This is October: 2014 MLB Postseason Thread

[Lights Out]

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.

But a tie-breaker involves *gasp* randomness! We can't have any of that... sports need to be as predictable and boring as possible, and we can never be wrong about who the "best" team really is!

[Lights Out]

"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.

Because other countries' tastes differ from ours? We generally like to see our champions crowned on the field through a playoff system (except, oddly, for when college football rolls around, at which point most people prefer a boring power-conference hegemony and are openly hostile towards anyone outside the cartel that wants a fair chance - but that's neither here nor there). Other countries prefer different methods of determining a champion.

For me, at least, the complete lack of parity coupled with the lack of a playoff system (which essentially means that the championship rotates between the 2-5 richest teams) is a big reason why I've never been able to get into international soccer. What's the point when you already know who's going to win? And, as someone who feels that the bowl system is a halfassed and anticlimactic way to end a season, determining a champion based only on regular-season records is even worse.

[AnythingChicago]

This probably belongs in the Pointless Realignment Outpost thread, but since it's only a suggestion for restructuring the postseason format and it's a topic of discussion at the moment I'll give it a shot:

1. Adopt an NFL-style postseason structure. Yes, this would allow one more team into the playoffs each year, but would pay dividends for the teams that finish first and second in their respective leagues.

2. All four series (Wild Card Series "ALWS and NLWS", ALDS and NLDS, ALCS and NLCS, and World Series) would be played in a best-of-seven, 2-3-2 format. This would lengthen the season by around two weeks and likely force the MLB to begin its season in latish March, but would force non #1 or #2 seeded teams to win 16 out of a possible 28 games games to win the World Series while the #1 and #2 seeded teams would only have to win 12 out of a possible 21.

3. A hypothetical playoff scenario had this format been enforced this season:

ALWS

#3 Detroit Tigers def. #6 Seattle Mariners in 7

#4 Kansas City Royals def. #5 Oakland Athletics in 5

NLWS

#3 St. Louis Cardinals def. #6 Milwaukee Brewers in 5

#5 San Francisco Giants def. #4 Pittsburgh Pirates in 5

ALDS

#1 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim def. #4 Kansas City Royals in 7 (due to depleted pitching, presumably)

#2 Baltimore Orioles def. #3 Detroit Tigers in 5

NLDS

#5 San Francisco Giants def. #1 Washington Nationals in 6 (just 'cause Nats can't hit)

#3 St. Louis Cardinals def. #2 Los Angeles Dodgers in 6 (just 'cause Cards are gonna Card, but Dodgers would still have an advantage and would beat most other teams in this scenario)

ALCS

#1 Los Angeles Angels of Anahiem over #2 Baltimore Orioles in 5

NLCS

#5 San Francisco Giants over #3 St. Louis Cardinals in 6

World Series

#1 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim over #5 San Francisco Giants in 7

---------

I dunno. In some cases, upsets will still be upsets, but in others I think the teams with byes could deeply benefit. I mean, can you imagine every starter in the Dodgers or Nationals or even the Angels rotation pitching on the kind of rest Jeremy Guthrie was pitching on last night, plus a well rested bullpen, going up against a team coming right off a best-of-seven series? It'd be a whole different ballgame.

[Sport]

In the NBA and NHL teams manage the regular season so they can be best set up for the postseason and I don't think that exists in baseball. In Baseball teams are just trying to make the field and with fewer spots it's harder to give games away. Also winning your division is still a big deal in baseball, but nobody really cares that much in hockey or basketball.

Regarding managing the regular season: in the NHL and NBA it's like playing a team out of the race on the second night of a back-to-back? Won 7 out of 9? Maybe coast through this one. (I don't think players loaf as much as coaches fiddle with their lineups to reduce the number of intense minutes their best players have to play).

Every team knows pretty much what they'll need to make the playoffs at the beginning of the season so at the end of the season there's teams with better records who might not necessarily be the best team. Does anyone think Colorado was truly the best team in the Central division last year? I think the Western Conference finals was a matchup of the two best teams in the conference. At least two out of three.

Also Hockey's tournament is long and grueling enough that any team who wins the cup feels like a deserving champion even if their regular season wasn't stellar (2012 Kings come to mind).

Baseball's tournament is such a crapshoot it's almost like every team has the same 1 in 8 chance regardless of record so you might as well go for the best record in the regular season.

[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.

Because other countries' tastes differ from ours? We generally like to see our champions crowned on the field through a playoff system (except, oddly, for when college football rolls around, at which point most people prefer a boring power-conference hegemony and are openly hostile towards anyone outside the cartel that wants a fair chance - but that's neither here nor there). Other countries prefer different methods of determining a champion.

For me, at least, the complete lack of parity coupled with the lack of a playoff system (which essentially means that the championship rotates between the 2-5 richest teams) is a big reason why I've never been able to get into international soccer. What's the point when you already know who's going to win? And, as someone who feels that the bowl system is a halfassed and anticlimactic way to end a season, determining a champion based only on regular-season records is even worse.

