2022 MLB Postseason Results (Spoilers!) & MLB.tv

[thehef]

Originally Posted by WestCoastGuy

Thanks for the information.

You bet! Happy to find some use for my research on this stuff...

Originally Posted by WestCoastGuy

I'm assuming that if either the Giants or Dodgers swept that tiebreaker series, the World Series would have also started on Oct. 3?

Not certain, but pretty sure the WS would've started on 10/4, even if the NL playoff was a sweep. Until the late-afternoon completion of the game on 10/2, it wouldn't have been know if the series was a sweep or not. Not sure if the Yankees were already in California, but if so, they may not have been in the right city. Or perhaps they were waiting in NY (or some central U.S. hub) to find out to which city they should fly. So it stands to reason that by game time on 10/2, 10/3 would've been reserved for either game 3 of the playoff series, or a travel day for the Yankees (and media) to get to one California city or the other, and as a prep day for the series in general.

I'll try to research this to find out more. Specifically, what the Yankees' plans were during the NL playoff...

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by thehef

Note that I did not check postseasons after the early 80's, as my historical postseason scheduling data doesn't go beyond that...

Just dug through some Wikipedia articles for the World Series (not: LDS, LCS, too lazy) from 1980. *marks final game of the series

1981: Game 6* postponed by rain one day
1986: Game 7* postponed by rain one day
1989: Games 3+4* postponed by earthquake for 10 days
1996: Games 1+2 postponed by rain one day, travel day eliminated
2006: Games 4+5* postponed by rain one day
2008: Game 5* suspended by rain for two days
2011: Games 6+7* postponed by rain one day

That is all that I could find really quickly. In the single instance since 1980 where rain postponed a game onto a travel day AND the series not ending, the travel day was eliminated, not shifted.

[WestCoastGuy]

Originally Posted by thehef

I'll try to research this to find out more. Specifically, what the Yankees' plans were during the NL playoff...

I'd definitely be interested in knowing that.

I recently came across an article that stated that there would have been a travel day between the 1959 NL tiebreaker series and the World Series, whether the former lasted two games or three, so I'm curious if there would then be zero travel days between the 1962 NL tiebreaker and the World Series, regardless of whether it was a sweep or lasted three games.

Originally Posted by Westheim

1989: Games 3+4* postponed by earthquake for 10 days
2006: Games 4+5* postponed by rain one day
2008: Game 5* suspended by rain for two days

Now the question is whether the remaining schedule had incorporated an off day. I think it did in 1989 but not in 2006 or 2008, but I could be wrong about any of those.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by WestCoastGuy

Now the question is whether the remaining schedule had incorporated an off day. I think it did in 1989 but not in 2006 or 2008, but I could be wrong about any of those.

Wikipedia don't say.

It does say though that in 2006, the fans that had tickets for Game 4 went to Game 5 instead, while those thad had tickets for Game 5 went on the same day to Game 4.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by thehef

I'll try to research this to find out more. Specifically, what the Yankees' plans were during the NL playoff...

Found it. A 10/2/62 UPI article - prior to game 2 of the NL playoff series:

"Manager Ralph Houk has yet to make it official but it looked today like it will be ace left-hander Whitey Ford pitching for the New York Yankees Thursday when the World Series starts in the home park of the National League pennant winner."

The same 10/2/62 article also answered the question of the Yankees' travel plans:

"The Yankees are scheduled to fly to Los Angeles today after a final workout at Yankee Stadium. They will work out in Los Angeles on Wednesday - whether or not the NL playoff series is still being played in that city."

[WestCoastGuy]

Originally Posted by thehef

Found it. A 10/2/62 UPI article - prior to game 2 of the NL playoff series:

"Manager Ralph Houk has yet to make it official but it looked today like it will be ace left-hander Whitey Ford pitching for the New York Yankees Thursday when the World Series starts in the home park of the National League pennant winner."

The same 10/2/62 article also answered the question of the Yankees' travel plans:

"The Yankees are scheduled to fly to Los Angeles today after a final workout at Yankee Stadium. They will work out in Los Angeles on Wednesday - whether or not the NL playoff series is still being played in that city."

Interesting.

And that makes sense as far as the Yankees travel plans go. I'm not sure if they attended/scouted game three of the Giants-Dodgers series, but just going with the odds, the Dodgers as the home team were most likely favored to win, so it makes sense to base in L.A. instead of the Bay Area. And, of course, the Yankees needed to make somewhere in California their home base as staying on the East Coast while this series played out made no sense.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by WestCoastGuy

Interesting.

And that makes sense as far as the Yankees travel plans go. I'm not sure if they attended/scouted game three of the Giants-Dodgers series, but just going with the odds, the Dodgers as the home team were most likely favored to win, so it makes sense to base in L.A. instead of the Bay Area. And, of course, the Yankees needed to make somewhere in California their home base as staying on the East Coast while this series played out made no sense.

