2020 MLB postseason thread

Two good posts back-to-back by Mr. Scout.

 

Two unfortunate outcomes, Pedro '03 v. Snell '20, which one would you prefer? Yeah I'm an old dude but I relish watching an ace be given the chance to get it done, so count me in for Pedro. Even then, in '03, Pedro wasn't 1999 Pedro but he was still a stud and he gave it up on a flare from Posada, I'll live with that. You rode the ace.

Here, Snell is just lights out, he's electric. He's throwing strikes and getting swing throughs. He's not nibbling like he was before. Just because of a single, you're now going to the guy who had given up a run six straight appearances? How about that analytics? Hmmm he's on a run of six straight scored upon appearances? Sounds like a good option in a 1-0 game?

I've always hated the thinking "well I wanted to take him out so there was no way he'd lose"; you play the game for the decisive moments don't you? Not for the safety of never being in the key moment.

The killing of starting pitching has taken one of the glamour spots out of baseball and baseball is suffering for it. Basketball and football have moved towards recognizing star power and (pre-COVID) they were ascending because of it; baseball is drifting downward because they are moving in the opposite direction. Analytics may point to Trout being more "valuable" than Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown but damn, Triple Crown winner sure is easier to sell.

 

Joe Buck made the point last night that it seems like managers are looking for reasons to take a pitcher out of the game instead of reasons to keep him in.

 

I'm of the school that he's a Cy Young winner throwing the game of his life ... let him play.

 

MLB says Justin Turner broke protocols

 

What a shame. I'm 59 and still haven't seen the Indians hoist one. And that includes two Game 7s they were literally one pitch from winning.

 

I'm not that old. Hearing people compare the Dodgers "long wait" for another Series is pretty lame. Yes there is a generation of people under 40 that hasn't really experienced a Dodgers title, but it isn't like Red Sox or Cubs.

 

Try the Phillies prior to 1980. Franchise had NEVER won a Series and only in two prior to that. And it never won a National League pennant from 1883 to the start of the Series in 1903. Now that's a long wait.

 

I agree with most of this, except on Pedro. He had given up three straight lasers — Jeter's double off the wall, Bernie's RBI line drive to left and Matsui's rope up the line — and thrown 120 pitches before Posada stepped to the plate. It was obvious he was toast at that point and Little was crazy to let him stay in the game.

Snell gave up one hit — just his second of the game — and had thrown 70 pitches. Whether Snell gets out of the inning or doesn't, either way it's difficult to question a manager leaving his ace in the game in that situation.

 

Agreed. It's not that I think the Dodgers are somehow less deserving, but this is a fucked up season.

 

The Mariners were born in 1977 and haven't even been to the World Series. Throw in one season of the Pilots and that's 45 years. That's a long wait.

 

Since 2000:
1) There has not been a repeat World Series champion.
2) Twenty of the 30 MLB teams have played in the World Series. If you go back to 1998 you can knock two more off the list.
3) We have seen championship droughts of 55, 56, 86, 88 and 108 years end. Plus a few other droughts ranging from 25-40 years.
4) Nearly half the league (14 of 30 teams) have won a championship.
5) The Yankees failed to win a championship in a particular decade for the first time since the 1910s.
6) Only three teams (Red Sox, Giants and Cardinals) have won multiple championships.
7) Seven teams have made their first World Series appearance.

Even with some teams having huge financial advantages and big-market, traditional powers occasionally getting in on the action, it might be the greatest age of parity in MLB history.