Unless the Reds Do Something Wild, the NL Playoff Race Is Over

The Mets swept the Phillies this week, which made headlines for two reasons: First, the Mets have now won 10 straight against the Phillies at Citi Field, dating back to last September, and including Games 3 and 4 of last year’s NLDS. If the Phillies don’t win a game there in the playoffs, they don’t face the Mets in New York again until the last weekend of June 2026. A potential 21-month losing streak at a divisional rival is tough to swallow, though it’s good to see that everyone’s being super normal about it.
Second, it kept the NL East race alive. The Phillies entered this division matchup seven games up with 32 to play; had they won the series, they would’ve basically had the division title in the bag. As it stands now, they’re up five, with the Mets coming to Philadelphia for a four-game set in mid-September. The Phillies are still 3-to-1 favorites, according to our playoff odds, but it’s a real pennant race now.
But this sweep is most important for a reason that went a little under the radar. While the Mets were beating seven shades of you-know-what out of the Phillies, the Dodgers were doing the same to the Reds in Los Angeles.
In three games, the Dodgers outscored the Reds 18-4. They only trailed after four out of 51 half-innings in the series, and never by more than a single run. It was not the performance the Reds needed, especially since they entered the series a game and a half behind the Mets for the last NL Wild Card spot.
Cincinnati still had a lot of work to do, but with the Mets coming to Ohio for a three-game set at the end of next week, the Reds still controlled their own playoff destiny. That’s not the case anymore, as the pair of sweeps stretched New York’s lead to 4 1/2 games. When the sun rose on Thursday, the NL playoff standings looked like this:
| Team | W | L | W% | Div. GB | WC GB | Playoff Odds | 7-Day Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brewers | 83 | 51 | .619 | 0 | — | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Dodgers | 77 | 57 | .575 | 0 | — | 100.0% | 0.2% |
| Cubs | 76 | 57 | .571 | 6.5 | +4 | 99.6% | 1.0% |
| Phillies | 76 | 57 | .571 | 0 | — | 99.7% | 0.0% |
| Padres | 75 | 59 | .560 | 2 | +2.5 | 99.4% | 0.9% |
| Mets | 72 | 61 | .541 | 4 | 0 | 96.8% | 18.2% |
| Reds | 68 | 66 | .507 | 15 | 4.5 | 3.2% | 15.1% |
The Reds had been nursing playoff odds in the teens since about mid-June, and on August 21, Cincinnati had an 18.4% chance of making the postseason. Since then, they’ve dropped six of seven, including the sweep at the hands of the Dodgers, and seen their playoff odds fall to 4.4%.
And while there’s still plenty to fight for in terms of seeding, including relatively close divisional races in the East and West, that’s basically sayonara for the 2025 NL pennant race. While the Reds are still technically alive, a sweep against New York next week is basically a must-have. Even then, it’s unlikely… actually, no need to guess, the Reds are now about a 30-to-1 long shot to make the playoffs.
