Jump to content

Collapse Of The Year: What If The Mets Dont Make The Playoffs


Crazysilver03

Recommended Posts

Up until today, I thought the Mets were a sure lock.

The Mets stand at 87-71, while Philly is just 1 GB at 86-72.

The Padres are on the verge of winning tonight, to move to 87-71, keeping them in the lead for the wild card. That leaves the Phillies (who won) and the Rockies (who are winning), a GB at 86-72.

But I think it is possible for the Phillies to overtake the Mets in the East and the Rockies to overtake the Padres in the WC.

To me, that would be a monumental collapse to just think that the Mets would be overtaken by 2 teams simultaneously.

There is a chance it could go either way. I want to see it go that way because that would just be really really interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Everybody loves to rip on how bad the NL is (especially the AL elitist snobs ;) )... but I'm not quite sure what it says about the league if the consensus best team doesn't make the playoffs.

The Mets aren't done yet but it's certainly food for thought at this point.

Meanwhile run differential suggests the NL team with the highest winning pct (Arizona) really should be 3 games under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody loves to rip on how bad the NL is (especially the AL elitist snobs ;) )... but I'm not quite sure what it says about the league if the consensus best team doesn't make the playoffs.

The Mets aren't done yet but it's certainly food for thought at this point.

Meanwhile run differential suggests the NL team with the highest winning pct (Arizona) really should be 3 games under.

Isn't this what everyone wants? A league where there's no Red Sox or Yanks to dominate every year, all teams have a chance, and where everyone goes 81-81 and playoff spots are decided by coin flips and points scored in out-of-conference road games? In other words, the NFL ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this what everyone wants? A league where there's no Red Sox or Yanks to dominate every year, all teams have a chance, and where everyone goes 81-81 and playoff spots are decided by coin flips and points scored in out-of-conference road games? In other words, the NFL ideal.

You were doing fine until you got carried a little bit away with the sarcasm. :)

Yes, I think that's what most baseball fans do want, a fairly level playing field where high payrolls don't guarantee making the playoffs, where practically everyone's team has a theoretical chance in September as well as in April, and where the battle for the playoff spots comes down to the final weekend series, if not the final game.

Yes, I'd love for my Cardinals to establish a dynasty like those of the Yankees in the first half of the last century, but it's not realistic anymore. Free agency and arbitration keeps all but the top 2 or 3 teams from stockpiling enough top drawer players to ensure that they can play through injuries and still finish ahead of the pack.

The only suspense in the AL is which teams will have home field advantage in the post season -- a slight advantage but not a terribly significant one. The collapse of the Mets is historic and Phillies phans may believe that they can finally exorcise the ghost of their own historic collapse in 1964.

... I'm not quite sure what it says about the league if the consensus best team doesn't make the playoffs.

Nothing, except that the "consensus" were wrong again. The Mets might be the best team in the NL, even if the Phillies end up with a slightly better record, but the Mets aren't all that superior over any of the other 15 teams. In any given series, even the Mets can end up getting swept by the lowly Nats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why NL end of season ties are decided by a one game playoff, but AL ties are decided by the teams' season series? Is this one of the vestiges of the AL and NL being distinct entities?

I prefer the latter. It's absurd that the outcome of a 162 game season can be decided by a one game playoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why NL end of season ties are decided by a one game playoff, but AL ties are decided by the teams' season series? Is this one of the vestiges of the AL and NL being distinct entities?

I prefer the latter. It's absurd that the outcome of a 162 game season can be decided by a one game playoff.

No more than it is absurd that the outcome of the NFL season gets decided by a series of 1 game playoffs.

If you're really determined to establish for once and for all which team is the best, then you should probably have them face off toe-to-toe for about a hundred games or so. Not even a 5 or a 7 game series establishes that conclusively.

The playoffs are necessary because the leagues have grown too large to only have 2 teams playing in the post season. Fans can kvetch and moan all they want, but the playoffs are both necessary and fun. Sure, a weaker team like the Cardinals can sometimes overcome the odds and slay all the dragons, and that's what makes it interesting. If the outcome of the post season games could have been reliably projected from their season won-loss record, no one would care about the World Series at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why NL end of season ties are decided by a one game playoff, but AL ties are decided by the teams' season series? Is this one of the vestiges of the AL and NL being distinct entities?

I prefer the latter. It's absurd that the outcome of a 162 game season can be decided by a one game playoff.

The end of season tie extra playoff game is going to occur in the NL because they will be tied across a few categories, i.e. NL East and Wild Card, or NL West and Wild Card, etc. There is a possibility that 4 teams will be tied for the NL East, NL West, and NL Wild Card winners. You have them play against each other so its easy to say who goes where. If they all finish identical and then someone selects where they go, its not all that fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end of season tie extra playoff game is going to occur in the NL because they will be tied across a few categories, i.e. NL East and Wild Card, or NL West and Wild Card, etc. There is a possibility that 4 teams will be tied for the NL East, NL West, and NL Wild Card winners. You have them play against each other so its easy to say who goes where. If they all finish identical and then someone selects where they go, its not all that fair.

That's not correct.

Even a two-way tie for a single playoff position is broken by a 163rd game. The Cubs and Brewers could be headed for one, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The playoffs are necessary because the leagues have grown too large to only have 2 teams playing in the post season.

