Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   MLB agrees to add another playoff spot for the Red Sox to blow   (mlbtraderumors.com) divider line 88
    More: Interesting, Red Sox, Major League Baseball, Rosenthal, playoffs  
•       •       •

1293 clicks; posted to Sports » on 29 Feb 2012 at 5:21 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-29 06:42:08 PM  
We've known the WC expansion was likely to occur since last November when the CBA was finalized. Not sure how this is "news".
 
2012-02-29 06:53:42 PM  

neuroflare: BKITU: WTF Indeed: The NL West has every team but the Padres.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 251x235]

Enjoy Josh Byrnes giving Eric Byrnes another huge contract so he'll get paid to play softball when he rides his bicycle off into the sunset again....


I doubt he'll be worse than Jed Hoyer.

I doubt infected chancres are worse than Jed Hoyer.
 
2012-02-29 06:58:05 PM  
F*ck you Selig.
Baseball is a series sport.
 
2012-02-29 07:01:14 PM  

WTF Indeed: ricewater_stool: This is an absolutely idiotic idea. Remember the last day of the 2011 season, and how awesome that was?

It's not an idiotic idea, it finally makes the wild card a handicap. What it messes up is the schedule if there is a rain out. However that can be fixed if they decide to play day playoff games again, but that will never happen.


Why should the wild card teams deserve a handicap? In 2005, the Padres took their division with 82 wins. In 2001 the A's took the wild card with 102. Is the Padres accomplishment really that much more impressive that the A's should have been punished?

Lest you think I'm cherry picking to an extreme degree, 2006 the Cards take the NL Central with 83 wins (WC had 88), 2007 the Cubs won the Central with 85 (WC had 90), 2008 the Dodgers take the West with 84 wins (WC had 90), 2009 the Twins take the Central with 87 wins (WC had 95), 2010 the Rangers take the West with 90 (WC had 95) and in 2011 you finally have a case where all division winners have better records than the wild card teams. Is winning a geographically-based division really that much more impressive than being a demonstrably better team over 162 games?
 
2012-02-29 07:02:38 PM  

Mr. Potatoass: F*ck you Selig.
Baseball is a series sport.


ts3.mm.bing.net

"why no series?"
 
2012-02-29 07:06:08 PM  
This one game play in will only last until the Yankees or Red Sox lose the play in game. Once that happens, MLB will expand it to a three game series.
 
2012-02-29 07:08:05 PM  

TheMatchHare: Is winning a geographically-based division really that much more impressive than being a demonstrably better team over 162 games?


You're arguing for doing away with divisions, not for adding more wild card teams..... Or am I missing the joke?
 
2012-02-29 07:13:54 PM  

Demetrius: I agree with adding the extra teams, but one-and-done is stupid.


I can't agree with making the play-in a best-of-three unless they make the division round a best-of-seven instead of the current best-of-five.

ManateeGag: Mets still won't make the playoffs.


Playoffs? Don't talk about the playoffs! Playoffs?!
Mets won't make fourth place.

red5ish: We've known the WC expansion was likely to occur since last November when the CBA was finalized. Not sure how this is "news".


Today was the deadline for a deal to be done. Expanded wildcard for 2012 was not a certainty (though it was for 2013) because the 2012 schedule was written -before- the CBA was signed, and a new agreement had to be reached to shoehorn it in this year.
 
2012-02-29 07:16:46 PM  

mjoven1975: This one game play in will only last until the Yankees or Red Sox lose the play in game. Once that happens, MLB will expand it to a three game series.


The Yankees have made the playoffs 16 out of the past 17 seasons under the current structure.

This rule was made to help teams in the same division as the Yankees-- not the Yankees themselves.
 
2012-02-29 07:17:47 PM  

mjoven1975: This one game play in will only last until the Yankees or Red Sox lose the play in game. Once that happens, MLB will expand it to a three game series.


Man I'm glad I bought that stock in Reynolds Wrap.

TheMatchHare: WTF Indeed: ricewater_stool: This is an absolutely idiotic idea. Remember the last day of the 2011 season, and how awesome that was?

It's not an idiotic idea, it finally makes the wild card a handicap. What it messes up is the schedule if there is a rain out. However that can be fixed if they decide to play day playoff games again, but that will never happen.

Why should the wild card teams deserve a handicap? In 2005, the Padres took their division with 82 wins. In 2001 the A's took the wild card with 102. Is the Padres accomplishment really that much more impressive that the A's should have been punished?

Lest you think I'm cherry picking to an extreme degree, 2006 the Cards take the NL Central with 83 wins (WC had 88), 2007 the Cubs won the Central with 85 (WC had 90), 2008 the Dodgers take the West with 84 wins (WC had 90), 2009 the Twins take the Central with 87 wins (WC had 95), 2010 the Rangers take the West with 90 (WC had 95) and in 2011 you finally have a case where all division winners have better records than the wild card teams. Is winning a geographically-based division really that much more impressive than being a demonstrably better team over 162 games?


As it is currently? Yes, winning the division IS and SHOULD be that much more important since teams play within their division so disproportionately. Word is the schedule will be more balanced next year after realignment.
 
2012-02-29 07:20:27 PM  

TheMatchHare: WTF Indeed: ricewater_stool: This is an absolutely idiotic idea. Remember the last day of the 2011 season, and how awesome that was?

It's not an idiotic idea, it finally makes the wild card a handicap. What it messes up is the schedule if there is a rain out. However that can be fixed if they decide to play day playoff games again, but that will never happen.

Why should the wild card teams deserve a handicap? In 2005, the Padres took their division with 82 wins. In 2001 the A's took the wild card with 102. Is the Padres accomplishment really that much more impressive that the A's should have been punished?

Lest you think I'm cherry picking to an extreme degree, 2006 the Cards take the NL Central with 83 wins (WC had 88), 2007 the Cubs won the Central with 85 (WC had 90), 2008 the Dodgers take the West with 84 wins (WC had 90), 2009 the Twins take the Central with 87 wins (WC had 95), 2010 the Rangers take the West with 90 (WC had 95) and in 2011 you finally have a case where all division winners have better records than the wild card teams. Is winning a geographically-based division really that much more impressive than being a demonstrably better team over 162 games?


Thank you for putting in the time to do the research that I wasn't willing to do. I've never understood the sanctity given by some people to divisions. Plenty of wild cards have finished with better records than winners of other, weaker divisions. Should they have been penalized for shiat geographical luck?

Having two wild cards is pushing it but I'm not incensed over it or anything.
 
2012-02-29 07:22:34 PM  

The Bestest: Word is the schedule will be more balanced next year after realignment.


Oh I hadn't heard that-- that's good news.

An unbalanced schedule makes no sense when you have a wild card system that competes across the whole league.
 
2012-02-29 07:34:49 PM  
h, .b>AtticusFinchEsq: ClavellBCMI: win your division, or be laughed at

In some cases, win your division and be laughed at. And rightly so.

I'M LOOKING AT YOU, NL CENTRAL


We fans of NL Central teams would gladly take a little laughing from you "real" fans in exchange for this.

reddogreport.com

/Not a Cardinals fan
 
2012-02-29 07:46:59 PM  
Whole lot of sandy vaginas up in here. I think this is great. Its really unfair to judge this format right now. I say give a couple of years before figuring out its a bad idea. There could possibly be some epic play in games. Game 163 back in 09 was one of the most intense games I have seen, and now we get to see that every year. Sign me up.

Also about teams burning up their aces in this game. Usually teams fighting for a spot don't get to set up their rotations properly, so I wouldn't be to worried about that.
 
2012-02-29 07:51:39 PM  
i182.photobucket.com

"You'll get over it."
 
2012-02-29 08:15:33 PM  
www.goozex.com
 
2012-02-29 08:16:29 PM  

december: Decillion: Blue Jays are back in the playoffs baby!

/'92-'93 all over again.
//Ok, I'll take '85.

under the new system they would have made the playoffs once in the last 18 years. i agree their chances are improved, but not by much, unless they start winning a whole lot more games.


It's not the past 18 years that concerns us Blue Jays fans, it's what they have coming up. With the potential talent in their farm system, I can see them being a contender against the Yankees and Red Sox in two or three years (this year if we're very lucky, but I don't want to get my hopes up).
 
2012-02-29 08:19:00 PM  

Slow To Return: TheMatchHare: Is winning a geographically-based division really that much more impressive than being a demonstrably better team over 162 games?

You're arguing for doing away with divisions, not for adding more wild card teams..... Or am I missing the joke?


I like the current system, but I'm not opposed to a change. I just don't understand the need to "punish" the wild card teams, which in many cases are better than some of the division winners. Since they want three division winners and two wild card teams in the playoffs, just have the two worst records play each other in the one-game playoff regardless of how they made the postseason. Otherwise, if winning the division is really that much more important, I don't see why we even have wild cards at all?
 
2012-02-29 08:31:36 PM  

The Bestest: As it is currently? Yes, winning the division IS and SHOULD be that much more important since teams play within their division so disproportionately. Word is the schedule will be more balanced next year after realignment.


I'm glad to hear they're considering going back to a more balanced schedule.

As for the importance of winning the division, I do agree with you to a point...but that point only starts when the division winner is getting ~90+ wins. If you win your division with 82-85 wins (not a frequent occurrence, but it certainly happens enough to consider), your division is simply poor and the unbalanced schedule only artificially adds wins to the teams in that division they may otherwise not have earned. Going back to the 2005 Padres, there were three teams in the AL East that year which missed the playoffs and still finished with better records than San Diego, in spite of the unbalanced schedule working against them. It seems ridiculous to reward such a poor division winner for merely sucking slightly less than their nearest geographical rivals. ...and again, I admit the 2005 AL West is about as extreme an example as there ever was :)
 
2012-02-29 08:45:34 PM  

TheMatchHare: I don't see why we even have wild cards at all?


Perhap$ you're not looking clo$ely enough.

We used to not have wild cards. The playoffs used to consist of JUST the World Series. Then, in 1968, the NL and AL both split into two divisions, east and west, and we got an ALCS and an NLCS in addition to the World Series. This actually was pretty cool.

Then, in 1994 they added the stupid Central divisions, screwed over Texas and left them in the West, and added some stupid meaningless crap playoff games that us old people have been biatching about ever since.

It's funny how adding more playoff teams only leads to more butthurt over who makes the playoffs and who doesn't.
 
2012-02-29 08:49:01 PM  

TheMatchHare: The Bestest: As it is currently? Yes, winning the division IS and SHOULD be that much more important since teams play within their division so disproportionately. Word is the schedule will be more balanced next year after realignment.

I'm glad to hear they're considering going back to a more balanced schedule.

As for the importance of winning the division, I do agree with you to a point...but that point only starts when the division winner is getting ~90+ wins. If you win your division with 82-85 wins (not a frequent occurrence, but it certainly happens enough to consider), your division is simply poor and the unbalanced schedule only artificially adds wins to the teams in that division they may otherwise not have earned. Going back to the 2005 Padres, there were three teams in the AL East that year which missed the playoffs and still finished with better records than San Diego, in spite of the unbalanced schedule working against them. It seems ridiculous to reward such a poor division winner for merely sucking slightly less than their nearest geographical rivals. ...and again, I admit the 2005 AL West is about as extreme an example as there ever was :)


You don't even need to go that extreme. To go back to your examples, in 2009 the Red Sox won the wild card with 95 wins, coming from a division where the rest of the teams had a combined .503 winning percentage. Meanwhile the Twins won their division with 87 wins, and their division had a combined .455 winning percentage. So the unbalanced schedule was a disadvantage for the Red Sox and they still won 8 more games. Why leave them out?

The wild card is also good for situations where there is an extremely, disproportionately good 2nd place team. The 2001 A's had the 2nd-best record in all of baseball by a pretty clear margin (something like 6 games over the next-best), but were in the division with the best-regular-season-ever Mariners. A team like that should be able to get in.
 
2012-02-29 09:52:09 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.google.com
"NOOOOOOOOOOOO........MMMMM MICKEY MANTLE.........TRADITION....... ARRRGHHH........1961.........I JUST shiat MYSELF"
 
2012-02-29 10:10:53 PM  

hbk72777: NOOOOOOOOOOOO........MMMMM MICKEY MANTLE.........TRADITION....... ARRRGHHH........


I agree fully. To hell with modern casual fans and their tainted money.

I sure hope MLB makes a provision that a team must be above .500 to qualify. Damn it, though, they won't!
 
2012-02-29 10:14:33 PM  

Ow My Balls: hbk72777: NOOOOOOOOOOOO........MMMMM MICKEY MANTLE.........TRADITION....... ARRRGHHH........

I agree fully. To hell with modern casual fans and their tainted money.

I sure hope MLB makes a provision that a team must be above .500 to qualify. Damn it, though, they won't!


It is incredibly unlikely that there would be only 4 teams in either league with a + .500 record.
 
2012-02-29 10:16:25 PM  

Decillion: Blue Jays are back in the playoffs baby!

/'92-'93 all over again.
//Ok, I'll take '85.


So who are they going to beat out in the division to get there? The Yankees, Red Sox, or Rays?

/Orioles fan.
//Shut up.
///*Trying to stifle the sobs*
 
2012-02-29 10:27:29 PM  

Ow My Balls: I sure hope MLB makes a provision that a team must be above .500 to qualify. Damn it, though, they won't!


It's much, much easier to win your division with a sub .500 record than win a wild card spot.

For an out of sport example, look at the Seahawks last year.
 
2012-02-29 10:27:49 PM  

06Wahoo: Decillion: Blue Jays are back in the playoffs baby!

/'92-'93 all over again.
//Ok, I'll take '85.

So who are they going to beat out in the division to get there? The Yankees, Red Sox, or Rays?

/Orioles fan.
//Shut up.
///*Trying to stifle the sobs*


The Blue Jays are the undisputed best 4th Place team in baseball.

/The AL East isn't going to get both wild cards. One will come from the AL West.
 
2012-03-01 12:11:36 AM  

Slow To Return: TheMatchHare: I don't see why we even have wild cards at all?

Perhap$ you're not looking clo$ely enough.

We used to not have wild cards. The playoffs used to consist of JUST the World Series. Then, in 1968, the NL and AL both split into two divisions, east and west, and we got an ALCS and an NLCS in addition to the World Series. This actually was pretty cool.

Then, in 1994 they added the stupid Central divisions, screwed over Texas and left them in the West, and added some stupid meaningless crap playoff games that us old people have been biatching about ever since.

It's funny how adding more playoff teams only leads to more butthurt over who makes the playoffs and who doesn't.


You make a $trong ca$e. Honestly, the expanded playoff is the perfect excuse to shorten the season by a series or two. That would allow at least a best-of-three for the play-in game. Of course, MLB will have their rea$on$ why that won't work.

I've actually liked all the playoff formats they've had over the years, or at least grown to like them. I suspect a new format will be no different, but the one-game playoff will be a hard pill to swallow.

/Fortunately, as a fan of the Chicago teams, the wild card playoff might not affect my clubs for quite some time
//Unfortunately, as a fan of the Chicago teams, the playoffs won't affect my clubs much either
 
2012-03-01 12:32:09 AM  
alright, since the double wild card is confirmed and all the deals have been pretty much settled (aside: anyone notice Damon, Matsui and Vlad are all still looking for jobs?), I'll make my final, for-realsies-this-time 2012 predictions.
Position indicates my predicted finish, number in parenthesis indicates my projected range of finish (in other words, a cop-out). Asterisk indicates wild card.

AL East
Yankees (1-2)
Rays (1-3)*
Red Sox (2-3)
Blue Jays (4)
Orioles (5)

AL Central
Tigers (1)
Indians (2-3)
Twins (2-4)
White Sox (3-5)
Royals (4-5)

AL West
Angels (1-2)
Rangers (1-2)*
As (3-4)
Mariners (3-4)

NL East
Phillies (1-2)
Braves (1-2)*
Marlins (3-4)*
Nationals (3-4)
Mets (5)

NL Central
Reds (1-2)
Brewers (1-3)
Cardinals (2-3)
Pirates (4-5)
Cubs (4-5)
Astros (6)

NL West
D'backs (1-2)
Giants (1-3)
Rockies (2-4)
Dodgers (3-4)
Padres (5)
 
2012-03-01 09:26:33 AM  

TheMatchHare: but the one-game playoff will be a hard pill to swallow.


Last year, it would have worked out "fine" (except you'd be rewarding the Braves and Red Sox for collapsing).

How about in 2010? They would have given the 89-win Red Sox a chance to play a play-in game against the 95-win wild card Yankees?? That's just stupid. What if the Red Sox won that game? While I admit the Yankee butthurt that would have ensued would have been epically hilarious, it still wouldn't have been fair.

Further, what the people who wail about a team from division A having a better record than the winner of division B but not making the playoffs don't get, there's a lot more to it than just scheduling differences

There's the fact that teams specifically plan their offseasons around their division opponents, trying to get the best hitting matchups against the pitching they'll be facing most often, and vice-versa. There's the fact that teams are reluctant to trade players within their own division. There's the fact that som in 100 degree temperate divisions and teams play more gamesures than other teams (I'm not looking at you, New York and Boston...) There's the fact that some teams spend more time in airplanes than others (poor Seattle). There's all sorts of factors that make comparing a record from one division to a record from another division akin to comparing apples and oranges.

I've never really found it unfair when a team that had a better record than a division winning team didn't make the playoffs. When's the last time that happened, anyway? '08 Mets?
 
2012-03-03 01:00:53 AM  
I'd love to read the thread, but I just can't be bothered. Did somebody mention that there's a chance the division winners will only get one guaranteed home game in the first round?
 
2012-03-03 10:23:29 AM  

jaylectricity: I'd love to read the thread, but I just can't be bothered. Did somebody mention that there's a chance the division winners will only get one guaranteed home game in the first round?


I think that's only this year because of scheduling complications. Next year I'm pretty sure it goes back to the 2-2-1 format.
 
2012-03-03 01:15:11 PM  
So this year's championship*.
 
2012-03-03 02:30:59 PM  

jaylectricity: So this year's championship*.


The 2-3 format isn't new. That's what it was in 1995 when the WC started and back when the LCS was best of five they used 2-3 for a while.
 
2012-03-03 04:50:41 PM  

Rex_Banner: jaylectricity: So this year's championship*.

The 2-3 format isn't new. That's what it was in 1995 when the WC started and back when the LCS was best of five they used 2-3 for a while.


If the #1 seed gets knocked off because they get down 2-0 on the road before even getting a home game, I will consider that a gift to the Wild Card team, and whomever gets to play the Wild Card team instead of the #1. The #1 seed should be rewarded for having the best record in the league, not penalized.

Hence, the asterisk.
 
2012-03-03 06:09:26 PM  

jaylectricity: Rex_Banner: jaylectricity: So this year's championship*.

The 2-3 format isn't new. That's what it was in 1995 when the WC started and back when the LCS was best of five they used 2-3 for a while.

If the #1 seed gets knocked off because they get down 2-0 on the road before even getting a home game, I will consider that a gift to the Wild Card team, and whomever gets to play the Wild Card team instead of the #1. The #1 seed should be rewarded for having the best record in the league, not penalized.

Hence, the asterisk.


I agree that the division winners should get the first two games at home, I'm just saying that the lower seed has hosted those games before and no one says that championships in those seasons are tainted
 
2012-03-04 12:35:58 AM  

Rex_Banner: I agree that the division winners should get the first two games at home, I'm just saying that the lower seed has hosted those games before and no one says that championships in those seasons are tainted


Yes, I understand that you agree with me about that part. Just out of curiosity I looked at the four years they did that.

In 1995, the Atlanta Braves had the best record in the NL, and beat the Indians who had the best record in the AL. Incidentally, the Indians were the only team in the playoffs that had a better record than them.

In 1996 the Indians had the best record in the AL and were knocked off by the WC Orioles 3-1. They actually split their home games, then beat the Indians twice in Cleveland. The Yankees then won the ALCS against the Orioles, and subsequently the Braves (who had the best record in the NL) in the World Series. This is one championship I might have considered for the * but it wasn't home field advantage that did the Indians in. They lost both their games at home.

1997 had the Braves (best record in the NL by 11 games) facing the Wild Card Marlins in the NLCS. The Marlins went on to beat AL Central Division champs (lowest wins among the AL Division winners) in the WS. The weird thing about that was the #1 seed played the #2 seed in the first round while the #3 seed played the Wild Card. But you're right, nobody claims that there's an asterisk for this Marlins win.

So, at any rate, I think I've proved you right. I'm glad I did the research and I hope I've contributed to this thread something topical and relevant.
 
2012-03-04 12:36:46 AM  
Oops, I found out it was only three years and forgot to go back and change this part:

jaylectricity: Just out of curiosity I looked at the four years they did that.

 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report