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
 
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.
 
2012-10-05 02:20:52 PM

A Fark Handle: 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.


...hard to argue. It's a little different in European soccer since every team has the same exact schedule (home-and-home against everyone else), while in American sports that's not going to ever be the case. But I do agree that we shouldn't be mocking the team that played the best during the regular season just because they came up short in playoffs.
 
2012-10-05 02:21:11 PM

Yanks_RSJ: 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.


See, this is why the Boston Red Sox tanked this season; a selfless act of defiance against an unfair system for this year.
 
2012-10-05 02:21:19 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.


I chose yours to respond to, but all y'all calling for a 3-game playoff should read.

A 3-game postseason series will take 6-7 days:
Sunday: possible travel day
Monday: Game 1 (home)
Tuesday: travel day
Wednesday: Game 2 (away)
Thursday: travel day
Friday: Game 3 (home)
Saturday: possible travel day (before the *LDS)

If the teams are geographically close (NYY/BAL, LAD/SD, that kind of thing), I don't think they'd get a travel day, but it wouldn't be 3 days/3 games.

Instead, a 2-game home-and-home decided by aggregate runs. Introduce a little...anarchy, and don't take a week to do it.
 
2012-10-05 02:23:20 PM
The moral is win your division or suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Wildcard rules.
 
2012-10-05 02:24:44 PM

FreakinB: A Fark Handle: 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.

...hard to argue. It's a little different in European soccer since every team has the same exact schedule (home-and-home against everyone else), while in American sports that's not going to ever be the case. But I do agree that we shouldn't be mocking the team that played the best during the regular season just because they came up short in playoffs.


No, it's totally valid to mock a team that dominated in the season (the 06 Wings) yet shiat the bed in the playoffs (lost in six to Edmonton.) I'm a Wings fan and I mock that team.
 
2012-10-05 02:26:24 PM
Baseball doesn't lend itself to giving teams a week off, that biggest reason a longer series isn't a good idea is that the teams sitting would end up at a disadvantage. Teams are used to playing almost every day. While well rested pitching can be a good thing, usually. (sinkerballers can suffer from too much rest) hitters can easily have their timing thrown off.
 
2012-10-05 02:28:05 PM
Isn't MLB going to non-division play with year round interleague next year? Wouldn't that open up the possibility for 3 teams from the same division to make the playoffs? (sounds dumb, but a serious question to the point of 'make division matter')

I'm all for another team in the postseason mix, but nobody should be able to sit there and say that a 1 game playoff is in anyway fair. Those are tie breakers, if you play out 162 games and end up tied, then you have a 1 game tiebreaker.

Note that it's not because they 'beat' the other team that they go on to the post season, its the fact that they have a better overall record (say 101-62 v 100-63).

The Cardinals are 6 (six) games behind the Braves, in what way have they earned the right to play in a tiebreaker? Make it a full series.

This is baseball, the entire premiss of a 162 game season, broken up into series, is that a single game does not determine a true winner. 

/division should matter, just super curious
 
2012-10-05 02:30:01 PM

el_pilgrim: nobody should be able to sit there and say that a 1 game playoff is in anyway fair.


Life ain't fair, son.

The Tigers are in the playoffs despite being the 7th-best team and facing the easiest schedule of everyone in their league. Sometimes sh*t just happens.
 
2012-10-05 02:34:12 PM
Make the whole thing one and done, get the playoffs finished before the snow flies!
 
2012-10-05 02:34:27 PM

FreakinB: ...hard to argue. It's a little different in European soccer since every team has the same exact schedule (home-and-home against everyone else), while in American sports that's not going to ever be the case. But I do agree that we shouldn't be mocking the team that played the best during the regular season just because they came up short in playoffs.


it's not my fault that baseball stupidly decided to unbalance their schedule just so espn could televise 72 sox/yanks game. baseball has a huge regular season. everyone could play the same schedule and then the winner declared the best, but oh wait, that's what they used to do. and unfortunately that doesn't generate playoff baseball to that can be sold to the networks for piles of cash. and since this is america, if it doesn't print money, it's not a valid method to determine a championship.
 
2012-10-05 02:34:41 PM

IAmRight: 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).


I think the stupid part is the 162 games and not the 7 game series.
 
2012-10-05 02:34:44 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.


We've had this thread. You have the same probability of winning the series in each format. The only difference is that a three game sweep by the higher seed is something like 2% less likely.
 
2012-10-05 02:34:48 PM

Daniels: 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.


