|
Post by mylungswereaching on Mar 2, 2012 15:58:02 GMT -5
Now there will be two wildcard teams in the American League and two in the National League. They have a one game playoff to decide who goes on.
I'd rather have seen a three game playoff. Occasionally you get two or three great teams and a whole bunch of teams barely over 500 in one league in a year. So Division A is won by a team with 108 wins and a wildcard with 106 wins. Division B is won with 100 wins. Division C 83 Wins. The second wildcard has 86 wins. So a 106 win team with the second best record in baseball has a one game playoff with a team with 20 less wins.
I know, they should have won the division. It really just rewards the lucky teams that play in a bad division.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Mar 2, 2012 17:18:21 GMT -5
It actually seems like it just makes it a lot harder for the wild card and gives way more incentive to clinch the division. One game is a crap shoot, plus it screws with pitching rotations.
It's an extra shot for the one team with a worse record, but it's a big challenge for the team in the top AC spot.
In other words, prepare for LOTS of complaining for either Yankees or Red Sox fans next year.
|
|
|
Post by Mod City on Mar 2, 2012 17:46:00 GMT -5
Does this eliminate the restriction that wild card teams can't play against a team from the same division in the first round? The Twins have been slapped with the Yankees nearly every first round of the playoffs they've made in recent years because the wild card always comes out of the east. Many times the record suggests the wild card team should be playing the Yankees, but instead they have to reshuffle and send one of the east teams to play one of the other teams. This results in some poor schmuck of a team (in this case, the Twins) being saddled with having to deal with the Yankees instead of, say, Tampa. Not that I'm bitter about it or taking it personally EDIT - I just realized that the two wild card teams play each other into the tournament. Right there in the original post, too. Gah. Sorry. It is kind of odd a third place team can win the World Series, though.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Mar 2, 2012 22:03:29 GMT -5
I like that they re-incentivized winning the division, but they should have made it a 3-game series. I agree with mylungs. It's too easy for a lesser team to get lucky in a 1-game playoff*. The better team should win, not merely the team with the better staff ace.
*Of course, a lesser team can get lucky in a 7-game series, too. *cough* '06 & '11 Cardinals *cough*
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Mar 2, 2012 22:54:01 GMT -5
Well, the Cardinals were the best team in '04, yet no one ever seems to remember that because they choked the Series to an inferior Boston team.
Baseball has so many problems, I can't even go on a rant that would encompass them all. I was an obsessive fan for a long time, but the Bud Selig/steroid/wild card era has taken all of that from me. I'd rather watch the NBA at this point.
NB
I haven't watched an NBA game since Jordan played his last game with the Bulls.
|
|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Mar 2, 2012 23:12:55 GMT -5
I'm still not sure why its a horrible thing not to win the division. A 96 win wildcard team winning the world series is horrible but an 82 win division winner winning it is fine? The wildcard may be the 4th seed but it's sometimes the 2nd or 3rd best team in baseball record wise.
So a team in a terrible division clinches the division with 80 wins and rests its pitching staff for the last week or so. Another team has 100 wins with a 99 win team right on its tail and has to fight tooth and nail right up until the last day of the season. The 80 win team with a fresh but less talented pitching staff and a 100 win team with a stronger but tired pitching staff meet in the first round. Who has the advantage?
Most of the time the wild card will come out of the division with the best or second best team in the conference. This could give a poor team in in very weak division an advantage over a much better team in a stronger division by making the stronger team work harder at the end of the regular season.
I rarely watch baseball. Baseball is a radio sport.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Mar 3, 2012 0:32:09 GMT -5
There's nothing fine with an 82 win division winner. There's also nothing fine with the Mets forced to play the Yankees every year while the Cardinals play the Royals. Everything in baseball is upside down. However, my biggest problem with the wild card is that they didn't even accomplish their simple task of winning a division. That's why I think it's pointless. In a playoff system, your task is to win on each step of the way. Wild cards make that system meaningless.
There's also nothing fine with a 9 game division winner in the NFL. Yet American football fans don't seem to have a problem with crowning the Giants as their champions. The "everyone gets a chance" atmosphere in American sports is the reason why I only watch Arsenal nowadays. If the regular season means almost nothing, what's the point of watching at all?
|
|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Mar 3, 2012 13:30:13 GMT -5
Problem 1: Without wildcard weaker field of teams.
If you want to have the best team in the sports in the playoffs, you need to have a wildcard. A two league 2 division sport with no wildcard. You rank all of the teams by their records. Lets look at the best teams in each division.
Division A has the number 1 team, the number 3 team and the number 7 team. Division B has the Number 2 team , the number 4 team and the number 5 team. Division C has the number 6 team Division D has the number 8 team.
1 vs 2 for the right to face 6 vs 8. Where are teams 3,4,5, and 7? They don't make the playoffs.
Without a wildcard, it would be rare for the best 4 teams to make the playoffs.
Problem 2: You didn't even win the division.
What if division A consists of 4 teams, the number 1,2,3 and 5 teams in the sport. Division D consists of 4 teams, the number 15, 28,29, and 30. 15 wins division D wins a ton of games and wins their division easily. Number 1 wins a lot less games and barely wins their division. By record number 15 is the best team in the sport but by talent number 1 is the best team in the sport. Which should you go by?
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Mar 3, 2012 16:04:36 GMT -5
Why do you need so many divisions in the first place? MLB once got along fine with just 2, and they never played each other until the World Series. The team (and eventually teams) with the top record moves on, with no chance for dispute.
