U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-07-2012, 04:57 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 3,060,590 times
Reputation: 2869

Advertisements

I don't get what you want in MLB playoffs then. Just get rid of them entirely. If only the best record should get to play... then just let the team with the best regular season record claim the trophy and skip the playoffs entirely. Apparently only regular season records matter to you.

In regards to "fairness," I think you missed the point.

How is it fair (under ANY system) to pit two teams with different regular season records (let's say... 104 wins vs 98 wins) to a Best of 7 series? How is that fair to the team with 104 wins? Maybe they should only need to win 3 of the 7 since they had a better regular season record. Or how about since they had a better record by 6 games that we just declare them the winner outright! Apparently they are the better team! Skip the LDS, skip the LCS. Skip the WS.

You are focused on "fairness" yet you pick and choose what is fair and what isn't. How DARE those Cardinals who snuck into the playoffs on the last day of the season beat the Phillies in the NLDS! The Phillies were the better team! Everyone knows this. They had 102 wins! The Cards only had 90! And then, they had the nerve to beat the Brewers and Rangers too!

To be honest, complaining about "fairness" is childish (hence why I don't care for "fairness"). Even applied to baseball. How is it "fair" that the AL has a DH and the NL does not? That's not fair either, yet the AL and NL pennant winners face off in the WS. Apparently the WS is a farce to you since it is inherently "unfair."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2012, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,056 posts, read 30,553,733 times
Reputation: 10490
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
I don't get what you want in MLB playoffs then. Just get rid of them entirely. If only the best record should get to play... then just let the team with the best regular season record claim the trophy and skip the playoffs entirely.
Now there's a radical suggestion! And by complete coincidence, that's how it was done prior to the leagues being split into divisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
1,446 posts, read 2,291,698 times
Reputation: 1361
IMO, the playoff expansion has some pros and some cons.

The biggest positive to me is that it actually adds meaning to the regular season b/c now it is even more important to win your division. IMO, it was too easy in the past for a wild card team to advance. There was not enough incentive to win your division. I also like that it will have more teams in the mix for the playoffs, which means more fans will still be intereted later in the season.

But I agree that a one-game elimination game is too short for baseball. That means that some playoff teams won't even host one home game!

IMO, they should shorten the regular season by several games, make the wild-card playoff the best two out of three, and after that proceed the way it currently works. And the World Series should be finished by October 30 every year (so it doesn't stretch into November and so there isn't a Game 7 on Halloween when people may be otherwise occupied).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,336,032 times
Reputation: 36087
There are three fundamental principles that are inviolable and must be taken into account:

1. Change for the sake of change never makes anything better.

2. Nothing changed is ever reversed.

3. When people are not making enough money, they look for things to change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,131 posts, read 18,604,845 times
Reputation: 18731
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
There are three fundamental principles that are inviolable and must be taken into account:

1. Change for the sake of change never makes anything better.

2. Nothing changed is ever reversed.

3. When people are not making enough money, they look for things to change.
1) Isn't this a proposed change for the sake of enhancing revenues? In theory a one game advance/go home playoff should be a sellout and attract a good sized tv audience. By lowering standards for the post season once more, it will also expand the number of teams which will appear to be still be in the race in August and September. Contending teams typically outdraw teams which have no chance.

So, it isn't for the sake of change, it is for $.

2) I think you need to narrow that generality and come up with a more specific application. Otherwise examples of the opposite may be thrown in your face....court decisions....automobile transmissions...political promises...Ryan Braun's elligibility to play pro ball in 2012...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 02:09 AM
 
5,772 posts, read 13,739,631 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancet71 View Post
I think if they are going to do this, let it be more like the NFL and give the best teams in each league a bye week and let there be a best of 5 still for the first round not just a 1 game playoff for the wildcard teams.
The trouble with a bye in baseball would be that the good teams' pitchers would be getting rusty while the wild cards kept getting their pitchers some work, increasing the chances that after the wild card round a not-so-great team would pull off an upset and deprive the fans of a good match-up between top teams later on.

The whole idea seems like a silly way to artificially create the kind of nail-biter you have when two teams go down to the last day in the regular season and then are still tied for a playoff spot, so they have the one-game tiebreaker. Fine as a necessary way to break a tie, but as a standard part of the playoff schedule it seems like just that many more teams that don't really deserve to be there making it into the post-season for no particularly good reason. Pretty much every year we already have a team or two in the playoffs that has no chance of ultimately being the champion, but just might get hot and knock off a better team that otherwise might have been involved in a classic series between two good teams later on. Now they're just bringing in that many more teams with no chance to do anything but possibly get hot just long enough to upset some team good enough to be worth watching well into the playoffs if not for the upset. Not a good idea.

Nor is the idea of scheduling as a standard part of the playoffs a one-game round. In baseball any team can beat any team in one game. That's the whole point of deciding the issue with an entire series. Really dumb move, but about what I'd expect from Selig.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,336,032 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post

So, it isn't for the sake of change, it is for $.
.
Here's the scenario: A club owner says "I want more money". He has two choices:
1. Make a well thought out improvement in the product. (Like, improve the competitive balance of the game.)
2. Make a change for the sake of change and sell that to the market. (Like, schedule games against a natural rival, or introduce the DH, or play 4-pm or 9 pm games in March and November.)

