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

[Crazysilver03]

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.

[square634]

Remember that the Cards won the WS after almost collapsing also.

[blueberryale77]

With one inning left in both their games tonight, the Phillies are up 6-3 and the Mets are down 3-0. The Mets are truly fit to be tied.

[davearm]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[Frobby]

I would like nothing more than to see the Mets choke this away. The ghost of the '69 Orioles still lives. Go Phillies!

[Migrant Redbird]

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.

[longflyball]

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.

[Migrant Redbird]

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.

[Crazysilver03]

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.

[davearm]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[longflyball]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[longflyball]

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.