NL Pennant

[Frayed Knot]

So the 101-win Mets have now been sitting for nearly a week (as have the 93-win Cardinals) while today's games will feature the 101-win Braves and the 111-win Dodgers on the brink of elimination.

This leaves a strong possibility of the NL crown being decided between the 89-win Padres and the 87-win Phils, the league's fifth and sixth best teams.



Expanded playoff fever: Catch It!

Edited October 15, 2022 by Guest

[Willets Point]

This is why I argue that the pennant should be awarded to the team with the best record in the league as it was up until 1968. Too many great teams have been treated as "failures" because of the fluky nature of a postseason tournament.

[Edgy MD]

Absolutely agreed. Now how do we make this come to pass?

[Willets Point]

I also think the team with the best record should get a bye straight into the league championship series but don't know how to pull that off without having that team sit idle for an excessively long time.

[Frayed Knot]

I don't understand the logic behind awarding the pennant to the team with the best record if you're then going to have a playoff format anyway and have the winner of that

scrum, however it's structured, go on to the World Series. If the final squad standing ins't the best regular season team then the whole pennant thing is a meaningless title

and if it is them then the pennant award was merely a premature title. A league champion based on the regular season vs a playoff system seems to me is an either/or

situation. Wanting to have both is a kind of contradiction in terms.



My main point here was that leagues (chasing money of course) and many fans (wanting their second tier teams to 'still be in it' as long as possible) often advocate for more

and more teams to be included in the post-season tourney action but don't always think through what those set-ups create. Is the novelty of having a couple of 'Giant Killers'

play in the biggest games while a trio of 100+ win teams sit on the sidelines really the better alternative to a more restrictive playoff system?

Arguments for more teams often come paired with various forms of handicaps on the non-winners as if to say: 'yeah we'll let them in but we don't really want them to win'.

Problem is that HF advantage matters little in baseball and the whole 'rested pitching staff' edge isn't exactly working out as planned.

[roger_that]

Frayed Knot wrote: Problem is that HF advantage matters little in baseball and the whole 'rested pitching staff' edge isn't exactly working out as planned.

If you're right--and I don't believe you are--then we must question some longstanding principles of baseball, and indeed of sports if not of life, to wit: rest matters little to athletes (so we might as well play our best players until they drop, or close to it, give our closers 140 or 180 IP per year, our veterans 160+ games started, etc. because their clear superiority to lesser players must outweigh the negligible advantage of resting them), teams lose as much as they gain from days off (so why not play 162 games in, oh, about 140 days counting doubleheaders, and eliminate the misery of chilly early April games and frigid early October games?), the whole five-man rotation fallacy, etc.



Or you could accept the much more likely possibility that THIS YEAR, in a small sample size, HF field advantage isn't yielding its usual result so far.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

I don't mind the expanded playoffs as much as I thought I might. I still think the MLB regular season means something, as opposed to, say, the NBA season. If the Phillies and the Padres advance because they got hot at the right time, well, that's why they play the games. If the Guardians take out the Yankees, I'm very OK with that. The postseason is a crap shoot, and I don't think the difference between the one seed and the eight seed is as much as we might think.



Sure, the owners -- and players -- are chasing money with the extra rounds. That's what businesses do. There's a balance, and if chasing too much money damages the business to a point that people get turned off, it becomes a problem. I'm not sure we're there yet.

[Frayed Knot]

Frayed Knot wrote: Problem is that HF advantage matters little in baseball and the whole 'rested pitching staff' edge isn't exactly working out as planned. If you're right--and I don't believe you are--then we must question some longstanding principles of baseball ... Or you could accept the much more likely possibility that THIS YEAR, in a small sample size, HF field advantage isn't yielding its usual result so far.

Well, HF advantage in baseball IS measurably smaller than in any of the other sports we typically consume typically hovering around 53-54%, roughly

the equivalent of home teams going 8-7 over a 15-game span vs 7-8 for the roadies. Not a non-existent edge, but not a big one either.

