Is a lot of rest bad for a playoff team?

[Uncle Charlie]

The Cubs and Angels had the most rest before the playoffs of any team, and they went a combined 1-6 in the playoffs. The last two World Series have both seen teams that swept the LCS meet a team that needed 7 games to win the LCS, and the teams that swept went a combined 1-8 in those World Series. Should fans of the four remaining teams hope their team doesn't win the LCS too quickly?

[Berkman#17]

Yes. Rythym is broken, momentum can wear off, distractions creep in, etc...

Think of it as a bench player. He gets in everyday, might catch fire and continue it for a week. Might try to fight the manager if he gets a day off. Flip it around and give him 3-4 days off, and a couple pinch hit AB's here and there. Can't possibly expect him to stay on that hot streak. His rythym and momentum has been disrupted and he's gotta start all over.

[spark240]

I'd like to see somebody go back a lot further than the last two World Series for information on that question.

For now, if I'm a manager, I'm going to try to win each series as quickly and efficiently as I can.

momentum can wear off

Uh huh.

[abolishthedh]

Yes, for the same reason that I try not to spend too much time making the turn from the 9th green to the 10th tee in golf. If you allow yourself too much time, or if the play is too slow, you may as well call it a day.

Distractions, including your own idle thoughts, are probably the most at fault. Players get out of 'the zone', lose the feel of the bat, and the ball may start looking much smaller. Just before the rest, hitters may have seen the ball as big as softballs, and suddenly it looks like a golf ball.

This is why I hate playoffs in baseball. Maybe its great for Phillie fans, but the system did no favors for Cubs fans.:dismay:

[gman5431]

Its the old rest vs rust argument. I think that a layoff CAN hurt, but different teams handle things differently. I dont think that Chicago or Anaheim lost because they had the most time off. Chicago lost because they didnt play well in any aspect of the game and Anaheim ran into an experienced team that created some breaks to take the series. If a team gets some time off to set their rotation and get healthy, that can definately be a good thing.

G Man

[Jim Vaz]

I don't think too much rest played much of a factor if anything in both of those series.

Both the Cubs and Angels ran into two pretty good teams. The Dodgers have a mojo about them right now thats been building. The Red Sox despite their so so season and being the wild card team, like the championship team they've become are rising up when it matters most.

Also one aspect that sometimes gets overlooked, and its not rest but the "coasting" factor. The Angels were on autopilot since the mid summer. No west team was taking them. You can almost say they never got off of it when the series started last week.
As for the Cubs, granted they had to play hard all the way up until the last 2 weeks to stay on top but at the end really just coasted themselves.
Also as an observer of the Cubs that last week being a Mets fan, I didn't really like what I saw from them. I know they were playing 2 desperate teams, but you could see that the Cubs were sort of out it. When you're the best team in baseball, I don't care how desperate the team you're playing is, you take 3 of 4 from the Mets, you take 2 of 3 from the Brewers. You're the better team.

[sflnyc]

I'll comment on this by inserting a couple of my posts on a similar type thread during last year's post-season:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69651

This is not meant towards you personally, but that's one of the reasons why I really wanted Colorado to win Game 1 even though I wanted Boston to win the series. It's not the Red Sox fault that the Rockies swept their opponent in the NLCS. Too many people are using this as an excuse for the Rockies not playing well and finding a way to blame Bud Selig that the Rockies had to wait 9 days. (BTW, I'm no fan of Selig). I'm guessing that the ALCS should have just stopped right there also since the Indians were ahead 3-1 and just start the World Series right there.

Teams that sweep in earlier rounds get the positive PR about being "powerful" and on a roll, but the flip side is that they have to wait for the other series to finish. To me, the only time a sweep is good in any sport for a team (not for TV viewing purposes) is the final championship round.

Many MLB teams have swept earlier rounds and kept on winning later (yes, they didn't have to wait 9 days). The same 1976 Reds perfect 7-0 team that some writers were comparing the Rockies post-season run to prior to the World Series, had to sit around for 4 days while the Yankees and Royals battled it out in the first of their classic duels. The Reds blew the Yankees out of the water once the Series started.


1911 World Series

More on the layoff. It's interesting what is being said, written after the series today.

In 1911, the Philadelphia A's had to wait 8 days before playing the World Series against the New York Giants.

Why? The American League season ended on Sunday, October 8th. The A's played their last game on Friday, October 6th. The National League didn't end their season until Columbus Day, Thursday, October 12th.

Game 1 of the 1911 World Series was Saturday, October 14th. Philadelphia (the team with the layoff) won the Series in 6 games but the interesting thing is that the series was stretched out to October 26th because of 6 straight days of rain between Games 2 and 3.

