It doesn’t, but I am in favor of seeding during the playoffs based on records first. I hope the Braves beat the Dodgers, but they shouldn’t have home field advantage during the NLCS when they had the worst record of all playoff teams in either league.
1 Like
Here’s my prediction for the next round.
Astros over Red Sox in 6
Dodgers over Braves in 7
I think MLB wants a rematch of 2017 so Dodgers can win. Of course, that means the cards will stacked against the Astros but its us versus them anyway.
1 Like
McCullers’ absence changes a lot.
Agree, but I still am sticking with my prediction.
1 Like
I admire your courage and your loyalty, but that is not new for me.
If McCullers is out for the ALCS, it will depend on which Framber the Astros get. If they can get the pitcher that carried them last year, that would go a long way towards winning the series. If they get the guy from game 2 of the ALDS, Garcia, Urquidy and Odorizzi will all have to step up. Having Luis Garcia find his command again will be key, too.
I want the Braves to beat the Dodgers, but the Dodgers are a lot more talented, and like you said, I wouldn’t put it past Manfred to do what he can to get an Astros-Dodgers rematch.
There is seeding. But if you don’t win your division you have to play in and then you don’t have home field advantage. It rewards division winners. This is not unique to baseball and it’s a good thing, IMO, not a flaw. Divisions matter.
2 Likes
The Braves are not winning the NL. They have almost no chance, home field or not.
1 Like
seeding based on records between divisions would only work if all the teams played each other team the same number of times.
1 Like
The Dodgers are the best team still playing.
If anyone beats them in a 7 game series it will be a well earned victory.
I hope the Astros are the team to do it.
3 Likes
Dodgers in 5, just because I think Roberts will manage them out of a sweep.
I was disappointed in the Giants’ anemic offense last night instead of the relentless group we saw during the series in SF. I never had any confidence in their ability to score.
There was not a single lead change in that entire series. If you scored first, that was it. Game over.
Wade Jr. had great swings in the 9th, but Scherzer wisely kept the fastballs way in to get fouls. The called third strike was borderline, but Wade simply cannot take a close pitch there.
Yeah, I was disappointed he didn’t swing, but I understand why he didn’t. But I think it was properly called a strike.
Now, that checked swing call that ended the game and series….
Wade can’t get caught looking there. I know it’s Scherzer, but you have to be ready to swing there. You may end up chasing, but you have to protect.
I am confused. There, to me, is no excuse for not swinging with two strikes. What do you understand?
The count was 0-2, passive play is a setup for failure
He thought it was up and away and knew he couldn’t handle it so that a swing was a definite out, while a take might let him see another strike.
Ok, but with two strikes, he’s gotta foul a close pitch off. Can’t leave it up to the umpire. A foul would guarantee another pitch.