4 favorites out...

[Palomar]

How can anyone say the mlb playoffs are not a crap shoot under the current format?

 

Especially the wild card game!

[stormngt]

Baseball is a hell of a sport. Still don't agree with the whole crapshoot thing though.

Great teams in baseball lose 40% of their games.  This makes the upsets in a five game series very common. 

[stormngt]

I refuse to believe there are any "elements" that help you win in the playoffs besides the normal things you need to have a good team (ie pitching, hitting and defense).

You can look back afterward and say "oh this team won because they did x." But you don't need to do x to win. Because in another series, the team won because they did y. And in another series it was because of z.

So you need x or y or z, but none of those mean anything because sometimes you do x and the other team does y and in their series y beats x.

It's like a big game of rock, paper scissors.

These short series really are crap shoots. What if Aoki doesn't make either of those circus catches in the first game? What if Cowgill beats that play at 3b in game 2? Guessing either of those wins the game for the Angels. Did they suddenly have more of grit/determination/confidence/balls?

They are coin flips. Entertaining coin flips.

Well said.

[stormngt]

You just had to go there didn't you.

Red Sox didn't run into the WS champions four out of five years!

 

Hell, they were the WS champions for three of those years.

[Guest]

It was only that way for about 65 years. And the team with the better record still lost the World Series lots of times.

Do you want the best team to win or do you want to be entertained?

regular season records were not directly comparable because there was no interleague and the teams in the World Series faced completely different opponents.

 

There is of course a reasonable tradeoff between fairness and excitement in a playoff format. Make the division series round best of 7. Make the wild card round best of 3, no days off all at the park of the top seeded team.

[Chuck]

Good posts Jeff Fletcher, ScottT & Dochalo (and some others). I'm 100% in agreement with you guys! 

 

If you don't like the word "Crapshoot" find another word that defines the same thing, because the playoffs are all about executing and in a short series, you can get ousted in just 3 games. 

 

That and aside from the spectacular defense by the Royals, players like Butler, Hosmer & Moustakas hit much better than they did in the regular season. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

regular season records were not directly comparable because there was no interleague and the teams in the World Series faced completely different opponents.

 

There is of course a reasonable tradeoff between fairness and excitement in a playoff format. Make the division series round best of 7. Make the wild card round best of 3, no days off all at the park of the top seeded team.

I wouldn't necessarily object to making the division series best of 7, but I'm not sure it would make much difference. All the favorites who just lost would now be down 3-1 or 3-0 in a best of 7, so they'll probably still lose.

 

And  you can't make the WC a best of 3. You need to have the Monday off for possible tie-breaker games. The leagues need to be staggered so you minimize the chance of days with no games or days with multiple game 7s. That's how you maximize the TV exposure. (And TV, whether we choose to admit it, pays the bills.) So if you're staggering the series then you're pushing one team back 6 days to start its division series. No way is that fair. That's a penalty to the team that won the division. It's probably too long of a gap now.

 

I like that the WC team gets kinda screwed. They should be. They get screwed for not winning the division and we get rewarded by seeing two all-or-nothing games. Everyone wins.

[QuinlansMinion]

So what if Aoki makes circus catches? Is that not part of the Royals gameplan, they got there with pitching and defense. The better team will still find a way to win, and we had several guys come up with RISP and do absolutely nothing. The Royals got to the shitty part of our pen and hit homers to close it out.

People just look for whatever excuse to make them feel better. Its really sad to see Angels fans with a sore losers mentality. The playoffs are a crapshoot? Yeah tell that to the Cardinals who are in the LCS for the fourth year in a row. Tell that to the Giants who have already won two world series in the last 4 years, and are threatening to win another. Tell that to the Royals who havent been there in 30 years and won 4 straight postseason games.

I guess some teams just have all the luck. And circus catches are now being used in this crap shoot theory. This is starting to make Angel fans look like sore losers who value the regular season too much. For as much as everyone here makes fun of Yankees fans, they would laugh at this boards genera consensus of how the playoffs dont matter.

[AngelsFaninGA]

The playoffs only turned into a crapshoot after 2002. 

[Brandon]

Naw, the Marlins and Diamondbacks luckboxed their titles too.

[sneaky_flute]

So what if Aoki makes circus catches? Is that not part of the Royals gameplan, they got there with pitching and defense. The better team will still find a way to win, and we had several guys come up with RISP and do absolutely nothing. The Royals got to the shitty part of our pen and hit homers to close it out.

People just look for whatever excuse to make them feel better. Its really sad to see Angels fans with a sore losers mentality. The playoffs are a crapshoot? Yeah tell that to the Cardinals who are in the LCS for the fourth year in a row. Tell that to the Giants who have already won two world series in the last 4 years, and are threatening to win another. Tell that to the Royals who havent been there in 30 years and won 4 straight postseason games.

