Ceetar

Seems like too much work, AND I gotta hobnob with those wall street snobs from point72? pass.

I got 5/7. interesting little thing.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=111920 time=1666702943 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=111895 time=1666643450 user_id=102] Imagine rooting for PHiladelphia anything? lol.

As a rule I think I'd always root for the AL in the World Series unless New York is involved.

the ALCS just wanted to put something on the screen more racist than Citizen's for Sanity or whatever, so they tagged Cruz.

Astros all the way. Astros are good. They have good players. The phillies are scum and rivals. It's a no-brainer. Imagine rooting for PHiladelphia anything? lol. The Phillies are like, the textbook definition of biggest losers.

too nice by half imo. Those people shouldn't be allowed to exist in public.

you could trade them a win. Braves will play the Padres, but if they advance to the NLCS and play the Mets, they start 1-0.

Zero teams granted a bye have ever failed to advance out of the first round, and a non-zero teams that HAVEN'T ( think 2022 Mets) been granted a first round bye have failed to advance. Seems pretty conclusive to me. The percentages for non-bye teams to win that next series would have to be so lopsided that even republicans believed it for it to outweigh that.

=metsmarathon post_id=111720 time=1666382443 user_id=83] Byes get your better teams that one round deeper into the playoffs. Yes. But are they actually good for those teams, aside from increasing their odds of getting only exactly that far? Does taking the week off make that team better able to play at a high level, or can it be a posssible detriment?

From a more realistic front, I think given that the teams are raking in money via TV contracts, they might actually be open to dropping games from the regular season schedule. MLB (ESPN) wanted to add two MORE teams to the postseason. You could counter that with a shorter season and another/longer playoff series formats, because the money from ESPN probably more than covers the revenue from 4 games. This is just a logistical thought, nothing to do with quality of competition in the playoffs or anything.

=Gwreck post_id=111689 time=1666356206 user_id=56] =Ceetar post_id=111674 time=1666304621 user_id=102]the big splash showy acquisition that Cohen seemingly loves.

Edgy MD wrote: What you actually wrote is that ... every single postseason in every sport in the history of sport has awarded the team that performs the best the title. But now... there is no system that even approaches an indicative test of who's the "Best team", I don't know what you think you're writing "again" to. The notion that "every single postseason in every sport in the history of sport has awarded the team that performs the best the title" and the notion that "there is no system that even approaches an indicative test of who's the 'Best team'" are inherently contradictory. So it doesn't really matter. I would prefer that we award a title to the team who has best proven itself to be the best — I hope I've made that clear — and you either don't want that because every postseason ever already does that, or you don't want that, because no system whatsoever does that. And the dogs bark, and the river runs, and the rich oppress the poor, and nothing means anything, for what are words? And is our struggle not merely lengthening our long defeat? And what happens to all the yesterdays? And who knows to whom the rain returns, and which of our secrets it knows? if you can't tell the difference between those things, which btw, was something I _responded to_. I'm not the one that separated those two concepts. They are different. This, more for Frayed Knot, is something I'm not sure of how it actually shakes out: an NHL style playoffs leading to the best/most talented/regular season champion team winning the most often versus not. Yes, there are more rounds. But there aren't really.. the Dodgers path to the title was already 3. I did propose an idea of first round byes for division champs, leading to only 3 7-game series. That would be the same as right now, except the first series would be longer, and longer series are going to favor the better team, as it (mildly) limits the luck and random variation. Like, if the Mets had a 7 game series against the Padres, I think they might've pulled it out. At least, even going to game 4 I'd still feel reasonably "in it". But I think we should value regular season stuff a little more. Not necessarily try to reward it in this tournament, but just like, treat it as meaningful. This was my stance on 2022 anyway, if the Mets had lost in the tournament, but had won the division, I'd have felt like "okay, you won this thing and lost the other, tough break, but good season" but when you lose both, it's disappointing. Move to a 4-division setup with 7-10 teams each, and winning that becomes more impressive. There's something grander, more important sounding, even in leagues that give you 8 playoff teams, to be like "my team won the division 7 of the last 8 years" versus like "we made the playoffs every year!" different caliber of thing.

