All Things MLB Postseason games

Donate To GopherHole
Unregistered User

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
15,926
Reaction score
6,624
Points
113
This Cardinals/Dodgers game is taking FOREVER.
 

The announcers being so pro-Dodgers was repulsive. Horrible announcing 1001.
 

Great announcers😎

Great game! Taylor!!!
 

Unregistered User said:
This Cardinals/Dodgers game is taking FOREVER.
Click to expand...
As exciting as it was, indeed a 3-1 ballgame that only goes 9 innings shouldn't take 4 hr 10 min.

How cool is Juan Soto though? Baller move to show up at Dodger Stadium wearing former Washington teammate Trea Turner's Nats gear in support of him and Scherzer.

www.mlb.com

Soto wears Trea Turner Nats jersey in LA

Between Max Scherzer on the mound and Trea Turner at shortstop, the Dodgers’ starting lineup for the thrilling National League Wild Card Game on Wednesday night featured a heavy twinge of Nationals navy and red. But that was just the start.
www.mlb.com www.mlb.com
 

A 3-1 game should typically be played in 2:30 hours, maybe even less.

The game is becoming a disgrace.
 


TruthSeeker said:
A 3-1 game should typically be played in 2:30 hours, maybe even less.

The game is becoming a disgrace.
Click to expand...

The extended post season commercial breaks make that a hard ask, but certainly 2:45 - 3 hrs should be doable.

Without a dog in the fight, I am rooting for the potential drama of an Astros-Dodgers Fall Classic. Just to see how low the ratings would be, a Brewers-Rays match up would also be enticing.
 
Last edited:

The Giants-Dodgers series should be a great one.
 

GophersInIowa said:
The Giants-Dodgers series should be a great one.
Click to expand...
Without Muncy and Kershaw...I'm pretty worried for my Dodgers. They do have the postseason experience on their side though. This is the 9th season in a row for them. They are battle-tested for sure.
 




TruthSeeker said:
A 3-1 game should typically be played in 2:30 hours, maybe even less.

The game is becoming a disgrace.
Click to expand...
Pitch clock needs to be in the new CBA. But I don't know how much that helps.
 

Unregistered User said:
The announcers being so pro-Dodgers was repulsive. Horrible announcing 1001.
Click to expand...
I never got the impression that the announcers were favoring the Dodgers, and I didn't give a rip who won. I guess I did care in the bottom of the ninth, I wanted a base hit to end it so I could go to sleep.
 

Cool angle, the Atlanta Braves returning to Milwaukee for first postseason games since 1958. The Hammer Memorial.

www.mlb.com

Ghosts of legends join Braves in Milwaukee

MILWAUKEE -- When the Braves last played a postseason game in Milwaukee, Hank Aaron was the cleanup hitter, Eddie Mathews was at third base and Bob Uecker was a power-hitting prospect. That’s not a joke. In 1958, Uecker was coming off a 22-homer season in the Minors.
www.mlb.com www.mlb.com
 





So Nellie Cruz hit a ball that didn't travel over the outfield wall nor was an Inside the Parker, but gets credit for a Home Run. Good for him but, weird.

Arozarena, straight steal of home along with Cruz is making it impossible for me to not pull for the Rays. This despite them bringing the term "Opener" into the modern day MLB vernacular. They won 100 games without any pitcher getting more than 10 Ws.
 


Ope3 said:
So Nellie Cruz hit a ball that didn't travel over the outfield wall nor was an Inside the Parker, but gets credit for a Home Run. Good for him but, weird.

Arozarena, straight steal of home along with Cruz is making it impossible for me to not pull for the Rays. This despite them bringing the term "Opener" into the modern day MLB vernacular. They won 100 games without any pitcher getting more than 10 Ws.
Click to expand...
 


I don't mind the 1-game wild card, WIN THE DIVISION!!!

But, the division series should go like this:

Before the WC game, the top seed gets to choose whether they play the WC winner or the 3rd seeded division winner.

For example this year, before the WC game the Rays would say, they would rather play the White Sox over the Yankees-Red Sox winner. Plus, I bet the Giants would rather play the Braves than either the Dodgers or the Cards.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
I don't mind the 1-game wild card, WIN THE DIVISION!!!

But, the division series should go like this:

Before the WC game, the top seed gets to choose whether they play the WC winner or the 3rd seeded division winner.

For example this year, before the WC game the Rays would say, they would rather play the White Sox over the Yankees-Red Sox winner. Plus, I bet the Giants would rather play the Braves than either the Dodgers or the Cards.
Click to expand...
I don't even think it needs to be a matter of choosing the opponent in the Divisional Round.