And the extended rest thing (5 games pretty much qualifies as extended in baseball) is new for this season so, yes, it is so far an ongoing sample

size of one.



As I type, home teams are 10-9 this post-season and the rested vs non-rested teams are deadlocked at 5-5

Also, do keep in mind that the rested teams and the ones with the majority of the home games are, by definition over a six month span, the better team,

sometimes by more than 20 games in the standings, and are still basically breaking even.







And, again, my point is that if leagues and fans are going to stick with the 'more is better' theory of post-season tourneys then they also need to accept

that the marquee events -- the LCSx2 and the WS -- stand a decent chance of not having some or even all of the top teams involved. Some, I'm sure,

are going to be OK with that, others I don't believe think it through.

I think I can already hear a network executive saying; 'Whattaya mean we're not getting a Dodgers/Yankees matchup'!!

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: I don't understand the logic behind awarding the pennant to the team with the best record if you're then going to have a playoff format anyway and have the winner of that scrum, however it's structured, go on to the World Series. If the final squad standing ins't the best regular season team then the whole pennant thing is a meaningless title and if it is them then the pennant award was merely a premature title. A league champion based on the regular season vs a playoff system seems to me is an either/or situation. Wanting to have both is a kind of contradiction in terms.

This is on the money. There's really no right or wrong way, no good or bad way to structure baseball playoffs. It simply comes down to preference. Me, I'd prefer a much smaller field of baseball playoff teams. Structurally, baseball is a deeply flawed game because luck plays an enormous role in sorting out its winners and losers. Way too big of a role. Hopefully, though, the lengthy 162 game season would go a long way towards evening out that luck and determining, with reasonable accuracy, who its very best teams are.



Luck doesn't even out in short series' and so all too often, the best team doesn't necessarily win out in playoff baseball. Playoff baseball really is a crapshoot or a coin flip. And I'm not sure if those words adequately describe the dynamics involved in a short baseball series overflowing with luck because, I, suspect, "]
I don't mind the expanded playoffs as much as I thought I might. I still think the MLB regular season means something, as opposed to, say, the NBA season.

[roger_that]

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Problem is that HF advantage matters little in baseball and the whole 'rested pitching staff' edge isn't exactly working out as planned. If you're right--and I don't believe you are--then we must question some longstanding principles of baseball ... Or you could accept the much more likely possibility that THIS YEAR, in a small sample size, HF field advantage isn't yielding its usual result so far. Well, HF advantage in baseball IS measurably smaller than in any of the other sports we typically consume typically hovering around 53-54%, roughly the equivalent of home teams going 8-7 over a 15-game span vs 7-8 for the roadies. Not a non-existent edge, but not a big one either. And the extended rest thing (5 games pretty much qualifies as extended in baseball) is new for this season so, yes, it is so far an ongoing sample size of one. As I type, home teams are 10-9 this post-season and the rested vs non-rested teams are deadlocked at 5-5 Also, do keep in mind that the rested teams and the ones with the majority of the home games are, by definition over a six month span, the better team, sometimes by more than 20 games in the standings, and are still basically breaking even. And, again, my point is that if leagues and fans are going to stick with the 'more is better' theory of post-season tourneys then they also need to accept that the marquee events -- the LCSx2 and the WS -- stand a decent chance of not having some or even all of the top teams involved. Some, I'm sure, are going to be OK with that, others I don't believe think it through. I think I can already hear a network executive saying; 'Whattaya mean we're not getting a Dodgers/Yankees matchup'!!

I had the idea a while back of making things like a BYE an option for the teams getting one--that is, instead of the Dodgers and Yankees earning three games off, they earn the option of playing those games (and risking elimination, of course) OR getting to take the short series off.