Why's that? What's the difference between winning a 16-team league and winning an 8-team league? I think that a 154- or 162-game balanced schedule is a better way to crown a league champion than a few short series.

The only thing I can think of is the argument that no one wants to watch a 16th-place team. But that seems rather arbitrary. People still go watch Reading and Fulham.

Fans can kvetch and moan all they want, but the playoffs are both necessary and fun. Sure, a weaker team like the Cardinals can sometimes overcome the odds and slay all the dragons, and that's what makes it interesting. If the outcome of the post season games could have been reliably projected from their season won-loss record, no one would care about the World Series at all.

I'd argue that they're often fun (although no moreso than a great pennant race) and they generate gobs of money. And you can come to the conclusion that the gobs of money make them necessary.

For semi-interested outside observers, such as Oriole fans, many of us think that an 83-win team slaying the dragons in the playoffs just means that a mediocre team gets to be crowned champion, and that's kind of a letdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No more than it is absurd that the outcome of the NFL season gets decided by a series of 1 game playoffs.

If you're really determined to establish for once and for all which team is the best, then you should probably have them face off toe-to-toe for about a hundred games or so. Not even a 5 or a 7 game series establishes that conclusively.

The playoffs are necessary because the leagues have grown too large to only have 2 teams playing in the post season. Fans can kvetch and moan all they want, but the playoffs are both necessary and fun. Sure, a weaker team like the Cardinals can sometimes overcome the odds and slay all the dragons, and that's what makes it interesting. If the outcome of the post season games could have been reliably projected from their season won-loss record, no one would care about the World Series at all.

So you can't think of a more appropriate way to break a tie between division or wildcard leaders than a single extra game? To me it is simply incongruous with baseball's nature that anything should be decided by a single game. Season series records fit much more neatly into baseball's penchant for deciding things over the course of a long, grueling season, where luck is minimized and merit emphasized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can't think of a more appropriate way to break a tie between division or wildcard leaders than a single extra game? To me it is simply incongruous with baseball's nature that anything should be decided by a single game. Season series records fit much more neatly into baseball's penchant for deciding things over the course of a long, grueling season, where luck is minimized and merit emphasized.

You mean 1960s and prior baseball nature, right? Ever since divisional play was introduced the pennant has been decided less and less by a long, grueling schedule and more and more by short series.

With the wildcard and an unbalanced schedule even the long, grueling season has been marred by a playoff spot that assumes unequally difficult schedules are equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean 1960s and prior baseball nature, right? Ever since divisional play was introduced the pennant has been decided less and less by a long, grueling schedule and more and more by short series.

With the wildcard and an unbalanced schedule even the long, grueling season has been marred by a playoff spot that assumes unequally difficult schedules are equal.

A 5 game series is infinitely better than a 1 game series. There are ideals and then there is reality. At least a long, grueling season decides who gets to play in the short series. A 1 game playoff vitiates even this.

Do you believe it is practical to have no LDS and no LCS with a 30 team league? That is resting too much on the outcome of a long, grueling season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Worley has been elevated to the roster in front of this game. I think a decision will need to be made after this game as I think that he used up the exemption 
    • You guys that are worrying about blocking guys crack me up. If you aren’t adding in free agency you aren’t trying to win now. Besides the Os don’t have 7 allstar ballplayers coming up in the next 2 or 3 year.
    • Going from Mullins to Kiermaier is a downgrade and there is no proof that Cowser has anywhere close to the range of Mullins.   Better to keep Mullins and sign a FA starter. Stowers and Cowser will push Santander and Hays for playing time  in the near future but not quite yet.    I like the depth they provide.   Did you see how injuries hit Tampa last year?
    • Yes, they can.  But could they improve more by downgrading somewhat in CF to get a pitcher who’s a better option than anyone available on the FA market, age, health, ability and cost all considered?   That’s the question.   I’m not saying the answer is clear, but that is what Elias & co. need to consider.   And it depends on what Mullins would bring back and what the alternatives are in CF.   Trade Mullins straight up for Lopez and sign Kiermaier until Cowser is ready?   I am not crazy about that one.  But there could be some similar scenario that works.  
    • There are many ways to improve.  In my opinion starting pitching is our greatest weakness.  If we can trade from our strengths, position players, to enhance our pitching staff, then do it if the right deal came along.  I'd be willing to part with about any position player on our mlb roster other than Adley and Gunnar.  If Mullins is our most valuable trade piece on the roster, then trade him for pitching.  I feel we have enough young talent coming up to replace his production in the lineup. Let's be clear, I'm not advocating a firesale or anything goofy. But with Westburg, Ortiz, Stowers, Cowser, etc all possibly seeing MLB time this year and hopefully outperforming who they replace in the lineup, and a full year of Gunnar and Adley, I expect the runs scored to increase even if we don't add bats from free agency.  But it's the arms that worry me as Grod only 1 starter and will be limited on pitches.  I'm ok with trading a position starter if we can get a worthwhile pitcher, and Mullins may be the best chip to play.   And given that I'm down on him repeating a 3.8 WAR season or better in 2023, he'd be at the top of my list.  We will get more for him than we would for a Hays, Mateo or Urias.
    • But the O's can keep Mullins, improve at other positions and have a better team.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...