Not sure about the Dodgers being favored. Their starting pitching was not in good shape going into the series. Sandy Koufax had been out since mid-July, then made three very shaky late-September appearances before being forced to start game one of the playoff series (and getting absolutely shelled). The teams best remaining starters, Don Drysdale & Johnny Podres, pitched 8 and 9 innings, respectively, on the final two days of the regular season. With 4th starter Stan Williams sporting a 7.15 September ERA, this also forced Dodger skipper Alston to turn to Drysdale (for game 2) and Podres (for game 3) on just two days rest each.

The Giants' rotation, while not in perfect shape, was pretty much lined up for the series, with their top 3 starters available: Pierce started on 4 days rest, Sandford on 2 days rest (but had only gone 5 innings in previous start), and Marichal on three days rest.

Combined with the fact that the Dodgers stumbled to finish line with a 13-14 record in Sept (losing 7 of their final 8), whereas San Fran was 16-12 in Sept (winning 5 of their last 7), I'd have to assume the Giants were slight favorites.

At any rate, my guess as to why the Yankees flew to LA rather than SF was that it might've had to do with flight availability, but also - or more-likely - the weather for working out. (BTW, weather - wind, specifically - was the reason World Series games in SF were scheduled to start at 3 pm (Pacific), whereas games in LA would've started at a more-traditional 1 pm.)

[Westheim]

It's early, but I am confident that this will be the highlight of the game for me:

[Westheim]

I hate Kyle Schwarber.

[WestCoastGuy]

Originally Posted by thehef

Not sure about the Dodgers being favored. ...

Fair enough. Admittedly, I was solely basing my comment on home-field advantage.

Originally Posted by thehef

At any rate, my guess as to why the Yankees flew to LA rather than SF was that it might've had to do with flight availability, but also - or more-likely - the weather for working out. (BTW, weather - wind, specifically - was the reason World Series games in SF were scheduled to start at 3 pm (Pacific), whereas games in LA would've started at a more-traditional 1 pm.)

True about the weather - I'm sure it was easier to work out in L.A. than it would have been in San Francisco. (Interesting about the different start times that would have occurred in L.A. for the World Series had the Dodgers played in it.)

As for 2022 ... we're really going to see an 87-win team that would not have even made the postseason every year prior to this one win the World Series, aren't we? (Maybe not. I know the Astros have the ability to respond and win this series.)

[monkeyman576]

I think with the way Harper's second half of his career is going, you need to reconsider his hall of fame chances.

[Pelican]

If it makes anyone feel better, I am hoarse this morning from yelling CHEATER at Altuve and Bergman and Gurriel last night at the game. It’s infuriating that they got off with hand slaps and others (Hinch) took the fall for them. Whatever one thinks of McGwire or Clemens or Bonds, their cheating was biological, not in-game. Same with Rose and Shoeless Joe. They didn’t cheat.

The wonderful irony is that poor McCullers may have been tipping his pitches last night (he denies this; but I would too, if I thought I was tipping pitches, at least until I figured out how…. ) So, a team that won through cheating by tipping pitches to one another may have lost in part due to the Phillies hitters legitimately taking advantage of some inadvertent tipping of their own pitches.

I don’t think the Houston players were ready for Philly. This is not LA. Definitely not NYC. Fans are down to earth and explicit and in your face. Winners never cheat, and cheaters never win. What goes around, comes around. This is why 80%-90% of neutral baseball fans are rooting for the Phillies. Rooting against Houston. I feel bad for the Astro players who weren’t there in 2017. Guilt by association.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

I think with the way Harper's second half of his career is going, you need to reconsider his hall of fame chances.

Reconsider?? He was on track for the HOF by any measure from the first day he stepped on the MLB field. Nothing in his career has diminished that. Remember, rightly or wrongly, HOF is largely about cumulative stats, and a guy who starts young and plays well into his late thirties will have a good shot. Injuries are a red flag; but numbers-wise, Harp is on track for 500+ HR and 2500+ hits. Post-season performance can be the tiebreaker for marginal cases (see Kershaw, Clayton). Nobody is a lock at age 30. Few will have better credentials than Harper today.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Reconsider?? He was on track for the HOF by any measure from the first day he stepped on the MLB field. Nothing in his career has diminished that. Remember, rightly or wrongly, HOF is largely about cumulative stats, and a guy who starts young and plays well into his late thirties will have a good shot. Injuries are a red flag; but numbers-wise, Harp is on track for 500+ HR and 2500+ hits. Post-season performance can be the tiebreaker for marginal cases (see Kershaw, Clayton). Nobody is a lock at age 30. Few will have better credentials than Harper today.

