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.
This is really amazing. The topic of this thread is about who we are rooting for, and I have to deal with criticism from people who say I am rooting for the wrong thing, and that I am in error for having such sentiments.
I was responding to a point raised by you. "I can't believe the house caught fire" says the boy who was playing with matches.
Quote:
Depends on the prevailing criteria. If the criteria are stringent, a team that makes it deserves it. But if one-third of all teams make the playoffs, or one half, or two thirds, then the spot can be "earned" by a team that doesn't necessarily deserve it.
I of course had asked you about this to see if you would be contradicting other statements you have made elsewhere on the board about fairness and the post season.
And you know what? I can't even tell. It dawned on me that no matter what sort of set up prevailed, you would be griping about whatever unfairness arose as a consequence because you cannot seem to wrap your mind around the idea that it is impossible to have absolute fairness and that any system will produce "undeserving" teams because you would simply redefine "deserving" to suit your outrage of the hour.
Please don't respond, after all, this is a thread about who we are rooting for.
NL: I'm the most invested in the NL East. I'd love for the Nats to win and the Braves to get a playoff spot. The teams in the other divisions don't matter to me much, except it would be nice for the Pirates to have a winning season and break their losing season streak.
AL: I'm rooting for the O's to win the AL East over the Yankees.
I was responding to a point raised by you. "I can't believe the house caught fire" says the boy who was playing with matches.
I of course had asked you about this to see if you would be contradicting other statements you have made elsewhere on the board about fairness and the post season.
And you know what? I can't even tell. It dawned on me that no matter what sort of set up prevailed, you would be griping about whatever unfairness arose as a consequence because you cannot seem to wrap your mind around the idea that it is impossible to have absolute fairness and that any system will produce "undeserving" teams because you would simply redefine "deserving" to suit your outrage of the hour.
Please don't respond, after all, this is a thread about who we are rooting for.
In other words, you weren't really asking me to explain to you the difference between the meanings of the words "earned" and "deserved". You were just trying to get me to make more statements that you could parse and contrast with my 29,000 other posts and see if you could finagle some kind of contrdiaction in the compendium of work.
And you've been a bit sloppy about that, too, because you seem to have missed the recent one (Post #19 in this thread) in which I clearly stated that I had absolutely no quarrel with any procedures used before 1969 to establish and conduct post-season games, which contradicts your groundless supposition above. Nor, for that matter, any serious objection to those in use before 1993.
All of which is what I'm rooting for, but I seem to be the only person here who is rooting for something that you are so fundamentally opposed to in principle that you need to personally attack the very rooter.
In other words, you weren't really asking me to explain to you the difference between the meanings of the words "earned" and "deserved". You were just trying to get me to make more statements that you could parse and contrast with my 29,000 other posts and see if you could finagle some kind of contrdiaction in the compendium of work.
Yeah, that was pretty much it, except not 29,000 of your posts, just the ones where you contradicted yourself on this particular subject.
Quote:
And you've been a bit sloppy about that, too, because you seem to have missed the recent one (Post #19 in this thread) in which I clearly stated that I had absolutely no quarrel with any procedures used before 1969 to establish and conduct post-season games, which contradicts your groundless supposition above. Nor, for that matter, any serious objection to those in use before 1993.
What do you mean? I never got around to the groundless supposition, we were still in the introductory trap phase.
Quote:
All of which is what I'm rooting for, but I seem to be the only person here who is rooting for something that you are so fundamentally opposed to in principle that you need to personally attack the very rooter.
I've little idea of what the above is supposed to mean, and even less desire to learn. I have written that regardless of what system is used in the post season, there will be unfairness involved. Change the system and you only change the identity of the team which is going to feel cheated in a particular year. How is that in "fundamental opposition" to your suggested system?
Again...as always it seems...I have to ask you to limit your responses to what I actually write, not what you imagine I might write.
I have written that regardless of what system is used in the post season, there will be unfairness involved. .
No you didn't. You have written that I "would be griping about whatever unfairness arose as a consequence." And I am now saying for the third time this week that 90 of the 107 post seasons thus far recorded (83% of them) have been played under circumstances that I considered to be as fair as could be reasonably expected, and the wild card has been my only criticism, coupled with grotesquely unbalanced schedules during the regular season.
No you didn't. You have written that I "would be griping about whatever unfairness arose as a consequence." And I am now saying for the third time this week that 90 of the 107 post seasons thus far recorded (83% of them) have been played under circumstances that I considered to be as fair as could be reasonably expected, and the wild card has been my only criticism, coupled with grotesquely unbalanced schedules during the regular season.