So I'm not allowed to point out an asinine format because I'm a Yankees fan? Get farked, it's asinine for the Nationals too. The teams that have the best records shouldn't be sitting around waiting to find out who they play THEN have to board a plane to play two games on the road. At least the A's and Reds knew on Wednesday who they'd be playing, so they could travel Thursday and have a regular workout on Friday. The Yankees and Nationals do not have even that luxury. The Yankees won't find out their opponent until midnight tonight. Quite a reward for having the AL's best record.

I'm sorry that your life as a baseball fan is miserable, but that doesn't mean that I'm not perfectly justified in stating the obvious about this year's playoff format. It's ridiculous.
 
2012-10-05 02:37:00 PM

LemSkroob: 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.


Having a bye could be a disadvantage, too. Ballplayers like their routine.
 
2012-10-05 02:37:23 PM
For the record, if I'm the Yankees and have a bottomless pit of money, I board a charter at 9pm, fly southwest towards Dallas and circle until the game is over. If the Rangers win, they land. If it's the O's, they head to Baltimore and at least they're on the ground before the Orioles are home.
 
2012-10-05 02:38:16 PM

hulk hogan meat shoes: No, it's totally valid to mock a team that dominated in the season (the 06 Wings) yet shiat the bed in the playoffs (lost in six to Edmonton.) I'm a Wings fan and I mock that team.


no it's not. it's only because you value the small tournament more. if you wanted to determine which team was the best you would value the large sample. let's not pretend random chance doesn't influence the outcome of games, it's a lot harder for a lucky team to remain lucky over the course of the season (well, except baltimore apparently) than it is for a lesser team to win a 7 game series due to some lucky breaks. this is where you tell me, you make your own luck.
 
2012-10-05 02:39:56 PM

el_pilgrim: Isn't MLB going to non-division play with year round interleague next year? Wouldn't that open up the possibility for 3 teams from the same division to make the playoffs? (sounds dumb, but a serious question to the point of 'make division matter')


I'm pretty sure its still divisional, the Astros are moving from the NL Central to the AL West. Each team will play 76 division games, 20 interleague and 66 non-divisional games. The reason interleague goes all year is with an odd number of teams in each league it has to since MLB doesn't want off days from Friday-Sunday.
 
2012-10-05 02:40:46 PM

el_pilgrim: The Cardinals are 6 (six) games behind the Braves, in what way have they earned the right to play in a tiebreaker?


It's fair because that's how the rules were at the start of the season. The Cardinals earned their way into the wild card by having a better record than all other the other non-division winners except the Braves. That's a pretty good accomplishment over a 162 game season.

At any rate, a single game wild card play off is all the calendar can handle. The other teams enjoy the couple days off and get rested. Expand the playoffs any more and we'll be well into November before the World Series concludes. No one wants snow on the ground at the ballpark.
 
2012-10-05 02:40:47 PM

MugzyBrown: I think the stupid part is the 162 games and not the 7 game series.


You and I both. If you want something fair, then play 174 games. No playoffs. Every team plays a three-game series at home and one away against every team in MLB.

Every roster gets 9 players. Every player has to play every position for one inning per game. Yes, including pitcher.

Now THERE'S an even f*cking playing field.
 
2012-10-05 02:42:27 PM
Oh. And 2+ teams end up at the same record after game 174? Co-champions. They're equally as good. I don't need some horsesh*t tournament so I can pretend one was better than the other.
 
2012-10-05 02:44:44 PM
You know what's even more fun to argue about? The designated hitter!
 
2012-10-05 02:48:06 PM
Call me the odd man out, but I don't like it for mainly one reason. You have a wild card team (Braves) who had a much better record than the next best team (Cards) Why should the Cards have that chance for not doing nearly as well throughout he whole season? Atlanta's record was like 8 games better than the Cards. In the AL, I can see it because it was close at the end and two wild cards teams could be said to equally deserve that shot. But in the NL, when the next wild card team is nowhere close, I don't understand it.

And to have it all come down to one game. As in the article, anything could happen. You could take the team with the best record in the league and the worst record in the league and the worst record team could still win with one lucky game. How is that fair?

/Not a Braves fan
//Sadly, a Cubs fan
 
2012-10-05 02:49:23 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?


Interesting point. I would counterargue (though I'm not sure how strongly) that baseball is a game of (among many other things) The Long Haul, and making the final two most important series More Long and Longest adds to that element.

FreakinB: players getting healthy (Giants)


Are you talking 2010 Giants? ISTR that they were actually among the least-injured that year, and it was a huge feather in the cap of the training and medical staff. If you mean this year, yeah, it's been weird, but other than Buster, is it a case of getting healthier and healthier through the season? Given that Melky was booted and new guys came in and contributed, I'm not sure?

Dr Dreidel: Instead, a 2-game home-and-home decided by aggregate runs.