Do you really suppose any team that earned that option would take it? I can't imagine that, which tells you something I think about the value of the BYE. It's valuable, even if this year so far it appears not to be.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I had this great idea that I invented so I'm taking all the credit for it, of giving the baseball team with the best league record the option of either getting a first round bye or instead having to play a first round series where it would have to win 10 games to win the series and advance -- while their opponent only has to win one game to take the series. I wonder how many "league best record" teams would take that option of waiving their bye and instead, having to win 10 first round games? That's my idea. I thought of it all by myself. Just me.

[Frayed Knot]

=roger_that post_id=111333 time=1665864747 user_id=128]
I had the idea a while back of making things like a BYE an option for the teams getting one--that is, instead of the Dodgers and Yankees earning three games off, they earn the option of

playing those games (and risking elimination, of course) OR getting to take the short series off.



Do you really suppose any team that earned that option would take it? I can't imagine that, which tells you something I think about the value of the BYE. It's valuable, even if this year

so far it appears not to be.

[batmagadanleadoff]

My other idea is for the World Series winners to get World Series rings and extra bonus money and a big hometown parade in their honor or instead, they could take a bullet to the back of their heads. I wonder how many would choose the second option? Of course, it would be their choice.

[Frayed Knot]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=111332 time=1665863565 user_id=68]... The NBA comparison doesn't work. It's apples and oranges because in the NBA playoffs, a seven game series is a pretty reliable way to determine the better team. NBA playoofs, with all of its many participants is more tedious than flawed because when its down to the last four teams, those four teams are generally the best four teams. Huge upsets and surprises are fine in sports playoffs so long as they don't happen all too often.

[roger_that]

My other idea is for the World Series winners to get World Series rings and extra bonus money and a big hometown parade in their honor or instead, they could take a bullet to the back of their heads. I wonder how many would choose the second option? Of course, it would be their choice.

Frayed Knot wrote: =roger_that post_id=111333 time=1665864747 user_id=128] I had the idea a while back of making things like a BYE an option for the teams getting one--that is, instead of the Dodgers and Yankees earning three games off, they earn the option of playing those games (and risking elimination, of course) OR getting to take the short series off. Do you really suppose any team that earned that option would take it? I can't imagine that, which tells you something I think about the value of the BYE. It's valuable, even if this year so far it appears not to be.

OF COURSE earning the Bye is valuable. The Braves & Dodgers & Astros & Yanx had ZERO chance of losing in that opening 2/3 round ... unlike, say, the Mets.

Any team who earned that right would be moronic if they chose not to use it.



It's here in the Next (current) round where the rest and the HF advantage and the rotation set-up that are by-products of having the Bye doesn't seem to be doing those

teams much good even though, once again, they are by definition the superior team.

[Willets Point]

The way I see it, the Pennant and the World Series champions are awards for two different things. The Pennant is the award for sustained excellence over the regular season by winning the most games, or at least it was from 1876 to 1968. I think it should be restored as the award. Remember, the Pennant was once highly-regarded on its own as a high achievement, such as in 1954 when New York City gave the New York Giants a ticker tape parade for winning the Pennant.



The World Series Championship on the other hand is an award for winning a post-season tournament among the best teams in baseball in that regular season. That tournament has grown from 2 to 4 to 8 to 10 to 12 contestants but it has always been true that the team with the best regular season record frequently does not win the World Series Championship.



