Dodgers Take Another Early Exit From the Postseason Tournament

It doesn’t take deep analysis to realize that if your starting pitchers combine to allow 13 runs and record 14 outs, your chances of winning a short series aren’t very good. Likewise if the two superstar MVP candidates atop your lineup go 1-for-21, your four 100-RBI guys combine to drive in one (1) run, and your entire team slugs .250. With numbers like that, it’s not too hard to explain the fate of the 2023 Dodgers, who were swept by the Diamondbacks in the Division Series that concluded on Wednesday night at Chase Field. Despite a slow start to their season and considerable upheaval in their rotation, the Dodgers won 100 games and cruised to their 10th division title in 11 years, but for the third year in a row, they were ousted by a team that finished the regular season miles behind them.
Indeed, the Dodgers’ exit from the past three postseasons accounts for three of the largest differentials in winning percentage between winner and loser in major league history:
| Year | Series | Winner | Win% | Loser | Win% | Dif |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1906 | World Series | White Sox | .616 | Cubs | .763 | -.147 |
| 2022 | NL Division Series | Padres | .549 | Dodgers | .685 | -.136 |
| 2001 | AL Championship Series | Yankees | .594 | Mariner | .716 | -.122 |
| 2021 | NL Championship Series | Braves | .547 | Dodgers | .654 | -.107 |
| 1973 | NL Championship Series | Mets | .509 | Reds | .611 | -.102 |
| 2023 | NL Division Series | Diamondbacks | .519 | Dodgers | .617 | -.099 |
| 1954 | World Series | Giants | .630 | Cleveland | .721 | -.091 |
| 2019 | World Series | Nationals | .574 | Astros | .660 | -.086 |
| 2022 | NL Division Series | Phillies | .537 | Braves | .623 | -.086 |
| 2008 | NL Division Series | Dodgers | .519 | Cubs | .602 | -.084 |
Note the increasing frequency with which such upsets have happened, owing to the continued expansion of the postseason. When the two pennant winners went straight to the World Series, it was less likely their records would differ so greatly unless one won at least 70% of its games. And where we once had one postseason series per year, now we have 11, creating so many more opportunities for what look to be mismatches — except that in a short series, anything can happen, a fact we’ve known for well over a century. Just ask Tinker, Evers, and Chance about the 1906 White Sox, the Hitless Wonders who pantsed their crosstown rivals despite the Cubs having the highest single-season winning percentage in AL/NL history.
With greater television revenue in mind, not to mention a means of loosening the link between spending and winning, Major League Baseball has created an October tournament where underdogs can still win with significant frequency. Half of the list above is from the past four full seasons (2020 is excluded, for obvious reasons), where either 10 or 12 teams made the postseason, increasing the possibility of such gaps in winning percentage. This year’s Dodgers were knocked out by the sixth seed, where last year’s club was ousted by the fifth seed. The 2021 edition was itself the fourth seed, as even with 106 wins it wound up with a Wild Card berth; the 88-win Braves won the NL East and claimed the third seed and had home-field advantage. And this list may yet get another addition this October, as the Braves (104–58, .642) trail the Phillies (90–72, .556) two games to one in their best-of-five after Bryce Harper’s two-homer, two-staredown showing on Wednesday evening. They’re 86 points apart in winning percentage, the same gap as the two teams’ 2022 editions were.
As I wrote last year on the occasion of the Dodgers’ ouster, the expanded playoffs has created a growing disconnect between the regular season and the postseason. From 1969 to ’93, when there were just four playoff teams, 29.2% of those with the majors’ best record won it all. Since then, that’s down to 25%, or 21.4% if you throw out the 2020 Dodgers, who had to navigate a playoff field of the current size to win their lone championship of this recent run. Unless the Braves win it all — they have only about a 15% chance according to our current Playoff Odds given their deficit — both numbers will decrease.
The competitive balance disparities caused by tanking in the wake of the successful rebuilding efforts of the Cubs and Astros have given us gluts of both 100-loss teams and 100-win teams that still fall short of the big prize:
| Period | 100 W | 100 W/ Yr | 100 W Champions | % Champions | Non-Champ 100 W/Yr | 100 L | 100 L/ Yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996-2011 | 20 | 1.25 | 2 | 10% | 1.13 | 20 | 1.25 |
| 2012-2021 | 15 | 1.67 | 3 | 20% | 1.33 | 16 | 1.78 |
| 2022-2023 | 7 | 3.50 | 1 or 2* | 14% or 29%* | 2.50 or 3.00* | 8 | 4.00 |
I’ve broken the spans down by the reigning playoff format. From 1995 to 2011, one Wild Card team per league made the playoffs; five of them won the World Series, each by beating a 100-win team somewhere along the way. The change to two Wild Card teams per league playing a do-or-die game before the Division Series helped trim that number to two such champions from 2012 to ’21, one of which beat two 100-win teams. As of last year, we now have three Wild Card teams per league; the jury is still out on the count of winners and the sample is small, but we now have extreme numbers of teams reaching triple digits in wins or losses. Already we have three teams with 90 wins or fewer in the League Championship Series round for the first time since 2014, according to Baseball Prospectus’ Mike Gianella; if the Braves don’t make it, we’ll have four for the first time since the LCS was created in 1969. Great work, Mr. Manfred.
