Friday, January 04, 2013
How the 2013 Mets make the playoffs
(espn.go.com)
Let’s be honest: The trade of R.A. Dickey has given Mets fans every reason to punt on the 2013 season.
Yes, you’re looking ahead to 2014 and 2015, but 2013 comes first.
And maybe, just maybe, there’s a way we can pretend that the Mets could be contenders this year.
So that got me thinking—what is that one combination in 100 that puts the Mets into October?
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. KT's Pot Arb posted on August 20, 2012 at 01:20 AM # hit 0 | hit 0Shouldn't he have been aware of this already?
Maybe he could instead send the Red Sox to play one of those games for the Giants at the completely neutral location of Miller Park.
C'mon man. I know you've alluded to being an executive in some other threads, so you've probably got some frequent flyer miles. But flying sucks.
SF to LA is no big deal, but flying across time zones in consecutive days stinks.
1) no need to get to the airport early just in case security lines are long, and no rushing when you are running late. The plane leaves when you are ready.
2) fly out of municipal airports or empty charter terminals. Walk in, quick security check, get on the plane.
3) plenty of leg room, fully reclinable seats, and all the food and drinks you need.
4) just bring a small backpack, and the team will take care of the rest of your luggage. No fighting for overhead space or waiting around the airport for checked bags.
Seriously, if they win the division outright, none of this happens.
Feeling bad for a team that has to do all this travel because they tie for both the division and the wild card is a little bit like feeling bad for Lucy Arnez in "I Love Lucy" because she always has to get herself out of wacky, awkward situations. Want to get out of said situations? Don't get into them!
(I think this method is probably fair, but it could/would lead to a situation in which two teams who aren't tied are playing a tiebreaker game. Which is crazy.)
I heard he lost the other five in a horrific seat-reclining incident.
But would it count towards a batting title?
Nice one, Lassus.
Ooh, good point. If the Giants have to play a 163rd game, does Melky get 4 hitless AB's added to his total instead of 1?
Well, he would only get 1 more, so 2 total. I think.
Why only 1? 3.1 X 163 = 505. He has 501.
Yeah, sorry, brain cramp.
It's not her fault Bill Holden sat in the booth next to her at the Brown Derby! Whaaaaaaa...!
Think about the math. Even if three teams go into the last day tied, there's only a 25% chance that they all get the same result in game 162 and remain tied. If they're not already tied (say STL 91 wins PIT 90 wins CIN 90 wins), the chance is only 12.5% that they all end up with 91. And the original scenario of three teams in the same league being within one win of each other going into the last day is already rare, maybe once per decade.
True, but as you keep a) increasing the number of races, and b) pushing the level of quality required for qualification toward average, the chances of these types of crazy-ass playoff scenarios go up considerably.
Of course not, but a multi-team tiebreaker will come, as you say, probably about once a decade. Then again, it's the only thing about this stupid new double-wildcard system I'm looking forward to.
No.
The language used is "games scheduled for each club in the league."
So, even if the Giants play 164 games, doesn't change the fact that 162 games were scheduled for each club.
Maybe they would do it like they resolve other 3 way ties. Only this time, the winner goes to the LDS, since the WC game is a one and done anyway. Baseball will never have a tiebreaker to determine playoff slots (at least I hope not), and a convoluted playoff among three teams to determine which 2 will play each other again one more time seems pointless.
Well, wouldn't a 163rd game be a scheduled game? How would it not be a scheduled game? Do they just randomly show up at some field in America and play a game on a whim or something?
If 163rd games count for seasonal stats I'm not sure why they wouldn't count for qualifiers as well.
Hmm, that would actually make sense. So I'll mark it down as highly unlikely.
In that case, no one qualified for a batting title in 1981.
So, Stark actually missed this in his doomesday scenario - the Giants could have a rainout they need to make up on Thursday, October 4th.....
I believe they made a specific exemption then.
A lot of people seem to believe that it's "per team game" and that if a team happens to only play 161 games, that therefore only 499 PA is needed for players on that team, but despite this being a commonly held truism, I don't read that from the rulebook... look at the specific wording used in the rule:
"schedules...for each club." So I read that as meaning it doesn't matter how many games the player's specific club plays.
But I may be mistaken.
I don't think you are.
I found this at BBRef:
What are the minimum requirements to lead a Rate Stat?
This is a bit of a dicey proposition as the standards have changed quite a bit throughout time. Here are how I computed them for the website. Thanks to Bill Deane, Gerry Myerson and Total Baseball for clarifying some of these issues.
Batting Average, OBP, Slugging Percentage, OPS
From 1957 to the present, a player must have 3.1 plate appearances per team game. Note however, that from 1967 to the present a player could lead if they still led after the necessary number of hitless plate appearances were added to their at bat total.
Note that team games are the average or expected number of games played in the league that year. So this could mean 162 even if a team only played 160 due to rainouts.
Emphasis mine.
I'd assume this also means Melky wouldn't get an additional 3 hitless ABs if the Giants play in a 1-game playoff.
The Expos played 108 games in 1981.
This was obviously an exceptional situation and an ad hoc decision. In normal circumstances, the rule seems very clear that it's scheduled games. If it was supposed to be games played, it would say games played.
On the flip side, if the Giants have to play four tiebreakers before they get to the play-in game, then Melky will be eligible for the LDS, right?
Hasn't this kind of been the case in every era?
maybe not.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.