Most Boring Postseason I Can Remember, and I Can Prove It

by Carnival Matleuse on Oct 29, 2007 4:45 PM EDT

At first I thought my indifferent reaction to this year's postseason was the result of being a (you may think unjustly, but screw you) bitter Yankees fan. (Obviously, this is a diary. I'm not a stinking Yankees fan - Charlie.) But honestly, these playoffs had little to no drama in them, not just in terms of mostly media-fabricated "storylines", but in terms of actual competition. In the wild-card era there are seven postseason series' played. This year fully five of those were sweeps, and two of THOSE sweeps were by one-of-if-not-the-worst-team in the playoffs. Out of a possible 17 games the losing teams can win combined, this year's losing teams won four. Four!

I went to baseballreference.com to check the numbers on postseasons like this one. Here's what I found, the first column being the year, the second column being number of sweeps and the third column being number of games the eventual losing teams won, combined. On the surface, a lower number in the second column and a higher number in the third column would mean a more exciting playoffs.

5 4
3 6
3 6
2 10
0 14
1 10
1 11
2 7
2 7
3 6
2 10
2 8
3 7

Using this system (which of course does not account for ACTUAL game-play, but I think you all understand what I'm getting at), this year's postseason was indeed the most boring since the new format began in 1994er...5.

It's also kind of interesting to see that more drawn-out postseasons tend to flock together... we have the dominance of the Yankees which squelched competition from 98-2000, the "wild cards winning world series'" era that offered much more uncertainty from 01-04, and finally our most recent, boring era. Any hypotheses on why the last few years have been like this? I'd make some but I have to go to class.

And how about 2003! No sweeps, and four out of seven series' going the distance, including both championship series', one of which ended on one of the most dramatic game-winning home runs in history (which remains this sports fan's most exhilarating moment of fan-dom ever, even though the Yanks ended up being Beckettized), the other of which being defined by perhaps the most famous boner of 21st-century sports.

Anyway, hopefully things will be better next year.

Poll

Better postseason?

2003

2 votes

1991

4 votes

6 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Another reason for boredom

There were very few lead changes in this postseason. The team that scored first almost always won. I can see where that gets a bit uninteresting

by Willton on Oct 29, 2007 7:02 PM EDT reply actions

I find every post season that passes

each season boring if it doesn't include the Pirates. I'm sure many fans feel the same way. I'm more frustrated watching another $$$ heavy franchise win again. Salary caps, anyone???

by puget sound pirate on Oct 30, 2007 2:29 AM EDT reply actions

on the salary cap idea

I support it wholeheartedly, but as a hockey fan, I should warn y'all that it doesn't necessarily bring teams down to earth. The Detroit Red Wings were thought to finally be dethroned after the cap was instituted, but they've proven to have superior scouting abilities all along and are still at the top of the league. I'm not saying teams like Boston or New York are geniuses at scouting, but the Yanks have had a pretty good last two drafts. Don't expect a salary cap alone to provide immediate results, especially if what Charlie tells me about the Pirates' scouting history over the last 10 years is true.

by Carnival Matleuse on Oct 30, 2007 2:54 AM EDT reply actions

Pirates payroll ($50 mil) compared to

how much the Boston Red Sox forked over JUST to talk to Diasuke Matsuzaka (a cool $50 mil). I don't really call that competitive balance. The Yankees have been going to the playoffs repeatedly while absorbing payroll mistakes (Carl Pavano, Jason Giambi, etc.) that would have cost other low rent teams many losses and GMs their jobs because they blew their entire payrolls on one player.

I understand that it takes more than a salary cap to make the field equally competitive and have watched the Pirates make one bad decision after the next when they could ill afford it. Front office incompetence, lack of international & regional scouting and really bad roster decisions and the Buccos ship has been sunk for many years. Granted, teams like Colorado, Cleveland and Arizona made the playoffs with really low payrolls but look at who won the big trophy at the end of the day. When you combine the Indians and Rockies payroll together, Boston's payroll was still $27 million higher.

Being able to scout, draft and sign top talent is one thing, being able to spend money to add the best pieces to that talent is another. Do you think Cleveland would add a top flight starting pitcher, closer and slugger to their payroll if they had Boston or NY cash? How about Colorado? Do you think it would have made a difference at the end of the day?

The executives at MLB love playoffs with Boston, New York and LA for ratings and network cash and do not want to have too many Pittsburgh v. Cleveland World Series matchups.

by puget sound pirate on Oct 30, 2007 12:11 PM EDT reply actions

the difference

at the risk of beating a very dead horse i have to disagree.

sure the red sox can afford $50 million for dice-k while most other teams can't. there's nothing to argue about that, it's true. what we can argue about is that it's wasted money.

dice-k's top comparable is shaun marcum of the blue jays. both put up similar numbers, including identical era+ of 108. dice-k had more strikeouts but marcum had a lower era, whip and to top it off he's actually a year younger than dice-k.

so what did marcum make last year? $386,100. boston didn't pay $50 million for a player, they paid $50 million to be on the front page during the winter months and a chance to show up the yankees.

it is possible to compete without that kind of money because being able to scout, draft and sign top talent isn't one thing, it's everything. if you do that well you don't need $50 million to "add pieces", you've already picked up dice-k's equal in the 3rd round of the draft.

by johnnycuff on Oct 30, 2007 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree that scouting, drafting and signing

top talent is everything but are you telling me that if Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro and Terry Ryan would have the deep pockets that Cashman and Epstein have that they wouldn't pay for a quality arm or bat. What would any of those three guys done with the $50 million that Epstein threw away for Dice-K?

Epstein and the Red Sox have shown everyone how you can put the best team on the field through scouting, drafting and signing top talent, as well as having the second highest payroll in baseball.

Why do you think the Yankees won as many WS as they did in the late 90's? Scouting, drafting and signing top talent the likes of Jeter, Posada, Petite and Williams and paying top dollar for Cone, Clemens, Boggs, O'Neil, etc. etc. etc.

Cleveland, Minnesota and Oakland have demonstrated that you can build a competitive team in MLB through superior scouting, drafting and signing international talent. I can only imagine how great they would have been to sign the pitcher or slugger they really needed to put them over the top like Cashman and Epstein can.

by puget sound pirate on Oct 30, 2007 5:17 PM EDT reply actions