This is October: 2014 MLB Postseason Thread

[Gold Pinstripes]

Barring ther MLB playoffs being extended into January, I'd like to hear about a better system for deciding the best team in the majors. If a team was great for months, then I think it's fair to expect that team to continue the success for as long as possible in order to earn the crown of champion. Some outstanding regular season clubs just can't handle the pressure, regardless of the sport, or number of games involved. If you're going to enjoy the immortality of being a world champion, along with the fame and everything else, then earning the right by winning in a shorter sample size isn't too much to ask.

Even in a one game situation, like the NFL playoffs or NCAA hoops tournament, there are countless opportunities within that game for the real winner to step forward.

[OnWis97]

I concede one thing to you, and that's the economic aspect of this. My point of view is rooted in extreme idealism, with the full realization that it's not really feasible in this day and age*. I think, at the end of the day, the thing that grates me more than any other thing is the best-of-5 opening round. I've fixated on the POV that mentions 100+ win teams. Well, since 2001, we've had 14 teams do that, and eight of them lost in the opening round. happens in a best-of-5 series. Since 2006, five of the nine AL #1 seeds were one-and-dones. In that same time span, four of the nine NL #1 seeds were one-and-dones. It really does a remarkable job of making the regular season feel like a very-needlessly overdone practice.

*This is also why I have conceded that a playoff structure based on the following would be enough for me to shut up on this topic forever:

1) Scrap divisions

2) Balance schedule and kill interleague

3) Top four teams from each league go to playoffs

4) All three rounds are best-of-7

Any tiebreakers for the last playoff spot contested as deemed necessary.

You would have to go back to the 14/16 format, and I couldn't care less which league has which number of teams, but we survived for 15 years with that imbalance just fine so I don't think going back to that would hurt anything.

I swear, even though that system still has three playoff rounds, I would never talk about this subject ever again. It would be a compromise that solves everything for me.

(P.S. - I might follow sabermetrics but my opinion on this subject has zero to do with sabermetric beliefs.)

The bold is true. The others sports have similar issues (and, I guess, advanced metrics), but these feelings have persisted for some "purist" types for a long time. My interest is not in seeing the team that looks best on Billy Beane's computer get to the WS (in fact I hate that; record trumps "how many runs they should have produced"). It's in limiting the likelyhood that a marginal team gets there. We have to have playoffs for the reasons stated, but "lesser" teams getting there ought to be more of an exception (or at least be a bigger hill to climb)

The above proposal is weird. It bugs me some because I do like division races. But the top-four format is the best way to get the best teams in. It probably does the best at removing the outlying 82-win team and snubbing a really good team. Even if divisions are kept, I'd like to see schedule balance. I don't need the White Sox coming to town 10 times a year (I know, tell that to BOS/NY fans). A balanced schedule should at the very least help the integrity of the wild card race.

Regardless, I absolutely believe that no team with best record should be subject to a best-of-five. Best-of-seven gives a better run through the starting rotation (thereby somewhat better at being a "mini season") and I would guess is less likely to produce upsets. In fact, if anything, shorter series should be later in the playoffs; in theory the best have moved on and we need fewer games. That'll never happen, but round 1 can be best of 7.

I guess I'd keep the divisions, dump the second wild card, go to a 154-game schedule (as it was through about 1960), balance the schedules, and eliminate the best-of-five. This does not do as much for the integrity of the pennant race as Kramerica's plan, but I don't know that" no divisions" could ever be embraced again.

[The Six]

The postseason is managed differently than the regular season. That's all it is. You can say this was just luck in postseason series, but if the Giants or Royals had even one week during the regular season where they played better, they could have won their division. But for some reason the teams that win in the playoffs are dismissed as "just getting hot." You can get hot for a couple weeks in June, too.

[OnWis97]

The postseason is managed differently than the regular season. That's all it is. You can say this was just luck in postseason series, but if the Giants or Royals had even one week during the regular season where they played better, they could have won their division. But for some reason the teams that win in the playoffs are dismissed as "just getting hot." You can get hot for a couple weeks in June, too.

Yes you can but that does not even buy you out of last place due to the other 150 games on the schedule.

[DarkJourney]

I know most everyone lives in their own little sports bubbles and it's fine if you don't want to give the Giants any credit. They still won and nobody can ever take that away from them. Discredit them all you want if it makes you feel better. Makes you small in my opinion.

[ninersdd]

I know most everyone lives in their own little sports bubble and it's fine if you don't want to give the Giants any credit. They still won and nobody can ever take that away from them. Discredit

them all you want if it makes you feel better. Makes you small in my opinion.

Beats the Sharks every single time with monster regular seasons and turning weak in the playoffs every year.

[FiddySicks]

Apparently, my disgust at the playoff structure and wild cards triumphs my love for the Giants (fan since 1982) because I felt no joy after last night, at least not at the level I had after 2010 and 2012. This just doesn't seem like a legitimate title to me..

Then go root for the Dodgers, I guess. If anything, this championship means even MORE to me considering the circumstances.

