This is October: 2014 MLB Postseason Thread

[TheOldRoman]

First off, most of the times you don't get a team that was "by far" the best in the league. The top two records are generally close. And baseball is a lot about randomness and luck - who you play and when you play them. I've personally seen several crappy Royals teams (70-something wins) put on their big-boy pants and beat teams in pennant races (White Sox, Twins and Tigers several times each). So you can't even say "these teams played the same teams," because it does matter when you play them. If team A runs into the Astros at a time when they're on fire, while team B played all its games against the A's when they were struggling in September, that impacts the final records. So, since it is fluid, doesn't it seem logical that the best teams could, I don't know, prove who is best by playing each other?

[Phils Phan]

First off, most of the times you don't get a team that was "by far" the best in the league. The top two records are generally close. And baseball is a lot about randomness and luck - who you play and when you play them. I've personally seen several crappy Royals teams (70-something wins) put on their big-boy pants and beat teams in pennant races (White Sox, Twins and Tigers several times each). So you can't even say "these teams played the same teams," because it does matter when you play them. If team A runs into the Astros at a time when they're on fire, while team B played all its games against the A's when they were struggling in September, that impacts the final records. So, since it is fluid, doesn't it seem logical that the best teams could, I don't know, prove who is best by playing each other?

But you just stated how random a single series can be, so why should it decide who's season ends?

[TheOldRoman]

There's positives to both ways. It's just silly to automatically consider the team that does finish the run in October the best team in baseball in that given year.

That's fine because it's ultimately meaningless. I've thought about that, too. And it doesn't make a bit of difference. Like opposing fans or media clowns declaring certain teams "worst champions ever," "worst team to make a Super Bowl," or even "best team to not win a championship" (hello, 2005 Illini). Sure, the Ravens of two years ago weren't good on defense and weren't really good on offense either, but it doesn't matter because they got a trophy out of it. The media's going to write regardless, and opposing fans are going to look for ways to say "it doesn't really count," and they're free to do so.

Playoffs might not determine who is the best team in the sport, but they do determine a champion. Sometimes you get a champion that definitively was the best team, such as the 2005 White Sox going wire-to-wire with the best record in the AL, and sometimes you get the 2006 Cardinals who snuck into the playoffs in a bad division and caught fire. But it ultimately doesn't matter who was greater and who was not deserving, because both won world championships.

[STL FANATIC]

Here we go: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/15/whos-for-a-269-game-world-series-anyone-anyone/

At minimum, you'd need a best of 23 series to get a statistically significant sample for determining the better team. And for a series with one team being 10% better than the other, you'd need a best of 269.

Playoffs are very prone to randomness and are a ton of fun. They decide our champions, they don't decide the best team. Whether that in any way bothers you is merely a matter of personal feelings.

There's positives to both ways. It's just silly to automatically consider the team that does finish the run in October the best team in baseball in that given year.

That's fine because it's ultimately meaningless. I've thought about that, too. And it doesn't make a bit of difference. Like opposing fans or media clowns declaring certain teams "worst champions ever" or "worst team to make a Super Bowl." Sure, the Ravens of two years ago weren't good on defense and weren't really good on offense either, but it doesn't matter because they got a trophy out of it. The media's going to write regardless, and opposing fans are going to look for ways to say "it doesn't really count," and they're free to do so.

Playoffs might not determine who is the best team in the sport, but they do determine a champion. Sometimes you get a champion that definitively was the best team, such as the 2005 White Sox going wire-to-wire with the best record in the AL, and sometimes you get the 2006 Cardinals who snuck into the playoffs in a bad division and caught fire. But it ultimately doesn't matter who was greater and who was not deserving, because both won world championships.

I agree with you, but in the context of sports being entertainment that we analyze from many angles, I'd say it matters. Doesn't change who gets the trophy, but it still matters. Some teams deserve a better legacy than they have. Some don't deserve as good of one. And it's all just for the sake of discussion.

[kewp80]

Would have been nice to see the best teams in baseball square off in the WS, like Angels/Tigers Vs. Dodgers/Cards , insted of this "who is hot now" cinderella crap

Stick to your boring old NBA then.

Don´t judge a poster on his name or avatar.

Was just messing with you, but since you brought it up: you only have 12 posts so there's not much else anyone here can judge you off of.

