2016 MLB Playoffs

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Elmer said:

9 times out of 10 the power pitcher wins the match up with the lowly #9 hitter.
However every once in a while the #9 hitter gets lucky and hits a HR to win the game!

So?

That's the point… it's well above 1-of-10 that the worse baseball team wins a single game playoff. The longer the series, the more likely the better team advances.

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

The team that gets the second wild card would likely disagree with you on this one ... seeing as how the alternative for them is not being in the playoffs at all.

No it isn't. There are tons of "alternatives." We've discussed a few of them here. 12 teams could make the playoffs. Teams could play 21 games in each series. Or… anything else you could think of.

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

And, remember, reseeding for the playoffs would not work too well unless they also did away with unbalanced schedules.

Meh. The NFL teams that win their division are seeded by their record, but didn't play the same opponents.

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

When teams play darn near HALF of their games against 4 of the 29 other teams there is the possibility of really stacking the deck there.

Yeah, consider how many games the Pirates and Cubs and Cardinals could have won had they not had to play each other so often last year…

It tends to work out okay. I think the issue with the Cubs/Pirates/Cards last year is more problematic than a division winner who had 10 wins less than another playoff team being the 4 seed or whatever. Why not let winning the division get you in to the playoffs only?

In the NFL, the Steelers at 12-4 had to travel to play the 8-8 Broncos or something one year… because the Broncos played in a terrible division. Heck, one of the Steelers secondary players couldn't play because of his sickle cell condition.

[Golfingdad]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

The longer the series, the more likely the better team advances.

This is true, but the playoffs really aren't made just to see the better team advance, otherwise, they'd do like I previously mentioned and just give the trophy to the team with the best record at the end.

Playoffs are about more exciting games, and the one last night fit that bill.

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

No it isn't. There are tons of "alternatives." We've discussed a few of them here. 12 teams could make the playoffs. Teams could play 21 games in each series. Or… anything else you could think of.

OK.

[mdl]

7 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Anyway ...

Good news about being a Padres fan is that every year when the playoffs roll around I don't have any stress and can root for whoever I want.  It's always a clean slate!

I'm pulling for the Mets tonight, but then it will be hard to cheer against the poor Cubs next round.  I'm also hoping the Dodgers do well.  On the AL side, I'll probably lean Clevelands way since they have been out of the mix the longest.

Mets?  I know they're second cousins to the Yankees, but they're still New York.  Have you no pride?!

[Hardspoon]

While I completely understand the argument against one-game series, I think that sometimes people overestimate the ability of a longer series (5 or 7 games) to identify the "better" team.

For example, imagine a series where Team A is a better team, and has a 60% chance of beating Team B in any single game (if you look at the MLB playoffs, that's a pretty significant difference in team strength - equivalent approximately to the projected win % of the Red Sox over the wild-card winner).

• In a 1-game series, Team B can be expected to win 40% of the time.
• In a 3-game series, Team B can be expected to win 35.2% of the time.
• In a 5-game series, Team B can be expected to win 31.7% of the time.
• In a 7-game series, Team B can be expected to win 29.0% of the time.

So, by adding 6 games to the series, it only decreases the inferior teams chances of an upset by 11 percentage points.

Admittedly, that's certainly significant, and there are other things going on here (perception of "fairness", television ratings, etc.)...but I'm not convinced that longer series are better simply because of the argument that a one-game series is too whimsical.

Personally, I think the three-game series hits the sweetspot for making something feel like a real playoff...plus, it guarantees at least one home game for each team.

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

So, by adding 6 games to the series, it only decreases the inferior teams chances of an upset by 11 percentage points.

This ignores the fact that the weaker team may have a single ace pitcher that matches up well with the other team's ace, but beyond that, becomes increasingly less likely to win.

Since they're still both playoff teams, it might be close to 50/50 in a single game, which I think many would say feels higher than it should.

I think I'm as guilty as anyone else (or more so) of what "feels" right, but don't care enough about MLB teams besides the Pirates to really put much thought into it beyond what "feels" right, with a teeny little bit of logic attached.

So, I should probably just shut up.

I'll try that after ending with re-stating that a single-game "playoff" doesn't feel right to me. It's fair, yes, because all the teams know it going in to the season. It just doesn't feel right, and it can lead to unusual situations like the second and third best teams (by record only, yes) facing each other in a single game "playoff."

[Hardspoon]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

This ignores the fact that the weaker team may have a single ace pitcher that matches up well with the other team's ace, but beyond that, becomes increasingly less likely to win.

Since they're still both playoff teams, if it's 50/50 in a single game but should be 60/40…(or 29% per your calculation, which I'm not checking and just taking at face value), that's a 21% drop: 50 -> 29.

That's fair...and another reason why the three-game series might be the perfect compromise.

I just did some searching for articles on the affect of an "ace" pitcher, but couldn't find anything.  Some interesting stuff on home teams and such...

