The Swamp

MaxWebster wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 11:56 am(also what about in ~1973? when the Mets had something like 82 or 83 wins and almost won the WS - every generation hand-wrings and I get it to an extent)

They went 82-79, knocked off the 99-win Reds in the 5-game NLCS, and took at 3-2 lead over the A's in the Series before losing the last two.

(Ken Holtzman was basically the Babe Ruth of the early 1970s: 2.30 career post-season ERA and 1.126 career post-season OPS.)

And then there's the 2006 Cards, who won 83 games and did win the World Series. That one bothers me a little less because that was basically the same team that won 100 games each of the two prior years.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 12:27 pm

MaxWebster wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 11:56 am(also what about in ~1973? when the Mets had something like 82 or 83 wins and almost won the WS - every generation hand-wrings and I get it to an extent)

They went 82-79, knocked off the 99-win Reds in the 5-game NLCS, and took at 3-2 lead over the A's in the Series before losing the last two.

(Ken Holtzman was basically the Babe Ruth of the early 1970s: 2.30 career post-season ERA and 1.126 career post-season OPS.)

And then there's the 2006 Cards, who won 83 games and did win the World Series. That one bothers me a little less because that was basically the same team that won 100 games each of the two prior years.

But those teams ('73 Mets, '06 Cards) won their respective divisions.

fair and legit point about winning the division/s.

of course the divisions were shit, which is the easy counter-argument, and arbitrarily selected/sorted anyways.


eh i was thinking about it over lunch and in no way meant for my stupid rambling post to come off as dismissive in any way! i probably have thought about this kind of thing way too much over my life as well and maybe am trying to convince myself more than anything that aside from *no playoffs at all* there is no "fair." Playoffs aren't meant to find the best team, it's a tournament for viewers/excitement/money etc.

I mean think about it - the World Series originally (through 1967) *was* just the "table winners" - 2 first place teams that each played in 2 completely different leagues that just happened to play the same sport. I wonder what the outcry was when they first created divisions and a playoff (not nearly as much media so it was probably relegated to a column in each city paper and then everyone moved on)

MaxWebster wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 12:49 pm fair and legit point about winning the division/s.

of course the divisions were shit, which is the easy counter-argument, and arbitrarily selected/sorted anyways.


eh i was thinking about it over lunch and in no way meant for my stupid rambling post to come off as dismissive in any way! i probably have thought about this kind of thing way too much over my life as well and maybe am trying to convince myself more than anything that aside from *no playoffs at all* there is no "fair." Playoffs aren't meant to find the best team, it's a tournament for viewers/excitement/money etc.

I mean think about it - the World Series originally (through 1967) *was* just the "table winners" - 2 first place teams that each played in 2 completely different leagues that just happened to play the same sport. I wonder what the outcry was when they first created divisions and a playoff (not nearly as much media so it was probably relegated to a column in each city paper and then everyone moved on)

Well, if you think about it, the professional sports leagues all went west with the advent of both the infrastructure buildout of airports for jet travel and the interstate highway system. So, in MLB, you soon had two leagues from east to west, so it made a lot of sense to break the leagues out into divisions, so why wouldn't the leagues have their own championship series before the world series. ...Whereas now it's just an expansion of wild card teams.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:03 pmWhereas now it's just an expansion of wild card teams.

I think this is the part that bothers me the most. The 73 Mets and 06 Cards did what they needed in order to win the competitions they were in during the regular season. They finished first, so it offends me less when that team succeeds in the playoffs.

Even during the one-Wild Card era, if I recall correctly, the team that won the wild card always had a better record than at least one division winner. So the wild card seemed to me to have a legitimate competitive justification.

But now they've just added wild card teams to enable them to have more playoffs. All three NL wild cards were worse than all three NL division winners, and AZ and PHI were way worse than LA and ATL. It just doesn't sit right.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:50 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:03 pmWhereas now it's just an expansion of wild card teams.

I think this is the part that bothers me the most. The 73 Mets and 06 Cards did what they needed in order to win the competitions they were in during the regular season. They finished first, so it offends me less when that team succeeds in the playoffs.

Even during the one-Wild Card era, if I recall correctly, the team that won the wild card always had a better record than at least one division winner. So the wild card seemed to me to have a legitimate competitive justification.

But now they've just added wild card teams to enable them to have more playoffs. All three NL wild cards were worse than all three NL division winners, and AZ and PHI were way worse than LA and ATL. It just doesn't sit right.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but AZ and MIA were way worse than LA and ATL. Philly was a 90 win team (same # of wins as HOU and TEX).