Go Figure!

Another point of interest that I found during last October was that in the 1961 season, even though the AL played 162 games (due to expansion) and the NL only played 154 games, both league schedules started (April 11) and ended on the same day (October 1) with the NL teams having more days off during the campaign. Thus the Yankees and Reds met each other in the World Series with the same amount of rest. The NL of course, went to the 162-game schedule the next year when they expanded in 1962.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

From Jason Stark...


Looking for missing World Series magic

By Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Whatever happened to the World Series?

Whatever happened to the unforgettable, seven-game classics of yesteryear that held us spellbound for a week -- until along came Jack Morris or Luis Gonzalez or Bill Mazeroski to transform this event from sports to poetry.

Whatever happened to World Series like THAT?

We sure haven't witnessed any like that in a long, long time. Way, way too long a time, in fact. Since Josh Beckett left the mound in glory in October 2003, the past four World Series have been more about monotony than poetry.

The LONGEST World Series, out of the past four, went five games. Five. That was back in 2006, when Kenny Rogers and his pine-tarred left hand saved the Tigers from four-and-out infamy.

The other three World Series in that span -- 2004, 2005 and 2007 -- were all four-game obliterations, over faster than you could say, "Have a nice winter."

So as we look ahead to this World Series, it sure wouldn't take a whole lot for the Phillies and Rays to raise the bar, because that bar is at an all-time low.

This is the first time since 1913 to 1916 that four consecutive World Series have lasted no more than five games. And this is the first time ever that we've seen three Series sweeps in four years.

So out of the past four World Series, the four champions have lost a total of one game. One. Which means we're at the lowest ebb ever in what used to be sports' ultimate shootout.

Whatever happened to the World Series?

It's a question worth asking, now more than ever. And there may be an actual explanation, one we've written about before.

This is the 14th postseason since the invention of wild cards stretched October into a three-tiered marathon. This is also the second postseason since baseball super-stretched October by another half-week in the name of (A) ratings and (B) making sure that Evan Longoria and Shane Victorino wouldn't get in the way of "House" airing in its regularly scheduled time slot.

So how's that working out? Uh, not so hot. Here's the evidence:

• Only three of the past 10 World Series have made it to a Game 6. And only two (2001 and 2002) reached a Game 7. So that means seven of the past 10 were either sweeps or five-gamers. Not good.

• Going back further, since the postseason expanded to three rounds in 1995, just three World Series (23 percent) have featured a Game 7, and less than half of those 13 World Series (six) have even lasted until Game 6.

• Now compare that to the previous incarnation of division play, when the postseason had only two rounds. In the 25 years under that format, 64 percent of all World Series (16 of 25) went at least six games. And 40 percent (10 of 25) went seven.


• Meanwhile, we've already had more World Series sweeps (five) in 13 years of three-tiered Octobers than we had in 25 years of two-tiered Octobers (three).

• Maybe that's a coincidence. But we don't think so. In fact, we could make a case that it's a direct result of all the sitting around teams are forced to do in these elongated Octobers. Here's the evidence:

• In the 25 years of the two-round division-play era, there were only five World Series in which at least one team had five or more days off before the Series started -- and only two in which one team had four more days off than its opponent.

• But in the 14 postseasons since the expansion to three rounds, we've already had EIGHT years (including this one) in which at least one team had to wait around for at least five days for the World Series to begin.

• And now, for the first time ever, we've seen three straight years in which one of these World Series teams had a full week between games. The Phillies can only hope that's not as dangerous a development for them as it was for the 2006 Tigers and 2007 Rockies.


"When you go through the season and you're playing every single day, you can get two days off and, to me, it feels like a week," Phillies first baseman Ryan Howard said. "So now you get seven days off. That's like a month."

Well, in many ways, he's right. In an everyday sport, a week off may be refreshing -- but it's NOT in baseball. And it's not conducive to playing good baseball.

"There's a certain physical rhythm to the season," said Tigers coach Andy Van Slyke, who witnessed his team's 2006 Series meltdown firsthand. "And that's intensified in the postseason. And once you have that cut off, it's hard to get it back, physically and mentally. There's an extra adrenaline you get in the postseason that gives you such a high that, when you have those off days, you almost become too low."

So what's responsible for all those off days? There are four big reasons:

One is, essentially, happenstance. When there's a short LCS in one league and a long LCS in the other, it's unavoidable for one team's break between rounds to be longer than the other. Not much anybody can do about that.