Anyways, I'm with Kramerica, I'm pretty tired of talking about it. You play the regular season to try and make it to the playoffs, same with every sport here in the USA. Once you make it to the playoffs it's like a whole new season. Seriously, did people here get so bent out of shape about the Kings winning the Stanley Cup when they were the 8th and 6th best team in the Western Conference? How about when the 7-9 Seahawks knocked out the Saints in the NFL playoffs? You could go to the NCAA with Fresno State in baseball and Villanova in basketball.

I'm just saying it has the potential to happen in any sport with a playoff structure at the end of the regular season. If you don't like it then follow soccer (outside of the USA that is )

[TheOldRoman]

First off, most of the times you don't get a team that was "by far" the best in the league. The top two records are generally close. And baseball is a lot about randomness and luck - who you play and when you play them. I've personally seen several crappy Royals teams (70-something wins) put on their big-boy pants and beat teams in pennant races (White Sox, Twins and Tigers several times each). So you can't even say "these teams played the same teams," because it does matter when you play them. If team A runs into the Astros at a time when they're on fire, while team B played all its games against the A's when they were struggling in September, that impacts the final records. So, since it is fluid, doesn't it seem logical that the best teams could, I don't know, prove who is best by playing each other?

But you just stated how random a single series can be, so why should it decide who's season ends?

I'm saying you can't argue that they played roughly the same schedule, so the records are the end-all, be-all. But to go with your point, why stop there? You hate the playing of a series to determine who is better, so why have a World Series? A World Series matchup could be just as random as other playoffs. Just declare the best record as the champion, and if there's a tie, vote on who's better. Why not?

[Phils Phan]

First off, most of the times you don't get a team that was "by far" the best in the league. The top two records are generally close. And baseball is a lot about randomness and luck - who you play and when you play them. I've personally seen several crappy Royals teams (70-something wins) put on their big-boy pants and beat teams in pennant races (White Sox, Twins and Tigers several times each). So you can't even say "these teams played the same teams," because it does matter when you play them. If team A runs into the Astros at a time when they're on fire, while team B played all its games against the A's when they were struggling in September, that impacts the final records. So, since it is fluid, doesn't it seem logical that the best teams could, I don't know, prove who is best by playing each other?

But you just stated how random a single series can be, so why should it decide who's season ends?

I'm saying you can't argue that they played roughly the same schedule, so the records are the end-all, be-all. But to go with your point, why stop there? You hate the playing of a series to determine who is better, so why have a World Series? A World Series matchup could be just as random as other playoffs. Just declare the best record as the champion, and if there's a tie, vote on who's better. Why not?

I wouldn't mind that tbh, besides playing a tie breaker if teams are tied at the end of the season instead.

[kewp80]

First off, most of the times you don't get a team that was "by far" the best in the league. The top two records are generally close. And baseball is a lot about randomness and luck - who you play and when you play them. I've personally seen several crappy Royals teams (70-something wins) put on their big-boy pants and beat teams in pennant races (White Sox, Twins and Tigers several times each). So you can't even say "these teams played the same teams," because it does matter when you play them. If team A runs into the Astros at a time when they're on fire, while team B played all its games against the A's when they were struggling in September, that impacts the final records. So, since it is fluid, doesn't it seem logical that the best teams could, I don't know, prove who is best by playing each other?

But you just stated how random a single series can be, so why should it decide who's season ends?

I'm saying you can't argue that they played roughly the same schedule, so the records are the end-all, be-all. But to go with your point, why stop there? You hate the playing of a series to determine who is better, so why have a World Series? A World Series matchup could be just as random as other playoffs. Just declare the best record as the champion, and if there's a tie, vote on who's better. Why not?

I wouldn't mind that tbh, besides playing a tie breaker if teams are tied at the end of the season instead.

Hell while we're at it forget the whole affiliated minor league system and bring in promotion and relegation. Arizona and Texas can move to AAA and we can bring up Pawtucket and Omaha

[TheOldRoman]

First off, most of the times you don't get a team that was "by far" the best in the league. The top two records are generally close. And baseball is a lot about randomness and luck - who you play and when you play them. I've personally seen several crappy Royals teams (70-something wins) put on their big-boy pants and beat teams in pennant races (White Sox, Twins and Tigers several times each). So you can't even say "these teams played the same teams," because it does matter when you play them. If team A runs into the Astros at a time when they're on fire, while team B played all its games against the A's when they were struggling in September, that impacts the final records. So, since it is fluid, doesn't it seem logical that the best teams could, I don't know, prove who is best by playing each other?

But you just stated how random a single series can be, so why should it decide who's season ends?

