The Wild Card One Game Play In

[eaterfan]

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

 

If neither the Red Sox nor Yankees make it this season look for 3 wildcards next season.

[DMVol]

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

I think everybody got caught up in the drama of the last day of the season in 2011 and decided we needed to see something like that again....and it was great, nothing like it before, 4 seperate games with 4 teams fighting for playoff sports...we'll probably never see it again....but because it was a great atmosphere, it doesn't mean you can re-create that one game drama with a new format.....bad idea, bad reasoning.....

[Angel Oracle]

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

What Claude said!

Why do we need a 5th post-season team anyway?

EaterFan's idea is intriguing. Go back to a 154 game schedule and have just one WC, but instead of an 11 game series go with what MLB had in the late 1910's/early 1920's: a 9 game series for all post-season series.

You would still save a couple of days, with the regular season being 8 games shorter and the post-season at the most 6 games longer.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Angel Oracle

[eligrba]

Winning solves all problems.

 

Just win, baby.

[Second Base]

This is the way I would restructure the playoffs.

WC 2 vs WC 1 in a 3 game series at WC 1 stadium.

ALDS Best of 7

ALCS Best of 7

World Series Best of 7

That's a lot of playoff baseball, it gives WC1 an advantage against WC2 but a disadvantage vs everyone else. Three consecutive seven game series would be grueling but we'd find a truer winner than the format we have right now.

[arch stanton]

I would keep it as it is but have the 2 worst records play the one gamer. That way the 7th best team in the AL doesn't get to walk into the ALDS on a geographical technicality  like they did in 2012.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

Last year some people were excited because it gave the Angels more of a shot going into the season and with them playing well it's a bad thing.  Can't have it both ways.

[eaterfan]

Last year some people were excited because it gave the Angels more of a shot going into the season and with them playing well it's a bad thing.  Can't have it both ways.

I agree you can't have it both ways but hated it at the time.

I hated it because it:

1) waters down the playoffs

2) rewards teams who are lucky to play in bad divisions.

3) leaves to much to chance

4) brings more parity (fewer great teams)

5) is a money grab

6) was IMO a move to ensure the Yankees and Red Sox make the post season more often.

[T.G.]

I like it.

 

Winning the division gives you a distinct advantage... as it should be.

 

I also think it's as fair as can be when you factor in teams play an unbalanced schedule.

[MVTrout]

I agree that the 2nd WC is whack.

[zenmaster]

I know baseball traditionalists won't agree but I say rank the teams by record in the AL & NL.  Best record is 1 and so on.  I know then the divisions are pointless but I really hate it when someone wins a crappy division going 82-80 and is automatically in over a team going 98-64.  The 98-64 team has to play one game to decide their fate.  We all know in professional sports that anyone can win 1 game.

[eaterfan]

I like it.

 

Winning the division gives you a distinct advantage... as it should be.

 

I also think it's as fair as can be when you factor in teams play an unbalanced schedule.

Why do you value winning a division mute than winning more games? I'm curious about this from anyone who feels this way.

[T.G.]

eaterfan - You should be rewarded for winning your division.  Winning the most games isn't necessarily a barometer of the best teams because of the unbalanced schedule. I want to see the best teams from each division go head to head.  It's not perfect, but I like it.

Edited July 28, 2014 by True Grich

[eaterfan]

eaterfan - You should be rewarded for winning your division.  Winning the most games isn't necessarily a barometer of the best teams because of the unbalanced schedule. I want to see the best teams from each division go head to head.  It's not perfect, but I like it.

To me that is the only logical reason one could have to rewarding division winners do I certainly understand that argument. I disagree with it in practice because I think the difference in schedule strength between teams in the same league is not that great when it comes to wins added. But the flaw in the logic is that teams within the sand division don't pay the sand schedule. Example, the Mariners end up winning the West by a game this season because they play the Padres instead of the Giants or Dodgers. Why should the Angels or A's be punished for playing winning more games against their common opponents?

In practice I think the WC has historically (and this year appears to be no different) been so much better than at least one division winner that the amount of imbalance in the schedule couldn't lead to the difference in record.

[Blarg]

This is the way I would restructure the playoffs.

WC 2 vs WC 1 in a 3 game series at WC 1 stadium.

ALDS Best of 5

ALCS Best of 7

World Series Best of 7

modified. It allows the division winners time to rest and reset their rotation but cuts down the series for the wildcard team so they are not wasted by the ALCS if they make it that far. The point is filter the best team in the division but don't wear them down for a final match up.

[seenoevil]

The 2nd best record in baseball could be eliminated in one game. Pathetic! The better team could lose to a better pitcher, all that work down the drain in one game

[T.G.]

To me that is the only logical reason one could have to rewarding division winners do I certainly understand that argument. I disagree with it in practice because I think the difference in schedule strength between teams in the same league is not that great when it comes to wins added. But the flaw in the logic is that teams within the sand division don't pay the sand schedule. Example, the Mariners end up winning the West by a game this season because they play the Padres instead of the Giants or Dodgers. Why should the Angels or A's be punished for playing winning more games against their common opponents?

In practice I think the WC has historically (and this year appears to be no different) been so much better than at least one division winner that the amount of imbalance in the schedule couldn't lead to the difference in record.

 

I don't look at as teams being "punished" - it's just the way things worked out that particular season.  Again, I know it's not perfect, but I can live with it.  Not like I have much of a choice, right? That being said, if the Angels end up with the second best record in baseball and lose a one game WC game, I won't be happy about it...

[Angel Oracle]

It's too bad we couldn't have a balanced enough schedule.

