National League Divisional Series - Padres vs Dodgers

[franch1se]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

A Padres/Phillies NLCS would certainly be fun (it's what I'm rooting for), but it exposes the problem inherent with continually increasing the number of postseason teams: in a short series, baseball results are more random than any other team sport. It's the reason why teams play 162 game seasons in the first place: it takes that long to separate the wheat from the chaff. World Series Champions since the introduction of the Wild Card: 1995 Braves (2nd best record out of 8 postseason teams) 1996 Yankees (3rd of 8) 1997 Marlins (4th of 8)* 1998 Yankees (1st of 8) 1999 Yankees (3rd of 8) 2000 Yankees (8th of 8) 2001 Diamondbacks (6th of 8) 2002 Angels (4th of 8)* 2003 Marlins (6th of 8)* 2004 Red Sox (3rd of 8)* 2005 White Sox (2nd of 8) 2006 Cardinals (8th of 8) 2007 Red Sox (1st of 8) 2008 Phillies (5th of 8) 2009 Yankees (1st of 8) 2010 Giants (5th of 8) 2011 Cardinals (8th of 8)* 2012 Giants (4th of 10) 2013 Red Sox (1st of 10) 2014 Giants (10th of 10)* 2015 Royals (4th of 10) 2016 Cubs (1st of 10) 2017 Astros (3rd of 10) 2018 Red Sox (1st of 10) 2019 Nationals (9th of 10)* 2020 Dodgers (1st of 16) 2021 Braves (10th of 10) 1st seed: 7 titles 2nd seed: 2 titles 3rd seed: 4 titles 4th seed: 4 titles 5th seed: 2 titles 6th seed: 2 titles 7th seed: 0 titles 8th seed or lower: 6 titles (3 8th, 1 9th, 2 10th) Division Winner: 20 titles Wild Card: 7 titles And in the 1st year of expanding to 12 teams, the 11th/12th seeds have already knocked off the 4th/5th seeds and are seriously threatening the 1st/3rd seeds. The 2nd seed (Astros) could easily have been in trouble against the 10th seed (Mariners). Like I said, fun for neutrals (and winners, of course), but the postseason is pretty much a series of coinflips.

Doesn’t MLB still have the least amount of teams make the playoffs? NFL also has 12 (6 per conference), NBA has 16 (8 per) and NHL also has 16 (8per). I see nothing wrong with MLB especially since it’s a series and not a one off like march madness. Which more teams is what makes it great. You could argue re seeding would be better but 6 teams isn’t bad. Or if you want to argue the length of series needs to be changed (3,5,7,7) than ok. But I’m ok with only 6 teams per league. If you’re the better team than just win.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by franch1se

Doesn’t MLB still have the least amount of teams make the playoffs? NFL also has 12 (6 per conference), NBA has 16 (8 per) and NHL also has 16 (8per). I see nothing wrong with MLB especially since it’s a series and not a one off like march madness. Which more teams is what makes it great. You could argue re seeding would be better but 6 teams isn’t bad. Or if you want to argue the length of series needs to be changed (3,5,7,7) than ok. But I’m ok with only 6 teams per league. If you’re the better team than just win. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

Yes, and those other leagues have much shorter regular seasons and a much wider gap between good and bad teams. It's just the nature of how baseball is played. No matter the talent or payroll disparity, heavy favourites are maybe 60/40 to win a short series. Put this year's Pirates or Nats in a best-of-3 with the Astros or Dodgers and they're going to win 1/3 of the time. (Imagine for a second if MLB had a hard salary cap and the NBA had no cap at all. Both leagues would be unwatchable, but for completely different reasons.)

I'm not trying to crap on long-suffering teams like the Padres here. Like I said, I'm rooting for the Padres and Phillies (and Mariners and Guardians). I like chaos! But if every team that makes the playoffs has a roughly equal chance to win the World Series (and the numbers over the last 25 years bear this out), then the more teams that are added to the postseason field, the more meaningless the regular season becomes. Why get excited about winning your division and winning 100 games if any 86-win team that scrapes into the playoffs just has to win a coinflip against you? When your regular season is 162 games, it should mean something IMO.

[bkrich83]

I love watching people makes excuses for the Dodgers, Braves and Mets.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Picci]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

A Padres/Phillies NLCS would certainly be fun (it's what I'm rooting for), but it exposes the problem inherent with continually increasing the number of postseason teams: in a short series, baseball results are more random than any other team sport. It's the reason why teams play 162 game seasons in the first place: it takes that long to separate the wheat from the chaff. Like I said, fun for neutrals (and winners, of course), but the postseason is pretty much a series of coinflips.

