2023 MLB Playoffs

[Tiger337]

The Braves just don't want it enough.  They don't know how to win.    

[IdahoBert]

Since 1958 the Braves have been in the postseason 25 times and have only won 2 World Series. Technically, the Tigers are a less frustrating team because they have won two World Series since 1968 and have provided less frustration for the fan base. But the Braves do make the regular season more fun.  

[Tiger337]

I'd much rather have had the Tigers perform like the Braves during my lifetime.  

[casimir]

8 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Within 7 games is randomness.  Not 20 games. 

Is there some truth to this?  That's the number I kind of use as a barometer when looking at records and "tiering" teams.

[casimir]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Indeed. The irony of letting Nick and JD go, both at least in part over dissatisfaction with their defense, was the team defense did not improve. It's begun to improve now several years later, but certainly not as any consequence of moving those two guys.

So, given those storylines, what to do with Malloy?

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, casimir said:

So, given those storylines, what to do with Malloy?

He goes to left and plays alongside with Parker and, for now, Carpenter. Although Bigbie will probably get a long look this spring since he’s 24, in the AFL now, and is Rule 5 eligible after next year.

[Tenacious D]

56 minutes ago, chasfh said:

He goes to left and plays alongside with Parker and, for now, Carpenter. Although Bigbie will probably get a long look this spring since he’s 24, in the AFL now, and is Rule 5 eligible after next year.

Did we trade Greene?

[chasfh]

20 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

Did we trade Greene?

He won’t be in the outfield next year. This is only for 2024, anyway, not for ever.

[chasfh]

I like Nick Castellanos a little better this morning. 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by chasfh

[Biff Mayhem]

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I like Nick Castellanos a little better this morning. 

 

Oh Nicholas.....

 

The way he hard stares that first interviewer is fantastic. Then the wry grin but the hard stare continues.

[Tiger337]

3 hours ago, casimir said:

Is there some truth to this?  That's the number I kind of use as a barometer when looking at records and "tiering" teams.

It's something Bill James came up with a long time ago based on the assumption that all teams are equal with every game having a 50% probaility of a win for each team.  

[oblong]

so based on that theory then any playoff series is random so it doesn't really matter what we do with the format.

I never looked at the modern era of playoffs as determining who the best team was that year.  The Tigers weren't, and aren't, considered the second or third best team in 2012.  Were the Giants the best team in 2012?  Probably not.  But I don't thinks that that way either.  what they do think is "The Giants won 3 WS titles in 6 years, they were a pretty good team during that time".  

Occassionally you do get the team that is great all year and then wins the title and they get recognized as such.  But nobody says "Man, the Nationals owned 2019, didn't they?"

I think the "controvesy" is all an Abbot and Costello routine where there's answers being given to questions not being asked.

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, oblong said:

so based on that theory then any playoff series is random so it doesn't really matter what we do with the format.

 

I'd put it that the fact that the outcome of an unbiased playoff would be random means exactly that what you do with the format does matter because the format can change an unbiased result to a biased one. So you want to be intentional in designing formats to either avoid bias or at least get the biases you want and avoid ones you don't. For example, leaving aside the question of whether it actually does or doesn't, if we assume just for the sake of argument that layoffs hurt teams and that could eventually be shown, then you certainly did not want to disadvantage the best teams by "giving" them a bye.

Home field is the other obvious candidate bias , as most teams do have higher winning percentages at home, though without looking it up I believe that in all sports home-field advantage has been shrinking since replay arrived. I'd guess it could disappear nearly completely in baseball if pitch calling is automated.....

Edited October 13, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

3 hours ago, casimir said:

So, given those storylines, what to do with Malloy?

Martinez/Castellanos would not have been kept forever, just until there were viable replacements.  I am not a fan of completely tearing a team down without getting a decent return on your players and being left with a horrible team for years and years.  I want to see them try to be reasonably competitive every year.     

[Tiger337]

31 minutes ago, oblong said:

so based on that theory then any playoff series is random so it doesn't really matter what we do with the format.

I never looked at the modern era of playoffs as determining who the best team was that year.  The Tigers weren't, and aren't, considered the second or third best team in 2012.  Were the Giants the best team in 2012?  Probably not.  But I don't thinks that that way either.  what they do think is "The Giants won 3 WS titles in 6 years, they were a pretty good team during that time".  

Occassionally you do get the team that is great all year and then wins the title and they get recognized as such.  But nobody says "Man, the Nationals owned 2019, didn't they?"

I think the "controvesy" is all an Abbot and Costello routine where there's answers being given to questions not being asked.

They could have fewer teams in the playoffs.  That would my change in the format which I know won't happen.  