It’s not even Labor Day yet. How unusual is it to have a league’s playoff spots spoken for this early? Well, we’ve got daily playoff odds on this site dating back to 2014, so let’s look. Let me define some terms first: The first team out is not the team that’s closest to a playoff spot, it’s the team with the highest playoff odds that would be in line to miss the playoffs. And the “>10% Outsiders” column is the number of teams outside the current playoff bracket that have 10% odds or more of making the postseason:
| Year | League | Playoff Spots | First Team Out | Odds | >10% Outsiders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025* | AL | 6 | Royals | 14.6% | 1 |
| 2025* | NL | 6 | Reds | 3.3% | 0 |
| 2024 | AL | 6 | Red Sox | 15.5% | 1 |
| 2024 | NL | 6 | Mets | 29.6% | 1 |
| 2023 | AL | 6 | Blue Jays | 54.4% | 1 |
| 2023 | NL | 6 | Marlins | 14.9% | 3 |
| 2022 | AL | 6 | Twins | 43.7% | 3 |
| 2022 | NL | 6 | Brewers | 34.4% | 1 |
| 2021 | AL | 5 | Athletics | 17.2% | 1 |
| 2021 | NL | 5 | Phillies | 34.0% | 2 |
| 2020 | AL | 8 | Tigers | 28.4% | 1 |
| 2020 | NL | 8 | Brewers | 24.1% | 4 |
| 2019 | AL | 5 | Red Sox | 8.5% | 1 |
| 2019 | NL | 5 | Brewers/Mets | 12.8% | 2 |
| 2018 | AL | 5 | Mariners | 11.4% | 1 |
| 2018 | NL | 5 | Phillies | 42.6% | 3 |
| 2017 | AL | 5 | Angels | 31.6% | 4 |
| 2017 | NL | 5 | Brewers | 22.9% | 2 |
| 2016 | AL | 5 | Orioles | 31.7% | 2 |
| 2016 | NL | 5 | Mets | 25.9% | 2 |
| 2015 | AL | 5 | Twins | 18.4% | 3 |
| 2015 | NL | 5 | Nationals | 13.9% | 1 |
| 2014 | AL | 5 | Mariners | 36.5% | 1 |
| 2014 | NL | 5 | Braves | 36.4% | 2 |
If the Reds stay under 10% playoff odds through Monday, they’d be the most hopeless first runner up on September 1 in at least the past decade. Even the Royals, whose footing is comparatively solid at 14.6% playoff odds, have the sixth-lowest odds out of 24 entries on this list.
And there are a couple mitigating factors I want to point out: The first team out in the 2019 AL was the Red Sox at 8.5%, but Oakland and Cleveland were tied for the second Wild Card spot at the time, so the Reds’ equivalent in the 2019 AL, the A’s, actually had a 52.2% chance of making the postseason. There was another September 1 Wild Card tie in the NL in 2023, between the Diamondbacks and Giants. In 2021, the Blue Jays had 9.9% playoff odds on September 1, so they just missed the cutoff.
So the answer to the overarching question is no, there has not been a playoff race so settled this early in the season as this year’s National League. At least not in the past 12 seasons. There’s always been someone with some hope in each league, even in the two-Wild Card rounds, and especially in that hateful COVID-necessitated 16-team bracket from 2020.
Not this year in the NL. Barely, this year, in the AL.
This is the spot in the discussion that begs for action. There’s a problem — a lack of stretch run intrigue — so let’s solve it by futzing with the playoff format.
So far, if there’s any of this discourse beyond the usual crank objections to the current system, I’m not aware of it. But I want to get out in front of this discussion before we get to the third week of September, and the Royals have cooled off and the two remaining NL division races have been settled.
No, I say. No changes to the playoff format.
This happens every year when the March Madness and College Football Playoff brackets come out, or when some 85-win major league team ends up one series short of a Wild Card berth, and it’s only been enabled by the NBA’s ludicrous play-in ladder tournament.
There’s always at least one bright line that separates the contenders from the no-hopers, and trying to work backwards to fit the playoff format onto the quality of last year’s league is a losing proposition. Every year, some decent team will just miss the playoffs. It’s why we have the regular season. Deal with it.
Actually, apparently not literally every year. Because this year, there seem to be six fairly evenly matched teams at the top of the National League standings, and six playoff spots to accommodate them. So don’t get mad if there’s nothing to play for over the last two weeks of the season. That means the system worked perfectly.
Michael is a writer at FanGraphs. Previously, he was a staff writer at The Ringer and D1Baseball, and his work has appeared at Grantland, Baseball Prospectus, The Atlantic, ESPN.com, and various ill-remembered Phillies blogs. Follow him on Twitter, if you must, @MichaelBaumann.
Worth noting that just last season Detroit’s playoff odds were 7.4% on Sept 1 and look where they ended up. So the 10% cutoff isn’t necessarily the death knell of interesting baseball.
