MLB postseason extra innings rule change coming, the "Screw it, who cares" Boston Bruins, and how good are the New England Patriots?

Tuesday 10/28/25

Game 3 of the World Series was still going when I woke up. Then I went back to sleep and it was still going a couple hours later when I got up for good.

My guess is you won't see something like this again. MLB will change the postseason rules as a result of that game and the regular season ghost runner set-up will take over in the playoffs. These teams have so much invested in their pitchers who are, of course, babied and break down easier than ever. Everything in our society gets softer. This will, too.

The dramatic value of these mega-long postseason contents can be negligible after a certain point. There was plenty of drama in the first nine innings of this game, but once things settle in with extras, and it's zero after zero up on the board, the game usually becomes a matter of when--and less so "if"--the home team will smack the homer to win it. That's what that Dodgers-Red Sox eighteen-inning game was in 2018 as well.

The Dodgers had the guy who threw a complete game in Game 2 warming up in the bullpen in Game 3 to go out there if they game continued. I don't think MLB wants that at all. Yes, I know, just talked about someone throwing a complete game, but starters now are really relievers who happen to go first. So when you have those pitchers only going four, five innings in these games, you get in more of these "break the arm, derail or end the career" types of things because you're needing the guy who usually goes two innings tops to give your four or five.

If this were to keep going--in both directions, I mean; with starters not really being starters, and no rule changes--you could see a game where a team essentially concedes. Forfeits without forfeiting, deciding to lose the battle to win the war. They might be down to one pitcher, the guy who is supposed to start tomorrow or who started the game before, and instead of bringing him in, they put the left fielder on the mound, and I think MLB would be mortified by how that would look.

I found Ohtani's Game 3 to more impressive than his performance last round in Game 4. That series was 3-0. It was over. Then he performed. But 4-4, with two homers and two doubles, and five walks--four of them intentional--to reach base nine times in a game and accumulate 12 total bases is impressive.

I like this kind of thing--for the novelty of it, all of the moves that have to be made that also impact the games to come, the strangeness factor, but I doubt that MLB does.

Maybe they take a hybrid approach: The first three innings in extra are played in the normal fashion, and then if it's still tied going into the thirteenth, they go with the ghost runner on second. I'm not a fan of the ghost runner in the regular season or penalty shots in hockey. It has a tang of exhibition sports to me, like the Harlem Globetrotters.

The Bruins were destroyed 7-2 by the Senators last night, and it made me chuckle a little that Jeremy Swayman let in 7 goals on 24 ghosts. He's so bad. What were they thinking giving him that contract? How does a goalie in 2025 let in 7 goals on 24 shots? That's a ,708 save percentage. That's barely out of the .600s, a figure that makes you think in terms of a little more than half.

Can you even trade him if you pay a lot of his contract? Who would want this guy? What did I say at the time? That this had the chance to be the worst contract in Boston sports history, and certainly Boston Bruins history.

I saw a post from someone opining that if the Bruins waived Swayman, no team in the league would pick him up. Interesting thought. I bet someone would think he has talent and was in a bad spot where things soured and just weren't right from the get-go last year, and then had the porous system of a new coach making life hard on him this year.

That person, though, would be wrong, because Swayman sucks. He just sucks. The goalie thing hug that everyone loved? That's someone who is going to suck. Because playing goalie is a lot of things, and one of them is an attitude thing. Not a huggy-wuggy thing. It's being angry and nuts--in a good way. Not fucking in a safe space way. The Bruins actually outshot the Senators 28-24. That's amusing.

Great coaching hire, too, by the way. You can really start to ask yourself now if Marco Sturm could be fired. Which is impressive after just 11 games. It would appear that he doesn't have much of a clue. You figured this team wouldn't score, but they'd go with defense first and try to win 3-2, but they give up gobs and gobs of goals, and part of the reason why has to be Sturm's system. Some guys are not head coaching material. Some guys might be but aren't ready to be. But whatever it is, I think it's clear he shouldn't have that job right now.

He did have the good sense to play McAvoy less than any of the other defenseman in this game. Sending a message? It won't be received. McAvoy sucks more than Swayman. The latter can at least win you a game (or even be the difference in a playoff series, which McAvoy will never be--at least not in a positive fashion).

People say, "The Bruins don't have talent, what do you expect?" These are the same idiots who think McAvoy is one of the best defenseman in the league, Pastrnak an all-time great offensive force in his prime, and Swayman a fine goaltender. Well, I have news for you: If you have a top tier defenseman who is one of the best in the NHL, a Hall of Fame forward in his prime, and a top flight goalie, you have talent. Enough talent to win and make the playoffs.

So...what then? It's almost like two of those three guys are terrible and almost everyone has it wrong about them.

More than this: I think that Swayman and McAvoy are terrible in terms of team structure and personality and DNA. I think they are blights on any roster. They suck the life out of a team. And McAvoy more than Swayman. i think he's a shitty pro. Lazy, out of shape, a passer of the buck, fake. He wanted to get paid, he did, and he didn't care after that, and it's very obvious to me that's what happened.

And he wasn't that good to begin with. I went to a game at Conte to see BU play BC when McAvoy was a Terrier, and all I thought was, "This is it? This is your franchise defenseman?" I knew trouble was coming. The main aspect of McAvoy's game is how underwhelming he is. Invisible. When he's not coughing up the puck and getting whiplash--which is about the fastest he moves--by turning around and seeing Swayman fishing it out of the net.