Back to the winning percentage differential list: the 2021 Braves serve as a reminder that comparisons between teams’ full-season records only go so far. That team was just 52–54 through the end of July, having lost Ronald Acuña Jr. to a torn ACL earlier that month. A flurry of trades upgraded the dismal outfield, bringing in both NLCS MVP Eddie Rosario and World Series MVP Jorge Soler. The team that reached October was a stronger one than its overall record indicated.
As for the 106-win Dodgers: by the time they faced the Braves, they had lost All-Star Max Muncy to an elbow injury and Clayton Kershaw to a forearm injury during the season’s final weekend and were also down Trevor Bauer, who had gone on administrative leave at midseason over domestic violence allegations. They were still a strong team, but the distance between them and the Braves was diminished, turning a seven-game series into even more of a tossup than it might have looked based on the disparity in winning percentages.
This year’s Dodgers arrived at the postseason in similar fashion, with a rotation that was irreparably broken. They lost both Dustin May and Tony Gonsolin to Tommy John surgeries, and Julio Urías was placed on administrative leave à la Bauer back in September. Neither Gonsolin nor Urías had performed at their full potential this year before going down, but the starters who filled out their rotation were generally even less effective. Given the situation, manager Dave Roberts had little choice but to cross his fingers when anointing Kershaw his Game 1 starter. The 35-year-old southpaw’s 2.46 ERA papered over his 4.03 FIP, his highest mark since his 2008 rookie season. Worse, the version of Kershaw that returned from a six-week absence due to an unspecified shoulder injury was even shakier, losing nearly two miles per hour off an already-diminished fastball, and more or less limited to a five-and-fly plan.
The alternatives to Kershaw were veteran Lance Lynn, a once-dependable workhorse who this season was rocked for a 5.73 ERA and 5.53 FIP and allowed 2.16 homers per nine; hotshot 24-year-old rookie Bobby Miller (3.76 ERA, 3.51 FIP); or anyone from a trio of rookies with 12 or fewer career starts under their belts in Michael Grove, Emmet Sheehan, and Ryan Pepiot, each with promise but none obviously ready for prime time. Even if Roberts could mix and match with a bullpen that ranked among the league’s best, a deep run through October was going to be an unusually difficult trick to pull off.
The Dodgers couldn’t do it — couldn’t even come close to doing it. Kershaw was rocked for six runs in one-third of an inning in the opener, hit so hard one had to wonder if he was tipping his pitches, or if we’ve seen the last of the future Hall of Famer. In Game 2, Miller struggled with his control and allowed three runs, failing to make it out of the second inning.
The Dodgers didn’t throw in the towel — they had ample chances to overcome their early deficit in Game 2 before losing 4–2 — but by that point, the handwriting was practically on the wall. Only three teams have had multiple starters allow three or more runs while pitching two or fewer innings in a best-of-five series (Division Series or pre-1985 LCS), and all lost the series, namely the 2017 Red Sox and this year’s Orioles and Dodgers. Teams that got two such starts in a best-of-seven LCS or World Series went 4–12 (2–5 for the former, 2–7 for the latter). The one team that did so in a best-of-nine World Series, the 1921 Giants, won in eight games. While it wouldn’t have reached the best-of-75 format that a trio of statisticians recently determined would be required for the team with the greater true talent to win out, maybe the Dodgers could have petitioned the league for a best-of-nine, staff woes be damned.
Any chance the Dodgers had of overcoming the gut punches they sustained in the Los Angeles leg of their series flew out the window in the third inning on Wednesday night, when Lynn’s gopher problem resurfaced. The 36-year-old righty allowed four solo home runs in the span of six batters, the last of which, by Gabriel Moreno, came via the first pitch he threw after a review of a potential home run down the right field line had been overturned. The four homers in an inning by a team set a postseason record; that they all came against the same pitcher, without so much as a visit from catcher Will Smith, pitching coach Mark Prior, or Roberts, almost defies belief, and testifies to a lack of urgency on the team’s behalf.