It would seem odd to me that we’d declare that the playoff system is broken because there are too few teams competing this year, when the expanded playoffs are designed to do the exact opposite. To me, that would require either (1) an across the board lack of understanding of the real incentives of the new playoff structure or (2) dumb luck. Without further evidence I’d lean towards the second.
If the playoff race doesn’t seem exciting, it must be because there isn’t enough competition to be the Nth best team. This will surely be different if the competition is to be the N+1th best team instead! We’ve made it a long way now on the principle of induction.
Yeah, this is the dumb NCAAF thing. Every time they expand the playoffs the fan bases just move the goalposts to griping about why Bubble Team X didn’t get in and it’s a travesty and if they expanded again there wouldn’t be complaints anymore about it. As if any cutoff won’t by definition have teams on the losing side of the cutoff.
Or we could go to the NBA setup, where you regularly get sub .500 teams in the playoffs, and no one cares about the regular season because you only have to achieve marginal competence to get into the main event.
difference is, the NBA teams that achieve marginal competence will NEVER win the main event, same as CFB. MLB? They could expand to 20 playoff teams and the team 20 could win, and very well would (see the Marlins WS wins).
Yeah, there were several teams, especially in the NL, that clearly made financial efforts to compete this year and it just didn’t work out for them. Namely, the Braves, Cardinals, Giants, and DBacks, along with the Reds. It’s a little harder to give as much credit in the AL, where the Rays and Guardians have a history of competing without spending, and the Orioles could be accused of cheaping out on a competitive window, but their payroll was middle of the pack. The Twins and Rangers definitely made efforts of varying degrees and even though it was probably hopeless, the Angels did spend a decent amount of new money, too.
There was also plenty of spending by the teams that were at the top of the league already. I do think there’s some cheapness by owners and some are fairly glaring, like the A’s and Marlins. But I don’t think a different playoff system would likely change overall spending, and if it did I’m not sure it would be in the upward direction.
Good point overall, but to be clear, the Cardinals did not spend money to win this year, even acknowledging so publicly.
They signed precisely one (1) major league free agent this past offseason. A truly bizarre inclusion.
Again, this doesn’t prove anything by itself. The Braves also only signed one major league free agent this past offseason, maybe two I’m not sure if Verdugo was a major league contract or not.
I mean, I thought the Cardinals had a good shot at competing for a playoff spot this year. I guess maybe I was wrong about that, too!
I didn’t necessarily mean that these teams specifically spent money this past offseason alone. Maybe the Cardinals don’t deserve to be included but to me if you spend money in previous years on contracts that go forward into subsequent years, that counts, too. Again, maybe the Cardinals still shouldn’t be included but if they really wanted to not compete financially they had plenty of salaries of previous free agents, such as Sonny Gray, that they could have easily disposed of.
Gray and Arenado have no trade clauses.
And they both used them over the offseason- Arenado to veto a deal to Astros, and Gray at the start of the offseason to say “don’t trade me anywhere, I won’t accept it”
AL isn’t much better, with KC the Reds’ counterpart.
I miss old-fashioned pennant races.
When there were actual pennant races, I agree, it was way more interesting. The 1993 finish will be one of the greatest ever.
But there were a LOT of years where everything was decided with a week or two to play and the remaining games meant nothing. In 1975, the Recs clinched the West in early September, eventually winning by 20 games. In the East, the Pirates won by 6 and had it clinched with just over a week to go. Not much drama there.
1986 was another year where there was zero to play for with a couple weeks left.
Under the new format the last 3 years, I believe at least one of the leagues has gone down to the final day every year. Despite the statements of this article, I suspect this year will be the same.
Remember last year when there was a 3 way tie for the last two NL Wild Card spots, and the fun chaos that caused?
(There was no fun chaos because it just went to head-to-head records. Boo.)
If they’re going to expand playoffs (as they’ve done) you could always make it harder on wild card teams so there’s a greater effort to stay out of that situation.
For example:
The Mets (as the 6 seed) play a single game at San Diego (the 5). The winner then goes to Chicago (the 4 seed) to play a 2 of 3. Winner goes on. All series afterwards are best of 7.
