2013 MLB postseason running thread

[LongTimeListener]

Yeah I don't see the problem with that schedule. Both teams, yada yada.

Sounds a bit more like "the networks don't respect us!!!!!!" fanboi-ism.

 

[joe]

Yeah, well ... ****. Stop being so logical and ****. You're harshing my anger.

 

[Armchair_QB]

The Cardinals and Cincy/Pittsburgh got ****ed in the scheduling. A late afternoon game followed by a ****ing noon game the next day? ****ing bull****.

Yeah, I'm sure it's a long drive back and forth from the stadium. I don't know how the teams will be able to overcome that...

 

[UPChip]

Not postseason, but still a thought for the day, crossposted from the SABR-L list:

A search of Fangraphs today helped me answer a question that had been rolling around in my head for some time. When we talk about Wins Above Replacement, who is replacement? Not what, because I'm familiar with the concept of the 'replacement player,' but rather who most perfectly embodies the face of mediocrity.

I propose* that the reward be that for the entire 2014 season, WAR be renamed in honor of this master of equilibrium. It appears (though since the calculation goes to only one decimal place, it's a bit hard to tell) this year's winner** is Twins catcher Ryan Doumit. Apparently the face of mediocrity has creepy near-black eyes. WARD has a nice
ring to it, no?

For NL-only aficionados (and disgruntled Cub fans), it appears Starlin Castro was a -0.1.

*Not seriously, though it is technically halfway to April Fools Day 2014.
**This of course, is contingent upon players meeting official minimums for innings and/or PAs, etc.

Anyway, my somewhat serious question is — what would happen if we extrapolated this into history? Would any players, otherwise lost to the dustbin of time, have 'accomplished' a WAR closest to 0.0 more than once? Based on some sort of arbitrary minimum, what career player might be closest to this statistical equilibrium?

 

[Steak Snabler]

I don't know about that, but I always found it funny that Bob Uecker's lifetime batting average was .200 (actually, .1997). It should have been the Uecker line, not the Mendoza line.

 

[Songbird]

"I'm a writer -- I like narratives!" Verducci just now in explaining that he's taking the Pirates over the Reds because the last time the Pirates won a playoff game there was no DVDs, no Google, no Bryce Harper ...

 

[buckweaver]

Well, at least he's honest.

And you can still like narratives and not force inaccurate narratives when the numbers don't match up with what your eyes want to believe.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I want the Pirates and A's to go all the way so we can talk about salary caps.

 

[Songbird]

Examples?

 

[bigpern23]

With my Yankees out of it, I'm rooting hard for the Pirates win it all, but particularly tonight. I'd hate to see their 20-year drought end in one night.

 

[Mark2010]

You hit the nail on the head there. Play hard all season to earn a spot and have it all go down the drain in one night? Something's not right there.

 

[old_tony]

Looks like Dusty is going to use them all tonight.

 

[bigpern23]

I think the one-game playoff is exciting and I'm OK with it, but I'll admit that it is odd to see in a sport built around three-game series in the regular season. Best-of-three would seem to make the most sense.

Personally, I'd make the first two rounds best-of-three to prevent the playoffs from extending to Thanksgiving, and go with best-of-seven for the LCS and World Series.

 

[RickStain]

You hit the nail on the head there. Play hard all season to earn a spot and have it all go down the drain in one night? Something's not right there.

Win the division and you don't have to worry about. Earn a full spot, get a full spot. Earn a half-spot, risk it in one game.

 

[outofplace]

You hit the nail on the head there. Play hard all season to earn a spot and have it all go down the drain in one night? Something's not right there.

Win the division and you don't have to worry about. Earn a full spot, get a full spot. Earn a half-spot, risk it in one game.

Which is all fine and good, but that "half-spot" had always earned teams more than the one game. I don't mind the new format, but your argument is pretty shaky for that reason.

 

[UPChip]

The Reds are looking pretty brown in the center.

 

[RickStain]

You hit the nail on the head there. Play hard all season to earn a spot and have it all go down the drain in one night? Something's not right there.

Win the division and you don't have to worry about. Earn a full spot, get a full spot. Earn a half-spot, risk it in one game.

Which is all fine and good, but that "half-spot" had always earned teams more than the one game. I don't mind the new format, but your argument is pretty shaky for that reason.

No, it hadn't. There didn't use to be such a thing as a half-spot.

Heck, by that argument, finishing first used to get you a spot in the World Series, so it's not fair now to have playoffs at all.

 

[outofplace]

I want the Pirates and A's to go all the way so we can talk about salary caps.

You really want to go there or are you just trolling?

Meh. I'll bite because it's fun.

The New York Yankees missed the playoffs this year for only the second time in 19 seasons. They won the World Series five times during that period,

The Pirates? This isn't just the first time in the playoffs after sitting out the post-season the last 21 years. This is their first winning record since 1992.

Just to put that in a little bit of perspective, the Yankees' Core Four (Jeter, Rivera, Posada and Pettitte) were still three seasons away from making their first appearances in the major leagues the last time the Pirates made the playoffs.

Four of the current MLB franchises did not yet exist in 1992. The Rockies and Marlins played their first games in 1993 and the Rays and Diamondbacks arrived in 1998.

But yeah, one season by the Pirates certainly counters all of that.

 

[outofplace]

You hit the nail on the head there. Play hard all season to earn a spot and have it all go down the drain in one night? Something's not right there.

Win the division and you don't have to worry about. Earn a full spot, get a full spot. Earn a half-spot, risk it in one game.

Which is all fine and good, but that "half-spot" had always earned teams more than the one game. I don't mind the new format, but your argument is pretty shaky for that reason.

No, it hadn't. There didn't use to be such a thing as a half-spot.

Heck, by that argument, finishing first used to get you a spot in the World Series, so it's not fair now to have playoffs at all.

You were the one to make a distinction between winning a division and earning a "half-spot."

Until this year, teams in the spot currently occupied by the Pirates and Indians got a full series, not one wild card game.

 

[Mark2010]

I would have no problems with the old format where the league champion goes straight to the World Series.

Baseball, more than any other team sport, has always valued day-in, day-out consistency. Too many freaky things can happen in any one-game situation. If you want to expand the playoffs, fine, then cut the regular season, which is waaaaay too long as it stands.

I just don't see what adding a second wild card accomplishes. If you want more teams, why stop there? Why not make it like the NHL and NBA and take half the league? Yes, it would make September more interesting to have a 16-team tournament, rather than a bunch of teams playing out the stretch. But decide what's significant and go with it.