2023 MLB postseason thread

[moonslav59]

Baseball is just a more random sport than most other sports. There is no major upset in any baseball game.

 

Indeed, even with a Cy Young winner on the mound vs a pen game by the opps.

[Maxbialystock]

Maybe they used up their breaks, already winning those 2 of 5.

 

 

I admit I used straight math without consideration of comparative strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, everyone on talksox is complaining about what a crapshoot the postseason is without admitting that in fact the winningest MLB teams are not much better than the guys who just sneak into the post season. Specifically, the lowly Diamondbacks won 52% and the Braves 64%. That a difference of 12 freaking percent, which ain't that much.

[moonslav59]

I admit I used straight math without consideration of comparative strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, everyone on talksox is complaining about what a crapshoot the postseason is without admitting that in fact the winningest MLB teams are not much better than the guys who just sneak into the post season. Specifically, the lowly Diamondbacks won 52% and the Braves 64%. That a difference of 12 freaking percent, which ain't that much.

 

Just because we don't "admit it," everytime we post, doesn't mean we don't already know it.

[redsoxrules]

I admit I used straight math without consideration of comparative strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, everyone on talksox is complaining about what a crapshoot the postseason is without admitting that in fact the winningest MLB teams are not much better than the guys who just sneak into the post season. Specifically, the lowly Diamondbacks won 52% and the Braves 64%. That a difference of 12 freaking percent, which ain't that much.

 

Then why not have ALL teams make the playoffs then? If the Diamondbacks happens to win it all you can't tell me that they were the best team in MLB this year.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Then why not have ALL teams make the playoffs then? If the Diamondbacks happens to win it all you can't tell me that they were the best team in MLB this year.

 

No, but it would mean they were the best team at this time of year.

 

Like all other sports, the hottest team in the tournament usually wins it.

 

If you truly want the best teams to play in the World Series, then eliminate all league playoffs and just let the two clubs with the best overall records for six months fight it out in October...

 

... kinda like it was when only the pennant winners went to the Series for the first 60-something years in Major League history.

 

Btw, not all posters are disciples of the crapshoot theory. I'll take my chances with the best group of star players in a short series.

 

Baseball is the sum deeds of isolated individuals. Batters all by themselves, facing pitchers all by themselves, with fielders trying to catch a ball before it hits the ground, and baserunners trying to score without teammates setting picks or blocking for them... stuff like that.

[moonslav59]

No, but it would mean they were the best team at this time of year.

 

Like all other sports, the hottest team in the tournament usually wins it.

 

If you truly want the best teams to play in the World Series, then eliminate all league playoffs and just let the two clubs with the best overall records for six months fight it out in October...

 

... kinda like it was when only the pennant winners went to the Series for the first 60-something years in Major League history.

 

Btw, not all posters are disciples of the crapshoot theory. I'll take my chances with the best group of star players in a short series.

 

Baseball is the sum deeds of isolated individuals. Batters all by themselves, facing pitchers all by themselves, with fielders trying to catch a ball before it hits the ground, and baserunners trying to score without teammates setting picks or blocking for them... stuff like that.

 

I’m not a crapshoot believer.

 

I would not think AZ was the best team, now, even if they win it all.

[Maxbialystock]

Then why not have ALL teams make the playoffs then? If the Diamondbacks happens to win it all you can't tell me that they were the best team in MLB this year.

 

Because 30 teams is just too many/too long. Right now 12 out of 30 make it, and that's 40 freaking per cent, more than enough.

 

Actually, even with six wild card series (best 2 of 3 games), two ALDS and two NLDS (best of 5), and one each ALCS and NLCS (best of 7), plus the world series (best of 7), they expect to finish the World Series not later than Nov 4, which works fine with the climate heating up.

[dgalehouse]

Saying the playoffs are a crapshoot doesn't necessarily mean that every team has an equal chance. The better teams still have an edge.

[Maxbialystock]

I’m not a crapshoot believer.

 

I would not think AZ was the best team, now, even if they win it all.

 

Agree completely, but you have again ignored the fact that that the worst team--the Diamondbacks-- won 52% of the time in the regular season and the very best team (Braves) won just 64% of the time. That's a measly 12% difference in winning percentage. Last year in the NFL the winningest regular season teams were 14-3, 82%, and the lowest percentage team who still made the playoffs were the Seahawks at 53%.

 

Historically, similar percentages have applied to the NBA postseason teams, but last year the best team, the Bucks, only won 71%. Lowest "play-in" team won 50%. So that's a swing of just 21%.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Maxbialystock

[Jasonbay44]

Schwarber and Harper sure do show up in the playoffs

[moonslav59]

Agree completely, but you have again ignored the fact that that the worst team--the Diamondbacks-- won 52% of the time in the regular season and the very best team (Braves) won just 64% of the time. That's a measly 12% difference in winning percentage. Last year in the NFL the winningest regular season teams were 14-3, 82%, and the lowest percentage team who still made the playoffs were the Seahawks at 53%.