< notsureiftrollingorstupid.jpg >

el_pilgrim: year round interleague


Yet Another Monumentally Bad Decision. In addition to taking some of the drama out of the World Series, now the real teams have to play the Ladies' Leaguers more frequently. Booo! But, hey, the Dodgers can play the Angels and the Giants can play the A's! Oh, wait, no, still don't care.

Yanks_RSJ: The teams that have the best records shouldn't be sitting around waiting to find out who they play THEN have to board a plane to play two games on the road.


In theory, totally agree. Then again, I'm not entirely sure how much overall season record should really play in seeding -- Wow! You got to beat up on the Astros and the Cubs! You're *definitely* the best team in the NL! The Jays and the Red Sox were regular stops? You deserve special treatment!
 
2012-10-05 02:50:48 PM

SFSailor: Yet Another Monumentally Bad Decision. In addition to taking some of the drama out of the World Series, now the real teams have to play the Ladies' Leaguers more frequently. Booo! But, hey, the Dodgers can play the Angels and the Giants can play the A's! Oh, wait, no, still don't care.


Interleague was the worst idea ever.
 
2012-10-05 02:51:01 PM
If we were truly interested purely in finding out the single best team, we'd abolish both leagues and throw all 30 into a single league table, without even so much as a World Series.

We're not here to find purely the best team. We're here to have fun.
 
2012-10-05 02:52:15 PM

SFSailor: FreakinB: players getting healthy (Giants)

Are you talking 2010 Giants? ISTR that they were actually among the least-injured that year, and it was a huge feather in the cap of the training and medical staff. If you mean this year, yeah, it's been weird, but other than Buster, is it a case of getting healthier and healthier through the season? Given that Melky was booted and new guys came in and contributed, I'm not sure?


Wrong Giants.
 
2012-10-05 02:52:19 PM

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


Especially for Washington, whose series begins tomorrow and they don't even know where they n eed to go to play. I have had people claim that isn't a big deal and with Atlanta and St Louis not being that far away from DC in this case it probably isn't...But what if it was New York not knowing if they needed to fly to Anaheim or Tampa Bay? Then having to go out after the game tonight and get your plane to the city you start your series tomorrow in?
 
2012-10-05 02:54:41 PM

Sugarmoobs: Call me the odd man out, but I don't like it for mainly one reason. You have a wild card team (Braves) who had a much better record than the next best team (Cards) Why should the Cards have that chance for not doing nearly as well throughout he whole season?


The same could be said for all playoffs. The Nationals had the best record in baseball. Why should another team have the chance despite not doing as well as them in the regular season? If you don't like that example because they were only one game ahead of the next team, my Mariners won 116 games in the regular season in 2001. Why should any team have been allowed to play them?
 
2012-10-05 02:56:58 PM

Gosling: If we were truly interested purely in finding out the single best team, we'd abolish both leagues and throw all 30 into a single league table, without even so much as a World Series.

We're not here to find purely the best team. We're here to have fun.


I dunno, my ironman version of baseball seemed more fun.
 
2012-10-05 02:57:10 PM

srhp29: kronicfeld: Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogus.

Especially for Washington, whose series begins tomorrow and they don't even know where they n eed to go to play. I have had people claim that isn't a big deal and with Atlanta and St Louis not being that far away from DC in this case it probably isn't...But what if it was New York not knowing if they needed to fly to Anaheim or Tampa Bay? Then having to go out after the game tonight and get your plane to the city you start your series tomorrow in?


Well I'm a Yankee fan, so I'm not allowed to complain about anything ever (apparently), even idiotic formats such as this, but you're 100% correct.

And your hypothetical for New York isn't far off. If the Rangers had won on Wednesday, the Yankees would either be playing in Oakland or Baltimore. If it was Oakland, it's a 5 hour flight while the A's sleep soundly in their own beds.
 
2012-10-05 02:59:23 PM

SFSailor: 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.


It's exactly what Oakland did. They didn't want it to come down to the 163rd game, so they took the division in 162. cut it goddamn close, but they took the AL West away from Texas.
 
2012-10-05 02:59:30 PM

IAmRight: Sugarmoobs: Call me the odd man out, but I don't like it for mainly one reason. You have a wild card team (Braves) who had a much better record than the next best team (Cards) Why should the Cards have that chance for not doing nearly as well throughout he whole season?

The same could be said for all playoffs. The Nationals had the best record in baseball. Why should another team have the chance despite not doing as well as them in the regular season? If you don't like that example because they were only one game ahead of the next team, my Mariners won 116 games in the regular season in 2001. Why should any team have been allowed to play them?


Wait the "best" team doesn't always come out on top in a playoff series? Even a seven game series only mitigates the luck factor.