But it's not suppose to be fair. It's how the story-line is built is what's the beauty about baseball. Case in point, the NL East. Mets and Braves battling it out. Phillies straighten out their defensive issues, win the Trade Deadline (IMO) and as long as you have 2 aces, a powerful lineup, and an improved bullpen is there any surprise? Bravo Phillies!


SD definitely has the talent (pitching/star-power) to defeat LA and I'm pulling for them. Lets hope Musgrove is still in the zone.

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Picci

But it's not suppose to be fair. It's how the story-line is built is what's the beauty about baseball. Case in point, the NL East. Mets and Braves battling it out. Phillies straighten out their defensive issues, win the Trade Deadline (IMO) and as long as you have 2 aces, a powerful lineup, and an improved bullpen is there any surprise? Bravo Phillies! SD definitely has the talent (pitching/star-power) to defeat LA and I'm pulling for them. Lets hope Musgrove is still in the zone.

That kind of reinforces what I'm saying, isn't it? If the Phillies and Padres beat the top 4 seeds in the NL and it's not surprising, it's not an upset, then it means there can be no major surprises or upsets. Every playoff team has almost an equal chance of coming out on top.

And the storyline you mention (the Phillies getting better while the Braves and Mets battle it out for a meaningless division title) only exists because of this year's new playoff format. If that's the case, it follows that baseball fans have been denied similar storylines for decades, and the number of playoff teams should be raised, to 14 or 16 at the minimum. After Judge and Ohtani, the best story of the regular season was probably the Orioles going from 52 wins to 83 (!!) in the tough AL East. If the Orioles (or Brewers, for that matter) have a decent shot of winning a short series or 2, is the postseason better with them in it? Maybe!

[Picci]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

Well, the storyline you mention only exists because of this year's new playoff format. If that's the case, it follows that baseball fans have been denied similar storylines for decades, and the number of playoff teams should be raised to 14 or 16, at the minimum. After Judge and Ohtani, the best story of the regular season was probably the Orioles going from 52 wins to 83 (!!) in the tough AL East. Would the playoffs be better with Baltimore in it?

In 1973 the 82 win New York Mets represented the NL Champions who defeated the 99 win Cincinnati Reds. The 95 win LA Dodgers lost out on any chances. The Mets actually pushed the defending champs A's to 7 games. You maybe old enough or not to remember prior to 1969 what division play was like. Think of those story-line denials when baseball had so many premier athletes.


Hats off to the Orioles yes, but;;;;;

The thing is this. This year's story-line hasn't yet been finished. It's still going.

[countryboy]

But we are basing best teams off of overall records when the pathway thru a 162 game season isn't the same for all teams involved. Unbalanced schedule and injuries being the main culprits that make the journey to the playoffs for any two teams you find matched up in the playoffs different.

I'll take my Cardinals as an example against the Phillies. The Cardinals had the better record, but I don't know, despite the playoff matchup outcome, that I'd consider the Cardinals a better team than the Phillies. The Phillies went 34-47 against teams with .500 or better record. The Cardinals went 34-38. The Phillies finished with a record better than the 2nd place team in the division the Cardinals won. The Phillies played in a division that featured two 101 game winning teams that they would've faced what, 30+ times combined, whereas the Cardinals would face the same two teams at best a combined 12-13 times.

No matter how the playoff format is setup there is always an opportunity to say its unfair, its a crapshoot, its this or its that. But you at minimum have a best of 3 series to defeat a team and move on. And with each game featuring different pitching matchups and the concept of the sport itself, lends to the beauty that makes baseball's postseason so great, because each game of a series is distinctly different.

[DrJones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Picci

In 1973 the 82 win New York Mets represented the NL Champions who defeated the 99 win Cincinnati Reds. The 95 win LA Dodgers lost out on any chances. The Mets actually pushed the defending champs A's to 7 games. You maybe old enough or not to remember prior to 1969 what division play was like. Think of those story-line denials when baseball had so many premier athletes.

I'm 50, so yes, I'm familiar with division play. I certainly remember the 85-77 Twins winning the '87 World Series, largely due to baseball's bizarre format at the time of alternating homefield advantage (those Twins had one of the biggest home/road splits of all time).

Honest questions: How many teams do you think should make the playoffs every year?
If it's 12 or more, and you agree with me that any team that makes the postseason has a reasonable chance of going all the way (far better chances than the NFL, NHL, or especially the NBA), do you think 162 regular season games is still necessary?