I'm saying you can't argue that they played roughly the same schedule, so the records are the end-all, be-all. But to go with your point, why stop there? You hate the playing of a series to determine who is better, so why have a World Series? A World Series matchup could be just as random as other playoffs. Just declare the best record as the champion, and if there's a tie, vote on who's better. Why not?

I wouldn't mind that tbh, besides playing a tie breaker if teams are tied at the end of the season instead.

You wouldn't mind calling off the entire postseason and World Series and declaring a team the champion just to cling to a rudimentary idea of the regular season record being the most important thing? Okay. There's literally no response I can think of to that line of thinking. You're free to feel that way.

[Phils Phan]

First off, most of the times you don't get a team that was "by far" the best in the league. The top two records are generally close. And baseball is a lot about randomness and luck - who you play and when you play them. I've personally seen several crappy Royals teams (70-something wins) put on their big-boy pants and beat teams in pennant races (White Sox, Twins and Tigers several times each). So you can't even say "these teams played the same teams," because it does matter when you play them. If team A runs into the Astros at a time when they're on fire, while team B played all its games against the A's when they were struggling in September, that impacts the final records. So, since it is fluid, doesn't it seem logical that the best teams could, I don't know, prove who is best by playing each other?

But you just stated how random a single series can be, so why should it decide who's season ends?

I'm saying you can't argue that they played roughly the same schedule, so the records are the end-all, be-all. But to go with your point, why stop there? You hate the playing of a series to determine who is better, so why have a World Series? A World Series matchup could be just as random as other playoffs. Just declare the best record as the champion, and if there's a tie, vote on who's better. Why not?

I wouldn't mind that tbh, besides playing a tie breaker if teams are tied at the end of the season instead.

You wouldn't mind calling off the entire postseason and World Series and declaring a team the champion just to cling to a rudimentary idea of the regular season record being the most important thing? Okay. There's literally no response I can think of to that line of thinking. You're free to feel that way.

I'd rather epic season long races involving multiple teams that truly determine who's the best instead of quick playoffs that create false drama inspite of the teams not being at the same level.

[kewp80]

Except for those times when say a team clinches the pennant with a month in the season.... and all drama is created in our minds. Don't try to kid yourself otherwise.

[monkeypower]

If the best teams are the best teams, they should win the playoffs. The Angels were the best team in the MLB and they played like they should have been eliminated. The playoffs are the playoffs, once it gets to the playoffs it's a whole nother thing.

I don't know why you'd eliminate the playoffs, no other sports complain about the top teams not winning. Heck the other sports like it when the underdog does well or wins the championship.

[Phils Phan]

Except for those times when say a team clinches the pennant with a month in the season.... and all drama is created in our minds. Don't try to kid yourself otherwise.

At least the real champion is crowned. And baseball can still be enjoyable when you're out of the race, just enjoy the game, and think about how someday you could be on top.

[TheOldRoman]

A real champion is crowned now via a tournament, just like in every other professional sports league I've ever heard of. You just choose not to believe it so.

[Bullsforever]

Would have been nice to see the best teams in baseball square off in the WS, like Angels/Tigers Vs. Dodgers/Cards , insted of this "who is hot now" cinderella crap

Stick to your boring old NBA then.

Don´t judge a poster on his name or avatar.

Was just messing with you, but since you brought it up: you only have 12 posts so there's not much else anyone here can judge you off of.

No prob, had to go with a NBA name, for some reason all the cool MLB names are taken here on the forum .

[OnWis97]

I always have felt as follows (and suspected many others did, but perhaps not):

• We have postseason because just playing out a regular season and crowning a "best record" team champion is boring and does not capture interest of most fans.
• While best record is not necessarily who's best (thanks to injuries, schedule balance and other forms of luck), it's a pretty solid indicator that a team did all they needed to do all year.
• But that team must "prove it" in a pressure-filled tournament.
• Just because a team wins the tournament does not mean they are the best team.
• But that's OK because being "World Series Champs" (or Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, etc.) is not inherently about that.

Does anyone remember that the 2004 Minnesota Timberwolves had the NBA's best record? At no time have I ever thought it unfair that they were not crowned champs. Why? For one, they had that by one win (I think). Two, a series of things can change one or two games for an NBA team (bad calls, injuries, playing a team during its hot streak). So they went through two rounds of the playoffs and lost in the conference finals to the Lakers. They had home court (which they blew in game 1) and were unable to come out on top. Essentially, they had the best record and were told to "prove it." And they could not. The Lakers were a better team. The Wolves proved (for one year and one year only) that they were among the best, but not "the" best.