If that doesn't make it clear, consider this parallel: European Football. In domestic leagues, the championship titles are given to the team that wins the most games in the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, et al. That's the Pennant. But the best teams in Europe also compete in the Champions League. That's the MLB Postseason (and sometimes the Champions League winner doesn't even win their domestic league, such as Chelsea in 2021). Winning a domestic league and winning a Champions League are both highly-desired and celebrated awards. That's what I want for the Pennant and the World Series Championship.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Willets Point wrote: The way I see it, the Pennant and the World Series champions are awards for two different things. The Pennant is the award for sustained excellence over the regular season by winning the most games, or at least it was from 1876 to 1968. I think it should be restored as the award. Remember, the Pennant was once highly-regarded on its own as a high achievement, such as in 1954 when New York City gave the New York Giants a ticker tape parade for winning the Pennant. The World Series Championship on the other hand is an award for winning a post-season tournament among the best teams in baseball in that regular season. That tournament has grown from 2 to 4 to 8 to 10 to 12 contestants but it has always been true that the team with the best regular season record frequently does not win the World Series Championship. If that doesn't make it clear, consider this parallel: European Football. In domestic leagues, the championship titles are given to the team that wins the most games in the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, et al. That's the Pennant. But the best teams in Europe also compete in the Champions League. That's the MLB Postseason (and sometimes the Champions League winner doesn't even win their domestic league, such as Chelsea in 2021). Winning a domestic league and winning a Champions League are both highly-desired and celebrated awards. That's what I want for the Pennant and the World Series Championship.

My main point is that baseball's different and isn't prone to comparisons to the other sports. Much different than the other team sports. It's loaded with luck, so much more than any of the other sports. And so a large playoff field to determine its champion in a series of short series where the enormous amount of luck that exists will never even out is practically pointless and undermines the regular season to a great degree. The long season is needed to weed out the luck. Inviting so many teams to the playoffs undermines all that the regular season accomplishes. I haven't watched a single at-bat of this post season other than the Mets games. This has been my practice - not precisely but more or less - for 30 years now, since wild cards were instituted. As I see it, I might as well go and stand in front of a casino roulette wheel station. Not to gamble my own money on the roulette wheel but to watch and wonder and maybe even bet on which of the gathered roulette wheel players are going to win or lose.



And then the tortured analysis'. You can't credibly say that Max Scherzer sucks or that Aaron Judge sucks after the Mets were eliminated or after the Yankees might be eliminated. So you get these stupid narratives about deGrom or Scherzer or Judge's lack of character or strength to pitch in big situations. I've been reading that crap all my life and the pundits are still putting out that nonsense. Because too many people can't acceptr that some results are simply random and nothing more. Me, I happen to think that 99.9999% of life is all luck, including everybody's failures and successes.

Edited October 15, 2022 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

=roger_that post_id=111343 time=1665870245 user_id=128]
OK, you get my main point--the BYE is extremely valuable, but you're questioning its usefulness on the small handful of games so far? You don't think there's maybe a LARGE chance that you're overreacting to that small number of games? You're a smart guy. You know better than that. You're responding emotionally to a question you need to think through logically.

[Frayed Knot]

Willets Point wrote: The way I see it, the Pennant and the World Series champions are awards for two different things. The Pennant is the award for sustained excellence over the regular season by winning the most games, or at least it was from 1876 to 1968. I think it should be restored as the award.

But they're not really two separate things since one always flows from the other.

I mean, I get it, we can call the Dodgers the 'NL Pennant Winner', but once the end of the regular season no longer meant the end of NL or AL competition or entry into the WS, having the league's best record no longer means the same thing even if we decide to call it that.



And the Euro football tourneys are very separate thing run by different organizations based on the previous year's stadings. Not a great analogy jn my mind.

[roger_that]

How about ratcheting up the standards for Wild Card teams to beat Division Leaders? Make the WC teams play a longer series, say, on the road for the lesser of the teams, in a shorter period of time, like a five game series in three days, depleting their pitching horribly, and then scheduling a next day game at the next round's home stadium? My point is, if an 88 win team can win three out of five in three days and then face a 100 win team on the road, and win there, haven't they earned a little respect?

[Fman99]

Willets Point wrote: The way I see it, the Pennant and the World Series champions are awards for two different things. The Pennant is the award for sustained excellence over the regular season by winning the most games, or at least it was from 1876 to 1968. I think it should be restored as the award. Remember, the Pennant was once highly-regarded on its own as a high achievement, such as in 1954 when New York City gave the New York Giants a ticker tape parade for winning the Pennant.

The last time that was true was 54 years ago. This concept is too antiquated for most folks to buy into.