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:15 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:50 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:03 pmWhereas now it's just an expansion of wild card teams.

I think this is the part that bothers me the most. The 73 Mets and 06 Cards did what they needed in order to win the competitions they were in during the regular season. They finished first, so it offends me less when that team succeeds in the playoffs.

Even during the one-Wild Card era, if I recall correctly, the team that won the wild card always had a better record than at least one division winner. So the wild card seemed to me to have a legitimate competitive justification.

But now they've just added wild card teams to enable them to have more playoffs. All three NL wild cards were worse than all three NL division winners, and AZ and PHI were way worse than LA and ATL. It just doesn't sit right.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but AZ and MIA were way worse than LA and ATL. Philly was a 90 win team (same # of wins as HOU and TEX).

My point about PHI was that they finished 14 games behind ATL and then beat ATL in a roll-the-dice series. Yes, MIA was worse than that, but they did the right thing and lost.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:21 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:15 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:50 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 1:03 pmWhereas now it's just an expansion of wild card teams.

I think this is the part that bothers me the most. The 73 Mets and 06 Cards did what they needed in order to win the competitions they were in during the regular season. They finished first, so it offends me less when that team succeeds in the playoffs.

Even during the one-Wild Card era, if I recall correctly, the team that won the wild card always had a better record than at least one division winner. So the wild card seemed to me to have a legitimate competitive justification.

But now they've just added wild card teams to enable them to have more playoffs. All three NL wild cards were worse than all three NL division winners, and AZ and PHI were way worse than LA and ATL. It just doesn't sit right.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but AZ and MIA were way worse than LA and ATL. Philly was a 90 win team (same # of wins as HOU and TEX).

My point about PHI was that they finished 14 games behind ATL and then beat ATL in a roll-the-dice series. Yes, MIA was worse than that, but they did the right thing and lost.

I'm really not sure what else you would've needed to handicap the Phillies in that series. They had to play an extra round and had to play the series as a road team. Those seem to me like two significant potential stumbling blocks. Maybe the idea that Delaware floated where the days off are compressed to force them to play more of their starting rotation, but ATL had the chance, and they missed. Just as the Phillies had the chance in the NLCS and missed.

The fact that the playoffs in baseball is always going to be a short series by its nature makes it more susceptible to upsets. A seven game series is only 4.3% of the length of an MLB season, while a seven gamer in NHL and NBA is 8.5%. Worse teams win more often in baseball just as a general rule in a six-month season, it's not too out of the ordinary for it to happen when you're only playing a max of seven games. Also, the fact that the #6 seed in the NL made the World Series could just be statistical noise. Maybe we should wait a couple more playoffs before we decide that starting immediately isn't enough of a "penalty".

I'm not sure what the fix for this is, but it just seems like the argument whittles down to "either play more games in the playoffs," "play less games in the regular season," or "both."

Would having an 82/84 game season (like the NBA or NHL) and 4 rounds of best of 7 playoffs be the better method?

Because as it stands now, a 162 game season with 3 rounds of playoffs (1 best of 5, 2 best of 7) seems too volatile.

How about everybody knows the deal going in - that the regular season is a qualfying round and it almost literally does not matter how many games you win beyond a certain number - and stfu

BOOM

i mean, yes, ideally. i feel like i read somewhere recently that made the claim where if baseball were invented right now from scratch the season would probably match the other leagues and be only 80-90 games.

But absolutely 0% chance they'd ever do anything less than 154 games (and i'd be shocked if they did that) - not even to mention the financial impact, it would destroy every kind of record comparison ever. At least a 154 game season had precedent up until ~1960 i think.


no i think we're all correct in our own ways - it's just preference. I think my soft-stance right now is that I like the first wild card round - it *should* be a chaotic toss-up if you just got in and i like the all-home-game thing (even if it doesn't seem to work for the home team as often as you'd expect) - I don't like best-of-5 - make everything after WC best of 7.

of course that extends it all even more blahblah yeah who knows. LET CHAOS REIGN


(MaxW's plan: 154 game season, realign into 2 leagues each with 2 divisions, top 2 in each division make the playoffs. 8 in total, all series are best of 7 with a twist: Division champ hosts their division runner up and gets some massive home-field advantage - like team 2 gets first 2 games at home then the rest of the series is at the top seed. LCSs after that are normal.)

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:39 pm I'm not sure what the fix for this is, but it just seems like the argument whittles down to "either play more games in the playoffs," "play less games in the regular season," or "both."

Would having an 82/84 game season (like the NBA or NHL) and 4 rounds of best of 7 playoffs be the better method?

