2016 MLB Post Season Thread

[kroywen]

With the existence of interleague play, they really should do best record and be done with it. No, it's not perfect, but neither is using best record to determine home field advantage in the LCS or LDS. After all, if the two opponents were in different divisions, the unbalanced schedule means they didn't face the same slate of opponents the same number of times.

 

Rewarding the team with the best record is the best approximation we have for giving "the best team" home field advantage. And the Cubs deserve to be rewarded for winning more games this season than the Indians (even if they faced a different slate of opponents). 

 

And for Pete's sake, just let the All Star Game be an exhibition again, rather than attaching some artificial meaning to it. No one cares that "this one counts." 

[FGM13]

The leagues are so close nowadays that they really should just do it best record. And quit it with the ridiculous 2-3-2 system.

[HedleyLamarr]

15 minutes ago, FGM13 said:

 And quit it with the ridiculous 2-3-2 system.

With baseball being played on a near-daily basis, going 2-3-2 keeps both teams in a rhythm.  If it were 2-2-1-1-1, Games 5-7 would be ugly as hell for the hitters.

 

Since we're not rewarding the team with more wins with home-field advantage in the World Series, there's no point in tilting the series' advantage towards the team that gets to host Game 7.

[Unocal]

1 hour ago, DiePerske said:

hey, under the prior system the cubs still wouldnt have home field, because it is an even year.

 

Still a better system than the current, however.

 

That's how the 1995 Indians, who won 100 games, didn't have HFA vs. the Braves.

[2001mark]

While I'd love 2-2-1-1-1, we'd have days off in between... what's that, 11 days in that.  I dunno.  Try it & see.

I think this 2-3-2 sets up perfectly for these Cubs, they're primed to swarm the Indians in 5.  

[Thomas]

5 hours ago, kroywen said:

With the existence of interleague play, they really should do best record and be done with it. No, it's not perfect, but neither is using best record to determine home field advantage in the LCS or LDS. After all, if the two opponents were in different divisions, the unbalanced schedule means they didn't face the same slate of opponents the same number of times.

 

Rewarding the team with the best record is the best approximation we have for giving "the best team" home field advantage. And the Cubs deserve to be rewarded for winning more games this season than the Indians (even if they faced a different slate of opponents). 

 

And for Pete's sake, just let the All Star Game be an exhibition again, rather than attaching some artificial meaning to it. No one cares that "this one counts." 

No way, MLB all star is the only all star game worth watching.

Players actually care, and it shows

[Cujo]

10 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Sad that the Cubs' only chances to win at home are in a short series... because of who won an all-star game.

 

Cubs fan here.

 

In '03, I was openly "okay" with the Cubs losing NLCS Game 5 in Florida so the Cubs could clinch in front of the Wrigley faithful.  Never again.  

 

Idgaf if the World Series is won in Chicago, Cleveland, Abu Dhabi, Planet Mars...Just win it!

[Cosmic]

2 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Cubs fan here.

 

In '03, I was openly "okay" with the Cubs losing NLCS Game 5 in Florida so the Cubs could clinch in front of the Wrigley faithful.  Never again.  

 

Idgaf if the World Series is won in Chicago, Cleveland, Abu Dhabi, Planet Mars...Just win it!

FWIW, 11 of 21 World Series since the strike season have been short series.  It's more common than in my hockey frame of reference.

 

That is a benefit for Cubs fans with the 2-3-2... they don't have to do the "maybe we should lose this game so we can win at home" thing.  Cubs just need to win ASAP.

[BBTV]

5 hours ago, Thomas said:

No way, MLB all star is the only all star game worth watching.

Players actually care, and it shows

 

Lol. They don't care. Neither do the managers, who (usually) put guys in just because they're there rather than stick with the top players for the whole game. If it "counted", they wouldn't need 30 + players on the roster. 

 

Maybe a good way to do it is to give HFA to the team with the better interleague record?

[infrared41]

3 hours ago, Cosmic said:

FWIW, 11 of 21 World Series since the strike season have been short series.  It's more common than in my hockey frame of reference.

 

That is a benefit for Cubs fans with the 2-3-2... they don't have to do the "maybe we should lose this game so we can win at home" thing.  Cubs just need to win ASAP.

 

That's just slightly over half. A 50-50 shot isn't exactly a statistical advantage. 

[Sport]

Cubs in 5. 