Reds have been really good at home and the Mets have been hideous on the road so if they’re only 3-4 games behind the Mets they have a punchers chance that’s for sure. That said, the Mets have played well since the Mariners series with the offense getting white hot and Nolanmania taking over.
Meaning when they play each other next weekend.
Reverse ratcheting: Make the argument every year that the playoff race would be more interesting if there were FEWER teams. If there were only 1 WC, we’d have 5 teams fighting for 3 spots in the NL right now, and the Sox and Yankees both competing for one spot. Such fun! If only a world where there was one WC team, and the league rewarded teams for long-term consistency, ever existed. Alas.
I have for a long time been puzzled by the idea that the “unfair” thing we need to avoid is when a pretty good team misses the playoffs, rather than when a not-very-good team makes it in. Like, don’t we want to see the 1951 pennant race more than we want to see the 2006 World Series?
Agreed. There are too many teams making the playoffs in just about all the leagues now. While $$$ has a veto here, I wish they would cut back — 3 divisions and 1 WC is quite enough. I really don’t think that any team that can’t make at least a plausible case that they are the best in the league should have a shot at winning the World Series.
When they expand and move to four divisions, then every division leader should make it and that’s it. Voila, competition to win something (the division) and plenty of teams making it (8 total).
Or you can let half the teams make it and still try to pretend like 162 games matter for something other than tv/streaming broadcast rights to sell.
I’ll risk looking un-American by declaring that I hate playoffs. They ruined the college basketball regular season, which no one even pretends to care about. They devalued the college football season, which really only matters for gambling purposes. And they dramatically decreased the significance of winning the pennant in Major League Baseball.
I love that the Premier League is decided by a nine month season. The champion is the team that had the best cumulative performance over all the games combined, not the one that got hot for several weeks at the end. Obviously, owners would never give up the massive television revenue that comes from baseball, but to indulge naive wishcasting, I would be so happy if MLB went back to a World Series with the best regular season team in the American League versus the best regular season team in the National League.
I think you’re the only person I’ve ever seen to dislike March Madness
Yep, he definitely hates America.
Jest aside, they’re even trying to mess with March Madness which is probably the best postseason tournament in American sports. It’s the perfect length of time (three weekends), and the right amount of teams. And they want to add even more teams to get some 17-15 teams into the tournament.
I don’t dislike March Madness itself, I dislike that it is the only thing that matters in college basketball. Soccer has tournaments with massive upsets such as Grimsby Town beating Manchester United in the EFL Cup last Wednesday, but it’s a separate competition from the league season.
I also hate March Madness. Excitement isn’t exciting if it’s forced, and that whole tournament is forced. It completely ruins the regular season, and there are way too many teams. The upsets are sometimes fun to watch, but when you consider you have 99 “amateur” teams playing do or die games back to back while flying across the country, it’s not surprising.
Slight agree
The regular season and playoffs are two different things.
I wish there were a way to make the regular season count for more and then have a 30 (or 32) team playoff scramble.
Crown a regular season champion. Give them something (?money?) to make it worthwhile for them to try.
Then crown a tournament champion.
Seems odd to let teams which happened to be tied on a given date affect the table. Simpler to just look at the 7th highest playoff odds in each league (or N+1st when N teams made the playoffs).
The lack of excitement at the 6th/7th boundary is also a strong argument for the current system, with each of its tiers, especially relative to the dry NBA/NHL playoff bracket. The race for the second seed and first-round bye is important, as is the race for the first wildcard and its home field advantage.
The boring September is also the flipside of an exciting trade deadline. Just look at the next three teams in the NL bracket after the Reds: The Cardinals, Diamondbacks and Giants were all sellers. If they were doing better, there would also have been less quality on the trade market.
I mean in general I agree with not being hyper-reactive and changing the postseason format based on what happened any given year, but, I also really dislike this system and don’t think there was any good reason for changing away from the 2012 system
Cubs just went 5-4 on their road trip and lost 6-5 to the Rockies.
Anything can happen.