 

Historically, similar percentages have applied to the NBA postseason teams, but last year the best team, the Bucks, only won 71%. Lowest "play-in" team won 50%. So that's a swing of just 21%.

 

Do I need to say it every post or be accused of “ignoring it?”

[redsoxrules]

Agree completely, but you have again ignored the fact that that the worst team--the Diamondbacks-- won 52% of the time in the regular season and the very best team (Braves) won just 64% of the time. That's a measly 12% difference in winning percentage. Last year in the NFL the winningest regular season teams were 14-3, 82%, and the lowest percentage team who still made the playoffs were the Seahawks at 53%.

 

Historically, similar percentages have applied to the NBA postseason teams, but last year the best team, the Bucks, only won 71%. Lowest "play-in" team won 50%. So that's a swing of just 21%.

 

20 different in win total is NOT measly.

All I'm saying is for a 162 game season they should value it more. For the longest time only 4 teams made the playoffs total. So you had to win your division and that's it. You had to be the best to get in. When they rearrange the division and included 1 wild card team I was fine with that as you still needed to win your division or having the best record without leading your own division. But now they are taking it too far. It

If they want more playoff team then maybe shorten the season make all series 7 games.

[notin]

Then why not have ALL teams make the playoffs then? If the Diamondbacks happens to win it all you can't tell me that they were the best team in MLB this year.

 

This is not new. 2006 Cardinals…

[Bellhorn04]

This is not new. 2006 Cardinals…

 

Once they went from 2 divisions to 3 in each league, a champ like the 2006 Cardinals was inevitable.

[notin]

Once they went from 2 divisions to 3 in each league, a champ like the 2006 Cardinals was inevitable.

 

 

A ridiculous six teams with better records than the Cardinals missed the postseason that year. That’s 20% of the league.

 

And will MLB ever do anything about that horribly unfair scenario? Of course not. They’re too busy giving up ghost runners and three batter minimums…

[Bellhorn04]

A ridiculous six teams with better records than the Cardinals missed the postseason that year. That’s 20% of the league.

 

And will MLB ever do anything about that horribly unfair scenario? Of course not. They’re too busy giving up ghost runners and three batter minimums…

 

The Manfred agenda is maximizing butts in seats, eyeballs on screens, and easy access to betting.

[jad]

The Manfred agenda is maximizing butts in seats, eyeballs on screens, and easy access to betting.

 

But that SHOULD be his agenda, no? Surely a commissioner/CEO should not have be saying: "My intent is to keep our traditions alive: no DH, no pitch-clock, no free-agency, interminable extra-inning games, no non-whites ... and if that loses money, so be it."

[notin]

The Manfred agenda is maximizing butts in seats, eyeballs on screens, and easy access to betting.

 

I do think rewarding fans of better teams and keeping them interested in (what should be considered) a successful season has value. It is truly disheartening to watch your team have a good year, but miss out on the postseason for reasons solely related to geography…

[notin]

But that SHOULD be his agenda, no? Surely a commissioner/CEO should not have be saying: "My intent is to keep our traditions alive: no DH, no pitch-clock, no free-agency, interminable extra-inning games, no non-whites ... and if that loses money, so be it."

 

I don’t think revamping the postseason structure to include the best teams has to include bringing back the color barrier. I don’t even see the connection…

[moonslav59]

Of course, it seems fair to allow only the best record teams into any playoff structure, but with unbalanced schedules and division formats, we cannot really be sure a better record is a better team, unless they are many games ahead.

 

Fans want to see their team in the playoffs, and fans from an inferior team that made the playoffs from a crappy division, probably don't care much the kept a better team out. Either way, more teams means more money, and we know that's what it is all about. That's what it's always been about. The randomness of baseball makes it more likely underdog teams can win any given series, and the smaller the series, the better chance they have. When inferior teams win, it does cheapen the meaning of the 162 game season and the efforts put out bu the better teams, but money will always trump fairness, and if the fans enjoy it more, there will be no stopping it.

 

There are ways to level the playing field, but traditionalists are already pissed at many of the recent changes to the game, including the DH (not so recent, except for the NL expansion,) no shifts, pitch clocks...

 

A totally balanced schedule, or getting closer to one would help keep weaker teams out, if you also do away with the 3 division structure and the rule that all division winners get a playoff slot. I know many fans already hate interleague play, but the unbalanced schedules and divisions are the major cause for teams like the 2006 Cardinals even getting a shot at winning it all. Some might argue the 2006 Cardinals give hope to all decent but undeserving teams and fans, but if the idea is to be as fair as possible while giving the fans what they want, and the owners more money they want, then major changes might be needed.