That Lynn, the game’s most homer-prone pitcher, was even out there points to one of Roberts’ more questionable decisions. For all of the big righty’s postseason experience, he entered with a career 5.28 ERA in 58 innings, having allowed eight runs in six innings over his past two trips with the 2018 Yankees and ’21 White Sox. And while he pitched somewhat better after arriving from the South Side than before, he was roughed up by two of the three playoff teams he faced. Pepiot, meanwhile, pitched to a 2.14 ERA and 4.28 FIP in 42 innings after coming back from an oblique strain; the Dodgers used openers for him in two of his four starter-length outings, with promising results. Calling upon him would have looked riskier than starting the grizzled vet, but it might have worked out better.
Even if they had gotten stellar starting pitching, the fact remains that the Dodgers managed only six runs in three games, one-third of them in garbage time in Game 1, and hit .177/.248/.250 for a 40 wRC+, an ignominious showing. Betts tied for the NL lead in WAR and ranked second in wRC+ during the regular season, but he went 0-for-11 with one walk, the continuation of his season-ending mini-slump, and his first three-game hitless streak since April 25–27 in Pittsburgh. “I did absolutely nothing to help us win,” said the player who during the regular season had done more to help his team win than just about any other. “There’s no words for it.”
“If we can just get the big hit this year, I think we’ll be OK,” said Freeman before the series when discussing last year’s struggles against the Padres, which included a teamwide 0-for-20 streak with runners in scoring position. But he went 1-for-10 with two walks and didn’t drive in a run, passing up some very hittable pitches. Both Betts and Freeman have won MVP awards and championships in the recent past, but they picked the wrong three games to go dry — or, rather, the Diamondbacks pitchers did a damn good job of attacking them, as this stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
The other Dodgers couldn’t pick them up. They didn’t even get 20 chances to drive in runs, going 4-for-17 with a walk with runners in scoring position; by comparison, the Diamondbacks went 7-for-24 with five walks and a pair of sacrifice flies with runners in scoring position. “We didn’t do it for three days,” said Freeman. “Not good by us.”
And so the Dodgers’ season ends in bitter disappointment for the third straight year. By my research, various runs of the Roberts-era Dodgers have produced the best won-loss record, the best run differential, and the best combination of the two over any five-year span of the post-1960 expansion era. That’s nice, but MLB doesn’t give out pieces of metal for such accomplishments. The league and the players’ union have decided they like the randomness and excitement of a postseason tournament better, and even with the profit motive driving the creation of an increasingly larger field, it’s tough to disagree given all the ensuing drama. The best you can do is keep showing up and hoping to get hot once in awhile, as the Dodgers have demonstrated, winning a single championship in a decade-plus stretch of division dominance, just as the Bobby Cox-era Braves did before them. The hardest fact of autumn is that sometimes it’s just not your year, no matter how many games you win.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
2019NL Division SeriesPhillies.537Braves.623-.086
It must be a different year/team. The Phillies didn’t make the postseason in 2019.
Diluting the playoff pool by letting in 84 win teams is not good for the game. Abolish the divisions, the top 3 teams from each league get in with 7 days off in between the wild card and DS. The 4 and 5 ranked teams play in a best-of-5 series starting the Monday after the season. Preferably, I think it should be either a neutral site, 5 games straight, or a 2-3/3-2 format with a day off in between travel. Takes away unfairness with divisions and properly punishes teams for not having the best 3 recorded in the league. Make the DS, CS, and WS 7 games. Shorten the season to 154 games. Makes the playoffs as competitive as possible while making the regular season actually mean something.
They aren’t contracting the playoffs. It’s just not happening. It’s a loss of revenue. That’s not even including an 8 game regular season loss of revenue for all 30 teams as well.
Then keep it 162 games and shorten spring training by a week. The playoff games are made up by possibly playing 4 more DS games and 10 wild card games. That wouldn’t be a loss of revenue. The regular season has to mean something. Otherwise, what’s the point.
Seems like the most competitive series would not include the Dodgers or Orioles this time around.
I mean, my big worry with the extra teams is that it wouldn’t be competitive. And it hasn’t, but not in the way that would justify lopping off low seeds. It’s been the complete opposite of what was expected.
I mean, maybe we should just include all 30 teams in the playoffs. At this point, who’s to say for sure that the Athletics couldn’t make a run?
Basically the NBA approach
That’s what I was afraid of with playoff expansion—that it would be like the NBA. The NBA is a total snooze fest.
yep. and i get why they need more rest days but each series taking 7-10 days makes it feel like a slog.
