FanGraphs Weekly Mailbag: October 21, 2025
I have no idea what Dan Wilson was doing. With the Mariners clinging to a 3-1 lead in the seventh inning of Game 7 of the ALCS, their manager elected to bring in Eduard Bazardo, who’d just thrown two innings the night before, with two on and the top of the Blue Jays order coming up instead of going to his closer, Andrés Muñoz. It took two pitches for the decision to backfire. George Springer turned on the 1-0 pitch from Bazardo, a 96-mph thigh-high sinker over the inner third of the plate, and clobbered it over the left-center field wall. The three-run blast secured the Blue Jays their first American League pennant in 32 years. They’ll face the defending-champion Dodgers in the World Series, which begins on Friday at Rogers Centre.
I’m not going to get into all the chaos from last night’s decisive game here. For more on that, you should check out Eric Longenhagen’s recap. We’ve been covering both the Blue Jays and the Dodgers all postseason, and we’ll continue to do so during the World Series, so be sure to keep coming to FanGraphs throughout the Fall Classic.
A quick programming note before we continue: Our next mailbag will come out after the end of the World Series, whenever that may be. Also, this mailbag is exclusive to FanGraphs Members. If you aren’t yet a Member and would like to keep reading, you can sign up for a Membership here. It’s the best way to both experience the site and support our staff, and it comes with a bunch of other great benefits. Also, if you’d like to ask a question for an upcoming mailbag, send me an email at mailbag@fangraphs.com.
Matt is the associate editor of FanGraphs. Previously, he was the baseball editor at Sports Illustrated. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Men’s Health, Baseball Prospectus, and Lindy’s Sports Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @ByMattMartell and Blue Sky @mattmartell.bsky.social.
Thank you Matt for these mailbags – I love the off-the-wall questions about things I would never have considered otherwise, and a goofball question gets addressed with the same thoughtfulness as any other. These are great.
Michael, I’m saying on a play where there is NO UNCERTAINTY. The outfielder is not sprinting, because the ball is NOT going to go over his head, when you look for possible over his head you aren’t looking at the stated 1% (that’s 1 in a hundred) of missing the catch.
He is going to catch it, he is easily making the catch if the ball does not go out, but he’s not charging in when he makes the catch and he isn’t short.
This is the easy catch on the warning track, not the sprint back to make the catch, hence the claim that he’s not sprinting.
2nd to 3rd is an easy advance if you are staning on second and the ball is deep to center-right, you have already tagged, and the fielder has to catch and throw circa 300 feet in the time you go 90. This is like advaning to home on a sacrifice fly (which is successfull something like 98% of the time that it’s attempted), same distance for the throw and run, although you do need to stop, but the play at the plate is rarely close in the 3rd to home situation.
But instead, the runner ALWAYS stands halfway to 3rd, retreats to second when the catch is inevitably made, and ends on second.
I’ve always been of the mind that teams shouldn’t lose their challenge on stands rather than confirmed, but giving a team a run/safe and an out certainly benefits the offense much more than the defense. Often times, teams are happy to give up an out to move a runner along, especially if it directly scores a run.
If giving up an out to gain a base benefits the offense, why are sacrifice bunts a sabermetric no-no? Or the break even on steal attempts >70٪?
While I appreciate Tim’s concept, I kinda wished we’d gone in the other direction when the playoffs were expanded. I never liked the one-and-done WC playoff game (the fact that my Pirates lost that game two years in a row has no impact on my feelings…none…really) and thought for symmetry’s sake, we should have kept the same number of games, and gone with a 3 game WC series (better team with home field all three) followed by a 3 game DS (division winning bye team with home field all three), followed by 7 and 7. Like Tim, I feel like 3, then 5, then 7 and 7 again seems random and weird.
I’ll even go so far as to say that 3+7+7+7 makes more sense than what we have now.
Shocking that when you define the maximum number of games can be three, it turns out that both 7 and 9 game series max out at 3…
No, I think the most compelling reason to argue against a 9-game series is that, in the approximately 170 7-game playoff series played in AL/NL history (1905-1984: 1 per year, 1985-since: 3 per year), there has been exactly one instance of a team going down 3-0 and winning the series. That might be what you’re getting at, but the way it is phrased basically assumes the answer in the question.
I do have to say, though, as a fan of symmetry and patterns, it has a certain aesthetic appeal. I think 1-game playoff “series” are silly.
WE ALL LOVE ANDRELTON SIMMONS 🙂
also (well, except Mike Trout) 🙁
If the runner is always safe, then doesn’t at first glance feel like speed would matter more. So I’m all for it!
I feel like “The World Series can alternate between Arizona and Florida so players may begin Spring Training at the conclusion” is being underrated as part of the suggestion.
Having the World Series at a neutral field would hurt team season ticket sales.
I’m not sure what the fun fact you were going for here is. Consecutive World Series appearances are reasonably common in the past two decades: going backwards in time you have Dodgers in 24/25, Astros in 21/22, Dodgers again in 17/18, Royals in 14/15, Rangers in 10/11, and Phillies in 08/09.
Looking at that list, the fact is probably “the second team to play in a World Series the year after winning it”
Yes, my mistake. This is what I meant. I’ve corrected the piece above.
Seeing Albert Pujols on an all time DRS list (since it’s been a thing, at least) for a single season isn’t something I expected to see