[Watchman]

Not sure if I should say congrats to the Giants. I wanted the Royals to win really really badly. The underdogs of this whole post-season, and they lose Game 7. Why????

[Lights Out]

I'm having a hard time resolving that this group of Giants now have more championships than the freaking Big Red Machine, widely considered one of the three best baseball teams ever assembled. If that team had a wildcard safety net they probably would've won a couple more championships.

This is the era of baseball we're in.

When the Cubs finally win a world series it won't be with a dominant 104 win team. It'll be with a run of the mill 86 win wildcard that gets hot at the right time.

So? I don't particularly care for the Giants anymore, since they're now just Cardinals West, but they earned it fair and square.

[Lights Out]

Barring ther MLB playoffs being extended into January, I'd like to hear about a better system for deciding the best team in the majors. If a team was great for months, then I think it's fair to expect that team to continue the success for as long as possible in order to earn the crown of champion. Some outstanding regular season clubs just can't handle the pressure, regardless of the sport, or number of games involved. If you're going to enjoy the immortality of being a world champion, along with the fame and everything else, then earning the right by winning in a shorter sample size isn't too much to ask.

Even in a one game situation, like the NFL playoffs or NCAA hoops tournament, there are countless opportunities within that game for the real winner to step forward.

Exactly. The playoffs are just not the same as the regular season, just ask the Sharks. If you can't adjust to the intensity and pressure of the postseason, then how can you claim to be the best team? The real best team should be able to handle any adversity thrown at them as long as the competition is fair.

[JasonFromMiami]

KC won by running and stealing bases all playoffs long, why did they stop doing that in the WS ? since Posey ain´t no Yadi

[Sport]

I'm having a hard time resolving that this group of Giants now have more championships than the freaking Big Red Machine, widely considered one of the three best baseball teams ever assembled. If that team had a wildcard safety net they probably would've won a couple more championships.

This is the era of baseball we're in.

When the Cubs finally win a world series it won't be with a dominant 104 win team. It'll be with a run of the mill 86 win wildcard that gets hot at the right time.

So? I don't particularly care for the Giants anymore, since they're now just Cardinals West, but they earned it fair and square.

Not saying they didn't win it fair and square.

I know most everyone lives in their own little sports bubbles and it's fine if you don't want to give the Giants any credit. They still won and nobody can ever take that away from them. Discredit them all you want if it makes you feel better. Makes you small in my opinion.

I don't think anybody's not giving the Giants credit for what they've done. They're just annoyed by it. These are the rules and they played by them and won. I think people are just tired of the sport becoming what it's turning into, which is a meaningless 6 month marathon for a 3 week sprint. I think that 3 week sprint is the best possible way to do it, but that doesn't mean I like it.

The Giants are just the new symbol that the Regular Season isn't important anymore. The Giants would've been just another mediocre non playoff team in 99% of all baseball seasons that have ever been played. So that's frustrating. Plus this being their third title in five years (when they weren't the best team in any of those years) just feels like overkill when there's Cubs and Indians fans (and a tortured 22 year old Dodger fan in LA whose life is soooooo rough) who have never seen a Championship.

And I say this to Cardinals and Boston fans: you don't get to be good, win championships, have parades, watch your team excel in the postseason, and NOT get s*** from other fans. Pick one. You could be a Padres fan, nobody cares about those people.

This will sound like sour grapes, and I assure you it's not because I don't have any animosity towards the Giants, but I'm finding myself less interested in baseball if this is how it's going to be. What's the point of getting excited about anything that happens in the regular season if it ultimately doesn't matter? I'll still go to games because I love going to baseball games, but the results will affect me less.

[Watchman]

I'm having a hard time resolving that this group of Giants now have more championships than the freaking Big Red Machine, widely considered one of the three best baseball teams ever assembled. If that team had a wildcard safety net they probably would've won a couple more championships.

This is the era of baseball we're in.

When the Cubs finally win a world series it won't be with a dominant 104 win team. It'll be with a run of the mill 86 win wildcard that gets hot at the right time.

So? I don't particularly care for the Giants anymore, since they're now just Cardinals West, but they earned it fair and square.

Not saying they didn't win it fair and square.

I know most everyone lives in their own little sports bubbles and it's fine if you don't want to give the Giants any credit. They still won and nobody can ever take that away from them. Discredit them all you want if it makes you feel better. Makes you small in my opinion.

And I say this to Cardinals and Boston fans: you don't get to be good, win championships, have parades, watch your team excel in the postseason, and NOT get s*** from other fans. Pick one. You could be a Padres fan, nobody cares about those people.

Well played. Now lets hope we see some more postseason magic next year with the Blue Jays or something.

[JasonFromMiami]

Nightmare come true. Thanks for ruining baseball, San Francisco and St. Louis.

*waits for incoming death threats from Giants and Cardinals fans*

Ridiculous hyperbole topped off with attacking a strawman. Nice.

I'm surprised you haven't yet blamed the Cardinals for losing to the Giants, because if the Cards were in the series, Taveras wouldn't have been in that car and also Royals would have won the championship.