Plus, I forgot to mention in my earlier post that the lower leagues (at least in England that I know of) such as League Championship, 1, and 2, they have a playoff to decide the 2nd and 3rd teams who get promoted. Or is it just the 3rd team? I can't remember right now.

[Bullsforever]

I think MLB reg. season should be shorter, and then just play 4 rounds of best of 7, like the NHL and NBA does.

[Phils Phan]

I think MLB reg. season should be shorter, and then just play 4 rounds of best of 7, like the NHL and NBA does.

Um.................

No.

Also I predict this series will be decided in Baltimore.

[OnWis97]

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.

The problem is that once you do that, you have already opened the gates. The 1987 Twins won 85 games, fewer than four teams in the AL East that year (playing a schedule that was nearly balanced) The Twins were outscored by their opponents in the regular season.

So really, once you open it up to any playoffs at all, you are kinda stuck with the possibility that a sub-90-win team, or a team that is not in the top, say, three, in the league is just a short series or two away from winning it all. Some years that West and East would be nicely balanced and you'd have the top two teams getting to the LCS. Or two of the top 3. And some years, the winner of the weaker division would be just "lucky".

It's either go to pre-1969 or allow some potential injustice. Unless...

...I guess there is one way around it; just eliminate divisions and take the top two teams for a playoff. That still would be open to criticism if those teams had 101 and 93 wins, respectively. But at least it would not involve the 5th best team. I think such a setup would give the regular season a weird feel. The "regular season" title would be meaningless even compared to winning a division at 83 games today.

As for the NHL/NBA comparison, I'd still argue that the sample size is not that much more fair, particularly if a top seed goes out in round 1. Then it's the best team playing 4 to 7 games. This happens constantly in the NHL with the "hot goalie" factor. Less in the NBA, but did happen at least once (I remember Mutombo in that ugly Nuggets uniform after they beat a 1-seed) in the best-of-five era. These postseason series exist because maybe the 8-seed will beat the 1-seed. 82 games is roughly half of 162 and plenty long to establish who is deserving of a chance at the title and I certainly would listen to the argument that a team hovering around .500 does not.

[kewp80]

Round robin playoffs!

[cmm]

2. All four series (Wild Card Series "ALWS and NLWS", ALDS and NLDS, ALCS and NLCS, and World Series) would be played in a best-of-seven, 2-3-2 format. This would lengthen the season by around two weeks and likely force the MLB to begin its season in latish March, but would force non #1 or #2 seeded teams to win 16 out of a possible 28 games games to win the World Series while the #1 and #2 seeded teams would only have to win 12 out of a possible 21.

You can't have the division winners sitting around for over a week waiting for the Wild Card Series to end and then expect them to be ready for the Division Series to start.

[Phils Phan]

How surreal is it that this afternoon game at Kauffman Stadium is for THE PENNANT?

[dbadefense1990]

Also Hockey's tournament is long and grueling enough that any team who wins the cup feels like a deserving champion even if their regular season wasn't stellar (2012 Kings come to mind).

This kind of comment infuriates me, because it assumes the Kings were the only illegitimate team in that postseason (and were so in the 2014 postseason for that matter).

What people tend (or some cases, want) to forget was that the Pacific Division was superbly weak that year. The Kings could have won that division, but lost it on the last week of the season, due to back to back regulation losses to San Jose coupled with a 5-game Coyotes winning streak simultaneously occurring. Phoenix was only given a #3 seed because of division winners automatically getting the top-3 seeds; if stacked points-wise, the Coyotes would have been a #6 in the West. But Phoenix never received this much detest as the Kings did for their low seeding, just because they won a winnable division.

[Cujo]

Kansas City Royals - 2014 American League Champions

[Kramerica Industries]

Also Hockey's tournament is long and grueling enough that any team who wins the cup feels like a deserving champion even if their regular season wasn't stellar (2012 Kings come to mind).

This kind of comment infuriates me, because it assumes the Kings were the only illegitimate team in that postseason (and were so in the 2014 postseason for that matter).

What people tend (or some cases, want) to forget was that the Pacific Division was superbly weak that year. The Kings could have won that division, but lost it on the last week of the season, due to back to back regulation losses to San Jose coupled with a 5-game Coyotes winning streak simultaneously occurring. Phoenix was only given a #3 seed because of division winners automatically getting the top-3 seeds; if stacked points-wise, the Coyotes would have been a #6 in the West. But Phoenix never received this much detest as the Kings did for their low seeding, just because they won a winnable division.

It's absolutely hilarious to me how the comment was about how the 2012 LA Kings, a 40-42 team (underachieving or not) that won the Cup, was something that he said didn't bother him at all (nice of you to exclude that) and you STILL found a way to get your panties in a bunch about it. Good grief, dude. There isn't some explicit agenda around here to dismiss everything about LA sports teams. The only assumptions being made here are coming from you.

[CS85]

One more strike...

[zpqmaowl]

[lordsketor]

Kansas City....you got yourself a World Series!!

[CS85]

Kudos to the broadcasters for letting the moment play out with no absurd commentary.

[JayMac]

As an Orioles fan, I am rooting like hell for the Royals! Congrats, Kansas City!

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2014 American League Champions, the Royals of Kansas City.