again, there is no system that even approaches an indicative test of who's the "Best team", so we should refocus to what we really want out of this tournament. I want 7-game (or more) series like the NHL, and bonus, i think that's probably the one that leads to the 'best' teams making the World Series more often.

my worry is that Judge is the big splash showy acquisition that Cohen seemingly loves.

that's NOT what's being discussed. We're discussing the specific postseason tournament that MLB plays. The thread was created with a suggested variant. I countered with a suggestion that the NBA/NHL way maybe is a better way to go about it. The only detraction I got was "that's too much baseball!" which is not a thing, and "there are too many teams" which, fine, but there are already too many teams. You could easily do 8-4-2 and have three rounds of 7 games each. Or, we could do real expansion, and not just the vague hints that we might get another team or two. (The main reason this won't happen is unethical monopolistic wealth obviously)

Boring. give me my tournament. Why are you fighting against more baseball?

I mean, i described how. If you don't want to accept that data, that's fine. But it's sitting right there just waiting to be tabulated.

What do we _want_ to see in the playoffs? I contend that most people want to see two good teams battling it out. Really the regular season is irrelevant to this conversation. It is it's own thing, now we've got a tournament. What do we want out of that? Just going right to the World Series isn't enough baseball, and as much as the Mets and Atlanta players disagreed, you'd like to see 'second best' teams that are really good get a chance to compete in that tournament. side note: Sometimes meh teams play in tournaments. That's..probably okay. Some of the narrative drama is that underdog playing well right? It's not like the Phillies are actually devoid of talent. Front a neutral standpoint, there's plenty there to root for. We can grouse about the '06 Cardinals all we want, but some of those guys went on to historic careers. It's not really "bad" that they were in there. So we need to honest what we're trying to accomplish. (Obviously, this is all theoretical because what MLB is trying to accomplish is the accumulation of unethical levels of wealth) For me, and I think for a lot of people, we're really just looking for head to head battles between good teams, leading up to a champion. And if we're being honest, some cloudiness about whether or not they're actually "the best" is baked into the whole process.

go ahead, we're about 7 layers down into semantics right now.

it's differently true every offseason, for every team. The Mets knew, in part by future decisions, that they were going to have a bunch of important SP free agents this offseason. There's plenty of value in trying to lock up one through this year (could've been deGrom! I was suggesting they offer Thor 2/$30+ just to sorta bridge that gap). And even without that, the decisions that make in one offseason for starting pitching.

every single postseason in every sport in the history of sport has awarded the team that performs the best the title.

=Centerfield post_id=111643 time=1666292951 user_id=65] At the end of the day, the idea is to reward the best team.

well yes, all my points include 18 teams of expansion. But yes, the difference between 1 and 8 isn't as meaningful in baseball over a 7 game series, though we all seem to like to pretend it is. There's no solution that awards the best regular season team the championship most often. The real solution is to place more value/prestige on winning divisions. You could do byes if you want. 4 first round series, the winner of each places the division winner from each of the 4 divisions. You could also dispense with the days off. or do the first round as 3-3-1, first 3 at team with the better record, 3 at the other team, and if there's a game 7 it's at the location of the team the winner plays. Again, no playoff system is "good" but like, the main idea is competition right, team v team, duking it out. This maximizes that. the drama and narrative of that battle. The smaller series, even the NLDSs seem like play-in games. But a first round 7 game series? even between two wild card teams? I don't think that would.

it's extremely instructive, because if the Mets had another above average starting pitcher under contract, it would lessen there need this offseason. It was a foreseeable situation, and their decisions last year play in. Eppler wasn't here, but Sandy and Steve and the rest of the front office mostly was. And let's not forget the reason Eppler only just got here.