wouldn't say hands down, but I would happily argue for it), and when you add that with his offensive production, he is an incredibly important player for this team.
.747 OPS was good for a 104 OPS+ this year. Having an elite defensive catcher put up a better than league average OPS is a very valuable thing.
Part of the logic here is that there is some disadvantage to the amount of time off bye teams get before their first postseason series.
I can't help but wonder why this is a thing. If not playing baseball is a problem, then shouldn't the bye teams just... play baseball? Why not run a few split squad games, even if on short innings to keep the rust off? If motivation is a problem, come up with some fun motivators to either reward the winners or gently haze the losers a bit.
I can't help but wonder why this is a thing. If not playing baseball is a problem, then shouldn't the bye teams just... play baseball? Why not run a few split squad games, even if on short innings to keep the rust off? If motivation is a problem, come up with some fun motivators to either reward the winners or gently haze the losers a bit.
The Braves did this, didn’t help (obviously):
View: https://twitter.com/braves/status/1709622290193748322?s=46&t=0GHHaPVUX26Io0V2HIcS0g
Something that just occurred to me about the current system: everyone is focused on the hitters with five days off somehow losing it, but the lower seeds have the advantage of knowing who they will play in the second round at least a few days earlier.
Meaning if you are the #1 seed, you need to prepare for the #4 and the #5 teams but if you are either of those lower seeds, once the first round series starts, your scouts can fully focus on preparing for the #1 seed. Maybe not a huge advantage but baseball is a game of tiny advantages, so just a thought.
I don't remember where I saw it, but the three 100 win teams led for a total of just 9 of 90 innings in their series, 1-9 in games and even the 1 ATL needed multiple heroic plays to steal it at the end. That is wild and certainly worth discussing possible reasons for. And of course it's a SSS, but also the current system is just two years old and this has happened both times so far.
Meaning if you are the #1 seed, you need to prepare for the #4 and the #5 teams but if you are either of those lower seeds, once the first round series starts, your scouts can fully focus on preparing for the #1 seed. Maybe not a huge advantage but baseball is a game of tiny advantages, so just a thought.
I don't remember where I saw it, but the three 100 win teams led for a total of just 9 of 90 innings in their series, 1-9 in games and even the 1 ATL needed multiple heroic plays to steal it at the end. That is wild and certainly worth discussing possible reasons for. And of course it's a SSS, but also the current system is just two years old and this has happened both times so far.
Reseeding after the first round is a good idea, including for the reason you identified. It makes very little sense for the 1 seed to play the 4 seed while the 2 seed gets the 6th seed.
Joe Posnanski shared the following info showing how often the teams with the best record win the pennant based on the MLB playoff format:
1903-1968 (only one team in each league advances): 100% of the time, obviously
1969-1993 (two teams advance in each league): 62% of the time.
We can divide this section into two categories — from 1969 to ’84, the championship series was a best-of-five, and in those years, the best-team advancing percentage was 59%. From 1985 to ’93, the championship series was expanded to seven games, and in those years, two-thirds, 66.7% of the teams with the top record, made the World Series.
1995-2011 (four teams advance in each league): 35.3% of the time
2012-2021 (five teams advance in each league): 55% of the time
2022-present (six teams advance in each league): 25% of the time
In all, since 1969, 55 of 108 teams with the best record in each league made the World Series … or 51%. That number drops to 41% since the addition of the wild card.
NBA: how often does the best team in each conference make it to the NBA Finals? Since 2000, it’s 37.5%.
NHL: less than 20% of the best teams in each conference reached the Stanley Cup since 2000.
1903-1968 (only one team in each league advances): 100% of the time, obviously
1969-1993 (two teams advance in each league): 62% of the time.
We can divide this section into two categories — from 1969 to ’84, the championship series was a best-of-five, and in those years, the best-team advancing percentage was 59%. From 1985 to ’93, the championship series was expanded to seven games, and in those years, two-thirds, 66.7% of the teams with the top record, made the World Series.
1995-2011 (four teams advance in each league): 35.3% of the time
2012-2021 (five teams advance in each league): 55% of the time
2022-present (six teams advance in each league): 25% of the time
In all, since 1969, 55 of 108 teams with the best record in each league made the World Series … or 51%. That number drops to 41% since the addition of the wild card.
NBA: how often does the best team in each conference make it to the NBA Finals? Since 2000, it’s 37.5%.
NHL: less than 20% of the best teams in each conference reached the Stanley Cup since 2000.
I thought about that, but the teams that are playing in round 1 are going to experience equivalent injury risk. If playing the games instead of sitting is enough of a difference maker to give round 1 teams an advantage over bye teams, then it seems clear that the injury risk is worth it.