/Didn't the Phillies win the World Series last year? Oh that's right.
 
2012-10-05 03:01:21 PM

Yanks_RSJ: And your hypothetical for New York isn't far off. If the Rangers had won on Wednesday, the Yankees would either be playing in Oakland or Baltimore. If it was Oakland, it's a 5 hour flight while the A's sleep soundly in their own beds.


I like the idea of "league winner gets to pick who they play in the first round" - you could pick whether you wanted to face the wild card winner (team probably just used their ace) or you could choose the worst division winner (also the team with the worst record of any playoff team) and hop the flight early and be more ready.

/I think this should happen in the NBA and NHL, too - top seeds get to pick their opponent rather than trying to do it via losing games to maneuver into the proper position
 
2012-10-05 03:03:09 PM

roc6783: 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.


I'm guessing schedule compression had something to do with the format we got. They're at the point where they're using pretty much every usable day for baseball on the calendar- like if they stretched it any further, they'd risk being snowed in for the winter and trying to play Game 7 of the World Series in 8 inches of piled-up snow in 16-degree weather in Boston or Denver or Minnesota or wherever and trying to figure out how the hell you're going to end this damned season in an orderly fashion. The only way you expand the schedule any further than you've got it is to start scheduling doubleheaders again.
 
2012-10-05 03:05:54 PM

Yanks_RSJ: srhp29: kronicfeld: Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogus.

Especially for Washington, whose series begins tomorrow and they don't even know where they n eed to go to play. I have had people claim that isn't a big deal and with Atlanta and St Louis not being that far away from DC in this case it probably isn't...But what if it was New York not knowing if they needed to fly to Anaheim or Tampa Bay? Then having to go out after the game tonight and get your plane to the city you start your series tomorrow in?

Well I'm a Yankee fan, so I'm not allowed to complain about anything ever (apparently), even idiotic formats such as this, but you're 100% correct.


Not 100% correct. DC doesn't play until Sunday.

If the Nats had to play in Atl or Stl tomorrow, THAT would be complete shiat.

The whole thing is a tough nut to crack. At least the top seed gets to face a somewhat depleted rotation. At least one top starter, maybe even more depending on how the WC games play out. Atlanta has Hudson and Minor on their wildcard roster. You might have the winning wildcard teams expending two starters just to win today. You never know, but it's going to be crazy.
 
2012-10-05 03:18:30 PM

SFSailor: Dr Dreidel: Instead, a 2-game home-and-home decided by aggregate runs.

< notsureiftrollingorstupid.jpg >


Could be both. Just throwing the idea out to see what "the people" think.

// that's a data point, thanks!
 
2012-10-05 03:18:56 PM

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


Or win the wild card, like the Braves did. The tie-breaker game for the Rangers & Orioles is perfectly reasonable.
 
2012-10-05 03:19:18 PM

Dumb-Ass-Monkey: SFSailor: 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.

It's exactly what Oakland did. They didn't want it to come down to the 163rd game, so they took the division in 162. cut it goddamn close, but they took the AL West away from Texas.


Rangers fan, and you are absolutely right. They outplayed us, period. Kudos to your and your team.
 
2012-10-05 03:29:06 PM
As much as I love to rag on Selig, I have to give him credit for changing the playoff format. I have also suggested that MLB shorten the season and expand the playoffs, but this is a good compromise.
 
2012-10-05 03:34:47 PM

Dr Dreidel: I chose yours to respond to, but all y'all calling for a 3-game playoff should read.

A 3-game postseason series will take 6-7 days:
Sunday: possible travel day
Monday: Game 1 (home)
Tuesday: travel day
Wednesday: Game 2 (away)
Thursday: travel day
Friday: Game 3 (home)
Saturday: possible travel day (before the *LDS)

If the teams are geographically close (NYY/BAL, LAD/SD, that kind of thing), I don't think they'd get a travel day, but it wouldn't be 3 days/3 games.

Instead, a 2-game home-and-home decided by aggregate runs. Introduce a little...anarchy, and don't take a week to do it.



First of all, it should be (for the higher seed)--- away, home, home.
 
No travel days between game 1 and 2.  Baseball doesn't *need* travel days.  Its a benefit for those who make the playoffs, so heck, this makes not winning your division even more desirable.
 
So I've added only 2 extra days to the whole thing.
 
Also, why not tighten up the division series (when it goes back to 2-2-1)... no travel day between games 2 and 3.  I mean, baseball teams can play up to 20 days in a row in the regular season.  Ain't going to hurt them.
 
2012-10-05 03:38:44 PM

Gosling: If we were truly interested purely in finding out the single best team, we'd abolish both leagues and throw all 30 into a single league table, without even so much as a World Series.

