The Wild Card One Game Play In

[Guest]

I'm a bit late to the thread but there are only two viable options IMO:

 

1) Three game playoff, all three games at the home park of the top seed.

2) Two game playoff double elimination style. WC1 must win 1, WC2 must win 2. In this case just a one game playoff should still happen if the two teams were literally tied in the standings.

 

There needs to be a significant advantage for the top wild card over the second. A three game series with travel days though leaves the division winners sitting idle two long though.

[Jimmag]

They finally fixed College Football I say they will fix this in the next 10 years

[Jeff Fletcher]

The wild card simply can't be best of 3 because it makes the division winners wait too long. No way around it.

Is it unfair that a team with 95 wins can be a wild card while a team with 86 wins wins the division? Yes.

But it's been that way for as long as there have been divisions and leagues.

The only way to solve that inequality is to get rid of all divisions and leagues and go 1-30.

And that would be really boring. Only one pennant race with a few teams involved instead of as many as 8 with maybe 20 teams involved.

It's not supposed to be fair.

It's supposed to be entertaining.

[ScottT]

There should be a balance. If it was just a matter of entertainment they'd add a couple more of these games.

[floplag]

i have always referred to the as the ratings rule, whose sole purpose was really to make sure that either or both of NY or Bos would be in the post season as there was really no other logical reason why this was put in place.
That having been said, if they insist on 5 teams then it should be the 2 worse records playing in, but that wont happen as its unfair to a division winner.
bottom line it was is and always will be a very bad idea.

 

then again win the division and its a non issue so... lol

[CaliAngel]

I think what's most interesting is I didn't mind the format before, but this 1 game winner goes to the postseason crap has really opened my mind as to how weak the format is and what a crapshoot it is even for great teams because of how divisions are split and who they play and what not. We're not seeing the best teams get to the playoffs, and I think the original wild card was good at fixing that problem. 

 

I think the biggest issue is the 1 game thing. We all know anyone can win in one game, not necessarily the best team. That's what bugs me the most. And if we just split the teams into NL and AL teams, no divisions, there's really no reason for playoffs, you'd just have the top teams from both leagues play a 7 game World Series and that would be it. 

 

So I just see this 1 game thing exposing the layout of MLB more than ever. There's got to be some way to keep the 4th best team with a possible 100 win record from getting knocked out of the playoffs by the 5th best team in another division with an 85 win record in 1 game. 

[zenmaster]

The simplest solution is to just get rid of that extra wildcard spot that was just added.  Unfortunately this won't happen.

[ScottT]

NCAA avoids one and done in baseball. Why?  Probably something to do with the nature of the sport.  It can be done with 10 teams. Give the others a few days off.  Big deal.  I would've rather them stick with 8 teams, but I can't see them backtracking... and I hope they don't add more playoff spots.  

[Angel Oracle]

One of the beautiful things about baseball, up until the extra WC was added, is the regular season not being a moot point, unlike the NFL, NBA, and NHL.

[Taylor]

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.

 

My guess is the team with 10 more wins wins a best of 7 about 75 percent of the time and wins one individual game about 60 percent. Either way, it's just a guess. I'd love to see actual statistics.

[Guest]

The wild card simply can't be best of 3 because it makes the division winners wait too long. No way around it.

A three game playoff with no travel days (all at one ballpark) is less of a delay than the schedule time delay between the *LCS and the World Series in the event a team sweeps a league series.  

 

 

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? 

 

Having divisions with an unbalanced schedule is OK (travel issues, regional division rivalries etc) but it hsouldn't be ridiculously unbalanced. 

 

They could do 12 games to teams within the division, 9 games against everyone else (other two intraleague divisions + interleage division)

That's a lot better than 19 intradivision and 6 against everyone else. 

Edited July 30, 2014 by ScottLux

[Carlota Gonzalez]

I prefer to think about us winning the division

[Jeff Fletcher]

You need 2 days after the season to account for makeup games and a game 163 (as we just had last year). So even if you eliminate the travel day after the WC best of 3 you still can't start the division series for 5 days. That is a big deal. Players hate it.

And there's no way a team with 10 more wins wins a best of 7 75 pct of the time.

A 95-win team wins 58 percent of it's games against everyone. Even less if they play all those games against an 85-win team.

The bottom line is all small sample sizes are unfair, and a one-game sample is not that much more unfair than a seven game sample.

One if these days I'll do the math when I'm really bored on a plane or something.

[Angel Oracle]

Which is why the 4 team league post-season is the best.

No one game WC where one team could be 8 games better than the other WC team, but that other WC team has a King Felix for that one game.   

 

And none of the 4 teams has a ridiculous wait before the post-season starts. 

 

Why couldn't MLB be unique and keep the regular season as being relevant enough? 

Does the regular season really mean much of anything in the NFL, NBA, and NHL?

[Taylor]

You need 2 days after the season to account for makeup games and a game 163 (as we just had last year). So even if you eliminate the travel day after the WC best of 3 you still can't start the division series for 5 days. That is a big deal. Players hate it.

And there's no way a team with 10 more wins wins a best of 7 75 pct of the time.

A 95-win team wins 58 percent of it's games against everyone. Even less if they play all those games against an 85-win team.

The bottom line is all small sample sizes are unfair, and a one-game sample is not that much more unfair than a seven game sample.

One if these days I'll do the math when I'm really bored on a plane or something.

 

You say MLB does it for money and entertainment, yet to seem to support it as if it's better for baseball. After 162 games, why should the playoffs be a crapshoot? 

 

In a seven-game series, you're maximizing the chance that the team with more depth and the superior game plan will move on to the next level. Maybe the better team doesn't win 75% of the time, but at least you're giving them a chance to leverage their strengths.

[arch stanton]

AO, we go back to the days when the Angels had no shot at the post season from the start yet we still followed and we still watched or listened. Any game or series of games is as important as we want it to be. I love the idea of following a team with legitimate championship possibilities and it would be nice to think that the second best record in all of baseball would get you a 7 game set but I also like the idea of conquering whatever is thrown our way.

[ScottT]

Do players like a one game playoff?

[Angel Oracle]

AO, we go back to the days when the Angels had no shot at the post season from the start yet we still followed and we still watched or listened. Any game or series of games is as important as we want it to be. I love the idea of following a team with legitimate championship possibilities and it would be nice to think that the second best record in all of baseball would get you a 7 game set but I also like the idea of conquering whatever is thrown our way.

 

I definitely see where you are coming from.    Challenges are fun to overcome, and this franchise has had a mountain of them since the 1960s.   

It's just when they get a little goofy, like a one game playoff when one team could be significantly better than the other but end up facing the best pitcher in the league in that one game, that I start to wonder. 

[arch stanton]

I definitely see where you are coming from.    Challenges are fun to overcome, and this franchise has had a mountain of them since the 1960s.   

It's just when they get a little goofy, like a one game playoff when one team could be significantly better than the other but end up facing the best pitcher in the league in that one game, that I start to wonder. 

Understood. It's great that we now get to watch a really good baseball team play meaningful October games. If Bill Rigney could see us now....

[ten ocho recon scout]

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.

I see your point, but you could make the dame argument for winning your division. Teams from weaker divisions can be argued really arent that good, the competition just sucked