EDIT: Here's an article with the formula to calculate the 29%: http://www.mathgoespop.com/2011/10/playoff-probabilities.html

 

[jamo]

I liked the way the playoffs were set up before they added the second wild card (and even now I don't hate it, I just don't love the single game). I like the 162-game schedule, and would be against shortening it to add to the postseason. I guess if I had to choose, I'd prefer a three-game series over the current setup. But I think I like just one wild card team better than both of those options. 

But that's just a personal opinion. I like divisions, and division/regional rivalries. I don't mind the unbalanced schedules. I like interleague play. I love the DH. 

[Golfingdad]

Pitchers duel (as expected I presume) going right now.  Syndegaard had a no hitter through 5 2/3.

2 hours ago, mdl said:

Mets?  I know they're second cousins to the Yankees, but they're still New York.  Have you no pride?!

I'm married to a New Yorker who is a big Yankee fan, so rooting for NY teams (and against Boston - sorry @jamo and @boogielicious) is common in this household.

[Hardspoon]

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Syndegaard had a no hitter through 5 2/3.

Nice jinx, jerk. 

Haha...nevermind...thought you said "has" a no-hitter.  Carry on.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Hardspoon
Because I'm a moron

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

Nice jinx, jerk. 

Haha...nevermind...thought you said "has" a no-hitter.  Carry on.

Yes, I was careful to wait until it was broken to say anything. ;)

Its an even numbered year in the 2010's ... was there really any doubt the Giants would win this game?  And the rest of the playoff series' as well??

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Pitchers duel (as expected I presume) going right now.  Syndegaard had a no hitter through 5 2/3.

I'm married to a New Yorker who is a big Yankee fan, so rooting for NY teams (and against Boston - sorry @jamo and @boogielicious) is common in this household.

Who are the Yankees? Never heard of them. 

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Who are the Yankees? Never heard of them. 

These days they are the Mets minor league team

[mcanadiens]

Dear Mets,

When your hammer is still pounding nails, don't take him out of the game. 

 

[DaveP043]

52 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Dear Mets,

When your hammer is still pounding nails, don't take him out of the game. 

Syndegaard was at 108 pitches, he wasn't going to pitch in the 9th no matter what.  Taking him out seems like the right choice to me.

[mcanadiens]

14 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Syndegaard was at 108 pitches, he wasn't going to pitch in the 9th no matter what.  Taking him out seems like the right choice to me.

You worry about pitch counts during regular season games and the like. This was a one-and-done playoff game. Maybe you get someone working just in case, but I wasn't seeing enough to justify pulling him at that point. 

[DaveP043]

Syndegaard went over 110 pitches 4 times all season, with a high of 118.  He'd just survived a scare in the 7th.  This shouldn't figure, but Collins was criticized last year for leaving Matt Harvey in the game after 103 pitches, instead of using his closer.  No matter which choice Collins made, it could have been "wrong."  Even if Syndegaard pitched the 8th well, with 8 or 10 pitches, I can't believe he'd have been in the game in the 9th.   As it worked out, the closer gave up the winning runs.  I'd "blame" the Mets inability to score (against a great pitcher having a great night) rather than Collins' decision.  

[Golfingdad]

Just now, DaveP043 said:

Syndegaard went over 110 pitches 4 times all season, with a high of 118.  He'd just survived a scare in the 7th.  This shouldn't figure, but Collins was criticized last year for leaving Matt Harvey in the game after 103 pitches, instead of using his closer.  No matter which choice Collins made, it could have been "wrong."  Even if Syndegaard pitched the 8th well, with 8 or 10 pitches, I can't believe he'd have been in the game in the 9th.   As it worked out, the closer gave up the winning runs.  I'd "blame" the Mets inability to score (against a great pitcher having a great night) rather than Collins' decision.  

This is a similar counter argument (well, thought, really because I never expressed it to anybody) to one I formed yesterday in response to a yahoo.com article criticizing Buck Showalter for not using his closer in the 11th inning of a tie game (as the road team, mind you).  He even called it one of the worst postseason mistakes in history.  That is a very ridiculous bit of Monday morning quarterbacking.  Even if he pitched a scoreless inning, you're still tied - You need a run.  And when you get it and you then have to close the game with your non closer and he fails, hmmm, I wonder what Yahoo "writer" is going to say then?

[DaveP043]

Just now, Golfingdad said:

This is a similar counter argument (well, thought, really because I never expressed it to anybody) to one I formed yesterday in response to a yahoo.com article criticizing Buck Showalter for not using his closer in the 11th inning of a tie game (as the road team, mind you).  He even called it one of the worst postseason mistakes in history.  That is a very ridiculous bit of Monday morning quarterbacking.  Even if he pitched a scoreless inning, you're still tied - You need a run.  And when you get it and you then have to close the game with your non closer and he fails, hmmm, I wonder what Yahoo "writer" is going to say then?

Keep an eye, and let us know what he says about the way things turned out for the Mets.  Criticism, valid or otherwise, is more likely to draw readers than defending a player or manager.