We're not here to find purely the best team. We're here to have fun.


How is this more legit than a tourney format?

There is no perfect way to determine a champion, so you look for the way that generates the most money and interest.
 
2012-10-05 03:45:47 PM

lunchinlewis: Yanks_RSJ: srhp29: kronicfeld: Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogus.

Especially for Washington, whose series begins tomorrow and they don't even know where they n eed to go to play. I have had people claim that isn't a big deal and with Atlanta and St Louis not being that far away from DC in this case it probably isn't...But what if it was New York not knowing if they needed to fly to Anaheim or Tampa Bay? Then having to go out after the game tonight and get your plane to the city you start your series tomorrow in?

Well I'm a Yankee fan, so I'm not allowed to complain about anything ever (apparently), even idiotic formats such as this, but you're 100% correct.

Not 100% correct. DC doesn't play until Sunday.

If the Nats had to play in Atl or Stl tomorrow, THAT would be complete shiat.

The whole thing is a tough nut to crack. At least the top seed gets to face a somewhat depleted rotation. At least one top starter, maybe even more depending on how the WC games play out. Atlanta has Hudson and Minor on their wildcard roster. You might have the winning wildcard teams expending two starters just to win today. You never know, but it's going to be crazy.


Ah I could have sworn originally at least one of the wild card game winners had to play the next day. It appears either it never was set up that way or they changed it because they realized how dumb it was. If there is a full travel day in there, it isn't really concerning.
 
2012-10-05 03:46:29 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.


Excellent point, sir
 
2012-10-05 03:49:51 PM

srhp29: kronicfeld: Whatever you think of the wildcard, the #1 seed going on the road to start is bogus.

Especially for Washington, whose series begins tomorrow and they don't even know where they n eed to go to play. I have had people claim that isn't a big deal and with Atlanta and St Louis not being that far away from DC in this case it probably isn't...But what if it was New York not knowing if they needed to fly to Anaheim or Tampa Bay? Then having to go out after the game tonight and get your plane to the city you start your series tomorrow in?


Yankees are in the same boat. They don't know whether they have to go to Baltimore, MD or Arlington, TX. In fact, the Nationals will know where they are headed before the Yankees know where they have to go.

/Not a Yankees fan
//Nats fan
 
2012-10-05 03:55:59 PM
The same folks who had tantrums over sudden death in NFL games and who brought shootouts to the NHL will go apeshiat over this too and come up with something even wronger to fix it. It wont surprise me a bit when they eventually decide that if a team doesnt winn the game by five runs they keep the game score and add to it the next day using a home run derby to determine the winner. There os a vast retarded sports fanbase out there who just love tinkering with rules and dont give a shiat what they fark up with their "improvements"
 
2012-10-05 04:02:11 PM

mikaloyd: The same folks who had tantrums over sudden death in NFL games and who brought shootouts to the NHL will go apeshiat over this too and come up with something even wronger to fix it. It wont surprise me a bit when they eventually decide that if a team doesnt winn the game by five runs they keep the game score and add to it the next day using a home run derby to determine the winner. There os a vast retarded sports fanbase out there who just love tinkering with rules and dont give a shiat what they fark up with their "improvements"


You are correct, sir.
 
2012-10-05 04:04:33 PM

mikaloyd: The same folks who had tantrums over sudden death in NFL games and who brought shootouts to the NHL will go apeshiat over this too and come up with something even wronger to fix it. It wont surprise me a bit when they eventually decide that if a team doesnt winn the game by five runs they keep the game score and add to it the next day using a home run derby to determine the winner. There os a vast retarded sports fanbase out there who just love tinkering with rules and dont give a shiat what they fark up with their "improvements"


Sounds like congress
 
2012-10-05 04:06:29 PM

mikaloyd: The same folks who had tantrums over sudden death in NFL games and who brought shootouts to the NHL will go apeshiat over this too and come up with something even wronger to fix it. It wont surprise me a bit when they eventually decide that if a team doesnt winn the game by five runs they keep the game score and add to it the next day using a home run derby to determine the winner. There os a vast retarded sports fanbase out there who just love tinkering with rules and dont give a shiat what they fark up with their "improvements"


As long as everyone starts from the same point, can reach the same end point by equal means, and everything is settled on the field, ultimately you can't screw it up too badly.
 
2012-10-05 04:08:20 PM

Dr Dreidel: 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.

I chose yours to respond to, but all y'all calling for a 3-game playoff should read.

