523 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'm happy that the extended playoffs mean more cities / fans get to experience the postseason. And if some flukes happen, that is ok in the scheme of things.

But do think the teams that had byes in the Wild Card round were a bit screwed by the time off. They always say baseball players have trouble timing wise with a change in schedule.

Maybe another advantage should be to give the bye teams all home games in the Division Series?

Things change and its probably better for the game to have expanded playoffs so in that sense I'm good. Also think the balanced schedule and expanded interleague makes sense.

But I did like as a kid when you just had the two division winners and a chance to win your league and play that other league you never saw.


Seemed more magical.

Mainly I'm just lamenting that LA can have their regular season and be forgotten and Philly can have their regular season and reach the WS.

I get it's just how it is.

I don't think it would be better for baseball to be the EPL and not have a postseason...

IDk. Old man yelling at the wind I guess.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

I get it to an extent for sure. Especially after 162 games. There is really no doubt the Dodgers were the best MLB team in '22 despite the fact they wont win the WS

 

 

 

Edit: Actually Houston won enough games in the reg season for me to say that if they finish it off with the WS that they deserve the honor of being called the best team in '22.

[mdrunning]

Baseball has a long history of not being kind to the big winners of the regular-season. Of the teams that have managed at least 111 regular-season wins, only two have gone on to win the World Series.

 

1906 Chicago Cubs (116-36)  Lost World Series, 4-2, to Chicago White Sox.

 

2001 Seattle Mariners (116-46) Lost ALCS to Yankees, 4-1.

 

1998 NY Yankees (114-48) Won World Series.

 

2022 LA Dodgers (111-51) Lost Division Series to Padres, 3-1.

 

1954 Cleveland Indians (111-43) Lost World Series to Giants, 4-0.

 

A team built for the long-term doesn't necessarily have the advantage in the short term. A long season is suddenly compressed into a week or less. That's why you have teams like the 1987 Twins, who won the Series despite an 85-77 record, and the 1973 Mets, who brought an 82-79 record into the postseason and came within one game of winning it all.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I’ll never buy into the idea that time off is bad for these higher seeded teams. The ability to get days off, set your rotations, heal nagging injuries etc is greater than the possibility of losing momentum or whatever. But, then again, I’ve never played professional baseball so I may just be some idiot on the internet.

I DO like the idea of all 5 divisional series games at the higher seeds house or, maybe, first four there and, if the lower seed can force a game 5, play that game at their place.

There are ways to make it more fair but I have a hard time buying into “the dodgers were great in the regular season and this isn’t fair for them” argument.

It’s the playoffs. If you’re as good as your regular season record indicates show us something.

[mdrunning]

Yankees are down to what could be their last out of the season. . .Aaron Judge.

 

Houston completes the sweep of the Yankees as Judge grounds out pitcher to first.

[Mike in STL]

Watching the Yankees lose never gets old.

[mdrunning]

I wonder if these expanded playoffs--and the subsequent failure of a number of regular season's biggest winners--is going to impact how GMs put together their teams going forward. More specifically, how much are they going to spend on their payrolls when 85-89 wins is likely to be good enough to make the playoffs and thus start with a clean postseason slate.

 

A 100-win team is almost always very expensive. Of the four 100+ win teams this season--Dodgers, Braves, Mets and Astros--only the Astros did it without a payroll that wasn't north of $200 million. It cost the Padres $235 million this season to win 89 games and then exit the NLCS in five games. Likewise, the 99-win Yankees spent $204 million to get swept by the $159 million Astros in the ALCS. Now those same Astros will face the 87-win Phillies, who spent $170 million just to be the last qualifier, in the World Series. (All of these payroll figures are based on 40-man rosters, which are included in order to tabulate the competitive balance tax if applicable.)

 

Why spend huge amounts of money to compete with the big payroll teams when beating them during the season isn't necessarily a prerequisite for qualifying for postseason play? It's typically cheaper to put together an 85 to 89-win team than a 100+ win team. I wonder if this is going to have any negative effect on the free-agent market.

