2023 MLB postseason thread

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Let it be known, in 2023, in the greatest division in the history of never, the only AL East team with a winning record in October was the Boston Red Sox.

 

October 2023 W-L

Boston 1-0

Tampa 1-2

New York 0-1

Toronto 0-3

Baltimore 0-4

 

We're Number None!

[notin]

And why 14 years? because if we used 15 it would've resulted in another AL East team making it in the 08 Rays? 16 years and it would've counted the 2007 Red Sox?

 

And 12 would have eliminated two Ranger teams…

[moonslav59]

Let it be known, in 2023, in the greatest division in the history of never, the only AL East team with a winning record in October was the Boston Red Sox.

 

October 2023 W-L

Boston 1-0

Tampa 1-2

New York 0-1

Toronto 0-3

Baltimore 0-4

 

We're Number None!

 

The turn around has begun!

[harmony]

And why 14 years? because if we used 15 it would've resulted in another AL East team making it in the 08 Rays? 16 years and it would've counted the 2007 Red Sox?

The distant past indeed would have helped the AL East.

 

Going back 17 seasons to include the 2007 Red Sox, the tally would be AL East 6, AL Central 4 and AL West 7.

 

Going back 12 seasons the tally would be AL East 3, AL Central 4 and AL West 5.

 

At six years the tally is AL East 2 and AL West 4 (with sign-stealing clouds looming over two franchises).

[notin]

The distant past indeed would have helped the AL East.

 

Going back 17 seasons to include the 2007 Red Sox, the tally would be AL East 6, AL Central 4 and AL West 7.

 

Going back 12 seasons the tally would be AL East 3, AL Central 4 and AL West 5.

 

At six years the tally is AL East 2 and AL West 4 (with sign-stealing clouds looming over two franchises).

 

No. Just one franchise.

 

The Apple Watch scandal peaked in comparison to the system the Astros put in place.

 

And if the 2017 Astros don’t have their sign-stealing operation, the numbers could easily shift to 3 to 3 once the Sox knocked of the Astros

Edited October 13, 2023 by notin

[Bellhorn04]

No. Just one franchise.

 

The Apple Watch scandal peaked in comparison to the system the Astros put in place.

 

And if the 2017 Astros don’t have their sign-stealing operation, the numbers could easily shift to 3 to 3 once the Sox knocked of the Astros

 

The Red Sox did get disciplined for improper use of the video room in 2018. Much less sophisticated than the Astros' system, and I believe it was confirmed that it only happened in the regular season, unlike with the Astros.

[Bellhorn04]

The distant past indeed would have helped the AL East.

 

Going back 17 seasons to include the 2007 Red Sox, the tally would be AL East 6, AL Central 4 and AL West 7.

 

Going back 12 seasons the tally would be AL East 3, AL Central 4 and AL West 5.

 

At six years the tally is AL East 2 and AL West 4 (with sign-stealing clouds looming over two franchises).

 

Quite the arbitrary distinction as to what constitutes the "distant" past.

 

But maybe you are joking. It's hard to tell.

[Bellhorn04]

The Red Sox still have the most titles this century, and will continue to hold that honor after this year's World Series!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The distant past (with sign-stealing clouds looming over two franchises).

 

... and not one employee of the other 28 franchises ever omitted data from their taxes nor drove over 55 mph.

 

One guy did confess to doing a double-take at a crosswalk once -- but only after she turned out to be a co-worker of his wife's friend.

[mvp 78]

Harmony is always stuck on the AL West vs AL East gimmick since his team can't actually win a title. He needs to live vicariously through other franchises.

[notin]

... and not one employee of the other 28 franchises ever omitted data from their taxes nor drove over 55 mph.

 

One guy did confess to doing a double-take at a crosswalk once -- but only after she turned out to be a co-worker of his wife's friend.

 

 

But are all their mattresses still fully tagged?

[notin]

Quite the arbitrary distinction as to what constitutes the "distant" past.

 

But maybe you are joking. It's hard to tell.