The days off also doesn’t reward deeper teams because you can basically ride your top 3 starters. The top 3 starters and top 3 relievers of 100 win vs 90 win teams isn’t as great as 1-13 with the whole staff
The worst part about the NBA’s playoff format is the bottom teams have no shot. The title almost always goes to one of the 2 or 3 best teams in the regular season. So the bulk of the playoffs is totally pointless. Whether one likes MLB’s playoff expansion or not, one has to admit that every game, inning, play and pitch matter because it’s just too easy to drop a game and lose to a lesser team.
(The other problem with the NBA is the regular season is wayyyy too long. It is abundantly clear by midseason which are the best teams. The NBA could easily cut the schedule to 58 games (home/home against every other team), cut the playoffs to 4 teams from each conference (or even 2 if we’re being honest) and you’d get the exact same playoff results as the current format)
No, the worst part of the NBA playoffs is that they’re playing basketball.
I strongly agree with your diagnoses of the NBA’s playoff problems. The field is at least 4 teams too large there. I’m not so sure that the regular season is too long, but it is true that when teams are coasting to the playoffs relatively early on it kind of makes you wonder what the point is.
The link about needing a best-of-75 series notes that the NBA is highly predictable at about 80%; the better team wins. Tennis is likely even closer to never having upsets.
NBA is snooze because best teams will basically never lose. That isn’t the case in the mlb
(Not complaining though)
Ah, extrapolation my old friend. We meet again.
My best friend.
More seriously, I think the sweet spot is probably close to 40% of teams
Making the playoffs, which is what this is. If you wanted to expand the playoffs to 16 like the owners wanted that would require 40 teams. What say you, MLB owners?
I’m all for 40 teams
Bring back the Louisville Colonels!
This would actually be an interesting topic for simulation-based research. Have to quantify that intuitive “sweet spot” somehow first, though — I’m not sure what it represents but perhaps some optimal ratio of predictability/fairness and surprise. My personal “sweet spot” is probably considerably narrower (as many people in my life have told me).
I don’t know that the Dodgers or Orioles wouldn’t suddenly improve if they continued to play. Nor do I think the Diamondbacks necessarily or even probably would be a more entertaining WS participant than either
I’m a fan of something like this:
Expansion to 32, return to two divisions per league. 12 games against 7 division opponents (84 games), 6 games against 8 teams in the other inter-league division (48), and a single series against each team in one division in the other league (24 games) for a total of 156. You could break down the last 24 games in any way: rotating entire divisions or by winning percentage. This shaves about a week off the regular season and gives way to…
Playoffs: Six playoff teams per league. Division winners and the best remaining record get a bye. A single WC game between the 5-6 seed. Winner moves on to a two of three at the 4 seed.
All of the above will never happen. Expansion likely means eight divisions of four, which is hot garbage.
I really like this idea. Expand the playoffs and you really have to cut the regular season to prevent overwork on pitchers.
Tiny divisions suck.
I don’t think MLB wants to be a regional sport. They want teams from all parts of the US and Toronto to be in the postseason. 1960 NHL and 2023 NASCAR aren’t their goal
How about 1/6 (6 at home with no breaks for higher seed) and 2/5 in the LCS?
I’d personally go as far as spotting the higher seed a win in the wild card and LDS.
This.
I think 2/4 in the LDS, spotting the higher seed a 1-0 series lead, then 2/5 in the LCS. And no off days.
Also, cram the wild card series into Monday-Wednesday right after the regular season ends, then start the LDS on Thursday. Make the byes worth a boatload.
Really think spotting the higher seed a 1-0 lead in the WC games would be huge for reducing the layoff, etc.
Need to increase playoff field since still only 12 teams make it. Fans pay for hope and giving as many teams a chance to play when it really counts leads to more fan interest, Tampa aside. Nobody is upset when upsets occur in one game playoff or tournament rounds in football or college basketball but somehow upsets in mlb playoffs when good teams finally meet on equal footing somehow tragic. That is nonsense.
Fans pay for entertainment.
Davey incorrectly chose Lynn and his high home run rate over Sheehan mid season command issues (walks). Dodger staff ignored Sheehan’s Sept. stuff IMO. Of course this issue us mute with the lack of offense on Dodger side. But are you also in similar thought that Lynn in must game was their best bet? Great year by the way, and thanks for the high quality journalism.
Lynn was a curious choice where I assumed that they knew something I didn’t. I would have picked Pepiot but Dodgers weren’t winning this series no matter what Roberts did
Can’t say I saw this one coming. The Dodgers starters’ got rocked and their lineup went ice-cold.
I am not looking forward to the takes about reseeding or byes other things again. The D-Backs won this fair and square. The Dodgers lost. The worst case scenario is that the low seeds always lose and it is too predictable. I think it’s fair to say that the worst case scenario has been avoided.