 

Here is one plan that could be used:

 

1. Make 3 regional divisions of 10 teams. (If MLB ever expands to 32 teams, it could be 4 divisions of 8 teams.) It would be highly unlikely a division winner doesn't have a top 16 record. There is no AL and NL.

 

2. 16 teams make the playoffs: 3 division winners + 13 WC teams. They are seeded by record, not by division winner status.

 

3. All playoff rounds are 7 games, which would help minimize the "luck factor." This would also increase the amount of playoff games and create more excitement for fans and more money for the owners and players who make the playoffs.

 

The schedule would be the bitch. Everyone playing the exact same amount of games vs everyone else is impossible, unless they change the amount of games in a season. (162 games/ 29 other teams does not create a whole number. It's 5.59.) Some sort of minimal unbalanced structure would have to be designed. 5 games vs 12 teams and 6 games vs 17 teams. Some obvious points of contention would arise, such as the taking away of so many interdivisional rivalry games during a season, and how much attendance, viewership and fan excitement would be reduced, during the season. How are the 5 games vs 6 games determined? (Previous season records? Rotating teams, so over a certain amount of seasons, it becomes more "leveled?")

 

Maybe you always play 6 games vs your 9 other division foes and then 5 vs 12 other division foes and 6 vs 8 others, but still that makes for just one home series of 3 games vs the Yanks for Sox fans.

 

Another schedule idea would be to move away from as balanced a schedule as can be made but still a more balanced schedule than we have, now:

 

8 games vs 9 division foes (72 games) + 4 games vs one other division and 5 games vs the other division (90 games.)

10 games vs 9 division foes (90 games) + 3 games vs 8 other teams and 4 games vs 12 other teams (72 games)

 

Or, you just shorten the season, since the playoffs will be expanded.

 

Going to 16 teams without changing the 3 division and 2 different league set-up seems like it will further mess up the fairness while cheapening the value of the 162 game season. I guess with 8 teams making the playoffs in each league, it would make it almost impossible for a division winner to NOT have a top 8 record, so there would likely never be a 2006 Cardinals team, again, but it would still remain unfair (but less so) for teams in much better divisions.

 

If we applied the 16 game playoff structure to 2023, the Mariners and Yankees would have made the playoffs. The Sox and Guardians would have stayed in the race longer and missed by 4 games. If you seeded by record only, it would have been 7 game series between these teams:

 

1. BAL vs 8. NYY

4. TEX vs 5. TOR

 

2. TBR vs 7. SEA

3. HOU vs 6. MIN

 

Another thing that could be done to add more value to the regular season, would be to re-seed the bracket after every round, by regular season record, so if a low-seeded team wins round one, they'd face the best remaining team in round two.

[dgalehouse]

I have mixed feelings about the rules changes. Speeding up play is good. I despise the ghost runner . And stolen bases have become a little too easy. Three wild cards is too many.

[notin]

I have mixed feelings about the rules changes. Speeding up play is good. I despise the ghost runner . And stolen bases have become a little too easy. Three wild cards is too many.

 

I think I’d like the ghost runner better if it didn’t come into play right away. If the game goes 11 or (ideally) 12 innings, then start the gimmicky stuff…

[dgalehouse]

I think I’d like the ghost runner better if it didn’t come into play right away. If the game goes 11 or (ideally) 12 innings, then start the gimmicky stuff…

 

Okay. That's a good compromise.

[moonslav59]

I think I’d like the ghost runner better if it didn’t come into play right away. If the game goes 11 or (ideally) 12 innings, then start the gimmicky stuff…

 

Sounds like a good idea. I'd start it in the 11th. In the 12th, put the man on 3rd.

[dgalehouse]

Putting the ghost runner on third might be counterproductive. Makes it too likely that both teams score.

[moonslav59]

Putting the ghost runner on third might be counterproductive. Makes it too likely that both teams score.

 

Good point- maybe 2nd and third, then for the 12th.

[notin]

Good point- maybe 2nd and third, then for the 12th.

 

And then in the 13th, just give each team a run and move on to try the 14th, where the managers roll dice to see what bases are occupied…

Edited October 23, 2023 by notin

[moonslav59]

And then in the 13th, just give Rachel team a run and move on to try the 14th, where the managers roll dice to see what bases are occupied…

 

13th, load 'em up.

[redsoxrules]

Nate does it again. I'd like to see them win but I don't like Sherzer in this game 7

[moonslav59]

Nate does it again. I'd like to see them win but I don't like Sherzer in this game 7

 

Will the away team trend continue?