The second reason isn't solely the fault of the new postseason schedule. It actually goes back to 1985, when the LCS went from a best-of-five series to a best-of-seven. In the best-of-five era, from 1969 to 1984, no team ever had five days off between series. It wasn't until the format changed when teams that swept an LCS found themselves with all that time to kill.


The third reason is the introduction of that third round. In the wild-card era, it's amazing how little baseball a team can play if it makes quick work of its first two postseason victims. The 2007 Rockies, for instance, played only seven games in 22 days between their last game of the regular season and their first game in the World Series. The 2006 Tigers played just eight games in 20 days. The 2008 Phillies will have played only nine games in 23 days. That pace is about as un-baseball-like as it gets.


And the final reason is the most recent change in postseason scheduling, introduced last year. Fox wanted the World Series to start midweek, not on a weekend. So in order to, essentially, keep the producers of "Prison Break" happy, baseball added enough off days to stretch the postseason to 4½ weeks instead of the four it used to take. That means teams like the '07 Rockies, who swept the LCS, wound up with eight consecutive off days, instead of the former maximum of six days under the previous schedule.

So is there any doubt all this down time has taken its toll on the World Series? Not in our mind. But not surprisingly, the powers that be beg to differ. When we ran this data past Bud Selig himself last fall, let's just say the commissioner didn't sound particularly dazzled by our diligent research.

The commish said he saw "no inherent advantage" for either league built into the current system. And he said the players and ex-players he has asked about the time-off factor in the World Series "looked at me like I was crazy."

But if they're really giving him that look, maybe they had other reasons, because that definitely isn't the look we got from players we asked.

"Of course, it makes a difference," said Todd Jones, the closer for those 2006 Tigers. "You can't hit a baseball after you've been sitting for eight days without seeing 98 mph. … And no way should a pitcher have to be coming into Game 1 of a World Series just to get some work in. But that's what I did."


This stuff has happened just enough in recent years that we're hearing the players have expressed concern to the union that the October schedule has gotten too stretched out. And although the union already had agreed to this format for the 2007 and 2008 postseasons, Michael Weiner, general counsel for the Players Association, told us the union still "has to continue discussions for next season."

Weiner wouldn't comment on any specific concerns. But players we've spoken with don't seem to understand artificial off days, like the day off (with no travel) between Games 4 and 5 of each LCS.

Because of that off day, plus the new travel day introduced between Games 4 and 5 in the first round, no team ever has to play more than two days in a row at any point in the LDS and LCS. Which means one of the biggest factors in any team's success from April to September -- pitching depth -- becomes virtually a non-factor in October.

And while that may not contribute to all these noncompetitive World Series we've seen, it does seem to lessen the chance that the best teams will wind up getting to the World Series, let alone win it. So that's a topic almost certain to be explored.

But the fact is, even if MLB agrees, we're only talking about lopping off a day here and a day there. The good news is that at least guarantees the World Series will always end before Thanksgiving. But the bad news is there are no guarantees we'll ever see another stretch like the 12 Octobers from 1971 to 1982, when all but two World Series went at least six games, and six of 12 made it all the way to a Game 7.


"Do I worry about the competitive nature of the World Series? Of course I do," Selig said. "But I think there are a myriad of factors. And many of those factors we can't do anything about."

Yeah, there's not much chance of the commish taking a new look at that wild card he's so fond of and deciding, "Aw, never mind." So if we're looking for help from him to restore the luster of the World Series, we're looking in the wrong place.

Our only prayer, it appears, is the players themselves. And fortunately, history tells us there IS hope. Not surprisingly, you spell that hope: P-I-T-C-H-I-N-G.

Three years ago, the White Sox had five days off before the World Series -- and a great Game 1 pitching performance by Jose Contreras helped them forget about all of it. In 1995, the Braves had six days off before the World Series -- and a Greg Maddux two-hitter got them rolling toward their only title in the '90s.

So this October, it may well be up to the Phillies' Game 1 starter, burgeoning ace Cole Hamels. If he packed a can of Rust-Oleum for the trip to Tampa Bay this week, it may buy the Phillies enough time to blow off their cobwebs. And if that happens, it might actually be possible that a week from now, we won't have to ask the question anymore.

Whatever happened to the World Series?

[Knick9]

I am so tired of these long layoffs. There is no reason at all to have layoffs last 5 to 7 days. It's just asking for trouble. The 2006 Tigers got zapped. The 2007 Rockies got zapped. I believe the 2008 Phillies will get zapped because of their layoff. That's why I think it will be the Rays in 5.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It seems like not actually playing under real game conditions, say a 4 or 5 day layoff would have to take some of the sharpness off a team.

