Crazy Li :

I wouldn't say they are "terrible", but I would say by far the worst team to have made the playoffs.

I've also seen weaker teams to make the World Series, but this season, they are the weakest (and that's with an extra 2 teams no less, that's saying something.)

I would argue that while the NL teams were pretty close to each other in talent, it wasn't to the extent the AL experiences. There's a huge divide between the top 3 teams in the AL (The Rangers, A's, and Yankees) and everyone else. From the fourth team onward, it was basically a crapshoot. Hell, the Red Sox were technically still in "contention" until that mega-deal they performed with the Dodgers. While the NL, from 1st to the worst playoff contending team is closer than the AL, from 1st to worst contending team, the AL is closer from the 4th spot onward, than the NL was in a sense. If that makes sense.

The Nats may have missed Strasburg, I think they were still easily better than most of the AL teams, which kind of scares me, since next year, Strasburg will be back. They'll be back.

The Cardinals, I contest to this day, are the luckiest team in baseball. Unfortunately, luck plays a pretty big role over the course of 162 games, and can lead to a team like theirs making the playoffs. Do I think they are better than the Tigers? Yes, I do.

The Reds... confuse me. Looking back, I can't really figure that one out. I'm chalking it up to simply not being ready for the playoffs. Between players rehabbing from pre-existing injuries, and the whole incident involving Dusty Baker's health... it was just bad luck they weren't prepared. Once you get past that, the Giants were just the better team. I'm not sure what the impact would have been if both teams were 100%, and it's a shame we'll never be able to really know, since people can argue both ways.

I would say the Orioles and the Yankees had a similar problem. But also not a similar problem.

With the Orioles, it was their pythagorean record catching up with them. They were fantastic in one run ball games, and for the longest time it had me wondering when it would finally catch up to them. It was bad luck that it happened at the most important time, but I think over the course of the 2012 season/post season, they were a better team than the Tigers. But for one fleeting week, this was not the case. Tis the life of a team that relies on top level relief pitching.

With the Yankees... well it's age. Maybe this will finally inspire them to get a youth movement going. If they can. Derek Jeter is one of the best players in baseball history, but he's getting too old to effectively play shortstop anymore. Can he still hit? Yes. But his effectiveness in the field has been slipping for a while now, and that injury has some scary forebodings if he stays at that position. If the Yankees were any other team, I'd say slap him in at DH, and let him continue to do what he does best. Hit. Alex Rodriguez's contract is horrible, and he hasn't aged well at all. Which is unfortunate, since they still have to deal with him for a few more years, barring a trade where they eat a ton of salary and get little else in return. Their lineup features a load of hitters who I could define as low contact, high power bats. And while that's not a problem for 162 games, it CAN be a problem for a 7 game series, if you can't get your act together right away. That's why in a way, small ball teams have it a little easier in these playoff series, at least as of late. The timing for launching a ball into the stands, and simply putting it in play are far different, and I'd argue it's easier to adjust when you have a greater margin of error that is acceptable.

And it would be a bigger surprise if the wild card teams didn't always seem to win out of nowhere. It feels like it happens all the time now. Since 2002, 8 of the 22 teams have been wild card teams. Before this season there was only one wild card in each league. The statistical probability of there being 8 wild card teams to make the finals out of 22 is a little staggering. I'm not a math genius, so I'm not going to bother doing the math myself.

To me, it would be a bigger surprise if the two behemoths in each league actually did make the World Series. Only time since 2002 I can say that's honestly happened was 2009, when the Yankees beat the Phillies.

legacyme3 :

It's a lot of fun to discuss this stuff with you. Your posts on baseball always make for an interesting read, so I wanna start by thanking you for that.

I think you're spot-on about small ball teams. When you have a small margin of error, how well you can out-strategize the other team becomes so much more important. Do I try to bunt for a hit to get something started? Should I steal base? Should I start the runner earlier? How aggressive should I be on the base paths and with tagging up? If I have a runner on 3rd with less than 2 out, should I be playing for the sac fly just to get a run or should the hitter be trying to get a clean base hit first and foremost (since that's one less out you have).

Power-centric teams honestly bore me. So yeah... you can change the entire complexion of the ballgame with one swing of the bat... but it's more impressive to me to have teamwork... a bunch of guys working together to manufacture a run rather than a guy hitting a solo shot. It took much less from that team's offense to score, but I feel like knocking in a run with any kind of other hit gives you some sense of... momentum I guess... you can't really rally with a homer. Home runs kill rallies, actually because they clear the bases. As long as you have at least one base runner, that pressure is still on the pitcher which feeds into the rally.

