MLB Playoffs

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:06 pm

short series suck
short series suck
short series suck

spooky157 · Post by **spooky157** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:22 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:short series suck
short series suck
short series suck

Amen! Is it too much to ask for 2 extra games in the first round? This will probably mean cutting 8 games off the regular season schedule but to have baseball series decided in 5 games is absurd. Even the NBA realized how ridiculous the 5 game series was.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:35 pm

Nice work by Maine in a short outing. I'm sitting here at work having heart palpitations, listening to the game on the radio. The playoffs are nerve-wracking when you've got a horse in the race.

Go Mets bullpen! Some good arms in there for Willie to mix and match.

webdanzer · Post by **webdanzer** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:39 pm

spooky157 wrote:
sfz_T-car wrote:short series suck
short series suck
short series suck
Amen! Is it too much to ask for 2 extra games in the first round? This will probably mean cutting 8 games off the regular season schedule but to have baseball series decided in 5 games is absurd. Even the NBA realized how ridiculous the 5 game series was.

Notion thirded. 5 rounders -especially in baseball...162 games a year baseball!- are idiotic beyond belief.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:43 pm

spooky157 wrote:
sfz_T-car wrote:short series suck
short series suck
short series suck
Amen! Is it too much to ask for 2 extra games in the first round? This will probably mean cutting 8 games off the regular season schedule but to have baseball series decided in 5 games is absurd. Even the NBA realized how ridiculous the 5 game series was.

Actually, the NBA realized they needed a money grab. There isn't much difference between a 5 and a 7 game series... 90 percent of the time teams don't get off the mat from a 3-1 deficit, and virtually 100% of the time they don't get up from 3-0. The only real effect is on 2-2, because the series ends the next game. Even then, you would have to make the argument that 7 games are needed to determine the better team as opposed to 5, which I'm not so sure. If that's true, then 9 would be better than 7, and 11 would be better than 9, so how do you determine the optimum length? Having said all that, I would like to see 7 just because it means more baseball... but I don't think it really matters much.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:48 pm

If any sport should have kept the short series, it's basketball. First round upsets are rare, even in the 4 and 5 seed matchups.

The Twins battled from April to October and emerged victorious from what passes for a pennant race these days. They drank the champagne on Sunday but by noon Wednesday (PDT), they're on the brink of elimination.

I'm not a Twins fan but this just doesn't seem right.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:56 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:If any sport should have kept the short series, it's basketball. First round upsets are rare, even in the 4 and 5 seed matchups.

The Twins battled from April to October and emerged victorious from what passes for a pennant race these days. They drank the champagne on Sunday but by noon Wednesday (PDT), they're on the brink of elimination.

I'm not a Twins fan but this just doesn't seem right.

It doesn't... but I think it's just the nature of baseball and the daily schedule. Let's say you're a Memphis Grizzlies fan... even though you know you are going out in 4 or 5 games, due to the NBA stretching out the schedule until the end of time, you know you will have playoff fever for basically close to two weeks, even if you get swept. They'll wait 4 days to get started, play the first two games in 3 days, wait 5 days, and play the next two... it makes it seem more satisfying after the long season. Not so in baseball.

spooky157 · Post by **spooky157** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:58 pm

sfz_T-car wrote:If any sport should have kept the short series, it's basketball. First round upsets are rare, even in the 4 and 5 seed matchups.

The Twins battled from April to October and emerged victorious from what passes for a pennant race these days. They drank the champagne on Sunday but by noon Wednesday (PDT), they're on the brink of elimination.

I'm not a Twins fan but this just doesn't seem right.

A sport where the most important player on the field can only play once every five days needs to have their playoff series decided in as many games as possible.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:12 pm

Kazuya wrote:
sfz_T-car wrote:If any sport should have kept the short series, it's basketball. First round upsets are rare, even in the 4 and 5 seed matchups.

The Twins battled from April to October and emerged victorious from what passes for a pennant race these days. They drank the champagne on Sunday but by noon Wednesday (PDT), they're on the brink of elimination.

I'm not a Twins fan but this just doesn't seem right.
It doesn't... but I think it's just the nature of baseball and the daily schedule. Let's say you're a Memphis Grizzlies fan... even though you know you are going out in 4 or 5 games, due to the NBA stretching out the schedule until the end of time, you know you will have playoff fever for basically close to two weeks, even if you get swept. They'll wait 4 days to get started, play the first two games in 3 days, wait 5 days, and play the next two... it makes it seem more satisfying after the long season. Not so in baseball.

That seems like an argument in favor of 7 game series in baseball. They play 6 games/week all summer; they don't need multiple off-days in a post season series. A 7 game series should only take 8 days to complete, leave one day between game 5 & 6 for travel or rainouts. I suppose weather is a limiting factor in some parts of the country but we're only talking about 2-3 days in total.

Basketball players can't go every night, although I agree some of the scheduling gaps during the NBA playoffs are just ridiculous.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:25 pm

I'm voting for a 7 game series all rounds too. So a few extra games prolong the season, it's too long already, so what's it going matter.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:52 pm

sfz_T-car wrote: That seems like an argument in favor of 7 game series in baseball. They play 6 games/week all summer; they don't need multiple off-days in a post season series. A 7 game series should only take 8 days to complete, leave one day between game 5 & 6 for travel or rainouts. I suppose weather is a limiting factor in some parts of the country but we're only talking about 2-3 days in total.