 

Part of what pushed the free-agent market to dizzying heights was the perpetual belief that just about every team was "one player away" from making it to the top. It usually wasn't the case, but now, you don't even need that one guy to help push a team over the top. Now all a team has to do is get near the top. Instead of signing one guy to a big nine-figure contract, a few modest and fiscally prudent moves might achieve the desired result. 

 

I'm not inferring that the biggest stars won't get theirs; that's always the case regardless of the circumstances. But still, you have to wonder if maybe there might be a somewhat diminished market for even their services. This could be one of the unforeseen circumstances of opening the postseason up to the commoners instead of just the elites.

[Mike in STL]

The two best teams in the AL went to the LCS. The Phillies making the WS at 87 wins is not the norm. But perhaps they underperformed in the regular season as they have the 4th highest payroll. I don’t see much changing in regards to team spending. The Rays, As, and Pirates won’t spend. The Os have, but probably won’t until Peter dies cause of all that battle for control, avoiding higher taxes talk.

For some teams, just getting in isn’t good enough. The less holes you have in your roster. The more likely you are to survive and advance.

[Mackus]

I wonder if these expanded playoffs--and the subsequent failure of a number of regular season's biggest winners--is going to impact how GMs put together their teams going forward. More specifically, how much are they going to spend on their payrolls when 85-89 wins is likely to be good enough to make the playoffs and thus start with a clean postseason slate.

 

I doubt it.  Playoffs have been expanded for a while now.  5 to 6 isn't as big of an increase as 4 to 5 was.  Plus being top-2 is meaningful, you get to skip through a high-variance best-of-three series straight to the LDS.  I think the best teams with money will always spend the extra money for the marginal wins in the regular season and marginal advantage in the postseason.

[BSLRoseKatz]

I’ll never buy into the idea that time off is bad for these higher seeded teams. The ability to get days off, set your rotations, heal nagging injuries etc is greater than the possibility of losing momentum or whatever. But, then again, I’ve never played professional baseball so I may just be some idiot on the internet.

I DO like the idea of all 5 divisional series games at the higher seeds house or, maybe, first four there and, if the lower seed can force a game 5, play that game at their place.

There are ways to make it more fair but I have a hard time buying into “the dodgers were great in the regular season and this isn’t fair for them” argument.

It’s the playoffs. If you’re as good as your regular season record indicates show us something.

I thought for the LDS, it felt notable that game 1 was the higher seed's ace vs the lower seed's #3 or #4 starter, like the Dodgers got to start Julio Urias vs Mike Clevinger and still couldn't even push that series to game 5 

[BSLChrisStoner]

Beyond the Phillies / Dodgers talk...   the other issue of post-season baseball I dislike are the narratives which develop about players in 3,5,7 game scenarios. 

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: World Series: 10 things to know about Astros-Phillies, including Houston's perfection, Philly's power, more

https://www.cbssport...lys-power-more/

[mdrunning]

What the article didn't mention was that the Phillies and Astros have actually met before in the postseason. Back in 1980 when Houston was still in the National League, they played a wild five-game NLCS with the Phillies finally prevailing en route to their first-ever World Series title.

[Old Man]

So 2018-2019 is considered rebuild years for the Phillies and it didnt take 10 years to overhaul and draft a team.

 

Im not opposed to doing it like Houston did and its more designed for longer term winning.

 

I just dont think Elias has the complete latitude to do the complete job here from ownership.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: 2022 World Series predictions, Phillies-Astros picks: CBS staff predicts NL takes home trophy

https://www.cbssport...es-home-trophy/

[BSLChrisStoner]

Astros in 5.

[BSLChrisStoner]

538: The Phillies Wanted To Be The Astros. Now They’ll Have To Beat Them For A World Series.

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: 2022 World Series: Five Phillies-Astros matchups we're most excited to see, including Harper vs. Verlander

https://www.cbssport...r-vs-verlander/

[BSLChrisStoner]

FanGraphs: World Series Preview: Houston Astros vs. Philadelphia Phillies

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: 2022 World Series: Bold predictions, from an onslaught of home runs to a Framber Valdez complete game

https://www.cbssport...-complete-game/