You know, i thougt about cards coach Maheney not using Taveras enough, had he used him more Vs. SF, cards might have won and he still would be alive, crazy to think how things could have worked out

Did you watch Taveres at all in the later part of the season? While he was still looking like a minor leaguer at the plate Grichuk was pounding the ball. Next year would have been his true break out year. R.I.P

Oh i love Grichuk, it´s Matt Adams that is weighting the cards down , couldn´t Oscar have played insted of him ?

[Sport]

One piece of good news: we have played our last season with Bud Selig as commissioner. Now we can all like the new guy for a few months before he f**** something up.

[JasonFromMiami]

I belived Bud Selig was the best of the 4 league bosses ?

[TheOldRoman]

Apparently, my disgust at the playoff structure and wild cards triumphs my love for the Giants (fan since 1982) because I felt no joy after last night, at least not at the level I had after 2010 and 2012. This just doesn't seem like a legitimate title to me..

Then go root for the Dodgers, I guess. If anything, this championship means even MORE to me considering the circumstances.

Exactly. This mindset doesn't exist in other sports. Do you think Packers fans felt their last championship was tarnished because they only got into the playoffs due to the NFL completely botching a call and single-handedly costing the Buccaneers a game and a playoff spot? Did it not mean as much because they were a 6-seed? No. That's nonsense.

I think the reason people are complaining about a wildcard winning are 1) It's the Giants again, and 2) Neither of these teams was great. Nobody would have complained if the Royals won because we all liked the Royals and KC deserves a title after 28 years of misery (not to mention the freaking Chiefs who constantly fall apart in the playoffs and haven't won a title in 45 years). Nobody complained when the wildcard Red Sox won, because they also deserved it. But even if the Giants were mediocre outside of one player, it doesn't matter. They went through three teams and won the tournament, just as any other champion does. Their title means just as much as any other team's does.

[Unocal]

I would rather have a 75 win team battle through a Wild Card Game, Divisional Series, League Series and World Series rather than saying oh, by default we are going to put the Angels and Nationals in the World Series because they won the most games.

I could not possibly disagree anymore with this statement. Literally, it's not possible.

I agree with him. The Angels and Nationals had their chance. They were beaten. Relatively easily by the two eventual pennant winners.

I wouldn't say relatively easily. The Nats/Angels didn't impersonate the 2008 Cubs. Save for the Angels/Royals series finale, they didn't no-show those games. Angels simply couldn't score at home- Weaver/Shoemaker pitched good enough to win. Nats and Giants both scored 9 runs in their series.

[cmm]

Now that the World Series is over, Alex Rodriguez is back!

[wdm1219inpenna]

I have no issue with #6 seeds in the NFL winning Super Bowls. The Steelers and Giants both did it recently, and that was great. Football lends itself to needing wild card teams because it is less than 10 percent the total number of games in Major League Baseball.

I dislike the wild card in MLB because it diminishes the meaning and importance of the regular season. To me it's like having a marathon being stopped after 25.2 miles and saying "okay the last mile is decided by a sprint instead." Inevitably it seems that the teams that are "hot" are the ones who win the World Series.

But then, there is Karma. The 1985 Royals, should they have even won the World Series? Those who are old enough or who are historians of the game remember the call at first base that contributed to the St. Louis Cardinals unraveling.

Then you have the San Francisco Giants. The 1993 Giants had 103 wins, second best in all of baseball, yet did not even qualify for post-season. Now they have 3 World Series in a 5 year span, which is a very remarkable feat. I take delight that they did so without Barry Bonds as a member of the team.

What I would like to have seen happen, have your three division winners and just 1 wild card. The Wild Card finisher plays the #1 seed, even if in the same division. After all, it is the DIVISION Series isn't it? Then have #3 and #2 seeds play.

I agree, the Division Series should be the best 4 out of 7. But what I would suggest is the following. For the Division Series round, the Wild Card team (seed 4) has to play games 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 at the #1 seed's park, and only get 2 home games. Furthermore, for this round only, the Wild Card team would have to win 5 out of 7 to advance to the LCS, while the #1 seed would need to win only 3 games to advance to the LCS.

This would give division leaders more incentive to want to have the best overall record. It would reward both the "hot" team (Wild Card team) and the "marathon winner" (best league record) in a more appropriate way in my opinion. Seeds 2 and 3 would play the best 4 out of 7, with a 2-3-2 set up.

If there were/are concerns about this making the World Series going into November, two suggestions I have for that...

1. The Division Series, play all 7 games in a row, no "off days" for travel. Teams travel often and play during the regular season, 10 or 15 games in a row without a break.

2. While I wouldn't object to a 154 game schedule, I know all the owners would. So what I would suggest is all 30 teams be required to play two mandatory double-headers during the regular season, one before the All-Star Break, and one after. This would allow the regular season to end at the end of September or perhaps even a little earlier. It wasn't uncommon for there to be at least one double-header scheduled per season. I emphasize scheduled double-header as opposed to one out of necessity due to an earlier canceled game due to weather.