5 of his first 6 seaons were under 30 HR. I think a lot of people thought he wasn't living up to his first overall pick standards as a consistant 35-45 HR guy.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by thehef

Not sure about the Dodgers being favored. Their starting pitching was not in good shape going into the series. Sandy Koufax had been out since mid-July, then made three very shaky late-September appearances before being forced to start game one of the playoff series (and getting absolutely shelled). The teams best remaining starters, Don Drysdale & Johnny Podres, pitched 8 and 9 innings, respectively, on the final two days of the regular season. With 4th starter Stan Williams sporting a 7.15 September ERA, this also forced Dodger skipper Alston to turn to Drysdale (for game 2) and Podres (for game 3) on just two days rest each.

The Giants' rotation, while not in perfect shape, was pretty much lined up for the series, with their top 3 starters available: Pierce started on 4 days rest, Sandford on 2 days rest (but had only gone 5 innings in previous start), and Marichal on three days rest.

Combined with the fact that the Dodgers stumbled to finish line with a 13-14 record in Sept (losing 7 of their final 8), whereas San Fran was 16-12 in Sept (winning 5 of their last 7), I'd have to assume the Giants were slight favorites.

At any rate, my guess as to why the Yankees flew to LA rather than SF was that it might've had to do with flight availability, but also - or more-likely - the weather for working out. (BTW, weather - wind, specifically - was the reason World Series games in SF were scheduled to start at 3 pm (Pacific), whereas games in LA would've started at a more-traditional 1 pm.)

I lived near San Francisco from 1963-1971, and my dad grew up in site of the Golden Gate bridge, as they were building it.

You did NOT want to go to Candlestick Park for a night game. It was BRUTAL. I remember dad bringing a thermos of coffee to the game, and even as a little kid, I LOVED the hot coffee, to go with my gloves and heavy coat. BRUTAL.

I saw Willie McCovey hit a ball that was WAY over the right field fence, and ended up landing by second base, for a triple. That ball was screaming in, sideways, and almost went into the 3rd base dugout.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

I lived near San Francisco from 1963-1971, and my dad grew up in site of the Golden Gate bridge, as they were building it.

You did NOT want to go to Candlestick Park for a night game. It was BRUTAL. I remember dad bringing a thermos of coffee to the game, and even as a little kid, I LOVED the hot coffee, to go with my gloves and heavy coat. BRUTAL.

I saw Willie McCovey hit a ball that was WAY over the right field fence, and ended up landing by second base, for a triple. That ball was screaming in, sideways, and almost went into the 3rd base dugout.

Cool stuff!

You're noting about night games being particular brutal at Candlestick sent me back to my source material for the 1962 World Series schedule, and I have a correction:

Start times at Candlestick would've bee an NOON, not 3 pm (well, 3 pm Eastern). So that makes more sense: Start a little earlier to hopefully finish before the weather takes a turn in late-afternoon / early-evening... The noon start time would have applied to WS games in SF in '63, '64, '65 and '66 (at the times of setting the schedules for those season's potential WS matchups, the Giants were in the running for each). What's not clear is if the noon start time would've applied to Candlestick games if San Fran had reached the WS in '69 or '71. Although a clue might be that for the 1971 NLCS, start time was 1 pm, not noon.

Also, another note regarding the 1962 WS schedule: Had the Dodgers and Angels been the combatants (the 2nd-year Angels were just 4.5 games back at the time of the 9/7/62 WS planning meeting), there would have been no off days in the schedule.

It's not exactly clear when travel days (after games 2 and 5) became permanent. Probably by 1967, possibly by 1968, and definitely no later than 1969, when the NLC' were introduced (it may have been that in '67 & '68, travel days were seen as practical for all potential matchups, but had - for example - an all Chic, NY or LA series been a possibility, no travel days would've been included).

1964 was the last time that WS schedules had the potential - depending upon matchups - to have no travel days included. ("300 miles or less" was the rule. So, for example, if Phil vs NYY or Balt, no travels days; if Phil vs Chic, then travel days.)

All potential schedules for 1965 and 1966 included the two travel days, but that doesn't mean the the travel days were locked in. Rather, in 1965 they were likely inserted because of the uncertainty of that year's pennant races and the need to know the schedule in advance (with TV becoming more and more important - and involved in planning). As evidence, 12 of the 20 teams had representatives attend the WS planning meeting on 9/8/65... And then for 1966, although by the 9/7/66 planning meeting Baltimore was a near-lock for the AL crown (up 10.5 games on Detroit), LA, Pitt, and SF were in a dogfight in the NL. So the travel days made sense, even though there was a chance of a Balt vs Pitt matchup, which would not require travel days (as per the 300-mile rule used in 1964).

