Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MLB 2023

Silencio said:
Yeah, the schadenfreude is in overdrive right now with the Dodgers bowing out meekly. They simply ran out of starting pitching this season.

[EDIT: and Mookie Betts and Freddie Freeman had only one hit between them? Yikes.]
Click to expand...
Yeah their pitching has been a problem all year but Mookie and Freddie have been THE one-two punch in their lineup and for them to go silent in the post season is...weird...frustrating...all the things. But in Mookie's defense, he was 0 for a lot in 2018 too so should have seen that coming I suppose.
 
With the teams that are left standing, I'd be most interested in a Rangers/Phillies Series at this point. Like most everyone else, glad to see the Dodgers be the Dodgers again this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rhett7660
I was just wondering if Brian Anderson, Jeff Francoeur, Matt Winer or Bob Costas, Ron Darling, Lauren Shehadi
will announce the DBack next series?
probably the first group, tho Bob Costas, Ron Darling, Lauren Shehadi were fun!
 
I'm all for the Rangers dominating the Astros. Don't really have a preference in the NLCS, just hoping for a good series.

And as a random aside, I'm hoping someone (Baltimore?) is willing to overpay to acquire Shane Bieber in the offseason so the Guardians can get a legit outfield bat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pachyderm and Don Quixote
icanhazmac said:
I don't generally watch baseball unless a team of interest is deep in the playoffs, but I am amazed how poorly the "best" teams fared so far this year. One can also argue that not a single series, so far, has been remotely competitive, 6 of 8 being sweeps.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is this 3 and 5 game series nonsense. Too easy to get upsets in short series.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: pachyderm and MBAir2010
Rafterman said:
Part of the problem is this 3 and 5 game series nonsense. Too easy to get upsets in short series.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the 3 game series. Even the worst team in the league might have a single ace starter to win 1 game and might be able to just grind out the other for a 2-0 or 2-1 win.

I might go a little deeper though and blame the "wild card" concept as a way to increase the duration of the season and the number of playoff games. Should teams that fall > 10 games behind the division leaders make the playoffs? Do we need 3 of them? Perhaps, of the 3 division winners the 2nd and 3rd seed have a 5 game for the right to play the 1 seed in a 7, then to the WS. At the worst I can see a single wild card team, this rewards the team that probably just had the #1 seed in their division.

All that being said, I feel the season is WAY too long. I'd be happier with half the games with the WS in August.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Rafterman, pachyderm and MBAir2010
MBAir2010 said:
Jeez our ex Expos of Montreal would have won in 93, 79
And perhaps in 87 if they allowed 6 teams back then!
Click to expand...

In 1993, a 103-win Giants team would have made the playoffs. Instead, they missed out because the Braves won 104 games — and they in turn lost in the NLCS.

It was the 1994 Expos team that got truly robbed by the season-ending strike.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: Don Quixote, Amishpriest and pachyderm
Silencio said:
In 1993, a 103-win Giants team would have made the playoffs. Instead, they missed out because the Braves won 104 games — and they in turn lost in the NLCS.

It was the 1994 Expos team that got truly robbed by the season-ending strike.
Click to expand...
hard to say they got robbed, every team did and the fans.
No one was gonna win in 1994 which is why i did not include that year.
we knew in May the season would not finish.

down the stretch in ’93 the expos were amazing though the braves were better And kicked our ass after taking 2 of 3 from the phillies in l’stade.

the D’backs were fun to watch this year, but they don’t have the bravado the Phil’s posses.
 
icanhazmac said:
I agree with you on the 3 game series. Even the worst team in the league might have a single ace starter to win 1 game and might be able to just grind out the other for a 2-0 or 2-1 win.

I might go a little deeper though and blame the "wild card" concept as a way to increase the duration of the season and the number of playoff games. Should teams that fall > 10 games behind the division leaders make the playoffs? Do we need 3 of them? Perhaps, of the 3 division winners the 2nd and 3rd seed have a 5 game for the right to play the 1 seed in a 7, then to the WS. At the worst I can see a single wild card team, this rewards the team that probably just had the #1 seed in their division.

All that being said, I feel the season is WAY too long. I'd be happier with half the games with the WS in August.
Click to expand...
eh... maybe not half...
 
jedimasterkyle said:
I was really pulling for the Twins but at least they got the post-season win out of the way.

As for the Dodgers...I got nothin. They did what the Dodgers do and it's the same story as always. Amazing regular season. Dumpster fire in the post season.
Click to expand...

As a long time Diamondback fan, I love to see the Dodgers as a dumpster fire...

It's hard to call a 100+ game winner "overrated", but they just crashed and burned against my DBacks... their pitching just wasn't there, and the bats went cold, as well... they scored over 900 runs in the season and only managed 2 per game against a gutsy Diamondback pitching staff... Kershaw is hurting, and, frankly, may be done...

So the NL has two wild-card teams in the NLCS... the Braves just failed to show up (like LA), but the Phillies look like a force to reckon with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pachyderm and Amishpriest
pachyderm said:
Disconcur

I love it.

The problem is too many teams in the playoffs.

I hate the wildcard nonsense. Just have one.
Click to expand...

Follow the money. More teams, more revenue... so long as it doesn't turn into the NHL ... play an 82 game season to eliminate 4 or 5 teams...

I do question the effect of teams getting byes in the playoffs... you have to wonder on some level if a 5-7 day delay doesn't affect teams - both Dodgers and Braves were effectively "no-shows", and faced a couple of teams that are peaking at the right time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pachyderm
Bodhitree said:
In European football (I refuse to call it soccer) they just give the title to the team with the best record in the regular season. None of this playoffs nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm not completely opposed that... for football... I wish the MLS would adopt that system.

Baseball has had a playoff system for a long time now. Way back they didn't even have a postseason, as we know it today that is, because of the separation of the NL and AL.
The WS used to be the winners of the AL and the NL. In 1969 they split both leagues into a West and East division and the playoffs began there...
 
Yeah I understand once the league grows too large that some divisions are necessary, and maybe playoffs are the best way to cope with that. In European football you also have the Champions League, for sorting out which of all the top national teams is currently the very best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pachyderm and MBAir2010
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back