No, fans and media don't say that an inferior team dominated all year.  What they do is twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why the inferior team won.  "They wanted it more", "They were built for the playoffs", etc.  Then they will point to something wrong with the more dominant team's roster construction suggesting they were built for the long haul but don't have the talent or character to compete in big games.  And they agonize for years viewing them as a failure despite having a great season.  I am not accusing people here of doing these things.  Most people here are smarter than that.  

 

[oblong]

21 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I'd put it that the fact that the outcome of an unbiased playoff would be random means exactly that what you do with the format does matter because the format can change an unbiased result to a biased one. So you want to be intentional in designing formats to either avoid bias or at least get the biases you want and avoid ones you don't. For example, leaving aside the question of whether it actually does or doesn't, if we assume just for the sake of argument that layoffs hurt teams and that could eventually be shown, then you certainly did not want to disadvantage the best teams by "giving" them a bye.

Home field is the other obvious candidate bias , as most teams do have higher winning percentages at home, though without looking it up I believe that in all sports home-field advantage has been shrinking since replay arrived. I'd guess it could disappear nearly completely in baseball if pitch calling is automated.....

those solutions rely on patience and time and that's something leagues with TV pressure and collective bargaining agreements don't have.  You'd have to study each format change for a number of years to get quality data.

Home teams were 6-8 in the LDS this, with the higher "seeded" team going 1-3 in series matchups.  Does that mean anything?  I don't think so. 

 

[Tiger337]

One thing I would definitely like to see is for them to eliminate divisions.  Make the schedules as balanced as possible and just take the top 6 teams (or however many teams the televison networks think are necessary) in each league.  There is no need for all the wildcard nonsense unless the schedules are unbalanced. 

[Tiger337]

9 minutes ago, oblong said:

those solutions rely on patience and time and that's something leagues with TV pressure and collective bargaining agreements don't have.  You'd have to study each format change for a number of years to get quality data.

Home teams were 6-8 in the LDS this, with the higher "seeded" team going 1-3 in series matchups.  Does that mean anything?  I don't think so. 

 

Much of that can be simulated based on past results.  I think the only think you can't simulate well is the effect of a long layoff.  

[chasfh]

29 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

They could have fewer teams in the playoffs.  That would my change in the format which I know won't happen.  

No, fans and media don't say that an inferior team dominated all year.  What they do is twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why the inferior team won.  "They wanted it more", "They were built for the playoffs", etc.  Then they will point to something wrong with the more dominant team's roster construction suggesting they were built for the long haul but don't have the talent or character to compete in big games.  And they agonize for years viewing them as a failure despite having a great season.  I am not accusing people here of doing these things.  Most people here are smarter than that.  

 

Unfortunately, there's no money in fewer teams in the playoffs.

[gehringer_2]

51 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

What they do is twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why the inferior team won.  "

this is always the amusing part. But it's part of the myth structure. Humans crave determinism in a Universe that is stochastic right down to the atomic level and they will just invent it anywhere they can't find it really exists.

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Unfortunately, there's no money in fewer teams in the playoffs.

QFT

[chasfh]

21 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

One thing I would definitely like to see is for them to eliminate divisions.  Make the schedules as balanced as possible and just take the top 6 teams (or however many teams the televison networks think are necessary) in each league.  There is no need for all the wildcard nonsense unless the schedules are unbalanced. 

Setting aside the difficulty in selling a 14th or 15th place team, which I acknowledge you believe is not even a thing, probably the biggest challenge is to have a truly balanced schedule, which I acknowledge you may not believe is even important. But what the hell, let's spool out the thought exercise.

The main principle of a truly balanced schedule would be exact same number of games against every other team, as well as the exact same number of home games and away games against each. That's the way they do it in all the big football leagues in the world, e.g., the English Premier League. So in that sense, the only way to truly balance everything for MLB is to have one big league, 32 teams, one table (i.e., no divisions), and the same number of games against each team, with home-away games split 50-50.

The first thing to look into is six games against each opponent, three home and three away. That would end up being 186 games, though, which obviously is unworkable.

The only other possibly workable solution would be four games against each opponent, two home and two away. Now, there may actually be some fan support for this, since it is only 124 games, and there are always some fans looking for ways to shorten the season as much as possible, probably to get baseball away from the buzzsaw that is the NFL and NBA. So MLB could start the season around May 1 and end it around September 30. That's 124 games in 152 or so days, plenty of off days to schedule to avoid conflicts with marquee NBA games like Lakers-Celtics, or NBA Finals games, or with the NFL on Sundays. The whole league can have the day off when these things happen. Sound crazy? It is, but they're already scheduling this year's LCS's to minimize Sunday play, and they're scheduling the World Series to avoid Sundays altogether. So precedent has been set.