Yes, you are right that wild card teams have been winning a lot lately. I was originally going phrase that part of my previous post "and how often do you see the wild card team coming in and winning it all?" because it's a big trend lately. And maybe it's getting a bit too common these days to make it special... but if you look at overall baseball history, I think those behemoths as you call them used to win a lot more. It seemed more predictable that the Yankees would win the World Series or whatever... now, you really don't know who's gonna win.

Also 8 out of 22 is about 36.4%. If you consider that a quarter of the teams in the playoffs are wild card teams... then you're looking at those wild card teams winning 11.4% more than their statistical odds dictate if you assume all playoff teams have the same chance of winning each year.

Of course, one tends to assume the team with the worst record has the least chances of winning (which is USUALLY the wild card team, but there are exceptions when a particular division is really strong or just really weak)... but with things like momentum and players getting psyched up from going on a tear at the end of the season just to barely make it... you can actually see why that wild card team is more successful sometimes. I don't feel like looking at the history of how those seasons went... but I feel like there's a connection between the WC team doing really well in the playoffs and them only making the playoffs because they ended the season hot. Now not all WC teams got their spot from ending hot, so these are probably years where the WC team does nothing special... but when they do streak at the end, they can often carry that momentum into the post-season (at the very least until the WS even if they don't win... I think that happened to Colorado one year).

Crazy Li :

Yeah, that did happen to Colorado one year, in 2007, against the Red Sox. Though the Red Sox had loads of momentum that season, from coming back from a 3-1 deficit against the Indians (who had beaten the Yankees, with some help from infamous midges.) to eventually make it to the World Series, where they thoroughly outclassed the Rockies in every sense of the term.

Small ball teams can be hit or miss with me, just like power teams can be. Like my team, the Red Sox, are traditionally a power hitting team. I find them enjoyable, because of the way they are a power team. A lot of their power comes in very important situations. In the middle of last decade for example, they made watching a power team fun. Tons of walk off home runs, and back to back home runs. Plus, there was that one time against the Yankees where they went Back-to-Back-to-Back-to-Back, which was just absolutely incredible to watch. Looking back, some of my favorite moments as a fan come from those long shots, simply because it's awing to watch a ball travel some 400+ feet, and end a game. A lot of emotion everywhere. Emotion in the face of the batter, knowing he just did something special, emotion in the face of the pitcher, knowing he f***ed up. The expressions in both dugouts, and even sometimes by the umpires. (they are human too after all)

Not to say a small ball walk off isn't as exciting, in some ways, it's more exciting, because of the nature of the game. It's not over until it's over. And when a ball is in play, there is no certainty until the very end of said play. If you blink, you could miss something crucial.

As far as trends and stats go, while lately wild card teams have become more successful, it's hard to forget that the wild card is relatively new to MLB. It was instituted in 1995 (although it was supposed to be used in 94, but was canned due to the players strike), and since 95, Wild Card teams are 35-31 in terms of series records.

Some more fun facts

-A wild-card team appeared in the World Series each year from 2002–2007.
-In 2002, both teams were Wild Card teams (pretty low odds there.)
-The Red Sox (commonly seen as a powerhouse, thanks to their position in the AL Beast) have the most Wild Cards, with 7.
-Since 1995 (when the WC was instituted), 5 WC teams have won the World Series, and 5 others made it to the World Series.
-It's possible for the team with the worst record in the playoffs to have home field advantage in the World Series, if they perservere in the playoffs, and their league won the All Star Game.

I'm a fan of the Wild Card, mind you, but it can't be ignored that in a few ways, the Wild Card winners have as much a chance at the World Series as non-Wild Card teams do, which gives less meaning to winning the division. Hence why they changed it so the wild card teams now have to fight between each other for the right to make the playoffs.

My point is that I think there should be a change to the "Home Field Advantage" rule in MLB. When a wild card team, that by all rights, maybe shouldn't have been in the playoffs, makes the World Series, it raises a few different possibilities, that could mitigate the "home field" advantage, and instead, put more emphasis on the team itself.