 

17 years ago is ridiculous. But 12 years ago would be to soon…

[dgalehouse]

Selecting a favorable sample size or time frame to support your position is a timeworn strategy. Most, if not all, have used it .

[Bellhorn04]

Selecting a favorable sample size or time frame to support your position is a timeworn strategy. Most, if not all, have used it .

 

Yes, we're all pretty good at cherry-picking when we want to be.

 

harmony's selection of a 14 year period made his a bit conspicuous.

[dgalehouse]

Getting back to the playoffs; Now down to the final four. I think it is very obvious that there is a significant crapshoot factor in post season baseball. It is becoming very hard to dispute that.

[notin]

Yes, we're all pretty good at cherry-picking when we want to be.

 

harmony's selection of a 14 year period made his a bit conspicuous.

 

Not so much the 14 year sample size as it was the way he subtly discredited attempts to lengthen it…

Edited October 13, 2023 by notin

[Maxbialystock]

Getting back to the playoffs; Now down to the final four. I think it is very obvious that there is a significant crapshoot factor in post season baseball. It is becoming very hard to dispute that.

 

Of course there is. Yesterday's NY Times had a column by Jayson Stark arguing that the bellyaching about the schedule is baloney--and then praised David Dombrowski as the pinnacle of GM's/CBO's by citing what he did with the Marlins, Tigers, Red Sox, and now the Phillies. I'm anti-DD, but I have to agree with some of what he said. DD likes to spend money, but he usually gets results (if not long-lasting results).

 

But one of the responses to the column pointed out that the best teams in MLB can be expected to win 3 games in a 5 games series, and the MLB losers can be expected to win 2 games in a 5 games series. That's mostly true--except that this year the Royals only won 35% of their games, the A's 31%, and the Rockies 36%.

 

The point is that any team that makes it to the postseason has a shot. As I've already made clear, I also think the four teams--Orioles, Astros, Dodgers, and Braves--that had a first round bye were somewhat penalized when the wild cards were decided by 3 games series.

 

So those four teams with byes went six days, from Sunday to the following Saturday, between games. The three teams with 100 or more wins--Orioles, Dodgers, and Braves--were swept in their 5 game division series. Actually, the Braves had a miraculous win in one game and so lost 3 of 4 to the Phillies, a team they beat in 8 of 13 games in the regular season.

 

A better example is the 2007 Rockies, who were red hot in September, finishing 16-1. That got them into the postseason with 90 wins. They stayed hot by winning 7 straight games postseason games, beating the Phillies and Diamondbacks, to get to the WS.

 

Unfortunately for the Rockies, the Sox needed 7 games to finish off the Guardians in the ALCS, which meant the red hot Rockies cooled their heels for 9 days--and were promptly swept by the Sox.

[moonslav59]

Of course there is. Yesterday's NY Times had a column by Jayson Stark arguing that the bellyaching about the schedule is baloney--and then praised David Dombrowski as the pinnacle of GM's/CBO's by citing what he did with the Marlins, Tigers, Red Sox, and now the Phillies. I'm anti-DD, but I have to agree with some of what he said. DD likes to spend money, but he usually gets results (if not long-lasting results).

 

But one of the responses to the column pointed out that the best teams in MLB can be expected to win 3 games in a 5 games series, and the MLB losers can be expected to win 2 games in a 5 games series. That's mostly true--except that this year the Royals only won 35% of their games, the A's 31%, and the Rockies 36%.

 

The point is that any team that makes it to the postseason has a shot. As I've already made clear, I also think the four teams--Orioles, Astros, Dodgers, and Braves--that had a first round bye were somewhat penalized when the wild cards were decided by 3 games series.

 

So those four teams with byes went six days, from Sunday to the following Saturday, between games. The three teams with 100 or more wins--Orioles, Dodgers, and Braves--were swept in their 5 game division series. Actually, the Braves had a miraculous win in one game and so lost 3 of 4 to the Phillies, a team they beat in 8 of 13 games in the regular season.