I guess some teams just have all the luck. And circus catches are now being used in this crap shoot theory. This is starting to make Angel fans look like sore losers who value the regular season too much. For as much as everyone here makes fun of Yankees fans, they would laugh at this boards genera consensus of how the playoffs dont matter.

The playoff success of certain teams isn't a reflection of some everlasting organizational philosophy. Even if you believe there's something "magical" about these teams, they don't even have the same roster from year to year.

 

MLB's postseason is based on a little luck, a little skill, and how well or poorly the other teams are playing. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

So what if Aoki makes circus catches? Is that not part of the Royals gameplan, they got there with pitching and defense. The better team will still find a way to win, and we had several guys come up with RISP and do absolutely nothing. The Royals got to the shitty part of our pen and hit homers to close it out.

People just look for whatever excuse to make them feel better. Its really sad to see Angels fans with a sore losers mentality. The playoffs are a crapshoot? Yeah tell that to the Cardinals who are in the LCS for the fourth year in a row. Tell that to the Giants who have already won two world series in the last 4 years, and are threatening to win another. Tell that to the Royals who havent been there in 30 years and won 4 straight postseason games.

I guess some teams just have all the luck. And circus catches are now being used in this crap shoot theory. This is starting to make Angel fans look like sore losers who value the regular season too much. For as much as everyone here makes fun of Yankees fans, they would laugh at this boards genera consensus of how the playoffs dont matter.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not saying it's all luck. I'm saying it's not predictable or explainable. There's a difference. Obviously the Royals played better than the Angels (a little better in 2 games and a lot better in one).

 

But if they played again, with the exact same rosters, it might be the opposite. If they played each other a million times, it would probably be pretty close to 50-50.

 

How do I know? Because they each just played 162 games, and one team won 60 percent and the other won 55 percent. That's a difference of one game every 20. And the difference is even less if they only play each other, rather than playing other teams.

[QuinlansMinion]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not saying it's all luck. I'm saying it's not predictable or explainable. There's a difference. Obviously the Royals played better than the Angels (a little better in 2 games and a lot better in one).

 

But if they played again, with the exact same rosters, it might be the opposite. If they played each other a million times, it would probably be pretty close to 50-50.

 

How do I know? Because they each just played 162 games, and one team won 60 percent and the other won 55 percent. That's a difference of one game every 20. And the difference is even less if they only play each other, rather than playing other teams.

 

The run differential in the series was 15-6, in what universe do you consider that lucky?  Or unexplainable as you put it.  You could make the same excuses in every sport.  What if the Giants never got that circus Tyree catch in the super bowl vs the Patriots?  The Lakers beat the Celtics by 4 points in game 7, what if the Celtics get a couple more bounces their way?  What if Robert Horry never gets the tip out for the game winning shot against the Kings?  Having the ball roll your way is just a part of sports.  But the better team will still find a way to win, without making excuses about it.  Ive heard Scioscia say it all the time in postgame conferences, that "we shouldnt have been in that position to begin with."

The same would apply for Games 1 and 2 against the Royals.  Yeah the Royals made some nice catches, but we should not have been in that position to rely on them dropping the ball in order for us to win.  If we truly were the better team, we would have proved it by not going 2-26 with RISP, while the Royals went something like 6-10 or whatever it was.  Why couldnt we get the walk off hit or homer in at least one of those games?  Instead, the Moustakas and Hosmer got them.  The reason this happened, our pen wasnt deep enough to compete with theirs.  And the Royals approach this series was infinitely better than ours.

 

But we only needed 100 more tries to prove we were the better team right?  Maybe MLB can expand these games to 100 game series for the Angels.

[WallyWorld]

 It's probably too long of a gap now.

 

I like that the WC team gets kinda screwed. They should be. They get screwed for not winning the division and we get rewarded by seeing two all-or-nothing games. Everyone wins.

 

That's one of my gripes. Not to use it as an excuse, but I do think the 3 days off could have been a contributing factor to the Angels' bats being cold in the ALDS.

The WC teams should be screwed, and to me that means they play their play-in game on Monday, the day after the season ends, and then the ALDS starts right up on Tuesday. Wednesday at the latest. (The NL division had an even bigger disadvantage, having to wait until Friday to play)

[WallyWorld]

The run differential in the series was 15-6, in what universe do you consider that lucky? 

 

QM, come on, did you watch the series. The first two games both went 11 innings and came down to a single hit to decide them. Total run differential of 3. Both of those games could have easily gone the other way. That 15-6 margin is largely due to one game (game 3). 