If you reread my three points, you will see that making a change for $ does not exclude simply packaging a "sake of change" as a marketing ploy, and "sake of change" is typically the change that costs the least to employ.

Making change to improve the quality and appeal of the game and making change to increase the wealth of the club owner are not necessarily the same thing (and in fact it is hard to find a case where they are ever the same thing), but only the latter is ever taken into account in making changes.

Last edited by jtur88; 03-08-2012 at 09:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,131 posts, read 18,604,845 times
Reputation: 18731
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Here's the scenario: A club owner says "I want more money". He has two choices:
1. Make a well thought out improvement in the product. (Like, improve the competitive balance of the game.)
2. Make a change for the sake of change and sell that to the market. (Like, schedule games against a natural rival, or introduce the DH, or play 4-pm or 9 pm games in March and November.)

If you reread my three points, you will see that making a change for $ does not exclude simply packaging a "sake of change" as a marketing ploy, and "sake of change" is typically the change that costs the least to employ.

Making change to improve the quality and appeal of the game and making change to increase the wealth of the club owner are not necessarily the same thing (and in fact it is hard to find a case where they are ever the same thing), but only the latter is ever taken into account in making changes.
Wow. You could have written..."Yeah, okay, it isn't change for the sake of change."

Or you could have done what you did, which was to craft the utterly bewildering stuff above. Is there is a single poster out there who thinks your above response makes sense? If so, please appear and explain it.

Why are you always attempting these desperation rehab efforts? Is it your notion that you are persuading anyone that your mistakes were not actually mistakes?

Oh well, as I told you once before, each time I get into one of these bizarro exchanges with you, it is good for about 50 rep points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 10:45 AM
 
2,222 posts, read 3,091,661 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
Disagree. Same example:

A = 104 (Division X title)
B = 101 (in Division X)
C = 98 (Division Y title)
D = 87 (in Division Y ) <--- changed division to Y for this example.


In 1993 and earlier, Team A and C would make the playoffs, but not B. Back then, there were two divisions per league and you had to win your division to get in. How would that be "fair"? Honestly, I don't really care about the fairness. My point is that prior to 1993, teams B and D would be crying the blues that they missed the playoffs because there were only 2 teams per league (4 total) to make the playoffs. So you'd be crying foul over THAT example too.

Go back even further... prior to 1969, only Team A would make the playoffs. They'd face off against Team ??? from the other league. How is THAT fair?

Under this new system, Team E has a shot whereas before they did not. How is that a bad thing? More markets will be in the playoff hunt down to the wire.

Point is this... it gives value to actually winning your division. There should be a bonus. Home field advantage itself really isn't much of an "advantage to be honest." Check baseball history. In the playoffs (when it counts), the home-team tends to win 54% of its games. That is very tiny.

So, Team B will be trying to catch Team A so they don't have to wind up in a single-game elimination (mind you, this would be a game that Team B would LOVE to have prior to the 1994 season!). Now, imagine that Team B is only 1 GB from Team A with 1 game left. Do you bring out your ace to try and catch them in the last game? Do you hold your ace back for the WC play-in game?

Now, for the real bonus... The #1 team in the league gets to play a slightly diminished WC. In all likelihood, the WC team will not be pitching its ace in Game 1. He'll wait for Game 3 probably. That's how it should be. A bonus for not only winning your division, but a second bonus for having the best league record.

I think its a great idea and will make baseball better.

THANK YOU! You just saved me a lot of typing. I've been saying the same thing from the start. The current system gives no incentive to actually win the division. Now it does and now teams won't be "settling" for a wild card. ACE pitchers AND bullpen pitchers will be used in that wild card game so they are already at a disadvantage. Then you included traveling and that's another bonus.

If anything this improves the playoff system from an already unfair 5 game divisional series. Too many times has the wild card team came out and won the WS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2012, 10:50 AM
 
2,222 posts, read 3,091,661 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by po-boy View Post
IMO, the playoff expansion has some pros and some cons.

The biggest positive to me is that it actually adds meaning to the regular season b/c now it is even more important to win your division. IMO, it was too easy in the past for a wild card team to advance. There was not enough incentive to win your division. I also like that it will have more teams in the mix for the playoffs, which means more fans will still be intereted later in the season.

But I agree that a one-game elimination game is too short for baseball. That means that some playoff teams won't even host one home game!

IMO, they should shorten the regular season by several games, make the wild-card playoff the best two out of three, and after that proceed the way it currently works. And the World Series should be finished by October 30 every year (so it doesn't stretch into November and so there isn't a Game 7 on Halloween when people may be otherwise occupied).
If the season ended Sunday afternoon. They played a wild card series Monday, Tuesday, and Wed. Then the divisional series started on Thursday. Maybe it would work. But I have a feeling they'd want an extra day somewhere in there for traveling and that means 4 games of no play for the divisional teams. Sometimes that is more of a set back than being helpful. Once a team gets hot like we saw the Giants and Cardinals in the last 2 years. It's sometimes not a good thing to go days without playing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top