A 3-game postseason series will take 6-7 days:
Sunday: possible travel day
Monday: Game 1 (home)
Tuesday: travel day
Wednesday: Game 2 (away)
Thursday: travel day
Friday: Game 3 (home)
Saturday: possible travel day (before the *LDS)

If the teams are geographically close (NYY/BAL, LAD/SD, that kind of thing), I don't think they'd get a travel day, but it wouldn't be 3 days/3 games.

Instead, a 2-game home-and-home decided by aggregate runs. Introduce a little...anarchy, and don't take a week to do it.


An aggregate in baseball would be very strange. Could lead to a home team playing the bottom of the ninth while already having won that game
 
2012-10-05 04:12:32 PM
They should go:

Wild Card: Best of 3
Division Series: Best of 5
Championship series: Best of 7

Make the wild card round more than a one game test.

Even though the strategy involved in your Wild Card roster is interesting, as you don't need as many pitchers, and can get super specialized, because its a seperate round.
 
2012-10-05 04:18:51 PM
What a stupid farking idea! Go Braves!
 
2012-10-05 04:26:09 PM
Yanks_RSJ: So I'm not allowed to point out an asinine format because I'm a Yankees fan? Get farked, it's asinine for the Nationals too. The teams that have the best records shouldn't be sitting around waiting to find out who they play THEN have to board a plane to play two games on the road. At least the A's and Reds knew on Wednesday who they'd be playing, so they could travel Thursday and have a regular workout on Friday. The Yankees and Nationals do not have even that luxury. The Yankees won't find out their opponent until midnight tonight. Quite a reward for having the AL's best record.

I'm sorry that your life as a baseball fan is miserable, but that doesn't mean that I'm not perfectly justified in stating the obvious about this year's playoff format. It's ridiculous.


You're allowed to point it out, and I'm allowed to say get over it. Win baseball games and stop crying over every perceived injustice. You know what would suck more? Winning 95 games and having it come down to a one game playoff against an 85 win team. You know what else sucks more? Not having your best starter available until game 3 on the road and potentially not having your best relievers available until game 2. Those things are probably as bad as the injustice of having to board a private chartered flight at midnight.
 
2012-10-05 04:30:09 PM

Daniels: Yanks_RSJ: So I'm not allowed to point out an asinine format because I'm a Yankees fan? Get farked, it's asinine for the Nationals too. The teams that have the best records shouldn't be sitting around waiting to find out who they play THEN have to board a plane to play two games on the road. At least the A's and Reds knew on Wednesday who they'd be playing, so they could travel Thursday and have a regular workout on Friday. The Yankees and Nationals do not have even that luxury. The Yankees won't find out their opponent until midnight tonight. Quite a reward for having the AL's best record.

I'm sorry that your life as a baseball fan is miserable, but that doesn't mean that I'm not perfectly justified in stating the obvious about this year's playoff format. It's ridiculous.

You're allowed to point it out, and I'm allowed to say get over it. Win baseball games and stop crying over every perceived injustice. You know what would suck more? Winning 95 games and having it come down to a one game playoff against an 85 win team. You know what else sucks more? Not having your best starter available until game 3 on the road and potentially not having your best relievers available until game 2. Those things are probably as bad as the injustice of having to board a private chartered flight at midnight.


That's why you start your number 3 in the wild card game.
 
2012-10-05 04:34:29 PM
If you have to have the wild card then 2 is better than 1, in my opinion.

The one change I would make is that the wild card game winner shouldn't vet to reset their 25 man roster before the next round.
 
2012-10-05 04:36:08 PM

professorkowalski: That's why you start your number 3 in the wild card game.


You can do that, but you better be ready with the quickest hook you've ever had. If you get away with it you're a lucky genius, if he takes the loss, you might be in the soup line on Monday.
 
2012-10-05 04:36:37 PM

Daniels: Yanks_RSJ: So I'm not allowed to point out an asinine format because I'm a Yankees fan? Get farked, it's asinine for the Nationals too. The teams that have the best records shouldn't be sitting around waiting to find out who they play THEN have to board a plane to play two games on the road. At least the A's and Reds knew on Wednesday who they'd be playing, so they could travel Thursday and have a regular workout on Friday. The Yankees and Nationals do not have even that luxury. The Yankees won't find out their opponent until midnight tonight. Quite a reward for having the AL's best record.

I'm sorry that your life as a baseball fan is miserable, but that doesn't mean that I'm not perfectly justified in stating the obvious about this year's playoff format. It's ridiculous.

You're allowed to point it out, and I'm allowed to say get over it. Win baseball games and stop crying over every perceived injustice. You know what would suck more? Winning 95 games and having it come down to a one game playoff against an 85 win team. You know what else sucks more? Not having your best starter available until game 3 on the road and potentially not having your best relievers available until game 2. Those things are probably as bad as the injustice of having to board a private chartered flight at midnight.