If we must maintain the two league setup, then one way to do it would be six games against each of the other 15 teams in the league, and four games against each of the 16 teams in the other league. This setup would actually be "mathemagical", because it would be (15 * 6) + (16 * 4) = 154 games for the season. Nostalgia, baby! It's the perfect solution to blend tradition with blowing up the current system. You as a fan may or may not care to follow the 15th-place Tigers for the whole year, but at least you'll be able to compare the players' stats with Charlie Gehringer's or Hal Newhouser's on a one-to-one basis. Tradition!

One other idea, which you might actually kind of like, is to split up MLB into four separate 8-team leagues (or "conferences", which is probably where it's all going anyway). To make this happen, we'd have to throw out the whole idea of balancing schedules, but there are two possible approaches with this: play 12 games against each team in your own "league", and three against each of the 24 teams in the other three "leagues", for a 156-game season; or eight games against your own "league", and four against the other three "leagues", for a 152-game season.

Of course, all these options assume that owners would even want to play in 32- or 16- or even 8-team tables, which I can assure you they will not. They will want to play in four-team divisions, so that's what we'll be getting. Assuming that, I think we are looking at 14 games against each of our divisional opponents, six games against each of the remaining 12 teams in our league, and three games each against each of the 16 teams in the other league, for a total of ... 162 games. Continuity, baby!

 

[Tenacious D]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

He won’t be in the outfield next year. This is only for 2024, anyway, not for ever.

? He had TJ on his non-throwing elbow.  Rub some dirt on it in March and get your ass out there.

Joking aside, I would be shocked if he misses much, if any, outfield time in 2024

[oblong]

27 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Setting aside the difficulty in selling a 14th or 15th place team, which I acknowledge you believe is not even a thing, probably the biggest challenge is to have a truly balanced schedule, which I acknowledge you may not believe is even important. But what the hell, let's spool out the thought exercise.

The main principle of a truly balanced schedule would be exact same number of games against every other team, as well as the exact same number of home games and away games against each. That's the way they do it in all the big football leagues in the world, e.g., the English Premier League. So in that sense, the only way to truly balance everything for MLB is to have one big league, 32 teams, one table (i.e., no divisions), and the same number of games against each team, with home-away games split 50-50.

The first thing to look into is six games against each opponent, three home and three away. That would end up being 186 games, though, which obviously is unworkable.

The only other possibly workable solution would be four games against each opponent, two home and two away. Now, there may actually be some fan support for this, since it is only 124 games, and there are always some fans looking for ways to shorten the season as much as possible, probably to get baseball away from the buzzsaw that is the NFL and NBA. So MLB could start the season around May 1 and end it around September 30. That's 124 games in 152 or so days, plenty of off days to schedule to avoid conflicts with marquee NBA games like Lakers-Celtics, or NBA Finals games, or with the NFL on Sundays. The whole league can have the day off when these things happen. Sound crazy? It is, but they're already scheduling this year's LCS's to minimize Sunday play, and they're scheduling the World Series to avoid Sundays altogether. So precedent has been set.

If we must maintain the two league setup, then one way to do it would be six games against each of the other 15 teams in the league, and four games against each of the 16 teams in the other league. This setup would actually be "mathemagical", because it would be (15 * 6) + (16 * 4) = 154 games for the season. Nostalgia, baby! It's the perfect solution to blend tradition with blowing up the current system. You as a fan may or may not care to follow the 15th-place Tigers for the whole year, but at least you'll be able to compare the players' stats with Charlie Gehringer's or Hal Newhouser's on a one-to-one basis. Tradition!

One other idea, which you might actually kind of like, is to split up MLB into four separate 8-team leagues (or "conferences", which is probably where it's all going anyway). To make this happen, we'd have to throw out the whole idea of balancing schedules, but there are two possible approaches with this: play 12 games against each team in your own "league", and three against each of the 24 teams in the other three "leagues", for a 156-game season; or eight games against your own "league", and four against the other three "leagues", for a 152-game season.

Of course, all these options assume that owners would even want to play in 32- or 16- or even 8-team tables, which I can assure you they will not. They will want to play in four-team divisions, so that's what we'll be getting. Assuming that, I think we are looking at 14 games against each of our divisional opponents, six games against each of the remaining 12 teams in our league, and three games each against each of the 16 teams in the other league, for a total of ... 162 games. Continuity, baby!

 

Players too.

 

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, oblong said:

Players too.

 

True. What player would not care about playing on a 15th-place team?