- Why not just let the team with the better record have home field?
- Neutral Site? Similar to how the Super Bowl is handled? People can argue baseball isn't as popular as football... but if you build it, they will come. Fans are crazy people.
- Swap it between the leagues each year?

Obviously, I haven't totally thought it out, but there are improvements that could be made to the current playoff structure as it is.

legacyme3 : The Red Sox have been one of the better power teams, yes. I think their stadium helps a bit though. The way it plays is hitter-friendly without being a straight-up homerun park like Coors or Citizen's Bank. This allows the power guys for the Sox to smack balls against the wall for extra base hits from time to time rather than just pop flying out when they miss homers. When you look at teams like the Phillies play, their hitters just try to swing for the fences every at bat at times and if they even do make contact, they pop out a lot and don't really have meaningful at bats until they actually do get one to leave the yard and even then it's probably a solo shot when they're down by a few runs. That's the kind of power team I don't like watching. I'm actually glad Philly had a bad season this year. I don't find them enjoyable at all to watch. Ryan Howard is maybe the biggest example of what I was saying just a moment ago and is why he strikes out like 200 times a year. Maybe it's exciting when he hits the ball 500+ feet into the upper deck... but if that's all he can do and it's only coming about 30 times a year in ~500 plate appearances... is he really that exciting? I've seen several power hitters go through that organization and while they're with the club they all go into these slumps where their BA falls to about .230 or something pathetic like that. Then they get traded and start putting up respectable numbers again.

I like to do baseball simulations in stuff like Baseball Mogul and I tend to build my team for speed. I find this to just be more fun personally. I get a bunch of fast contact guys and play small ball to win. I find that more enjoyable to watch than trying to get the biggest bats.

Anyway... back to what you posted, I'm not surprised that the Red Sox have won so many Wild Cards. Remember they're in the same division as the Yankees. Even when Boston is looking really good, the Yankees still win the division. It got to the point where everyone was convinced it was a curse. If I'm not mistaken, the Yankees hold the major league record for biggest comeback to win a division. They were down some 13 or 14 games to Boston one year and ended up tying the division and winning the 1-game playoff. I think that really ironed in the fact that Boston couldn't catch a break. Then you have that streak from '98-'06 that saw the Yankees winning the division 9 straight times... and I believe Boston finished second every single time except for the last season in that streak... so yeah... plenty of WC opportunities.

Home field advantage in the WS is a total joke. I get that they wanted to give more meaning to the All-Star game... but that wasn't the way. It actually makes the All-Star game a dreadful event. You have all sorts of players who are playing in that who will not be effected by its outcome since their teams have no hope of making the playoffs anyway, much less the WS. It's just a stupid way of doing things. They should drop it and go back to the old system of switching every year. At least that doesn't show bias towards one league or the other and is as fair as you can get without literally just using the team with the better record. Which really, why not? That's how you determine it through the rest of the playoffs. Why not continue for the WS? I think they earned that right. Why decide it based on something so arbitrary as taking turns or an All-Star game?

Super Bowl method won't actually solve anything, though. You must remember that home field advantage in Baseball is more than just your playing field (unlike most other sports). In baseball, it determines which team bats last. This is to me the bigger advantage than the field itself. To be in the position where your go-ahead run is actually the winning run and you can't lose before getting a chance to at least tie up anything the other team did is huge. Even if you have a neutral field, you STILL need to determine who gets 4 games as the "home" team and who only gets 3.

Bigeest surprise in baseball history indeed considering they won for the second time in three years and those two times were the first since they moved over to San Francisco from New York.

Well me being a hockey fan first. I know that the all star game has lost its specialness and meaning for hockey fans. What I like about baseball is there is something riding on the all star game, which causes people to give a little more effort. If you watch an nhl all star game, you can tell they aren't playing very hard, which is why it isn't special to fans anymore.

The nhl needs to do what the mlb does, and have the winning conference be awarded with home ice advantage in the Stanley Cup Finals.

If there is nothing at stake, then they won't try very hard. Which will in turn take a lot of the enjoyment away.

bobq : I see what you are saying, but I don't like that idea. The all-star game shouldn't decide who has the advantage in the finals. I do see what you are saying about the fact that the purpose is gone, but I never find the mlb all-star game any fun, especially when like this year, Price should have started for the AL, and I think that there was somebody from the NL that was more deserving for the start, I just don't like the all-star game, period. I find it boring for every league.

Well the post season is over. So this will be closed and unstickied.