You don't want to have to use your best starter and potentially use your best relievers in the wild card game? Win your division. The division winners SHOULD have fewer injustices than the wild card teams. It should suck more for the wild card teams than the division winners, especially the #1 seeds in each league.
 
2012-10-05 04:36:57 PM

Daniels: You're allowed to point it out, and I'm allowed to say get over it.


It's funny that you've chosen that address only my very legitimate and obvious concerns and not those expressed by Nationals fans, or impartial observers. What a completely stunning development.

I don't deny that their are clear disadvantages to the Wild Card participants, my point is only that there should be ZERO disadvantages for the team that claims the league's best record, especially in relation to the other division winners who at least know their opponent and are able to travel and arrive in time to have a customary workout. But I know you can't look at things rationally when it comes to the Yankees, so I accept that.
 
2012-10-05 04:40:49 PM

lunchinlewis: professorkowalski: That's why you start your number 3 in the wild card game.

You can do that, but you better be ready with the quickest hook you've ever had. If you get away with it you're a lucky genius, if he takes the loss, you might be in the soup line on Monday.


You carry your 2 and 3 starters. Start 3. If, you have to give him a quick hook, you pitch your number 2 starter out of the 'pen.

You carry nine pitchers, maybe.

Give's you extra bats off the bench, and guys that are specialized defensive replacements and speed guys, and power hitters off the bench.

Showalter was talking about it the other day.

Brilliant plan, if it works.
 
2012-10-05 04:42:46 PM

bacongood: If you have to have the wild card then 2 is better than 1, in my opinion.

The one change I would make is that the wild card game winner shouldn't vet to reset their 25 man roster before the next round.


Like I said a few posts ago, that's why I love this round, just for how the rosters are gonna be set up.
 
2012-10-05 04:49:59 PM

professorkowalski: You carry your 2 and 3 starters. Start 3. If, you have to give him a quick hook, you pitch your number 2 starter out of the 'pen.

You carry nine pitchers, maybe.

Give's you extra bats off the bench, and guys that are specialized defensive replacements and speed guys, and power hitters off the bench.

Showalter was talking about it the other day.

Brilliant plan, if it works.



I think that's just Buck admitting that if he can't lead with his best starters against New York then Baltimore loses that series.
 
2012-10-05 04:53:20 PM

lunchinlewis: professorkowalski: You carry your 2 and 3 starters. Start 3. If, you have to give him a quick hook, you pitch your number 2 starter out of the 'pen.

You carry nine pitchers, maybe.

Give's you extra bats off the bench, and guys that are specialized defensive replacements and speed guys, and power hitters off the bench.

Showalter was talking about it the other day.

Brilliant plan, if it works.


I think that's just Buck admitting that if he can't lead with his best starters against New York then Baltimore loses that series.


Maybe. I like the idea of doing it.

You could also carry your 1 and 3. Start the 3. If that works you have 1 and 2 to start both road games.
 
2012-10-05 04:55:05 PM

LemSkroob: 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.


One of the best parts of the thing. The best team in the League gets a significant advantage. Perfect.

As for a college team beating an MLB team, the odds of that happening would be extremely long in a real game situation. The one the O's lost this spring, they gave the opponents professional pitchers (including on of the top players in the Japan League) and had their stars on short days or not playing.
 
2012-10-05 04:59:08 PM
I can't farkING believe I just saw the Guacamole ad.

Is this year 5?
 
2012-10-05 05:01:55 PM

professorkowalski: You could also carry your 1 and 3. Start the 3. If that works you have 1 and 2 to start both road games.


Well look at Atlanta. They're starting their 1, but put their 2 and 3 on today's roster. Even with that bullpen they have.
 
2012-10-05 05:13:01 PM

Yanks_RSJ: Daniels: You're allowed to point it out, and I'm allowed to say get over it.

It's funny that you've chosen that address only my very legitimate and obvious concerns and not those expressed by Nationals fans, or impartial observers. What a completely stunning development.

I don't deny that their are clear disadvantages to the Wild Card participants, my point is only that there should be ZERO disadvantages for the team that claims the league's best record, especially in relation to the other division winners who at least know their opponent and are able to travel and arrive in time to have a customary workout. But I know you can't look at things rationally when it comes to the Yankees, so I accept that.


I agree, the Wild Card game should not have been shoehorned into the 2012 season without media approval of scheduling adjustments. For 2013, this problem is largely resolved.


professorkowalski: That's why you start your number 3 in the wild card game.