Getting back to San Fran start times, what's interesting is that Commissioner Kuhn announced in May of '71 that one WS game that year would be played at night. That turned out to be game 4 in Pittsburgh, on a Wednesday night. Had SF won the NL, would've they have stuck with that? (It turned out to be about 65 degrees at game time, approx 56 degrees by game-end, with wind at around 16 mph... but that wouldn't have been known that much ahead of time.)

[WestCoastGuy]

Originally Posted by thehef

Also, another note regarding the 1962 WS schedule: Had the Dodgers and Angels been the combatants (the 2nd-year Angels were just 4.5 games back at the time of the 9/7/62 WS planning meeting), there would have been no off days in the schedule.

Also - you probably already know this - if the Milwaukee Braves had beaten the Dodgers in the 1959 tiebreaker, there would have been no off days for a Braves-White Sox World Series.

*responds to the rest of what you wrote* Interesting information.

Originally Posted by thehef

Getting back to San Fran start times, what's interesting is that Commissioner Kuhn announced in May of '71 that one WS game that year would be played at night. That turned out to be game 4 in Pittsburgh, on a Wednesday night. Had SF won the NL, would've they have stuck with that? (It turned out to be about 65 degrees at game time, approx 56 degrees by game-end, with wind at around 16 mph... but that wouldn't have been known that much ahead of time.)

For what it's worth, San Francisco has warmer weather in October than in July/August. Although I'm not sure if that was common knowledge to the schedulers.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by thehef

Cool stuff!

You're noting about night games being particular brutal at Candlestick sent me back to my source material for the 1962 World Series schedule, and I have a correction:

Start times at Candlestick would've bee an NOON, not 3 pm (well, 3 pm Eastern). So that makes more sense: Start a little earlier to hopefully finish before the weather takes a turn in late-afternoon / early-evening... The noon start time would have applied to WS games in SF in '63, '64, '65 and '66 (at the times of setting the schedules for those season's potential WS matchups, the Giants were in the running for each). What's not clear is if the noon start time would've applied to Candlestick games if San Fran had reached the WS in '69 or '71. Although a clue might be that for the 1971 NLCS, start time was 1 pm, not noon.

Also, another note regarding the 1962 WS schedule: Had the Dodgers and Angels been the combatants (the 2nd-year Angels were just 4.5 games back at the time of the 9/7/62 WS planning meeting), there would have been no off days in the schedule.

It's not exactly clear when travel days (after games 2 and 5) became permanent. Probably by 1967, possibly by 1968, and definitely no later than 1969, when the NLC' were introduced (it may have been that in '67 & '68, travel days were seen as practical for all potential matchups, but had - for example - an all Chic, NY or LA series been a possibility, no travel days would've been included).

1964 was the last time that WS schedules had the potential - depending upon matchups - to have no travel days included. ("300 miles or less" was the rule. So, for example, if Phil vs NYY or Balt, no travels days; if Phil vs Chic, then travel days.)

All potential schedules for 1965 and 1966 included the two travel days, but that doesn't mean the the travel days were locked in. Rather, in 1965 they were likely inserted because of the uncertainty of that year's pennant races and the need to know the schedule in advance (with TV becoming more and more important - and involved in planning). As evidence, 12 of the 20 teams had representatives attend the WS planning meeting on 9/8/65... And then for 1966, although by the 9/7/66 planning meeting Baltimore was a near-lock for the AL crown (up 10.5 games on Detroit), LA, Pitt, and SF were in a dogfight in the NL. So the travel days made sense, even though there was a chance of a Balt vs Pitt matchup, which would not require travel days (as per the 300-mile rule used in 1964).

Getting back to San Fran start times, what's interesting is that Commissioner Kuhn announced in May of '71 that one WS game that year would be played at night. That turned out to be game 4 in Pittsburgh, on a Wednesday night. Had SF won the NL, would've they have stuck with that? (It turned out to be about 65 degrees at game time, approx 56 degrees by game-end, with wind at around 16 mph... but that wouldn't have been known that much ahead of time.)

Willie McCovey lost 10-20 homers every year, playing in San Francisco. He hit the ball harder than anyone I have ever seen, not named Jack Clark or Mark McGwire.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Reconsider?? He was on track for the HOF by any measure from the first day he stepped on the MLB field. Nothing in his career has diminished that. Remember, rightly or wrongly, HOF is largely about cumulative stats, and a guy who starts young and plays well into his late thirties will have a good shot. Injuries are a red flag; but numbers-wise, Harp is on track for 500+ HR and 2500+ hits. Post-season performance can be the tiebreaker for marginal cases (see Kershaw, Clayton). Nobody is a lock at age 30. Few will have better credentials than Harper today.

And this is not hurting his chances, either.

[Brad K]

The announcers talk too much. And its usually about stuff that has little to do with the current AB.