[Mattingly]

I believe that Tampa Bay has a big advantage here, both for time off, and the fact that they just beat on Sunday a team which has made the playoffs every year since around 2003, and has gone to Game 7 of the ALCS in 2003, '04 & '07.

Despite their badly losing Game 5, they came back in Game 7 with their backs to the wall and overcame a 1st inning longball by Pedroia. Winning 3-1 in Game 7 against a vet team isn't expected by a young team, especially one in the team's first playoff appearance.

The Rays beat the Pale Hose in the LDS, a team which won the Fall Dance in 2005, then the defending champs.

The Phillies didn't beat any prior playoff teams (teams who've recently been to the playoffs), so despite their beating the Brewers and LAD, I think they need to be tested more with their backs against the wall in a "win or go home" atmosphere.

I presume that pitchers are like sharks and need to be kept in motion or die. By the time you get to the travel day off between going from St Petersburg to Philly, the 3rd and 4th Philly pitchers may have had about 10 days off. Do they hold intrasquad practice to avoid the rust?

In all kinds of competitive sports, you only excel and thrive when you face someone who both wants to beat you and very much knows how. I would be interested in seeing if the Phillies can respond when their backs are against the wall, since they haven't had to do so in awhile.

I would also like to see which manager gets lax about allowing big sluggers to hit, instead of pitching around them, or if any manager fails to empty the benches for a non-elimination game blowout. Considering that neither manager, to my knowledge, has made the playoffs before, these kinds of miscues, as well as many others, seem possible.

[b4uplayball]

I think it's all mental. Maybe they spend too much time thinking about it and then press themselves - throwing them out of their rhythm. Regardless, you want that rest!

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think it's all mental. Maybe they spend too much time thinking about it and then press themselves - throwing them out of their rhythm. Regardless, you want that rest!

How much rest do they want, I doubt 4 or 5 days.
Seems simple to me, a team not under game conditions probably not as sharp as they would like to be.
Does this mean the team that sits to long will lose, of course not, but a long layoff can't do them any good.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think it's all mental. Maybe they spend too much time thinking about it and then press themselves - throwing them out of their rhythm. Regardless, you want that rest!

I'm not so sure. When you're on a hot streak, the last thing you want is to throw it off kilter. Sure, it's pretty much a mental thing, but that it and of itself doesn't discount it. Momentum is not something you want stopped just to stop.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think it's all mental. Maybe they spend too much time thinking about it and then press themselves - throwing them out of their rhythm. Regardless, you want that rest!

If it's mental........it's real, its a negative.
With that said, it's more than mental, it's batting, throwing under actual game situations, you don't want to be away from the real thing too many days.

[Uncle Charlie]

The Cubs and Angels had the most rest before the playoffs of any team, and they went a combined 1-6 in the playoffs. The last two World Series have both seen teams that swept the LCS meet a team that needed 7 games to win the LCS, and the teams that swept went a combined 1-8 in those World Series. Should fans of the four remaining teams hope their team doesn't win the LCS too quickly?I guess the rest doesn't always turn into rust, it sure didn't for the Phillies.

[DownUnderDodger]

Is a lot of rest bad for a playoff team? For the Phillies, obviously not!! Won't be an issue next year I am sure.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I guess the rest doesn't always turn into rust, it sure didn't for the Phillies.

The fact that the Phillies won doesn't prove a layoff does not hurt, be a negative, take some of the sharpness out of a team. A team could lose something and still be better than the team they beat.

This is something that could never be proven. I'm thinking if the Phillies lost then some would say it did hurt them and I wouldn't take their side either, they could have lost even without a long layoff.

Bottom line, no way to prove layoffs hurt, maybe maybe not, winning or losing doesn't prove it either way.

[Imgran]

Also, the other side of the equation needs to be considered. The Red Sox really wore the Rays out in the ALCS.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Also, the other side of the equation needs to be considered. The Red Sox really wore the Rays out in the ALCS.

Thats true. I have posted earlier that I thought the idea that a long layoff "could" hurt a team, lose some sharpness, it sounds reasonable.

No way do I say thats for sure, I only think it could be.
The winning team can never prove or disprove that, the team with the layoff can win, we saw that this year but it's also possible with no long layoff the Phils would have still won.

In the many years that I have watched this game I have seen the scribes tell of how a layoff will hurt a team. And on the other hand they tell us the team that battles to the end, regular season and playoffs was hurt by this, worn out.
From what I've seen, neither case ever proven, teams with long layoffs have won the WS and the supposed worn out tired teams have also won some WS.
So what does either notion prove, nothing at all. We just don't know.