I get that it would be a shitshow if a star player got injured during an "unnecessary" scrimmage, but if sitting during those days instead of playing is going to put your team at a huge disadvantage, then is it really unnecessary?
That said, it's of course far from clear that not playing is actually that much of a disadvantage.
Baseball is a very different game that Football. But some things can be referenced. For instance, a starting QB gets injured either before the playoff game or during a playoff game and everything changes. The same way a team may lose a starting pitcher or 2 prior to a playoff series starting. This was the case of the Dodgers this year.
But other than that, playoffs are about getting a team to play a best of 5 or best of 7 after having played 162 games. Teams play differently during the season. We have had these conversations in this board several times (like how they leave a starter too long or don't bring in a certain pitcher). In the playoffs certain strengths are exenuated and certain weaknesses as well. A potent bullpen can make a difference. Lou Piniella employed the "Nasty Boys", among other things, to sweep the vaunted Oakland A's in 1990 as an example.
Sometimes certain decisions are made. The 2002 Oakland A's were their best chance ever to win the pennant, yet they started Barry Zito on the last day of the season. The Twins took advatage of that.
The 2005 Red Sox had to start Curt Schilling in the last day of the season (they had not clinched yet) and he was not available until Game 3 and by then it was too late. This does not help my argument as the White Sox were the much better team that year, I am just using the example.
The point in all this is that when you have playoffs there will be variances and teams with better records will lose more often than anyone would like. There are several reaons for that including fatigue/injuries/layoff etc. There is no good solution to this other than eliminating the playoffs and going back to the pre 1969 format, which we all know is not happening.
BTW the wild card came about the year after the San Francisco Giants became the first team ever to win more than 100 games and fail to make the playoffs because the Braves won one more game, and yet those same Braves lost the NLCS to the 93 win Phillies. And those same Phillies took a lead into the bottom of the 9th in Toronto on Game 6, but their closer blew it (I missed that walkoff because I had a date with my gf -- now wife of almost 30 years).
But other than that, playoffs are about getting a team to play a best of 5 or best of 7 after having played 162 games. Teams play differently during the season. We have had these conversations in this board several times (like how they leave a starter too long or don't bring in a certain pitcher). In the playoffs certain strengths are exenuated and certain weaknesses as well. A potent bullpen can make a difference. Lou Piniella employed the "Nasty Boys", among other things, to sweep the vaunted Oakland A's in 1990 as an example.
Sometimes certain decisions are made. The 2002 Oakland A's were their best chance ever to win the pennant, yet they started Barry Zito on the last day of the season. The Twins took advatage of that.
The 2005 Red Sox had to start Curt Schilling in the last day of the season (they had not clinched yet) and he was not available until Game 3 and by then it was too late. This does not help my argument as the White Sox were the much better team that year, I am just using the example.
The point in all this is that when you have playoffs there will be variances and teams with better records will lose more often than anyone would like. There are several reaons for that including fatigue/injuries/layoff etc. There is no good solution to this other than eliminating the playoffs and going back to the pre 1969 format, which we all know is not happening.
BTW the wild card came about the year after the San Francisco Giants became the first team ever to win more than 100 games and fail to make the playoffs because the Braves won one more game, and yet those same Braves lost the NLCS to the 93 win Phillies. And those same Phillies took a lead into the bottom of the 9th in Toronto on Game 6, but their closer blew it (I missed that walkoff because I had a date with my gf -- now wife of almost 30 years).
Sure it works. In fact it works even better given the point you made. Baseball teams are inherently more similar than football teams in terms of regular season performance. So this notion that it's a problem that a 100 team lost an 85 win team is incorrect. In fact it should be *more* expected than a 12-sin NFL team losing a playoff game to a 10-win team.
This guy gets it. If you're running a regional sport, you want as many regions to care for as long as possible.
Adding the 3rd wild card in each league did zero to expand the pool of teams that were "in it" this year. The last two playoff spots in each league were tied.
That's about what you'd expect to happen. There are usually handful of really good and really bad teams each year with the rest bunched up in the middle. I looked it up and over the last 10 years (skipping 2020), the 2nd AL wild card team has averaged 90.7 wins and what would be the 3rd averaged 87.9. In the NL it was 89.1 and 85.3. I don't think those 3 or 4 games make a meaningful difference in the number of teams that feel they have a shot.
I think it does make a difference, particularly the later we get into September. Honestly I’m in favor of anything that keeps people more interested in baseball. Pitch clocks, more playoff teams, bigger bases, whatever it takes.