Nationals Baseball: Playoffs Now? ... How about now?

Friday, November 18, 2011

Playoffs Now? ... How about now?

Weekend question for you - would the addition of an extra playoff spot (the one-game WC knockout game) change your view on whether the Nats should make a playoff push in 2012 or not? How about with one less team to deal with?

Here's some facts to chew on.  Since 2001 in the NL:
  • the average WC team won 91 games, the average firstteam out won just under 89 games;
  • Only twice has a team made the playoffs winning less than 90 games, where as the first team out has only won more than 90 games twice.  
  • the most wins for a WC team is 95
  • the fewest wins for a first-team out is 85
Previously 
>92 wins - virtual lock for playoffs
90-92 wins- better chance than not
88-89 wins - possible with some luck
<88 wins - forget about it

New scenario
>89 wins - virtual lock
88-89 wins- better chance than not
85-87 wins - possible with some luck
<85 wins - forget about it

 (of course I HATE the addition of any more teams to the playoffs.  But I'm a "Playoffs as a reasonable way to find the best team" kind of guy, not a "Playoffs a fun and exciting way to crown a champion" one. You are probably the latter. Most people are.    jerks)

 
Oh and Cole Kimball is back as Toronto tried to sneak him through waivers and the Nats claimed him.  So he'll sit on the 40 for half a year.  You would think that doesn't make sense, if they needed the space then - they should need it now, too, but maybe the CF trade talks are involving multiple guys that sit on the 40 or multiple guys they would normally protect in Rule V?

7 comments:

cassander said...

I'm definitely a "reasonable way to find the best team" kind of guy and I hate the 2nd WC, much as I'm not fond of the first WC, nor small divisions (I'd rather have 7-8 team divisions and only 4 playoff teams).

But, with the new reality, yes, it makes it easier to get into the "postseason", though it likely requires winning a crapshoot against the other WC team. And just thinking about a three-way tie for the second wild card and the one-game playoffs to get into a one-game playoff... did anyone actually think this through, first?

Also not fond of interleague play, though I'd be more willing to accept it if the American League agreed to honor the legacy of Babe Ruth and abolish the DH.

John O'Connor said...

I hope Cole Kimball hadn't already thrown out all his Nats swag.

Ryan said...

"Also not fond of interleague play, though I'd be more willing to accept it if the American League agreed to honor the legacy of Babe Ruth and abolish the DH."

yep, because there are a ton of Babe Ruth's in the league. most pitchers are awful hitters and a few are mediocre ones.

The Nats should win around 85 games this year, I don't think the new playoff rules should change what they do. Maybe it'll make the regular season a little more exciting for us since they should be in contention longer, but I hope they don't alter "the plan" because of this.

Positively Half St. said...

I think the Nats have a better chance to make it this year, but i still don't like it because of the one-game playoff. I've said elsewhere that I would prefer a "2-game best-of-3." Let the better WC team start 1-0. That team would have to win 1, and the lesser would have to win 2 to advance. That would be more fair, and give a reason to be seeded higher.

+1/2St.

Positively Half St. said...

I think the Nats have a better chance to make it this year, but i still don't like it because of the one-game playoff. I've said elsewhere that I would prefer a "2-game best-of-3." Let the better WC team start 1-0. That team would have to win 1, and the lesser would have to win 2 to advance. That would be more fair, and give a reason to be seeded higher.

+1/2St.

Wally said...

Should they go for it now? Meaning, make some costly moves, in terms of $$ or prospects, for some established upgrades?

I think that it is a good question, without a clear cut answer. Safer to wait for the young guys to get better or advance, but I am not sure that is the right move. I think the pro- argument goes like this: you have two top SPs to front the rotation, a premier 3B, and good role players in their prime. Plus, Zim may leave in 2013, Stras could blow out a shoulder, the other guys that you might be waiting on just don't advance like you think and you have payroll room over the next couple of years. So go for it while you can, 'cause stuff changes constantly. If you wait a little bit more, you could find yourself further away then you are now. I think the Tigers kind of did this some years ago, and managed to reload on the fly, for the most part.

The downside is, they could add a Wilson/Beltran/Cordero, yet if Morse doesn't repeat and Werth is actually in decline already, it isn't enough anyway.

Tough call. I am probably 52/48 towards a slower approach.

DezoPenguin said...

It may come down to money...

If you're willing to spend money on high-priced players in 2013, then you should be willing to spend it in 2012, unless you have a ton of bad contracts coming off the books, which the Nats don't. If money is available, spend it. A team can *always* use a good starting pitcher. Prince Fielder would be an upgrade for nearly everybody in both leagues at 1B. Taking CF up to Jacoby Ellsbury levels isn't likely, but it would be hard to imagine it being worse than this year.

So, while I wouldn't mortgage the future by doing something stupid like, say, trading Harper, if money and players are available, why not go after them now? There aren't a lot of moves that can be made now that will mean that suddenly making a run in 2013 can't happen; it's just that some player development in 2011 (Znn, Morse, Espi, to a lesser extent Det. and Ramos) and a willingness to spend money now means they may be closer than they appear.

Incidentally, don't the new, expanded playoffs only begin in 2013, not 2012?