It is neither an argument for or against... my point was that I don't think it *competitively* matters. Now if someone wanted to say that a 162 game season deserves a longer series even just for fan enjoyment then I am in total agreement. I just hear a lot of fans complain about short series when they're team loses 3-0 or 3-1... overwhelmingly, that extra game doesn't make a difference.

sfz_T-car · Post by **sfz_T-car** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:05 pm

Kazuya wrote:
sfz_T-car wrote: That seems like an argument in favor of 7 game series in baseball. They play 6 games/week all summer; they don't need multiple off-days in a post season series. A 7 game series should only take 8 days to complete, leave one day between game 5 & 6 for travel or rainouts. I suppose weather is a limiting factor in some parts of the country but we're only talking about 2-3 days in total.
It is neither an argument for or against... my point was that I don't think it *competitively* matters. Now if someone wanted to say that a 162 game season deserves a longer series even just for fan enjoyment then I am in total agreement. I just hear a lot of fans complain about short series when they're team loses 3-0 or 3-1... overwhelmingly, that extra game doesn't make a difference.

That's very true in the NBA where the best teams win 75% of their regular season games vs. 50-55% for their first round opponents. That reflects a significant gap in quality and has predictable results.

In baseball, you're typically looking at short series between teams who've won somewhere between 88 and 104 games, plus the ability of a hot or off pitcher to dramatically affect the results. In this case, anything that increases of the influence of a single game on the series result is a bad thing.

Hockey fits somewhere in between but seems closer to baseball. First round upsets aren't uncommon.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:18 pm

What a game! Dodgers lost but that game was so fun to watch. I dont know what it is when the dodgers go back to play in NY but got to hand it to the Shea crowd, what a great energy that game had.

10spro · Post by **10spro** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:19 pm

Gutsy win for the Mets. LAD made it interesting, how many of you Mets fan went "Here we go again". Come on. As I mentioned earlier in the absence of pitching players like Delgado (did he ever come thru), Beltran and Green will have to step up.

Even Johnny Mac was happy.

jLp vAkEr0 · Post by **jLp vAkEr0** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:33 pm

That was close...

But the Mets got by starting a rook, lets see if the Dodgers can do the same tomorow.

GO METS!

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:37 pm

sfz_T-car wrote: That's very true in the NBA where the best teams win 75% of their regular season games vs. 50-55% for their first round opponents. That reflects a significant gap in quality and has predictable results.

In baseball, you're typically looking at short series between teams who've won somewhere between 88 and 104 games, plus the ability of a hot or off pitcher to dramatically affect the results. In this case, anything that increases of the influence of a single game on the series result is a bad thing.

I am currently looking for the source, but last I remember it was around 85% victory rate for 3-1 leads and obviously 99% for 3-0 leads (some high number, there's only been one collapse). Regardless of the quality gap, when you go down 3-1 or 3-0 you almost always lose. The extra game is for MLB revenue and the fans. Competitively, 5 game series gets it done in those cases. Like I said before 2-2 is a different story, but if both teams go into the last game with having won 2 with an equal chance to advance, that sounds pretty fair.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:48 pm

Kaz, if you find the source I'd be very interested to see what the percentages are for a 2-0 lead in a 5 and 7 games series.

snaz16 · Post by **snaz16** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:07 pm

Leebo33 wrote:Kaz, if you find the source I'd be very interested to see what the percentages are for a 2-0 lead in a 5 and 7 games series.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/

You'll have to do the research...but there is a source

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:13 pm

Leebo33 wrote:Kaz, if you find the source I'd be very interested to see what the percentages are for a 2-0 lead in a 5 and 7 games series.

Sorry I brainlocked, once I was able to go home and relax it popped in my head.

http://www.whowins.com/home.html

Unfortunately, it looks like 7 games is all it tracks so we'll have to independently research five games... not nearly as daunting a task, though.

So I was very close, but still off... it's 96% for 3-0 and 84% for 3-1.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:52 am

I'm glad MLB lets the Yankees decide when they're going to play now.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:04 am

I don't mind a 5 game series in the first round. People need to keep in mind that this round hasn't been around that long. It wasn't long ago that you only had 2 teams from each league make the playoffs, so you had 1 less round.

The season is still 162 games, so what you have today is a World Series being played later in the year. Not is matters to those in Cali or Florida, but in places like Chicago and NY, it gets damn cold. If you can argue that it's not fair to have a playoff series decided in 5 games, you can also argue that it's not fair to have a WS decided in snow flurries.

As for the NBA, they drag their playoffs out WAY too much.

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:26 am

I like the 5 game series, I think it takes the excitement that much higher. I was dying last night hoping my Mets wouldn't blow Game 1.

lexbur · Post by **lexbur** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:03 am

Bizarre baserunning by the Dodgers yesterday. I've never seen two guys get tagged out at the plate like that. What was the second guy thinking? It looked like he would have had enough time to go back to third.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:03 pm

snaz16 wrote:
Leebo33 wrote:Kaz, if you find the source I'd be very interested to see what the percentages are for a 2-0 lead in a 5 and 7 games series.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/

You'll have to do the research...but there is a source

Just a quick and dirty calculation -- the team with the worse record is 23-21 in division series since they began. In the case of teams that were tied, I counted home field as the "better" record (this only happened twice). Until 2000, the favorites had a 2-1 advantage, but from 2000-2003 the team with less wins took many of the series. It has swung back the other direction in 2004-2005, with the favorites going 3-1 each year.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:35 pm

ESPN radio likes to come out of commercials with audio highlights from earlier moments in the game... it always takes me a second to realize they're not talking about something happening live. Very confusing.