Well we do want the WS to be between something resembling the best teams with lots of stars. There were lots of times when that wasn’t the case even with fewer playoff teams. Sometimes the 1960 Pirates or 1987 Twins even won. But those weren’t as good to watch as 2017 Dodgers – Astros or even 2011 Rangers – Cardinals
The 1960 Pirates-Yankees series was an all time classic. Mazeroski’s HR.
That’s an edge case.
The Dodgers didn’t have enough pitching and lost to a mediocre DBacks team that didn’t really hit all that much this year or pitch all that well this year. It happens. That’s baseball. But it’s quite rough that they had to throw Lance Lynn out there with their season on the line.
That part is ok with me. But if the Diamondbacks beat the Phillies and get swept by the Astros 40-0 it wouldn’t be worth watching
I do feel like I would stop watching after the Astros got ahead 32-0 or 33-0. You’re just not coming back from that.
But if the comeback happened you’d have missed it
I’ve been thinking about the point of the postseason since the last article. If the point is to identify the best team, it obviously fails. If the point is to provide chaos and entertainment it succeeds, kind of, but people who wish it rewarded better teams will just be disappointed and that sucks.
I think that all of these problems stem from interleague play . Before interleague play the World Series might have meant something (as much as any sports competition means anything) because there was no other opportunity to directly compare the quality of AL and NL teams. Now we get to do that all the time so ehhh. Other than the opportunity to to get to watch some extra games, the point of the playoffs is really unclear.
I sort of agree. Inter league play was fantastic when it was only playing a series or two against a team that wasn’t far away. But it has become institutionalized into something much more expansive. I don’t like it. It has done some damage to the World Series but it’s it totally gutted the all star game, and it has sucked the magic out of teams close in geography playing each other.
The point of playoffs – any playoffs – is not to determine the best team for the year. It is to determine the winner of the playoffs. Yes, it’s only entertainment, but isn’t that the reason we have any games at all?
But worse teams are usually less entertaining
I’d argue that the same teams every damn year is also not entertaining.
You know what’s entertaining? Umpires frisking batters and catching players in a rundown (not to mention singing the national anthem and saving the queen to boot), tigers mauling baserunners, fingers in hot dogs, signals coming in via Aldis lamp, now THAT’S baseball.
Basically I need this sport to more closely resemble Naked Gun.
Multiball! MULTIBALL!!!!
Hey! It’s Enrique Palazzo!
I really don’t think this is how people perceive the playoffs. They say “we are world champions” ffs. But now, everyone kinda feels like it’s farcical. At least I do
I’m pretty sure the point of the playoffs is to produce advertising revenue for Warner Bros./Discovery and the Fox Corporation.
Maybe they should give out a regular season trophy, akin to the President’s Trophy in the NHL. We’ll call it the Bobby Cox Trophy.
Regular season excellence is usually rewarded by a high level of interest amongst fans, WS or not. WS wins are usually more ephemeral from a revenue standpoint. Except the Rays, Guardians and A’s didn’t have revenue despite regular season success
A multi-season format like the Champions League would be something. Especially if it involved Japan/Korea.
Sure you could do that.
But even less people would care about that the President’s Trophy, which is very few.
There seems to be a lot of angst and handwringing(Not by you, this just felt like a decent place for this) over the chaos/randomness, but the stat Jay cited:
sure makes it feel like it’s always been that way.
These recent Dodgers teams remind me of the mid 2000s Yankees. Great hitting but mediocre starting pitching (at best). I would be interested in seeing research into whether that type of team fares poorly in the playoffs compared to expectations based on record and run differential.
The Dodgers starters were
2nd in fWAR in 2019
1st in fWAR in 2021
5th in fWAR in 2022
They most certainly have not had mediocre starting pitching
Eh, I think even last year they had mediocre starters that pitched above their talent level and also as Jay noted, they dealt with injuries where many of their best starters weren’t available for the playoffs.
Yeah, other than this year I don’t think that statement even comes close to applying to the Dodgers.
How did all their ‘good’ starters from last year do this year and the year before? they had outlier regular seasons
I disagree. If they are good that season, how else are you supposed to measure them? Except this season, Dodger starting pitchers have not been a problem. At all.
I don’t blame Friedman for the bats going down the drain. He built a good offensive core that has been unfathomably shut down in the playoffs. But where he deserves blame is the rotation. He has passed on many good opportunities outside the organization to get a top of the rotation arm who’s not a rental and never does it. The Padres ended up not trading a single good player for 3 seasons of Blake Snell. Luis Castillo was traded last year. Pablo Lopez was moved before this season. I get Bauer was a raw deal but they’ve known that since July 2021. They have to get a Yamamoto, Snell, Nola type this offseason to supplement their pitching core.