Because as it stands now, a 162 game season with 3 rounds of playoffs (1 best of 5, 2 best of 7) seems too volatile.

Well, if we're all putting our plans out there:

1. Expand two more teams, one in each league for two leagues of 16 each.
1a. Offer Milwaukee and Houston to go back to their original leagues but only do it if both agree.

2. Now. No divisions. Two "tables" of 16 teams each.

3. Schedule is 10 games vs. the other 15 members of your league (5 home, 5 away). 3 games vs. your interleague rival, alternating home series every year. Three other interleague series for three games each, making sure that you play 6 home and 6 away for interleague. Interleague series are the week before and the week after Memorial Day.

4. Last series of the year you play against one of your longtime rivals. Giants vs Dodgers, Yankee vs Red Sox, Cards vs Cubs. Just expanding the hate.

5. Playoffs. Top 6 of the table make the playoffs in each league, top 2 get byes. Same length as the current system, but no scheduled days off between potential WC Day 3 and DS Day 1 to force the Wild Card teams to either finish quick or risk having to dip into the rotation more. Also, no first day off in the DS (like Delaware said) so as to give an advantage to the higher seed teams to stack their rotation while the low seed team has to scramble.

6. Home Field in the WS, either better record or alternate leagues like back in the day. Whatever.

MaxWebster wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:47 pm i mean, yes, ideally. i feel like i read somewhere recently that made the claim where if baseball were invented right now from scratch the season would probably match the other leagues and be only 80-90 games.

But absolutely 0% chance they'd ever do anything less than 154 games (and i'd be shocked if they did that) - not even to mention the financial impact, it would destroy every kind of record comparison ever. At least a 154 game season had precedent up until ~1960 i think.


no i think we're all correct in our own ways - it's just preference. I think my soft-stance right now is that I like the first wild card round - it *should* be a chaotic toss-up if you just got in and i like the all-home-game thing (even if it doesn't seem to work for the home team as often as you'd expect) - I don't like best-of-5 - make everything after WC best of 7.

of course that extends it all even more blahblah yeah who knows. LET CHAOS REIGN


(MaxW's plan: 154 game season, realign into 2 leagues each with 2 divisions, top 2 in each division make the playoffs. 8 in total, all series are best of 7 with a twist: Division champ hosts their division runner up and gets some massive home-field advantage - like team 2 gets first 2 games at home then the rest of the series is at the top seed. LCSs after that are normal.)

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 2:39 pm I'm not sure what the fix for this is, but it just seems like the argument whittles down to "either play more games in the playoffs," "play less games in the regular season," or "both."

Would having an 82/84 game season (like the NBA or NHL) and 4 rounds of best of 7 playoffs be the better method?

Because as it stands now, a 162 game season with 3 rounds of playoffs (1 best of 5, 2 best of 7) seems too volatile.

Stating the obvious, I guess, but mlb will never roll back the number of games in the regular season or playoffs because, Mo’ games = Mo’ money.

Speaking of 1973 ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2 ... reds-mets/

TV wants the series' to alternate days so more exposure. Thus we have travel days. Plus you could have a coast-to-coast series and really need a travel day. But even without travel, no way they are doing 4 games a day for 5 days straight. Especially if one of those days is Sunday.

Great game, great singular moments and all that, but I’m worried there won’t be any discussion about what a strong but super weird HR that was.

I couldn’t believe it made it out.

A_B wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 6:30 am I couldn’t believe it made it out.

Just finished watching that now. How the hell did he connect on that so cleanly? That’s absolutely the pitch you throw in that spot, in the exact spot where you need it. And yet he just muscled it out.

i for one am even more ready for the automated strike zone.

MaxWebster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 7:16 am i for one am even more ready for the automated strike zone.

That one yesterday, for the 3-7th inning or so when I was watching more closely, seemed very inconsistent.

the "strike" call to Moreno in the 9th is still fking bothering me - instead of a guy on 1st with nobody out and tying run at the plate you get 1 out, nobody on. it's absolutely massive.

the call was inexcusable but it also canceled out the ball call on pitch that was the strike two pitches before

The long-standing and obvious issue is that before, without the box showing you exactly where the strike zone is, you could still have an honest question about these calls.

It's a lot like where tennis is going. Some of the majors aren't even bothering with line judges anymore. Players can still challenge, and once in a 100 (1000?) something gets overturned... But it's mostly a stalling tactic at this point.

absolutely fair. host of arguments to be made tho... makeup calls are possibly worse than just letting it go, etc... approaches for pitchers and hitters dramatically change based on counts, etc.