 

A better example is the 2007 Rockies, who were red hot in September, finishing 16-1. That got them into the postseason with 90 wins. They stayed hot by winning 7 straight games postseason games, beating the Phillies and Diamondbacks, to get to the WS.

 

Unfortunately for the Rockies, the Sox needed 7 games to finish off the Guardians in the ALCS, which meant the red hot Rockies cooled their heels for 9 days--and were promptly swept by the Sox.

 

I've often said I'm not sure how well DD would have done, if handed the exact circumstances Bloom was handed, but I'm pretty sure Bloom would not have matched DD's record, if he was handed the circumstances DD was back in 2016. I feel very confident, we'd have done significantly worse.

 

DD is a damn good GM, when allowed to spend and trade.

[dgalehouse]

I am not a fan of excuses. And I definitely don't want to hear that team A or team B had too many days off and they became flat. They also had time to set up their rotation, rest their bullpen and heal up the little aches and pains. It is what it is. Be prepared. No excuses.

[Bellhorn04]

I am not a fan of excuses. And I definitely don't want to hear that team A or team B had too many days off and they became flat. They also had time to set up their rotation, rest their bullpen and heal up the little aches and pains. It is what it is. Be prepared. No excuses.

 

It didn't bother the Astros. Like 'em or hate 'em, they come to play.

[dgalehouse]

It didn't bother the Astros. Like 'em or hate 'em, they come to play.

 

It did not bother the Astros. I don't think it bothered the Braves either. The Braves ran into a Phillies team that was very hot, very confident and very good.

[notin]

I am not a fan of excuses. And I definitely don't want to hear that team A or team B had too many days off and they became flat. They also had time to set up their rotation, rest their bullpen and heal up the little aches and pains. It is what it is. Be prepared. No excuses.

 

I never thought there was anything to the whole “too many days off” BS. I think no it was concocted by someone who couldn’t grasp the parity in MLB and had to look for another excuse.

 

It’s like the pundit who made up the whole “team chemistry” thing, but never actually defined it…

[Jasonbay44]

If the Phillies make the World Series. I’m considering buying a World Series ticket and driving to Philly for the game (it’s about 2 hours from me in Maryland). I have no rooting interest but I want to attend a World Series and never really had the opportunity either due to location or finances. So go Phillies!

[Maxbialystock]

I am not a fan of excuses. And I definitely don't want to hear that team A or team B had too many days off and they became flat. They also had time to set up their rotation, rest their bullpen and heal up the little aches and pains. It is what it is. Be prepared. No excuses.

 

Boy, do you have a reading comprehension problem. None of those 100 teams made excuses. None.

 

Nor am I. I'm simply analyzing the nature of MLB. And my first point is that the distance between the penthouse, winning 100 or more games, and the outhouse, finishing well out of the playoffs with just 65 wins, is pretty short. It's the distance/difference between winning 6 out of 10 games and winning 4 out of 10 games.

 

And it's even closer when the wild card teams have all won 55% of their games and the best team, the Braves with 104 wins, won just 65% their games. That's a 10% difference in winning percentage. It's miniscule--but looks huge when you throw in a 162 game season.

 

You of course skipped over all of that and jumped to the 6 day break period. But even there you ignored my example of the Rockies in 2007 who were absolutely the hottest team in MLB history for the last half of September (final 17 games) and their first two postseason series. In that stretch they won 23 of 24 games. Then they did nothing for 9 days and got swept by the Sox.

 

So, before you repeat this malarkey about how the Astros won their ALDS series, please address the Rockies in 2007 and the fact that the difference between winning MLB teams and losing MLB teams is actually quite small, but made to look bigger because of the 162 game season.

[dgalehouse]

Boy, do you have a reading comprehension problem. None of those 100 teams made excuses. None.

 

Nor am I. I'm simply analyzing the nature of MLB. And my first point is that the distance between the penthouse, winning 100 or more games, and the outhouse, finishing well out of the playoffs with just 65 wins, is pretty short. It's the distance/difference between winning 6 out of 10 games and winning 4 out of 10 games.