Hockey sense is either something you have or you don't. McAvoy doesn't. He doesn't have a natural feel for the game. He doesn't see the game well, anticipate, understand space and opportunity, timing. He's always a stride or two off, or out of place, or slow, and that is going to make the difference at that level.

What should the Bruins do? Addition by subtraction. They're going to have one of the five worst records in the league this year in all probability no matter what they do or don't do roster-wise. You need to start thinking about the future, and that future is better without Swayman and McAvoy in it. Lose these guys, ASAP. They're only ever going to drag you down. Drag other plays down, drag the team down.

McAvoy has been on the ice, by the way, for more 5-on-5 goals this year than any player in the NHL, at 14. That is a big ass number. Stud defenseman. Sure.

The team's effort is also poor. You can tell guys don't want to be there. They aren't fighting. You can not have a great roster and be hard to play against. I think teams enjoy getting to face the Bruins. They look forward to it. I'm not seeing much pride out there.

Patriots fans are something else. Well, I shouldn't single them out, because almost all people are dumb, delusional, and unthinking, but I am seeing a lot of comments from Pats fans like this one: "Patriots look like they're back to their dynasty days."

Are you trying to max out as an idiot? The team is 6-2, having beaten a plethora of cupcakes--and barely, at times, like with Miami--and they're back to the whole "Go to the Super Bowl every other year and be in the AFC title game almost every year" thing? Are you kidding me? They're back. This team and those teams laden with Hall of Famers. Same deal.

People, man. This isn't a world for non-idiots. You will find no shelter anywhere here. It's just an unabating tempest of morons. Look, this is very simple. Most teams in the NFL are bad. The league is all about the quarterback. It's almost impossible the way everyone approaches football at that level to be a title contender without a top quarterback. There's an imbalance.

Teams used to win a bunch of different ways. This team ran the ball behind a powerful line, that team had the stifling defense. Yes, there are exceptions--last year's Eagles team, for instance. Okay quarterback, strong defense. That quarterback isn't elite.

Consequently, when it's so hard to have a real difference-maker as a quarterback, you get teams that are highly flawed and very interchangeable. Look at quarterback stats. How many guys have a rating over 100? It's like nine or ten. Why do you think that is? Doesn't mean those quarterbacks are great. It's a result of the quarterback having all of the advantages, all of the leverage, with how the game is played now. How it's officiated.

This is because the NFL thinks people are morons, and the people who watch their product are morons, which they largely are, and they also want them to be gambling addicts and take most of their money. Not all of their money, because then those people couldn't bet. But enough so that they're poor and maybe they don't buy enough food for their family because they want to gamble or blew it gambling.

And what do people want to gamble on? Big scores. The gambler wants action. The gambling mindset with the NFL was/is massively influenced by the fantasy football mindset which is about racking up numbers. Then these morons think they know. Like they're real GMs. "I could totally run a team, bro." And the GMs themselves usually don't know because, again, most humans now are morons and terrible at what they do.

But no one can tell what anything is, so on it goes. There's not a lot of accountability, unless you're a head coach in the NFL and especially college, because your ass gets fired. But that's more about placating the boosters at the college level and justifying the NIL payouts that have wrecked that sport and turned it into this shitty post-adolescent Hessian thing.

College football had this great thing going for it for like a century: a spiritedness. No one wants to watch mercenaries. Rather, they will, because they're usually fat aardvarks sitting on a couch for ten hours on Saturday and ten more on Sunday, shoveling meats down their throats and downing another half gallon of beer--America!--because what are they going to do? Find a book to read or get into classic film and, you know, mix things up a bit? Go with a touch of balance? Fuck that, man, and pass the meatballs yum yum yum.

Previously, you rooted for your team and the guys on the team felt something for their team. That's not how it is now. They only feel things for themselves. No sport has gotten more wrecked in recent times than college football. But back to the NFL. The league is monochrome. Everyone is the same. Needing the same things, trying to win the same way. Each team hopes to win the quarterback lottery. If they don't, they aren't a serious contender. Most teams blow. So, if you beat the teams that blow, you become one of the better teams, but it's not like you're all that great necessarily.

You need a coach who doesn't make you worse. Who is average. Gets people to go with his program, which means plays for him and listen to him when he says, "Hey, we can't afford to turn the ball over," and makes that a priority. That type of thing. It's simple. You think Mike Vrabel is hatcing these brilliant game plans? You think he could? Like he's a master scheme designer? Or do you think he speaks confidently, he rubs guys the right way--and these are usually very simple guys--and they buy what he's saying and mostly try and do what he says?

And they have the quarterback. I'd advise caution, because when I see Drake Maye and how he plays, I see a guy who could get hurt on the next play and be lost for three games, six, the season, or have regular injury issues and a truncated career. He does not know how to run. And if he keeps running like he does, he may have a problem. You see the box score and he does his 18-for-24 things for 282 yards. Efficient. Then the 50 or 60 yards on the ground. And

I know people love that second number, too, but I find it concerning. I think he thinks those yards are there to be gotten, and having success getting them emboldens him to try and get more. He's not running smartly enough. You don't want to run, you want to scamper safely for the yards available to you, making an angle for the sideline and stepping out. If he goes down, that's it, you're done. I know, you can say that about any of the top quarterbacks and their teams. But a Mahomes knows what he's doing when he runs. Drake Maye doesn't not--at least as of yet.