[Angels]

Of course it's not predictable. But certain games favor certain teams. And certain series favor certain teams (depending on a lot of different factors). It doesn't mean that the difference is large. It could be small or even really, really small. But it's not a flip of the coin. That implies pure luck. Over a large enough sample, playing Game 3 (for example) would look lopsided in the Royals favor. The larger the sample, the more noticeable it would become. That doesn't take away the fact that anything can happen in a single game. It just means that the Angels were at a disadvantage in that game. And a large enough sample would show that.

That's the difference. It's a crapshoot in the sense that anything can happen in a single game or series... but it's not just a flip of the coin aka whoever has more luck. Luck can play a role in any single game or series but it's not a flip of the coin as in it's a level playing field and the team with better fortune will win always.

[QuinlansMinion]

QM, come on, did you watch the series. The first two games both went 11 innings and came down to a single hit to decide them. Total run differential of 3. Both of those games could have easily gone the other way. That 15-6 margin is largely due to one game (game 3). 

Of course I watched it.  Like I said, 2-26 with RISP.  Thats not going to get it done.  We lost 3-2 and 4-1 at home, that isnt luck.  

[Troll Daddy]

Four favorites out ... which is a good argument for a best of seven series. Home field advantage only net us a possibility of three games at home in stead of four.

 

that sucks!

Edited October 8, 2014 by Troll Daddy

[Jeff Fletcher]

The run differential in the series was 15-6, in what universe do you consider that lucky? Or unexplainable as you put it. You could make the same excuses in every sport. What if the Giants never got that circus Tyree catch in the super bowl vs the Patriots? The Lakers beat the Celtics by 4 points in game 7, what if the Celtics get a couple more bounces their way? What if Robert Horry never gets the tip out for the game winning shot against the Kings? Having the ball roll your way is just a part of sports. But the better team will still find a way to win, without making excuses about it. Ive heard Scioscia say it all the time in postgame conferences, that "we shouldnt have been in that position to begin with."

The same would apply for Games 1 and 2 against the Royals. Yeah the Royals made some nice catches, but we should not have been in that position to rely on them dropping the ball in order for us to win. If we truly were the better team, we would have proved it by not going 2-26 with RISP, while the Royals went something like 6-10 or whatever it was. Why couldnt we get the walk off hit or homer in at least one of those games? Instead, the Moustakas and Hosmer got them. The reason this happened, our pen wasnt deep enough to compete with theirs. And the Royals approach this series was infinitely better than ours.

But we only needed 100 more tries to prove we were the better team right? Maybe MLB can expand these games to 100 game series for the Angels.

I don't think you read (or understood) my post at all.

In retrospect, the team that plays better wins. The royals played better. And there were tangible reasons they won the games.

My point is that they didn't possess anything that makes them more likely to win over the long run.

A team that wins 60 percent of it's games is good enough to win a best of five. So is a team that wins 55 percent of it's games. Both were good enough, so it's a matter of which one plays better (and not necessarily, but sometimes, gets luckier).

And one of these magical teams - the Orioles or Royals - is about to lose. Will that mean they stopped having the qualities they had last week? No, it just means one of them won't play as well.

[Jeff Fletcher]

Let me try another way...

The Angels lost because their offense didn't produce enough. That wasn't bad luck. That was poor performance. No one to blame but themselves.

But was it because the offense wasn't good enough? Was there some weakness they had going into the series that could explain why they wouldn't hit?

No.

They were good enough to score the most runs in the majors over 162 games. There were a lot of times within that 162 when they didn't score for two games in a row, exactly like what happened in Games 1 and 2. That's the nature of the game. Over a small sample you don't always perform as you would over a large sample, and that's been happening for 110 years in the postseason.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Jeff Fletcher

[T.G.]

The World Series and postseason isn’t necessarily the best way to determine who the “best” team is.  You have to look at the postseason as a tournament.  When you think about it – it’s more about entertainment and it’s the perfect stage for great theater.  Games in the post season are played differently, managed differently and all the things that make a team successful in the course of 162 games doesn’t necessarily translate into a series. 

 

Some players who played a key role in the 162 game season – get left out… like a 4^th or 5^th starter.  You might add a speed guy to your roster just for the postseason, or have a pitcher go on three day’s rest, etc. 

 

I'm not trying to take anything away from a WS champion... I would love for the Angels to do that again.  The Angels were still a great team even though they fell short in the "tournament."

[QuinlansMinion]

Let me try another way...

The Angels lost because their offense didn't produce enough. That wasn't bad luck. That was poor performance. No one to blame but themselves.

But was it because the offense wasn't good enough? Was their some weakness they had going into the series that could explain why they wouldn't hit?

No.