#1 Seed - Divisional Winner with best record
#2 Seed - Divisional Winner with next best record
#3 Seed - Remaining Divisional Winner or Wild Card, whichever has the most Ws.
#4 Seed - Remaining Divisional Winner or Wild Card, with fewest Ws

League Championship Series Home Field advantage would be Division Winner with most Ws.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
I don't mind the 1-game wild card, WIN THE DIVISION!!!

But, the division series should go like this:

Before the WC game, the top seed gets to choose whether they play the WC winner or the 3rd seeded division winner.

For example this year, before the WC game the Rays would say, they would rather play the White Sox over the Yankees-Red Sox winner. Plus, I bet the Giants would rather play the Braves than either the Dodgers or the Cards.
Click to expand...
Using the win the division logic, if you want to choose who you want to play, you shouldn't have finished where you did.

Did I do that right?
 

kg21 said:
Using the win the division logic, if you want to choose who you want to play, you shouldn't have finished where you did.

Did I do that right?
Click to expand...
If you want to choose who you play"

1. Win your division
2. Have the best record in the league.

I remember Mike Wilbon suggesting the choose your opponent 1st round for the NBA. Seeds 5-8 would be drafted as opponents by seeds 1-3 (4 would get whoever was left). Say the Nuggets were the 1st seed and they think they match up better with the 6th seeded Thunder than the 8th seed Trailblazers. The Nuggets would have the right to choose the Thunder as their opponent.
 

Ope3 said:
I don't even think it needs to be a matter of choosing the opponent in the Divisional Round.

#1 Seed - Divisional Winner with best record
#2 Seed - Divisional Winner with next best record
#3 Seed - Remaining Divisional Winner or Wild Card, whichever has the most Ws.
#4 Seed - Remaining Divisional Winner or Wild Card, with fewest Ws

League Championship Series Home Field advantage would be Division Winner with most Ws.
Click to expand...
I could live with this.
 

Ope3 said:
I don't even think it needs to be a matter of choosing the opponent in the Divisional Round.

#1 Seed - Divisional Winner with best record
#2 Seed - Divisional Winner with next best record
#3 Seed - Remaining Divisional Winner or Wild Card, whichever has the most Ws.
#4 Seed - Remaining Divisional Winner or Wild Card, with fewest Ws

League Championship Series Home Field advantage would be Division Winner with most Ws.
Click to expand...
Yep, winning the division should ensure getting into the playoffs but shouldn't ensure any seeding. With divisions being so small, winning the division isn't a huge accomplishment anymore. The NFL is worse. An 8-8 division winner shouldn't be hosted a 12-4 wild card team.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Yep, winning the division should ensure getting into the playoffs but shouldn't ensure any seeding. With divisions being so small, winning the division isn't a huge accomplishment anymore. The NFL is worse. An 8-8 division winner shouldn't be hosted a 12-4 wild card team.
Click to expand...

There's at least 5 teams in each division now, and doing it over a 162 game schedule (especially with the scheduled intra-division schedule) to me counts for something.

5 teams is only 1 fewer than when Divisions were introduced 1969 (6 each). AL later increased to 7 in 1976 and the NL in 1992.
 

Something I should have considered earlier, is that perhaps the Giants playing the Dodgers now is to their advantage, having to only beat them 3 times instead of 4. Also Scherzer was burned up on Wed, so probably can't go until Game 3. That will limit him to 1 start, but will likely be available from the bullpen should it go 5.
 

Ope3 said:
There's at least 5 teams in each division now, and doing it over a 162 game schedule (especially with the scheduled intra-division schedule) to me counts for something.

5 teams is only 1 fewer than when Divisions were introduced 1969 (6 each). AL later increased to 7 in 1976 and the NL in 1992.
Click to expand...
Automatically in the playoffs
 

Ope3 said:
Something I should have considered earlier, is that perhaps the Giants playing the Dodgers now is to their advantage, having to only beat them 3 times instead of 4. Also Scherzer was burned up on Wed, so probably can't go until Game 3. That will limit him to 1 start, but will likely be available from the bullpen should it go 5.
Click to expand...
You dummy. A shorter series helps the inferior team.

That's also why there should be less teams in a playoff after a 162 game season.
 
Last edited:

TruthSeeker said:
You dummy. A shorter series helps the inferior team.

That's also why there should be less teams in a playoff after a 162 game season.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a inferior team when one won 106 and the other 107, but I get your point.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom