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.

(USA Today)   One-game wild-card playoffs: "Now, in one game, any given day, a college team could beat a big league team. It's just the way the ball rolls. So I don't know how much one game proves as far as who deserves to move on,"   (usatoday.com) divider line 127
    More: Stupid, Adam LaRoche, playoffs, Mike Matheny, Jon Daniels, Davey Johnson, Dan Uggla, grinding, Chipper Jones  
•       •       •

897 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Oct 2012 at 1:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 11:33:13 AM
Given that one of the teams in the game DID lose to a college team this year, I don't see what's stupid about that, subby. Unless it's a self-referential tag.
 
2012-10-05 11:44:46 AM
Then if you don't want your season to come down to a one game crapshoot, win the damn division.

That's what I like about this new system: the division matters again. Before, the wild card went in on the same basic footing as the divisional champs. That led to snoozers down the stretch as the Yankees and (then) the Red Sox just put it in autopilot knowing that if they didn't win the division, they had the wild card.
 
2012-10-05 11:47:55 AM

IAmRight: Given that one of the teams in the game DID lose to a college team this year, I don't see what's stupid about that, subby. Unless it's a self-referential tag.


Not subby, but it's probably referencing the very idea of having one game decide a team's fate after they've gone through a 162-game season. If so I agree, but it's fun as hell so I still like it.

And this year the AL game would've been played even if there was only one wild card since Texas and Baltimore would've been tied.
 
2012-10-05 11:53:09 AM
Then you should probably make sure that the one playoff game is the best game you've played all season.
 
2012-10-05 11:59:18 AM
Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogus.
 
2012-10-05 12:07:15 PM

kronicfeld: Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogus.


Yeah, but as far as I know that's only for this year. In the rush to add the 2nd wild card they farked up the schedule. It should be back to normal next year.
 
2012-10-05 12:10:39 PM
Either they cut the season back to 154 games and add a 3rd complete round or you take this bone Bud Selig threw and eat it.
 
2012-10-05 12:15:39 PM

FreakinB: kronicfeld: Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogus.

Yeah, but as far as I know that's only for this year. In the rush to add the 2nd wild card they farked up the schedule. It should be back to normal next year.


Yea this is logistical due to it being approved late. One game is a crapshoot, a division title means something again.
 
2012-10-05 01:07:20 PM

jake_lex: Then if you don't want your season to come down to a one game crapshoot, win the damn division.


I agree 100% with this sentiment.

jake_lex: That's what I like about this new system: the division matters again. Before, the wild card went in on the same basic footing as the divisional champs. That led to snoozers down the stretch as the Yankees and (then) the Red Sox just put it in autopilot knowing that if they didn't win the division, they had the wild card.


And this one.

Not only did it suck when the eventual wild card winner could put it on autopilot, they could also set their rotation. I like the fact that having the best record in the league results in your first round opponent not having the advantage of setting their rotation. They probably just used their best pitcher in the 1-game playoff. Nice bonus for the team with the best record, which also could provide extra incentive for division winners to outplay other division winners down the stretch even if they both know they are in.
 
2012-10-05 01:20:19 PM

jake_lex: Then if you don't want your season to come down to a one game crapshoot, win the damn division.


You know what? I *hated* the idea of a one-game playoff as against everything fundamental to baseball... right up until I read that support of it.

You have something of a point. I'd rather see a 2-of-3 (and shorten/move spring training, perhaps, but DON'T shorten the season!), as I like the "no coasting into the wild card in a soft division" aspect... but you just made me accept, albeit grudgingly, that the one-game-only structure is not a *total* abomination.  Thus, in turn, you have probably lowered my blood pressure a bit for the duration of the postseason. Thanks!
 
2012-10-05 01:31:52 PM
Ok, look.. here's what would've happened this year if playing under last year's rules:

In the AL, EXACTLY THE SAME THING. The Orioles and Rangers would still be playing in a.. wait for it.. SINGLE GAME ELIMINATION. The only difference is that if the O's won, they wouldn't be allowed to play the Yankees.

In the NL, the Cards wouldn't have made it, but both the Braves and Nats would've mailed it in weeks ago since it wouldn't have mattered who won the division.. hell, the final week in all of the NL would've been meaningless.
 
2012-10-05 01:34:28 PM

SFSailor: You have something of a point. I'd rather see a 2-of-3 (and shorten/move spring training, perhaps, but DON'T shorten the season!), as I like the "no coasting into the wild card in a soft division" aspect... but you just made me accept, albeit grudgingly, that the one-game-only structure is not a *total* abomination. Thus, in turn, you have probably lowered my blood pressure a bit for the duration of the postseason. Thanks!


Easy fix, make both of the first two rounds best of 3. No need to change the overall schedule.

The whole sport is based on 3 games series.. why change?
 
2012-10-05 01:35:21 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: jake_lex: Then if you don't want your season to come down to a one game crapshoot, win the damn division.

I agree 100% with this sentiment.

jake_lex: That's what I like about this new system: the division matters again. Before, the wild card went in on the same basic footing as the divisional champs. That led to snoozers down the stretch as the Yankees and (then) the Red Sox just put it in autopilot knowing that if they didn't win the division, they had the wild card.

And this one.

Not only did it suck when the eventual wild card winner could put it on autopilot, they could also set their rotation. I like the fact that having the best record in the league results in your first round opponent not having the advantage of setting their rotation. They probably just used their best pitcher in the 1-game playoff. Nice bonus for the team with the best record, which also could provide extra incentive for division winners to outplay other division winners down the stretch even if they both know they are in.


This. Seeding becomes as important as it is in the NFL, so there are fewer 'meaningless' games late in the season.

/except for the Rockies, for whom every game was meaningless:(
 
2012-10-05 01:36:51 PM
I'm a big fan of the new system. Makes the division winner matter again, makes late September exciting, makes the actual game exciting.
 
2012-10-05 01:37:09 PM
It's good enough for the NFL, it should be good enough for the toss and bunt boys

/And while we're at it, three innings is plenty
 
2012-10-05 01:37:53 PM

jake_lex: That's what I like about this new system: the division matters again. Before, the wild card went in on the same basic footing as the divisional champs. That led to snoozers down the stretch as the Yankees and (then) the Red Sox just put it in autopilot knowing that if they didn't win the division, they had the wild card.


True, although it would matter a lot more if they weren't forcing the division winners to play the first two games on the road. The Yankees and Nats get to sit there and wait to find out who they'll play, then travel. If it's the Rangers, the Yankees get to fly halfway across the country while the Rangers get the day to have a workout on their home field or just rest.
 
2012-10-05 01:39:59 PM

Yanks_RSJ: True, although it would matter a lot more if they weren't forcing the division winners to play the first two games on the road. The Yankees and Nats get to sit there and wait to find out who they'll play, then travel. If it's the Rangers, the Yankees get to fly halfway across the country while the Rangers get the day to have a workout on their home field or just rest.


No one likes the 2-3 format, but as mentioned, it's just a one-time farkup.
 
2012-10-05 01:43:14 PM

The Bestest: No one likes the 2-3 format, but as mentioned, it's just a one-time farkup.


An unnecessary and potentially costly one that I'm not willing to excuse. The team with homefield advantage should be guaranteed to play at least twice at home in a five game series. Period.
 
2012-10-05 01:43:24 PM

MugzyBrown: Easy fix, make both of the first two rounds best of 3. No need to change the overall schedule.

The whole sport is based on 3 games series.. why change?


I think that it's weird already that MLB has fewer playoff games than NHL and NBA after their billion game regular season.
 
2012-10-05 01:45:10 PM

kronicfeld: Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogusa huge advantage.


If you get a split in those first two games, you come home only needing to get 2 of 3. That's huge.
 
2012-10-05 01:46:00 PM

jake_lex: Then if you don't want your season to come down to a one game crapshoot, win the damn division.


or as a nation we could celebrate the victors of the regular season more than the winners of a small samples size knock out tournament.

/never mind the joke that is the nfl playoffs.
 
2012-10-05 01:46:47 PM

jake_lex: Then if you don't want your season to come down to a one game crapshoot, win the damn division.

That's what I like about this new system: the division matters again. Before, the wild card went in on the same basic footing as the divisional champs. That led to snoozers down the stretch as the Yankees and (then) the Red Sox just put it in autopilot knowing that if they didn't win the division, they had the wild card.


That exactly what I was going to post. Winning the division is now important again and that's awesome. Say what you want about Bud, but the wildcard idea is great for baseball.
 
2012-10-05 01:47:58 PM

MugzyBrown: SFSailor: You have something of a point. I'd rather see a 2-of-3 (and shorten/move spring training, perhaps, but DON'T shorten the season!), as I like the "no coasting into the wild card in a soft division" aspect... but you just made me accept, albeit grudgingly, that the one-game-only structure is not a *total* abomination. Thus, in turn, you have probably lowered my blood pressure a bit for the duration of the postseason. Thanks!

Easy fix, make both of the first two rounds best of 3. No need to change the overall schedule.

The whole sport is based on 3 games series.. why change?


That is what I don't get about the WC playoff. You spend 162 games trying to 1. win the series in which you are currently playing 2. get to the postseason. Having a one game playoff series just feels like they tacked on a game 163 to the regular season that only 2 teams are eligible for. Also, I just don't see why a 3 game series vs. a one game makes it less important to win the division. Just make it 2 games at home for the team with the better record, then 1 game at home for the other team with no travel break days.
 
2012-10-05 01:49:34 PM

A Fark Handle: or as a nation we could celebrate the victors of the regular season more than the winners of a small samples size knock out tournament.


No, no, clearly winning a seven-game series is much more indicative of a team's quality than 162 games worth of data.

/at least someone else is starting to realize how stupid playoffs ultimately are (though they're fun).
 
2012-10-05 01:49:36 PM
Go, Bucky Dent.
 
2012-10-05 01:51:13 PM
The only bad part about it is, it protects teams with a weak rotation.

Team A has these pitchers: A+, B+, B-, C+

Team B has these pitchers: A-, A-, B+, B

In a traditional series, Team B has the edge, but in a 1-game, Team A, with a weaker group, now gets an advantage. Team B also likely had a better record in the season, but that doesn't matter not either.


Sure, it might have made for an exciting game, but now likely at the cost of the next round. There is a domino effect. Instead of the League winner (lets call it Team C) playing a tough team B in a series, they now face team A. But since team A just used their ace to beat team B in the 1-game, Team C is now more than happy to face the bottom half of the rotation for the first several games, and walks into the league finals.

its a lot to give up on later just for playing game #163
 
2012-10-05 01:52:07 PM
I advocate going back to the old eight-game format.
 
2012-10-05 01:52:25 PM

you have pee hands: MugzyBrown: Easy fix, make both of the first two rounds best of 3. No need to change the overall schedule.

The whole sport is based on 3 games series.. why change?

I think that it's weird already that MLB has fewer playoff games than NHL and NBA after their billion game regular season.


maybe because baseball recognizes the fact that large playoffs make the regular season almost entirely meaningless. large playoffs allow for lucky or "hot" teams to be declared "world champs" by winning a few games in a row even though they aren't that good. see: giants, ny football.
 
2012-10-05 01:54:43 PM
Spoken like a true Duke fan.
 
2012-10-05 01:55:15 PM
Should be at least a 3 game series. But one & done is pretty exciting, I can't deny that.
 
2012-10-05 01:55:19 PM

meanmutton: kronicfeld: Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogusa huge advantage.

If you get a split in those first two games, you come home only needing to get 2 of 3. That's huge.


I hadn't thought about it that way before, so I'll grant the point. That said, the thing that frustrates me about it is this. If you have the best record in your league. You should be able to sit back, relax, and wait for someone to come to you. And if you have to travel somewhere to open the series, you shouldn't have to wait until there's less than 48 hours to your first game to find out where you're headed.
 
2012-10-05 01:55:26 PM
What do I think of the new wild card format?

img.photobucket.com 

Tigers are playing... Tomorrow night!! I never miss a game.
 
2012-10-05 01:56:13 PM

A Fark Handle: maybe because baseball recognizes the fact that large playoffs make the regular season almost entirely meaningless. large playoffs allow for lucky or "hot" teams to be declared "world champs" by winning a few games in a row even though they aren't that good. see: giants, ny football.


It's pretty hard to determine who the best team is in a 32-team league when there isn't much overlap in the schedules. Each team only plays 13 different opponents in a 16-game schedule.

But I'll take all the "lucky" Super Bowl championships I can get. Doesn't change the taste of the champagne.
 
2012-10-05 01:56:55 PM

funk_soul_bubby: I advocate going back to the old eight-game format.


Eight game series are unfairly biased in favor of Paul Hendersons.
 
2012-10-05 01:57:15 PM

A Fark Handle: you have pee hands: MugzyBrown: Easy fix, make both of the first two rounds best of 3. No need to change the overall schedule.

The whole sport is based on 3 games series.. why change?

I think that it's weird already that MLB has fewer playoff games than NHL and NBA after their billion game regular season.

maybe because baseball recognizes the fact that large playoffs make the regular season almost entirely meaningless. large playoffs allow for lucky or "hot" teams to be declared "world champs" by winning a few games in a row even though they aren't that good. see: giants, ny football.


I dunno, Giants were a championship caliber team riddled with injuries that got healthy just in time.
 
2012-10-05 01:57:58 PM

Yanks_RSJ: It's pretty hard to determine who the best team is in a 32-team league when there isn't much overlap in the schedules. Each team only plays 13 different opponents in a 16-game schedule.


College football is even worse. No matter how they tinker with it, it's always going to leave some room for judgment.
 
2012-10-05 02:00:50 PM

A Fark Handle: you have pee hands: MugzyBrown: Easy fix, make both of the first two rounds best of 3. No need to change the overall schedule.

The whole sport is based on 3 games series.. why change?

I think that it's weird already that MLB has fewer playoff games than NHL and NBA after their billion game regular season.

maybe because baseball recognizes the fact that large playoffs make the regular season almost entirely meaningless. large playoffs allow for lucky or "hot" teams to be declared "world champs" by winning a few games in a row even though they aren't that good. see: giants, ny football.


I'd argue that in a couple of recent cases, the teams that won were teams that improved during the year through player/coaching changes (L.A. Kings) or players getting healthy (Giants) to become legitimately great. But in most cases your point is correct.

Also I'm massively biased towards the Giants, so there's that.
 
2012-10-05 02:01:37 PM
The same could be said for a 5 game series or even a 7 game series, really. Except for the college team part, most likely.

Anyways, this is why I think baseball needs to get its own version of the President's Trophy in the NHL. Washington deserves some kind of recognition for being the best team over a 162 game season. Instead, all we'll remember about this year is that the Cardinals once again half-assed their way into the playoffs, got hot for a couple of weeks, and became "champions" again. Puke.
 
2012-10-05 02:02:32 PM

A Fark Handle: maybe because baseball recognizes the fact that large playoffs make the regular season almost entirely meaningless. large playoffs allow for lucky or "hot" teams to be declared "world champs" by winning a few games in a row even though they aren't that good. see: giants, ny football.


I was more referring to the short series than the 16 team playoffs, which I agree are silly. A 7 game series has a better chance of the better team winning than a shorter series. Of course a 7 game series doesn't make sense for the wild care teams because everyone else is stuck sitting around for a week, but even the LDS is only 5 games.
 
2012-10-05 02:04:46 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: The same could be said for a 5 game series or even a 7 game series, really. Except for the college team part, most likely.

Anyways, this is why I think baseball needs to get its own version of the President's Trophy in the NHL. Washington deserves some kind of recognition for being the best team over a 162 game season. Instead, all we'll remember about this year is that the Cardinals once again half-assed their way into the playoffs, got hot for a couple of weeks, and became "champions" again. Puke.


The President's Trophy means fark-all. Who won the cup last year? An 8 seed. Playoffs are fun because once you're in, you've got as equal a chance of winning as a team who won forty more games than you did.
 
2012-10-05 02:04:59 PM

LemSkroob: The only bad part about it is, it protects teams with a weak rotation.

Team A has these pitchers: A+, B+, B-, C+

Team B has these pitchers: A-, A-, B+, B

In a traditional series, Team B has the edge, but in a 1-game, Team A, with a weaker group, now gets an advantage. Team B also likely had a better record in the season, but that doesn't matter not either.


Sure, it might have made for an exciting game, but now likely at the cost of the next round. There is a domino effect. Instead of the League winner (lets call it Team C) playing a tough team B in a series, they now face team A. But since team A just used their ace to beat team B in the 1-game, Team C is now more than happy to face the bottom half of the rotation for the first several games, and walks into the league finals.

its a lot to give up on later just for playing game #163


This is pretty much why I'd still prefer to see longer series. Baseball is largely an individual sport, but over multiple games team strength is emphasized. A one-game playoff makes it all come down to that A+ pitcher and his A- opponent. Why can't they let the wildcard play-in be best of 5 (or at least best of 3)? Division winners would still have a first-round bye, which is plenty of incentive.
 
2012-10-05 02:05:52 PM

jake_lex: Then if you don't want your season to come down to a one game crapshoot, win the damn division.

That's what I like about this new system: the division matters again.


bearsrepeating.jpg
 
2012-10-05 02:10:23 PM
Yanks_RSJ: The Bestest: No one likes the 2-3 format, but as mentioned, it's just a one-time farkup.

An unnecessary and potentially costly one that I'm not willing to excuse. The team with homefield advantage should be guaranteed to play at least twice at home in a five game series. Period.


Yankee fans spent weeks biatching about the missed Texeira call at first. Now you're biatching about the playoff series format? FFS, stop it. As mentioned, if you're the best team, you should be able to split a road-series and then win a series at home without the world crashing in.
 
2012-10-05 02:10:28 PM

Richard Sauce: Should be at least a 3 game series. But one & done is pretty exciting, I can't deny that.



To each their own.  I'm not all that excited for today's two one-and-done games.  I mean, I love playoff baseball, and will watch most likely (I no longer have a horse in the race).  But it just doesn't feel right.  Those game 163's we had for like 3 straight years were exciting as hell.  But something just feels unfair about this one game WC thing.
 
It should be best of 3.  Baseball isn't and never has been a "one game" sport.
 
2012-10-05 02:12:14 PM

hulk hogan meat shoes: The President's Trophy means fark-all. Who won the cup last year? An 8 seed. Playoffs are fun because once you're in, you've got as equal a chance of winning as a team who won forty more games than you did.


and that ladies and gentlemen is my whole farking point. due to playoffs we actually mock and deride teams the do well in the regular season, but fail to win in a the playoffs. meanwhile we praise the winners of a small tournament the great team in the land. why not praise both? the premier league champion is the winner of the regular season, but there is also the fa cup which is a knockout tournament. both are valued. as it should be.
 
2012-10-05 02:13:15 PM

jake_lex:

That's what I like about this new system: the division matters again.


3 teams from each league make the playoffs. Best record gets a bye. other two division winners play each other.

Now, not only does winning the division matter (only way into the playoffs), but so does winning the league (getting a 1st round pass). everything is important!


But of course this will never happen again because it keeps owner from shoving money in their pockets.
 
2012-10-05 02:14:46 PM

downstairs: Richard Sauce: Should be at least a 3 game series. But one & done is pretty exciting, I can't deny that.


To each their own.  I'm not all that excited for today's two one-and-done games.  I mean, I love playoff baseball, and will watch most likely (I no longer have a horse in the race).  But it just doesn't feel right.  Those game 163's we had for like 3 straight years were exciting as hell.  But something just feels unfair about this one game WC thing.
 
It should be best of 3.  Baseball isn't and never has been a "one game" sport.


Unfair to whom? Teams that didn't win their division? Cry me a river.
 
2012-10-05 02:18:08 PM
I don't like this wild-card playoff game much, but it isn't awful. I just hope the Braves can win something, anything in the playoffs.
 
2012-10-05 02:18:22 PM

RumsfeldsReplacement: downstairs: Richard Sauce: Should be at least a 3 game series. But one & done is pretty exciting, I can't deny that.


To each their own.  I'm not all that excited for today's two one-and-done games.  I mean, I love playoff baseball, and will watch most likely (I no longer have a horse in the race).  But it just doesn't feel right.  Those game 163's we had for like 3 straight years were exciting as hell.  But something just feels unfair about this one game WC thing.
 
It should be best of 3.  Baseball isn't and never has been a "one game" sport.

Unfair to whom? Teams that didn't win their division? Cry me a river.


I'm on your side essentially.  However forcing them into a best of three still makes winning the division a huge deal.
 
 
2012-10-05 02:18:30 PM
It's either a 1, 3, or 5 game series to determine the wild card. 5 would be ridiculous- the World Series wouldn't end until mid November. 3 is silly because you have the top seed waiting a week to play (also a critique of a 5 game series) and we all know how fans like to blame a poor first round performance on "too much time off." So it's 1. What's the other league that plays a one game "series?" The NFL. Last I checked, they do just fine.
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report