They were good enough to score the most runs in the majors over 162 games. There were a lot of times within that 162 when they didn't score for two games in a row, exactly like what happened in Games 1 and 2. That's the nature of the game. Over a small sample you don't always perform as you would over a large sample, and that's been happening for 110 years in the postseason.

How do you explain the Giants, 2 world series and an Nlcs in 4 years. The Cardinals, 2 world series and 4 straight nlcs. Is that just by chance? Maybe youre reasoning is flawed. Maybe the regular season doesnt determine as much as you think. Maybe beating up on the Astros and Rangers isnt a good indicator of how good a team is. Maybe the postseason is more indicative of who the best team is, considering the best teams play each other and lay it all on the line. At some point you have to give up this theory about teams getting lucky and try to make some sense as to why Mike Scioscia led teams continue to get humiliated in the playoffs.

[Guest]

How do you explain the Giants, 2 world series and an Nlcs in 4 years. The Cardinals, 2 world series and 4 straight nlcs. Is that just by chance? Maybe youre reasoning is flawed. Maybe the regular season doesnt determine as much as you think. Maybe beating up on the Astros and Rangers isnt a good indicator of how good a team is. Maybe the postseason is more indicative of who the best team is, considering the best teams play each other and lay it all on the line. At some point you have to give up this theory about teams getting lucky and try to make some sense as to why Mike Scioscia led teams continue to get humiliated in the playoffs.

One key area I can think of where Scioscia's management style is well suited to getting lots of regular season wins but NOT well suited to getting things done in a short playoff series is his tendency to stick with lineups, players etc. who are struggling for a very, very long time to try to restore their confidence and help them turn it around. Things like sticking with Pujols batting 3rd, giving hundreds of at-bats to Raul Ibanez, bringing Hamilton in for the playoffs etc.

 

It tends to produce teams that are very streaky, leading to both long losing streaks and long winning streaks.

This becomes a problem when combined with the fact that Scioscia's teams ALWAYS take a long time to get momentum after any break. Scioscia-managed teams always play poorly in April, as well as the fisrt couple weeks after the all star break, and the first series of the playoffs. Other teams have rust but they don't take nearly as long to get their act together. 10+ years often with completely different players each year is not a small sample size either. 

 

Conversely teams like the Giants and the Cards are not afraid to underperforming veteran players in the playoffs regardless of their salary, and they hit the ground running after time off.

Edited October 8, 2014 by ScottLux

[stormngt]

The run differential in the series was 15-6, in what universe do you consider that lucky?  Or unexplainable as you put it.  You could make the same excuses in every sport.  What if the Giants never got that circus Tyree catch in the super bowl vs the Patriots?  The Lakers beat the Celtics by 4 points in game 7, what if the Celtics get a couple more bounces their way?  What if Robert Horry never gets the tip out for the game winning shot against the Kings?  Having the ball roll your way is just a part of sports.  But the better team will still find a way to win, without making excuses about it.  Ive heard Scioscia say it all the time in postgame conferences, that "we shouldnt have been in that position to begin with."

The same would apply for Games 1 and 2 against the Royals.  Yeah the Royals made some nice catches, but we should not have been in that position to rely on them dropping the ball in order for us to win.  If we truly were the better team, we would have proved it by not going 2-26 with RISP, while the Royals went something like 6-10 or whatever it was.  Why couldnt we get the walk off hit or homer in at least one of those games?  Instead, the Moustakas and Hosmer got them.  The reason this happened, our pen wasnt deep enough to compete with theirs.  And the Royals approach this series was infinitely better than ours.

 

But we only needed 100 more tries to prove we were the better team right?  Maybe MLB can expand these games to 100 game series for the Angels.

 

Are you seriously using run differential?  The run differential doesn't mean squat.  Two games went into extra innings.  15-6 run differential means nothing in those two games.

 

This series wasn't a domination by the Royals.  They dominated game three and just about anyone with a brain could have figured out going in that we were in a mismatch with that one......Wilson pitcher.

[Jeff Fletcher]

How do you explain the Giants, 2 world series and an Nlcs in 4 years. The Cardinals, 2 world series and 4 straight nlcs. Is that just by chance? Maybe youre reasoning is flawed. Maybe the regular season doesnt determine as much as you think. Maybe beating up on the Astros and Rangers isnt a good indicator of how good a team is. Maybe the postseason is more indicative of who the best team is, considering the best teams play each other and lay it all on the line. At some point you have to give up this theory about teams getting lucky and try to make some sense as to why Mike Scioscia led teams continue to get humiliated in the playoffs.

If the Giants have some magic why were they terrible in 2011 and 2013?

The Angels under Scioscia are 3-4 in the division series, 1-2 in the LCS, 1-0 in the World Series.

Humiliated?

Edited October 8, 2014 by Jeff Fletcher