 

And it's even closer when the wild card teams have all won 55% of their games and the best team, the Braves with 104 wins, won just 65% their games. That's a 10% difference in winning percentage. It's miniscule--but looks huge when you throw in a 162 game season.

 

You of course skipped over all of that and jumped to the 6 day break period. But even there you ignored my example of the Rockies in 2007 who were absolutely the hottest team in MLB history for the last half of September (final 17 games) and their first two postseason series. In that stretch they won 23 of 24 games. Then they did nothing for 9 days and got swept by the Sox.

 

So, before you repeat this malarkey about how the Astros won their ALDS series, please address the Rockies in 2007 and the fact that the difference between winning MLB teams and losing MLB teams is actually quite small, but made to look bigger because of the 162 game season.

 

Sixteen years ago, the Rockies had extra days off and promptly got swept by a better Red Sox team. Yeah, that explains everything.

[notin]

Boy, do you have a reading comprehension problem. None of those 100 teams made excuses. None.

 

Nor am I. I'm simply analyzing the nature of MLB. And my first point is that the distance between the penthouse, winning 100 or more games, and the outhouse, finishing well out of the playoffs with just 65 wins, is pretty short. It's the distance/difference between winning 6 out of 10 games and winning 4 out of 10 games.

 

And it's even closer when the wild card teams have all won 55% of their games and the best team, the Braves with 104 wins, won just 65% their games. That's a 10% difference in winning percentage. It's miniscule--but looks huge when you throw in a 162 game season.

 

You of course skipped over all of that and jumped to the 6 day break period. But even there you ignored my example of the Rockies in 2007 who were absolutely the hottest team in MLB history for the last half of September (final 17 games) and their first two postseason series. In that stretch they won 23 of 24 games. Then they did nothing for 9 days and got swept by the Sox.

 

So, before you repeat this malarkey about how the Astros won their ALDS series, please address the Rockies in 2007 and the fact that the difference between winning MLB teams and losing MLB teams is actually quite small, but made to look bigger because of the 162 game season.

 

 

You are 100% correct in that the best teams win 60% of the time and the worst teams win 40% of the time. No other professional sport anywhere in the world has that type of parity. It would like the entire NFL finishing between 10-7 and 7-10.

 

I think the “days off” stuff is crap. It’s people who overanalyze the sport and make up ******** like “team chemistry” desperately trying to make excuses for why they can’t predict these outcomes. “Well the Braves would have beaten the Phillies, but they were too rested and they got all out of baseball shape in those 4 days.”

 

It’s weird how people tried to argue that Noah Song didn’t forget how to pitch in a 3 year hiatus, but they think Spencer Strider did forget how in 12 days…

[jacksonianmarch]

Man, I wish the Yanks could home grow good postseason pitchers.....

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Man, I wish the Yanks could home grow good postseason pitchers.....

 

George knew what he was doing by always stockpiling starting pitchers, and he was also right on targeting big game "warriors" -- like he knew he was in trouble when Epstein (not Cashmen) landed Schilling.

 

Some posters love to argue against acquiring pitchers who are "injury-prone" or "IL risks" -- but nowadays, are any not?

 

Has arm history EVER slowed down Nathan Eovaldi on a big stage in October?

[moonslav59]

George knew what he was doing by always stockpiling starting pitchers, and he was also right on targeting big game "warriors" -- like he knew he was in trouble when Epstein (not Cashmen) landed Schilling.

 

Some posters love to argue against acquiring pitchers who are "injury-prone" or "IL risks" -- but nowadays, are any not?

 

Has arm history EVER slowed down Nathan Eovaldi on a big stage in October?

 

Yes, when he was hurt during the season, and his team missed the big stage.

[jacksonianmarch]

I was talking about Jordan Montgomery who keeps spinning 0's in the playoffs for Texas. The guy who should have been pitching in NY this year