The Wild Card One Game Play In

[Docwaukee]

So dumb.  

 

While I generally dislike the idea of two teams having to play one game to determine their playoff fate,  an even bigger issue to me is the potential discrepancy between the two teams in terms of how they performed during the regular season.  

 

If the teams are within a couple of games of each other at seasons end, then it's a bit more reasonable, but there should be some sort of concession if there is more than a certain number of games separating the two teams.  

 

We could win 100 games and have to play an 87 win team with one good pitcher to get to the next round.  

[LAAMike]

Those are the rules so we play by them.  If we are that many games ahead then we can arrange our pitching matchups although I hope that we are in the Division race.  We play at Oakland on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the last week before going to Seattle for the last three games.  I am unsure of whether the one game playoff will be on Tuesday or Wednesday.  I believe that the AL had the game on Tuesday last year with the NL having the game on Wednesday.  It would be great for our wild card opponent to have to play a tiebreaker game thus using up an ace pitcher and possibly forcing a cross country flight on our opponent. 

[laagamer]

I'm sure Seattle fans aren't complaining.

 

...Well at least about the playoff format anyways 

[OregonLAA]

I agree to an extent. But how lame was it a few years ago when the Yankees rested starters and gave up on the division because they knew they could take the Wild Card if they didn't win it? They set up their rotation for the playoffs too. And they aren't punished for not winning the division.

Also, who cares what the A's have to deal with we win the division?

[SoCALkid]

It's probably 1 game because That's the best way to get the real playoffs rolling without taxing a teams starters, bullpen etc. How sh*tty would it be to have to play a 5 game series AND then have to roll into the ALDS.

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

It should be a three game series.

[Sully151]

^ yup.

[ScottT]

I wish it was a three game series, but how do you format it?   1-1-1 isn't realistic.  Better record gets 1 and 2 at home?

[Docwaukee]

better record has to win one game.  the other team has to win two.  

[tdawg87]

It punishes the first wildcard team while rewarding the 2nd. I like the idea of it I just think it's been executed poorly. A 3 game series is the best way to do it. 1 game in baseball shouldn't decide anything. You could put the Astros in that one game and they could end up in the playoffs.

[OregonLAA]

Only problem with 3 games is that there is a longer wait for the waiting team and we saw how days off affected the Angel bats so now the Wild Card team has an advantage

[Ohtaniland]

Adding a second Wild Card team was stupid to begin with.

[stormngt]

Team with best record host all three games. Or go 2-1 format. I like the first option

I wish it was a three game series, but how do you format it? 1-1-1 isn't realistic. Better record gets 1 and 2 at home?

[stormngt]

We have four days off for all star game. We can't wait threefir wildcard playoffs?

Only problem with 3 games is that there is a longer wait for the waiting team and we saw how days off affected the Angel bats so now the Wild Card team has an advantage

[Chimi]

Having a three game wild card series is the only way to go. You play series all year and then you have to make or break your season on one game? It makes about as much of sense as Seligs other great idea of the All Star game determining home field advantage.

I'm sure the teams that win their division wouldn't mind a few days off to rest their players and get their rotation in order. They could essentially have their Ace pitch the last game of the season and then have them ready again for game 1 of the divisional series.

[eaterfan]

The second wild card is terrible. Personally, I think one game is the stupidest thing possible in a sport that takes 162 games to play a regular season. Beyond that I think having divisions is pretty stupid too (except for scheduling). If they have to do it they should seed the teams 1-5 and the 4 and 5 teams should play in the playoff. Why should a team be rewarded for winning a terrible division? Why should the A's or Angels be punished for winning the West this year if they have to play the other in the Division Series? Your reward for having the best record in baseball is playing the team with the second best record in baseball. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I guess I'm the only one who likes the format.

If you want to win a world series you should start by winning the division.

[eaterfan]

I guess I'm the only one who likes the format.

If you want to win a world series you should start by winning the division.

 

But in this case a division winner is being punished because the best team will play the second best team.

[greginpsca]

I am not yet giving up on the Angels to win the division. I think we still have 10 games against the A's. By crushing them we can not only win the division, we could possibly knock them out of the playoffs all together.

[Hollyw00d]

I guess I'm the only one who likes the format.

If you want to win a world series you should start by winning the division.

agreed

[Docwaukee]

Giving a team an advantage for winning it's division in this format is arbitrary because it may or may not be a team that has more wins than a WC team.  If teams only played in their division, it would be more accurate.  But they don't.  If the goal (which it should be) is to get the best teams into the playoffs then don't punish a team for being in a good division and favor a team in a crappy one.  

 

There are inconsistencies that need to be fixed.  

[Taylor]

Team with best record host all three games. Or go 2-1 format. I like the first option

 

 

Or 1-2 format.

[eaterfan]

Giving a team an advantage for winning it's division in this format is arbitrary because it may or may not be a team that has more wins than a WC team.  If teams only played in their division, it would be more accurate.  But they don't.  If the goal (which it should be) is to get the best teams into the playoffs then don't punish a team for being in a good division and favor a team in a crappy one.  

 

There are inconsistencies that need to be fixed.  

 

Well I guess it depends on what the goal of the playoffs is. If the goal of the playoffs is to figure out the best team then winning your division shouldn't be relevant. If the goal is to simply entertain then it really doesn't matter and the one game playoff is fine. Maybe they should all be one game playoffs.

 

IMO the first option should be aim. I'd really like to see the regular season shortened, drop the second wild card and add more games to each playoff series. 7 games isn't really close to large enough of a sample size to determine who was the better team in that series. I would like to see each series turned into best of 11 with only a 154 game season and fewer off days within each series. 8 games are eliminated from the regular season but 12 could be added. So if one off day was eliminated the length of baseball season stays about the same (time wise).

 

I don't like the idea the goal of the regular season is to win the division (the divisions are arbitrary anyway). I much prefer that the goal of the regular season is to win the most games. It encourages teams to play harder for longer. The goal of every team should be to win every time they take the field. The teams that get closest to achieving that should be rewarded. That's just how I see things anyway.

Edited July 28, 2014 by eaterfan

[stormngt]

If I am not mistaken the A's have an 11 game cushion for a playoff spot. I don't think they are getting knocked out.

I am not yet giving up on the Angels to win the division. I think we still have 10 games against the A's. By crushing them we can not only win the division, we could possibly knock them out of the playoffs all together.

[Ohtaniland]

They should set it up like college footballs BCS system. That would ensure that the Yankees always have a spot.