That would likely take eliminating interleague play though. 

Also eliminate the 2nd WC.

Even then, having every league team play each other 12 times = 168 games. 

Could they reduce the schedule to 154 games and then play each other 11 times?    And then with the 8 less games expand the 3 post-season series to best of 9's? 

[eaterfan]

The problem is there are 15 teams in each league so one team would be sorting out each series.

Also it's a problem for travel and TV with distances and time changes.

[T.G.]

If you go back and look at the historical records of standings - you'll notice back when there were only two divisions in baseball... it was common place for a team to win 90+ games and not make the play-offs because only two teams made it in. 

 

Even in this era - the Cards snuck in the door in 2006 with just 83 wins and won it all.  Baseball isn't always fair.

[Oz27]

It's too bad we couldn't have a balanced enough schedule.

That would likely take eliminating interleague play though. 

Also eliminate the 2nd WC.

Even then, having every league team play each other 12 times = 168 games. 

Could they reduce the schedule to 154 games and then play each other 11 times?    And then with the 8 less games expand the 3 post-season series to best of 9's? 

I like all that except for best of nine. As much as I'm a believer in getting fair outcomes, this sport does depend on tv audiences and best of nine would kill it. If we're stuck with the second wildcard (which we are) it should be best of three, all at the home of the team with the better record, then best of seven through the rest.

[Jeff Fletcher]

Newsflash: the purpose of the post season is not to identify the best teams and have the best teams win. It is to make money, which you do by creating excitement. You do that by having games with everything on the line, so you need short series to maximize those games.

If you just wanted to make sure the best team won the championship you'd have all 30 teams in one group and they'd all play a balanced schedule and the team with the most wins after 162 gets the trophy. But that would be pretty boring.

Yes, a 95 win team can lose in a one game playoff to an 85 win team. But they can also lose in a best of three or best of 5 or best of seven. It happens all the time. Look on baseball reference at postseason series. I'd love to see the math.

My guess is a team with 10 more wins wins a best of 7 maybe 60 percent of the time and wins one individual game maybe 52 percent. Not a big difference.

I like the system because it creates a lot of levels of excitement, which is the point.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Newsflash: the purpose of the post season is not to identify the best teams and have the best teams win. It is to make money, which you do by creating excitement. You do that by having games with everything on the line, so you need short series to maximize those games.

If you just wanted to make sure the best team won the championship you'd have all 30 teams in one group and they'd all play a balanced schedule and the team with the most wins after 162 gets the trophy. But that would be pretty boring.

Yes, a 95 win team can lose in a one game playoff to an 85 win team. But they can also lose in a best of three or best of 5 or best of seven. It happens all the time. Look on baseball reference at postseason series. I'd love to see the math.

My guess is a team with 10 more wins wins a best of 7 maybe 60 percent of the time and wins one individual game maybe 52 percent. Not a big difference.

I like the system because it creates a lot of levels of excitement, which is the point.

 

I doubt the differences are even that much. 10 games is about 6% of the schedule, or about one more win every sixteen games.

Edited July 29, 2014 by AngelsLakersFan

[AngelsLakersFan]

People need to realize that no system will be perfect. Different systems will always award one type of winner over another, and our perception of who was more deserving can never truly be quantified, nor should it.

 

Let's looks at some facts. 

 

- To truly find the best team in baseball we simply need a completely balanced schedule, no leagues, no divisions, and no post season. Best record is the best team in this scenario. 

 

- Teams play their divisional rivals about three times as often as they play non-divisional opponents.

 

- Divisions are not arbitrary, they are sorted based on geography and the fact that truly balanced schedules are not possible within the parameters of the current season (162 games in 6 months).

 

- Unbalanced schedules within the division are not identical, but they are very similar, with the biggest difference coming from each teams local interleague rival.

 

- 162 games is a huge sample, and 12 post season wins is not always enough to change divisional results were those games to count towards regular season records.

 

Teams on the west coast have to put up with longer travel distances, different run scoring environments and probably other imbalances that are lessened within their own divisions. While it is obviously up for debate in my opinion there is plenty of reason to believe that 90 wins in one division is not the same as 90 in another, and a teams record more directly impacts and is reflected in the records of opponents within the same division. This is another reason why games against your own division are more important than games against an interleague opponent.

 

In other words finishing 3 or 4 games ahead of a divisional opponent means a lot more than winnings 3 or 4 games more than a team in another division or league when comparing teams directly.

 

Obviously we can't say that the purpose of the post season is to determine who the best team is, but since we are trying to determine a champion we should really do what we can to weed out those who likely aren't. The second wild card motivates teams to win the division and it punishes teams that don't. It increases the potential for end of season races, rather than diminishing them (race for first place & second place vs a race for just second place). It's not without shortcomings, but no system is. If the Angels finish 5 or 6 games behind the A's and lose the wild card game I can't really complain that MLB didn't give potentially the second best team in baseball the opportunity to call itself the best.

[ScottT]

A three game series can be exciting.  A seven game series can be less than exciting.   Sports with half as many games don't do one game playoffs.   MLS only does it for the fourth and fifth place teams in each conference.   There are nine teams in one conference and ten in another.  

 

Any team with the second best record in baseball should have more than a win or go home game.  Heck, I think any team that makes the top third of the league should.  It is a sport where amazing teams only win 60% of the time.  Excitement is great, but this format doesn't fit baseball.  I really doubt baseball is going to increase their fan base because of these one game playoffs.  It doesn't change the fact that it is a slow game and there are too many games in the season... for some people's liking.  

Edited July 29, 2014 by ScottT