Very good point about Snell. Padres gave up so little in the end, yet it felt like a decent amount at the time. Padres traded two in the bush to get one in the hand.
Dombrowski-style – ya love to see it.
I’m so tired of the “Dodgers focused too much on the regular season and not on the playoffs” takes I see on Twitter and stuff.
How exactly does winning 100 games not prepare you for the playoffs? It’s still the same game, same rules.
Their season is over, and I still don’t know what the Dodgers’ plan was here. Officially, their plan was to see what the kids could do. But that plan always made more sense when they were going to try and dip under the tax line. Did their internal models suggest they were a 100-win team? I have no idea. If they didn’t know that the year was going to be such a rousing success, would they have behaved differently? Again, I have no idea.
Technically not the same rules since there is no ghost runner in the postseason.
Clearly the Dodgers don’t focus enough on how to play without the ghost runner.
Isn’t it the Manfred Man?
I’ve seen that and also zombie runner which I should have used since a ghost runner is what you have when you’re a kid and you’re playing with your friends and you only have a couple players and somebody on base needs to bat. Then you have a ghost runner run for the person moving to bat.
Technically per MLB’s website, it is an “Automatic Runner”
So, how would you fix the postseason if you could? More games in each series? Some kind of round robin tournament, where you can’t be eliminated for losing just one series? Is it really safe to assume the better team would win if there were more games to play, or is it still likely to be about some lesser team getting on a hot streak?
Why does it need fixing? I’m not sure why baseball fans get so bent out of shape when “upsets” happen.
I’ve gotten static around here for suggesting individual effort might make a difference in the outcome of close games. There are people downvoting questions I asked. For goodness’ sake, those were not rhetorical questions! There is something to the idea that advancing in the post season should depend on the skill of the players rather than a random walk, and that may not always be the case in a three game or five game series. And that’s why I was asking whether adding more games might help. The article seemed to suggest the way it is isn’t the way it should be.
FWIW, hockey fans understand that some teams are built for the playoffs and some teams are built for the regular season. Playing against the same team in a best of seven series in hockey isn’t like playing against a different team every night during the regular season. And it is often the case that the high scoring, high win finesse hockey teams during the regular season regularly get eliminated early in the playoffs. If the GM failed to build the team with the tough kinds of players who can play a different kind of physical hockey in the postseason, it’s considered the GM’s fault.
Anyway, it doesn’t work that way in baseball–not in a three game or five game series. There may be too much of a random walk involved. I think it’s also true that a lot of the fans of larger market teams feel like they’re entitled to win. A team like Arizona displacing the Dodgers offends their baseball sensibilities. Remember, MLB doesn’t have a hard cap. If the MLB had a hard cap like the NFL, a small market team like the Royals might have been in the World Series three of the last five years–just like the Kansas City Chiefs were in the Super Bowl three of the last five years. If you’re a Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Mets, Braves, Philles fan, why would you want that?
Pat Mahomes can get the Chiefs to a lot of Super Bowls regardless of the rotating cast of characters around him. Same for Lebron James in his prime. No single player in baseball can have such an outsized effect on team success (which I for one like!)
No doubt. Baseball isn’t like football. It isn’t like hockey either. Incidentally, I’ve seen great quarterbacks become wildly successful when they go from a team with a terrible offensive line to a team with an excellent offensive line.
Regardless, one of the ways baseball is different is that there’s no hard cap, and if there were a hard cap, small market teams would make it to the World Series as often is they do in those other sports–for the same reasons.
Having a huge payroll is by no means sufficient to go to the World Series, but it’s almost necessary. The exceptions seem to prove the rule.
The main way a hard cap would increase parity is by forcing small market teams to spend more, haha.
Why is that a bad thing?
I think one of the main results of parity is that more marginal fans would follow their local smaller market teams. That would be good for the sport and make more money available for the teams to spend.
Americans want to believe that their home team can win it all. And in the MLB, that just isn’t so.
The Pirates had a payroll of about $70 million in 2023.
The league average was about $165 million.
The Dodgers, Phillies, and Rangers had an average of about $245 million.
The Pirates did not have a real chance to win the World Series–not even when the season started. If the Pirates don’t sell our much and their fans don’t watch much baseball during the regular season, it’s probably because their fanbase knows they don’t have a snowball’s chance to win it all.
All the NFL teams are spending within a few percent of each other. Their fans may have a false sense of hope based on a QB that doesn’t pan out. But casual NFL fans believe their team has a chance to win it all when the season starts. It’s just not like in the MLB, where the team with the highest payroll is about five times the size of the lowest payroll.