Now I know it does not always work that way. I don't think anyone really believes the Royals are the AL's best team. And I am as much for making post season fairly exclusive as most anyone (though not the "one per league only" crowd. But after watching the performances of the Angels and the Tigers, does anyone really make a compelling case as the AL's best team? Both were asked to go out and take their great record for a spin and neither really rose to the occasion. So it's really a giant messy combination of things...luck, hot streaks, timing, etc. And it's what makes it fun. They Royals did what they needed to do to get in. And they have responded big time in the postseason.

It's fun to watch the best team just go through and win (1984 Tigers come to mind), but this is fun too. And it's hard for Tigers and Angels fans to really complain after their teams kinda laid eggs in the ALDS.

[Kramerica Industries]

But I don't think that's a perfect, apples-to-apples comparison because MLB inherently places more weight on their regular season than the NHL, and certainly the NBA does. I mean, I do enjoy basketball, but outside of the marquee of the marquee games, it's hard for me to get excited to watch because the league is more top-heavy and the emphasis is on the postseason, not the regular season. (THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM)

MLB plays every day for six months. There are more natural ebbs and flows in baseball than in those other sports. It has the largest regular season sampling size. And a team like Anaheim, who won 98 games in the best division in baseball and posted the second best run differential to go along with it, well, turns out they did the dreaded "peaked too early" thing. In the short-term period following Garrett Richards' injury, they rolled off an 18-5 stretch, or thereabouts. Of course, they did that in the middle of September, and not the middle of October. Silly people.

If I've said this once, I've said it a thousand times - it can't be considered a good thing to have a playoff format in a sport where, since 2000, there have been more teams to win the World Series sitting between 80-89 wins (2, three if we get a SF-KC World Series) than teams who won 100+ (1) (and, of course, nobody ever wins 100+ games anymore, anyway). I mean, maybe others can see it, and if they can, then, sure, go ahead .I can't. And I'm too perplexed by it to be able to be convinced otherwise.

[Bullsforever]

"We have postseason because just playing out a regular season and crowning a "best record" team champion is boring and does not capture interest of most fans."

.

.

But why is that way in euro soccer and not in US sports ?

Looks like there are people watching and plenty of celebration of the various championships.

[crashcarson15]

Well if the "best" teams don't win, how can they be considered the best teams? Being the best should always be measured beyond just the regular season.

It's a discussion for another day but reducing a team's performance over 165 games to a three-game stretch is such a horrible, horrible idea.

I'd have loved to live in the day where the AL's best team and NL's best team played for the title.

Well I can agree with you to a certain point when it comes to baseball. Especially since the season is so long. But I still feel that if you are an elite team, you can beat any team in a 3, 5, or 7 game series.

Let's operate in a hypothetical here...

Jack and Sam go to the same high school, take generally similar classes but have differences here and there.

Jack obtains a GPA of 3.95 throughout his time at school — not the greatest possible but almost there. He stands a good chance of being valedictorian of the class — he is "elite." Sam obtains a GPA of 3.60 — it's better than average and probably puts you in the top-third of the class but there's a significant difference.

They both take the ACT. Jack gets a 30 — it's a really good score but maybe he got a poor night of sleep before and didn't quite do as well as he could have. Sam knocks it out of the park and gets a 32. The ACT is now a thing you can only take once and they're both done.

Are we to say that means Jack is no longer an "elite" student — or that Sam is somehow better? The ratios are similar (let's say 14 courses a year for 56 vs. one standardized test — a very similar ratio to 162:3.)

I dunno. At most, I'd prefer to see the leagues split into two divisions with just the division winners qualifying for the playoffs. As much fun as the Royals have been, I think it'd have been really cool to see the elite there. When you know you're not going to sit there and think "hmm, the Royals might win but they aren't the best team in baseball."

I still think it's silly to determine the best team in a sport that plays a 162-game season by whoever wins a sprint to 11 (or 12) wins.

The NBA or NHL? It makes more sense. They play 82 and you've got to be the first to win 16. I'd imagine the average champion plays between 20-25 games in the playoffs in those respective leagues. That's a fair sample size. Baseball really... isn't.

[kewp80]

"We have postseason because just playing out a regular season and crowning a "best record" team champion is boring and does not capture interest of most fans."

.

.

But why is that way in euro soccer and not in US sports ?

Looks like there are people watching and plenty of celebration of the various championships.

Different circumstances there with promotion/relegation. Plus I've always kinda of seen the Champions League as sort of the playoffs. Even though you have a different roster between the two seasons.