It's a huge risk, especially if the opposition starts their ace. And the best move will be highly situational, depending on the relative ability of your starters and who you play. But if you take the risk and win, you deserve to get rewarded with your ace in game 1. Even if you keep your #1/2 to come in if he is needed, you are probably going to playing from behind and your #1/2 may well be off his game coming off the bench rather than starting. And you still face the risk of burning your bullpen.
 
2012-10-05 05:20:47 PM

downstairs: Dr Dreidel: I chose yours to respond to, but all y'all calling for a 3-game playoff should read.

A 3-game postseason series will take 6-7 days:
Sunday: possible travel day
Monday: Game 1 (home)
Tuesday: travel day
Wednesday: Game 2 (away)
Thursday: travel day
Friday: Game 3 (home)
Saturday: possible travel day (before the *LDS)

If the teams are geographically close (NYY/BAL, LAD/SD, that kind of thing), I don't think they'd get a travel day, but it wouldn't be 3 days/3 games.

Instead, a 2-game home-and-home decided by aggregate runs. Introduce a little...anarchy, and don't take a week to do it.


First of all, it should be (for the higher seed)--- away, home, home.
 
No travel days between game 1 and 2.  Baseball doesn't *need* travel days.  Its a benefit for those who make the playoffs, so heck, this makes not winning your division even more desirable.
 
So I've added only 2 extra days to the whole thing.
 
Also, why not tighten up the division series (when it goes back to 2-2-1)... no travel day between games 2 and 3.  I mean, baseball teams can play up to 20 days in a row in the regular season.  Ain't going to hurt them.


If it went A-H-H, you'd only lose one day off my timeline (making the *LWS 5-6 days instead of 6-7). And no, the teams will always want travel days - losing 3 straight in the regular season just means you've got to pick yourself up and move on. In the postseason, you have no such luxury. Travel days are important - besides which, wouldn't you rather see both teams at their rested best rather than jetlagged?

I appreciate you wanting to speed up the series, but that's not the way to do it.

// and I know aggregate scores has never been a part of American sports (MLS?)
// that's why it's just potato enough to work
 
2012-10-05 05:22:13 PM
Yanks_RSJ: But I know you can't look at things rationally when it comes to the Yankees, so I accept that.

Untrue. The Mets are dead to me until the Wilpons are no longer involved. Whomever David Wright's next team is will be my new team.

I get that the travel thing is dumb. I still don't think it's enough of a disadvantage to outweigh what is the (rightfully) huge disadvantage the wildcard team has to play through.
 
Al!
2012-10-05 05:27:17 PM
My suggestion? Have it come down to the winner of a 161 game series. You can't have your whole season ride on the twists and turns of a single game. Teams deserve a fair shake, and you just can't get a fair shake in a single game. Any Little League team could beat any MLB All-Star team in a single game series.
/sarcasm

Seriously? What do you think game 7 of the WS equates to? They don't automatically tack on extra games at the end just to make sure someone wins by 2.

/drtfa
 
2012-10-05 05:28:24 PM

FreakinB: 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.


If you want more than 1 chance, win your damn division!
 
2012-10-05 05:29:34 PM
professorkowalski: That's why you start your number 3 in the wild card game.

This is an insane theory. You wouldn't do it if you had to win Game 162 to get in the playoffs. Potentially saving your ace for next April is a foolish decision.
 
2012-10-05 05:37:30 PM

Daniels: I get that the travel thing is dumb. I still don't think it's enough of a disadvantage to outweigh what is the (rightfully) huge disadvantage the wildcard team has to play through.


Again, there should be no weighing of advantages vs. disadvantages when you have your league's best record. Every advantage should be yours, as a reward for being the best over six months. That the only point I've been making.
 
2012-10-05 05:42:20 PM
already a controversy.
 
2012-10-05 06:15:00 PM

Tr0mBoNe: Either they cut the season back to 154 games


I approve of this post*
 
2012-10-05 06:41:20 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-10-05 09:10:13 PM
154? Hell, the season should be 142 games or less. No more of this opening day with snow on the ground bs, no more World Series just before Thanksgiving. Baseball should start mid-April and be over mid-to-late October.
 
2012-10-06 06:22:40 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: 154? Hell, the season should be 142 games or less. No more of this opening day with snow on the ground bs, no more World Series just before Thanksgiving. Baseball should start mid-AprilJune and be over mid-to-late OctoberAugust.


FTFY

Then we don't have to pretend it exists during the NBA or NFL seasons.
 
2012-10-07 08:20:32 PM

hulk hogan meat shoes: 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.


This comparitive argument would make more sense if NFL teams rotated quarterbacks on a per game basis. Oriof every starting pitcher on a ML baseball team played in the same game.
 
Displayed 127 of 127 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report