Rooting for the Pirates to win it all is like rooting for The Generals to beat the Harlem Globetrotters. And that’s why casual fans aren’t more into the game.
“If you’re a Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Mets, Braves, Philles fan, why would you want that?”
Luckily, the richest teams aren’t controlling the entire sport and waltzing uncontested to title after title like the big six in the EPL…
In other words, I like that the D-backs have a chance to win a title (and I’m no D-backs fan). I know going into an EPL season that Crystal Palace have a 0.00% chance at taking the league. Screw that.
I’m rooting for the D-backs, too. I’m always rooting for the underdog. But having a ton of money to spend makes a difference.
Also, Yankees’ ownership proactively pushed for a lower tax apron and stronger penalties entering the last CBA.
Eh… I’m always willing to downvote a comment that spends a whole paragraph grousing about being downvoted on some unspecified past incident .
Cheers!
Down voting a question doesn’t even make sense.
“So, how would you fix the postseason if you could?”
What does a down vote for that question even mean?
Two leagues, one championship contender from each league. Easy
A 15 (likely soon to be 16) team division-league where only the very best team moves on? Having 26 of 30 teams basically be very close to out of it by the beginning of September isn’t good for the sport either.
Assuming the same leagues, and taking the same records — which is a bit of a poor assumption, but it’s the data we have — on 9/1, you would have had Baltimore and TBR 1.5 games apart, before you had SEA, HOU seven back w/ TEX 8 back in the AL, and ATL up 6 on LAD and then the Brewers 14 back.
I scanned basically the last dozen or so full seasons, and there’s a couple of potentially interesting races, for the most part your are looking at 4-6 teams that have a realistic shot on 9/1. That’s not a recipe for keeping fans engaged.
Oh come on, the teams would be structured so much differently
I am shocked that the 2006 Cardinals don’t appear in that table.
83 wins in 161 games. if they were 83 in 162 their series vs the mets would have made it. but no team they played had a .600+ win% so that kind of makes sense.
I mean the Dodgers have been 10-8 in the playoffs since Friedman took over, 10-7 if you want to take out the 2017 WS. Of course 4 of those series wins came in 2020 when the season was a lot shorter (also Kershaw’s best playoff performances) which might speak to the fact that perhaps they run out of steam over the long season? But even then their record feels about right if you believe playoffs to be a crapshoot (6-7 taking out 2017 WS and 2020). I think their failures get magnified because they’re the Dodgers, but overall their playoff trends seem about right.
The better question to ask if teams that have long track record of overperforming the 50/50 nature of playoffs, such as the 90s Braves, the Yankees dynasty, current Astros, or even the even year Giants, were they simply lucky? I don’t mean coin flip luck but perhaps their stars just happen to be more consistent and therefore can maintain their regular season dominance into the postseason?
You mean more durable stars. But should surviving a 162 game season test that?
I don’t know. Just throwing it out there that perhaps someone can look into it more in detail. I don’t know why teams like the current Astros or the Jeter Yankees seem to always be winning more in the postseason than you’d expect. Maybe it’s just luck. Maybe there’s something more. I am more just saying the Dodgers represent more the “norm” than bad luck. The Rays to me better represent an unlucky team.
They seem to be healthier than most in the postseason and their starters seem to not have run out of gas. On the other hand I’ve no idea why the A’s always lost Game 5 of a five game series.
The 90s Braves overperformed? They were there every year and only had one title to show for it…
“Getting there every year” during the Wild Card era is overperforming.
Considering the starters and lineups the Dodgers ran out this series, I’m less shocked by the sweep and more bewildered where the 100 wins even came from. They are a franchise that succeeds fantastically on depth over the long haul (in the form of platooning, lineup configurations, endless starting and bullpen arms, rare replacement-level subs) in a way less-resourced and less-analytical teams cannot. The playoffs strip that advantage away. You can’t see it in three games.
There’s really no sense in continued haggling over playoff format fixes. The regular season is by far the best test and we could, as baseball culture, just go with that. But too many people think that’s boring, and there’s too much money in extended playoff tourneys, so we don’t.
I think this a decent point. As recently as early July, the Dodgers were projected (here at FG) for only 90 wins. They ended at 100, and judging from that standard, they ought to have been formidable, but it is probably better to think of them as a low/mid 90s team that rode a streak.
The playoff format doesn’t reflect the regular season.
100+ win teams are deep. 90 win teams have several really good players.
The excessive days off in the playoffs allow everyone to essentially use their top 3 starters and top 3 or 4 relievers for the vast majority of innings. That greatly levels the playing field because the 100+ win team isn’t getting the 90 win team’s 4th and 5th starter.