 

 

[Cosmic]

3 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

That's just slightly over half. A 50-50 shot isn't exactly a statistical advantage. 

Before I looked it up, I was expecting it to be around 30-40%, so over half was a nice surprise. In the same timeframe for the Stanley Cup, a short series happened about that often (I'm in phone, so I don't have the exact numbers). If you count since a streak of four sweeps in a row in the mid-90s in the NHL, it's only about 20-30% of the time you get a short series.

[Sport]

World Series in my baseball viewing life have been largely boring. 

 

With 93 being the first one I remember and 95 being the first one I understood I'd break it down like this: 

"Good Ones" 

93, 95, 96, 97, 01, 02, 11, 14, 15

 

"Bad Ones"

98, 99, 00, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 10, 12, 13

 

The "Forgettables" where I can't really remember anything that happened outside of which team won and which team lost

 

03 - The only things I remember was Roger Clemens "last" game that he pitched in Miami, and that Josh Becket was a big part of the Marlins and being happy for Pudge. What I remember most was the over-arching feeling that hovered over every game that we got the 2 teams nobody cared to watch and the two everybody really wanted to see had been eliminated in awesome 7 game seriesesseses. I remember being jealous that the no-name*, penny pinching Marlins were going to have their 2nd title and that nobody in Miami cared. 

 

08 - knew the Phillies were pretty good and the Rays were so new and unexpected that I didn't have much interest in them winning in their first crack at it so I pulled for the Phillies (last time that'll happen) and I remember nothing from any of the games except that it rained a ton in Philadelphia. 

 

09 - I had Philly fatigue and pulled for the Yankees because I didn't want the Phillies to take the Reds' meaningless title of being the last NL team to win B2B titles. The Yankees winning another title is just a big who cares so I think I watched a couple innings of game 6 and that was it. 

 

 

 

*rare situation where a team arrived early before we knew who their stars were and we needed time to fully appreciate the roster. They all grew up to be quite a good collection of ball players. 

[Kramerica Industries]

17 hours ago, FGM13 said:

The leagues are so close nowadays that they really should just do it best record. And quit it with the ridiculous 2-3-2 system.

 

You're gonna have to clarify what you mean by this, because the American League has been, unquestionably, the better league for the last 13 seasons, and for the vast majority of, I dunno, at least during the time interleague play in general has existed if not even longer than that.

 

...I'm guessing you mean "close" as in that the AL and NL are so intertwined now that it's barely any different than, say, how the AFC and NFC are within the broader scope of the NFL. And it's kinda funny how there's no kvetching about interconference play over there, but interleague play in MLB is such a controversial subject even though, well, those two things are basically the exact same from one sport to the other, but I'm veering way too much off the subject now.

 

[FGM13]

11 minutes ago, Kramerica Industries said:

 

You're gonna have to clarify what you mean by this, because the American League has been, unquestionably, the better league for the last 13 seasons, and for the vast majority of, I dunno, at least during the time interleague play in general has existed if not even longer than that.

 

...I'm guessing you mean "close" as in that the AL and NL are so intertwined now that it's barely any different than, say, how the AFC and NFC are within the broader scope of the NFL. And it's kinda funny how there's no kvetching about interconference play over there, but interleague play in MLB is such a controversial subject even though, well, those two things are basically the exact same from one sport to the other, but I'm veering way too much off the subject now.

 

The second one. I'm aware of the AL's superiority.

[Rj0498]

Too be fair the same th Ing goes with the dh rule which makes me wonder that beside traditions sake the nl hasn't adopted it in the rest of the big 4 sports there is no special rule for a different conference 

[goalieboy82]

HFA in the World Series should be NL odd years, AL even years.  

[FinsUp1214]

This is, as far as I can remember, the first time that the World Series matchup I wanted at the start of the playoffs actually happened. So this is pretty cool.

 

The downside to it is that picking a winner - both in prediction and who I want to win - is like pulling teeth. This is one of those matchups where it sucks that there has to be both a loser and a spoiler. But, so it goes when the two longest title droughts in baseball meet up.

 

I've waffled a lot over it, but I think I'm going to go Cleveland in 7. And overall, I'm just rooting for a great series. Either winner is fine with me, though I admit if Cleveland wins it, I'd rather they not do it in Wrigley. 

[CS85]

 

[infrared41]

2 hours ago, CS85 said:

 

 

That's pretty cool.