I'm 100% sure there will be unintended consequences of an automated strike zone but also we have the technology, it's ready and being used in AAA (lower levels? idk...), and i'd much rather have a cut and dried answer to something that happens almost 300x per game.

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2023 7:35 am the call was inexcusable but it also canceled out the ball call on pitch that was the strike two pitches before

The problem isn't umpires, it's the selection of which umpires.

I must break you.

man i get that it can't be easy broadcasting a national game when it's 10-0 early, so you gotta talk about something - I like Joe Davis (we watch an inordinate amount of Dodgers games in this house...) and definitely felt for him last night. The worst and yet most predictable moment: being Halloween and seeing all the fans dressed up then asking John Smoltz something like "so what was your favourite costume to dress up as as a kid?"

-400 for Smoltz-as-kid saying "ah I never really cared much for Halloween..."

of course you didn't, John.

I'm sure he was such a popular kid in class. is it that hard to even fake having a little fun? jeez.

There's no way Moreno should be bunting, even if it was a surprise

Nate Evoldi, World Series Champion, again.

He’s just Carl Pavano in disguise with like +5 mph.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 11:09 pm He’s just Carl Pavano in disguise with like +5 mph.

Honestly, that's not much of a disguise

Healthier Corey Seager is already most of the way to the Hall of Fame.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 11:09 pm He’s just Carl Pavano in disguise with like +5 mph.

Dan Duquette managed to get Pedro Martinez for Pavano. The Sox must have gotten so much more for Evoldi, right.

EdRomero wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:02 am

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2023 11:09 pm He’s just Carl Pavano in disguise with like +5 mph.

Dan Duquette managed to get Pedro Martinez for Pavano. The Sox must have gotten so much more for Evoldi, right.

Ah...the Montreal Expos and their duplicitous ownership that ordered yet another fire sale before arbitration hearings. Giving away Pedro for jack shit wasn't the only deal Brochu forced the FO to make immediately after the season. A few years earlier they were required to jettison Wetteland, Ken Hill, Marquis Grissom and oh, some cat named Larry Walker, too - in a fashion that guaranteed they'd get far less than their value in return.

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 9:04 amGiving away Pedro for jack shit wasn't the only deal Brochu forced the FO to make immediately after the season.

To for some reason be fair to Montreal wiping out a potential dynasty, the package for Martinez wasn't awful (like the Betts package), its just you can't get fair value for 26 year old Pedro Martinez.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 10:20 am

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 9:04 amGiving away Pedro for jack shit wasn't the only deal Brochu forced the FO to make immediately after the season.

To for some reason be fair to Montreal wiping out a potential dynasty, the package for Martinez wasn't awful (like the Betts package), its just you can't get fair value for 26 year old Pedro Martinez.

When FA arrived, how MLB didn't realize it needed both a salary cap and floor for the overall health of the sport is just beyond me. That was when the sport hired its commissioner to navigate it in its best interests, not necessarily the owners' immediate, short-term interests as it is now.

Now I kinda want to see what year all those former Expos' salaries collectively peaked versus the top payrolls in the league.

Just a coincidence, but the ‘86 Red Sox, ‘93 Phillies, ‘02 Giants, and ‘11 Rangers all lost tragically in a World Series Game 6, then win it all in their next World Series appearance.

Update: I've mentioned the Japanese league tries to ensure that the best teams get in, and rustiness doesn't seem to be a problem. In fact, they have even more rest days to account for ties and replays. In the final, the Hanshin Tigers beat the Orix Buffaloes in 7 games. The battle of Osaka.

In Korea, 5 plays 4, winner plays 3, winner plays 2, winner plays 1. 2 was off 2 weeks and just knocked off 4. The Korean Series starts on Tuesday. The pennant winners LG Twins last played on Oct 14. Casey Kelly! (former Red Sox first rounder) will start Game 1 on something like 28 days rest!

degenerasian wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2023 1:21 pm Update: I've mentioned the Japanese league tries to ensure that the best teams get in, and rustiness doesn't seem to be a problem. In fact, they have even more rest days to account for ties and replays. In the final, the Hanshin Tigers beat the Orix Buffaloes in 7 games. The battle of Osaka.

In Korea, 5 plays 4, winner plays 3, winner plays 2, winner plays 1. 2 was off 2 weeks and just knocked off 4. The Korean Series starts on Tuesday. The pennant winners LG Twins last played on Oct 14. Casey Kelly! (former Red Sox first rounder) will start Game 1 on something like 28 days rest!

So LG lost the first game (making 4 errors) but then won the next 4 to win the series.