At minimum I’d like to see the shift be something like:
Division series: game 1 at lower seed, day off. Games 2-7 at higher seed with no days off.
LCS: games 1 and 2 at lower seed, games 3-7 at higher seed with no days off.
Then the world series can be whatever.
If what you say is true it sort of sounds like rewarding depth over star power. Which doesn’t seem like the league would go for, and also why would that be better? Is a team with a lot of depth actually better? I mean, sort of, in depth.
Is Lynn wearing a chest/belly protector in that picture?
He is wearing a belly protector, but it’s made of belly.
Fat don’t pull and fat don’t tear
Looks like the starter kit.
We want a rector, not a belly protector!
The mlb has made an incorrect business decision. They bet that expanded playoffs would mean more revenue, but that comes directly at the expense of the regular season revenue. No one cares about what, 65% of games played? They do not matter. The mlb would make a LOT more money if those games mattered. It’s funny because this way to save baseball is just to revert to the old ways. The team with the best record in each league playing one another. This guarantees incredibly important games with very high stakes late into the season – you just make the regular season the playoffs, it’s so easy.
When playoff expansion came i figured it would make me lose interest in the game. It absolutely has. The worst truth revealed to us by analytics is that each playoff series is a coin flip. Why would I be interested in seeing that unfold 4 times?
I almost hope it’s diamondbacks vs Astros to fulfill the mlbs worst nightmare
Removing the playoffs won’t make those games matter. Almost all teams are out of the chase for the best record by the start of August.
I disagree. I think that teams would prioritize building the best possible team and everything would become more competitive. Right now you nearly every division decided weeks maybe even months out, with tons of teams hoping to eke out a wildcard spot. The race getting to august would be infinitely juicier, and the there would be way more teams in the hunt on account of how high the regular season stakes would be. You would not see the variance you see now in winning percentage between contenders.
But yes it is true that without something like relegation to punish the bad teams there would still be totally meaningless games. Still think overall there would be much more meaningful baseball
Being played
Agree with hglman – a 154-game season (or 150, or 140, or whatever) won’t be magically more enticing. 6 months is a SLOG. 5 1/2 months is…still a SLOG, but ever so slightly less so.
Exactly one (1) team this season was less than 6 games out on September 1st this season, by old “league rules”. The percentage of games no one cares about would go UP, not down under your suggestion.
And AL West was three teams for two slots until the second from the last game, with the division title up for grabs in the last game, down to the final out, a 1-0 game. Soooooo boring!
Here’s my radical idea: conference pennants should be a bigger deal (maybe a series between the two winners like the old days), and then a completely separate tournament takes place that isn’t necessarily seen as an extension of the regular season.
You can spend 162 games compiling all the WAR you like, until October comes around. Then WPA comes up to you and says. “You will give me 0.5 WPA today, or you will die.”
And once again, the Dodgers died.
It’s heartening to see so many other people absolutely frustrated with this awful playoff system. There’s too many undeserving teams, too many days off and the whole thing feels like a novelty rather than an extension of what happened in the regular season.
I’m happy for the Diamondbacks players (especially Longo) but they were 16 games back in their division, 6 out of the top wild card and they really didn’t deserve a shot at the Dodgers.
Great for the Dodgers for having a good regular season, but no matter the playoff system they were not likely to win the playoffs with the rotation they had at the end of the season. Not a single SP with more than 140 IP. I had no idea Kershaw led the team in IP. Let’s be real here, playoffs are a tournament, why do we care so much that the ‘best team’ wins. Shouldn’t we want the team that plays best during the tournament to win it. Fine make the teams with the worse records have to try harder by playing more series and more away games, but if they win the win, that’s the way it has been for ever.
“This year’s Dodgers arrived at the postseason in similar fashion, with a rotation that was irreparably broken.”
This is the key quote in the article. The same was true for the Rays.
The Dodgers and Rays teams that showed up in October were NOT the teams that won 99 and 100 games.
Let EVERY team in the playoffs! The regular season should just be for Seeding. Round 1 can be a 1-game elimination,
User name checks out!
I know, the Kershaw playoff-choke reputation is unfair. But C’mon. Kershaw earned his reputation. He has choked so many times in the playoffs. He wins CYs and earns $Millions for his regular season greatness. But in the playoffs he chokes. His choke this year is the PERFECT way for Kershaw to end his career! I hope his final appearance in the majors was his epic 2023 choke – 0.1 IP, 6 ER, 162 ERA!
“Great work, Mr. Manfred..”
Yep. Watching terrible teams advance is the reason why this longtime fan will be skipping the Series this year.