Yeah I wrote what you claim I didn't, I also wrote what you above claim I did.
So, you were satisfied until the introduction of the wild card, the system which has been in effect for the last seventeen seasons. You previously proposed a system of 32 teams with only the eight division champions going to the post season. That is eight teams in the post season, as have been the last seventeen years. The only difference would be the cosmetic change, instead of the qualifiers being called three champs and one wild card, they would be called four champs.
You have altered the cosmetic aspect, but have done nothing to correct unfairness other than to shift it from one team to another as circumstances unfolded. For example, if the season ended today, the Oakland A's would have the second best record in the American League, trailing only the Rangers. But the A's would be shut out of your perfect post season because they are not division champs.
See..you shift the luck around, you do zip to make anything more or less fair. Random outcomes will always eventually frustrate any such plan.
So, we then must weigh the suffering you are enduring as as consequence of this cosmetic injustice which you think exists, vs the benefits of keeping some teams in the race that otherwise would not be. The monetary benefits to MLB and each team are obvious. More of the fans seem to get excited and turn out when their team is in contention, even if it is for the wild card. Clearly those patrons believe that they are getting a benefit. Did you enjoy the Cardinals WS win last year? Or was the whole thing ruined for you by the fact that they were one of those cursed wild card teams? Were you not benefited?
But does all that outweigh the existential angst you endured for 17 years because of three champs plus wild rather than four champs?
You previously proposed a system of 32 teams with only the eight division champions going to the post season. That is eight teams in the post season, as have been the last seventeen years..
In post #16, Filihok was kind enough to resurrect my proposal from June 2011, in which I offered four 8-team leagues, no interleague play, equal schedules within leagues, FOUR champions to go to post season.
In my original post over a year ago, I included this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Post-season based on Apr-Sept merit---top team in each division in playoffs. Four is enough. Get the whole thing over with in 16 days, no days off. Playing every day is how the teams earned the right to be there. Finish one game out of first place, quit whining and teach that $5-million outfielder how to hit the cutoff man in May in a game you should have won. but didn't, too bad.
Quite honestly, with the perception of fairness and balance in the determination of the championship, I fail to see any justification in raising a lot of other silly considerations that impede balance, like imaginary and trumped-up rivalries, and "the fans want to see Derek Jeter", and it's good for cap and jersey sales. Balance the schedule, determine a championship on the basis of season-long merit, and stop the foolishness.
If not for the wild card, there would be little in the way of interest in the NL race this final month. The Giants won tonight while LA lost, pushing them seven games back, which is the smallest margin enjoyed by any NL division leader.
With the wild cards, there are seven NL teams within 4 games of qualifying, so barring an epic collapse by one of the division leaders, what is left of the NL race is seven teams competing for two spots.
If not for the wild card, there would be little in the way of interest in the NL race this final month. The Giants won tonight while LA lost, pushing them seven games back, which is the smallest margin enjoyed by any NL division leader.
With the wild cards, there are seven NL teams within 4 games of qualifying, so barring an epic collapse by one of the division leaders, what is left of the NL race is seven teams competing for two spots.
Counting only games within their division (which is how it should be), the current 6 leaders today would be, with their games-ahead:
Baltimore 4
Detroit 3
Oakland 1
Washington 8
Cincinnati 1
San Francisco 2
Double those to project to a full season within the division, and you have two 2-game leads and a 4-game lead. As it is now, the ONLY race is the wildcard.
In post #16, Filihok was kind enough to resurrect my proposal from June 2011, in which I offered four 8-team leagues, no interleague play, equal schedules within leagues, FOUR champions to go to post season.
In my original post over a year ago, I included this:
Then I apologize for misstating your position.
The above would then represent your sense of the proper aesthetic as well as proper fairness. yes?
Reducing the number of playoff teams does not generate a fail safe against unfairness. For example in 1973, when there were 12 NL teams and two divisions, three of the NL west teams finished six games or better than did the NL East champs, the Mets. In 1993 the Giants won 103 games, the second highest total in all baseball by five games, yet missed the post season because Atlanta won 104 and happened to be in the same division.
So, some of your four champs might not be the most qualified, they might just have luckier geography. Thus you have not actually improved fairness.
So, apart from your system seeming right to you, what about it is so superior that all the benefits which accompany expanded playoffs merit junking? Imagine yourself standing before a gathering of the owners and explaining to them why they need to take huge revenue hits in the name of embracing your proposal. Then imagine yourself standing in front of the fans of a team which is contending only for a wild card spot. How would you persuade them that they would be better off if the competitive part of their team's season was already over and the rest will be just playing out the string?
What would you be saying to theses folks?
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.
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.