Unfortunately, we all know the answer to that question. It's all about more money and it has nothing to do with fairness, like every decision MLB makes. More divisions means more teams competing toward the end of the season for playoff spots, which means more fans thinking their team has a chance...more ad revenue, more ticket sales, etc. The NHL and NBA are the masters of this, with half the league making the post season and playoffs that go on for months. It's a joke.
The problem is that if you barely have to hit .500 to make the playoffs, the long 162 games of the regular season have no meaning. One of the worst examples of this was Roger Clemens sitting at home for half the year sand bagging for October. If a star player does that, why should any fan bother to show up before August? NCAA basketball has the same problem. With so much focus on the tournament, and every decent team making that event, players and fans are just paying lip service to the regular season. Regular season championships were once celebrated, but are now forgotten.
I know full well that I'm in the minority of people in the US that feel this way, but I love the season. Great teams are those who prove it over the long haul, winning night after night for months at a time. In 162 games, there's no chance to luck out and go on a hot streak. There's no chance to put your ace on the mound once every 2-3 games and sneak by a better team. There's no chance to rest a star just so they're ready for a short run of games.
|
|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Mar 3, 2012 19:05:19 GMT -5
The problem with two divisions one winner is that teams that get way behind have no chance to catch up. The fans stop coming. The team can't meet payroll so it sells its best players to the teams on top to stay in business. The team never gets better. I wonder how many fans there are of the Saint Louis Browns baseball team around now.
Also with two leagues that never play each other, you never really know whose the best team until the World Series. Even then anything can happen in a 7 game series.
The Yankees won year after year by playing 500 against the good teams and beating the snot out of the bad teams. They were better because they were deeper.
Fans thinking their teams have a chance is a bad thing? People always talk about old time baseball as the ideal. Until 1969 the team with the best record went to the world series, no divisions.
From 1903 to 1968, 64 World series were played
Yankees 20 championships Cardinals 8 Championships Giants and A's 5 Championships each
38 of 64 championships won by 4 teams. 1 team won a third of the championships.
Most teams were in the playoffs once every 20 or 30 years. Fans disappeared. Money disappeared. Teams became glorified farm teams for the top 4 or 5 teams.
If you were in last place for a few years it was almost impossible to climb out because who wants to go see a team that has no chance to make the playoffs. No money, no team. Having only one winner for each division leads to unfair competition. Those at the top stay at the top.
Basketball, Only the top 2 teams in each conference have a chance to win so the long playoffs are a joke.
In Hockey, anyone can win. Low seeds frequently win the cup. Low seed does not always mean bad team. Tough division, injuries, a lot of young players can lead to an average record for a good team. Plus teams play harder in the playoffs. No one can play 100%, 100% of the time for 82 games. The tougher team physically and mentally win. Some teams with great records are soft. Long playoffs weed soft teams out.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Mar 4, 2012 14:47:56 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with most fan bases thinking they have a shot at a championship. And while I don't prefer it, I also don't have a major problem with more than two teams per league entering the postseason. What I have a problem with are mediocre teams still having a shot at or near the end of the season. If you play a somewhat even schedule, over 162 games, and another team wins 10 more games, they're better than you. The entire point of the playoffs is to separate the best of the best, not give every decent team a shot at getting lucky. In 2006, the Cardinals were the fifth best team in the NL. I'm from St. Louis, and even I think that championship is a joke.
Yes, that's what great teams do. I don't see how that could possibly be a knock against anyone. If it were so easy, the Tigers or Orioles could have done the same. Like you said, the Yankees, like the Cardinals pre-free agency, had loads of depth. That's a separate problem from the wild card.
Old time baseball didn't have free agency, national tv, or the amateur draft. That's an apples to oranges comparison. There are many ways to introduce variety in champions. I happen to think that adding loads of playoff teams isn't the best option.
There's never been a perfect era for baseball, and there never will be. What I'm saying is that the current system is there only to maximize profits by catering to fair weather fans and television executives. That's not what I'm interested in. Many people are, which is why it maximizes revenue (at least in the short term, long term I'd argue the other way), but it's not for me.
Good fan bases support bad teams. Look at the Raiders, the Packers of the 80s, the baseball Cardinals of the late 80s/early 90s, the Cubs of everyone's entire lifetime... The teams that bleed fans tend to have bad owners, bad fans, both, or they never had any fans to begin with (Florida baseball in a nutshell on that last one). You suffer through the bad years, wait for a rebuild, and you're right there when things get better. If that support's not there, well, adios. The league would be far more exciting if about 10 teams were contracted anyway.
Ugh, I don't even know why I'm bothering with this argument. I simply hate wild card entries, that's not going to change and there's not much of an objective argument for or against. I remember in 1993 when shouts for the wild card really got loud. The Giants finished a game behind the Braves with over 100 wins. People felt they deserved to be in the playoffs, and I totally agree. An imperfect system put a lesser team in the playoffs simply because San Francisco were in the wrong division. After the strike, we have the wild card, and I don't think there's been such a close, high win race since.
What I'll always argue is that the wild card was never needed. In '93, if the top 2 teams go to the NLCS, it's Braves/Giants, with only the most delusional fans complaining. In 2001, when the Mariners went berserk and the A's still won over 100 games, they play each other in a classic ALCS matchup. Or, if you want four teams, it's the same four that actually played. No harm done. But in 2006, when the NL central was a laughing stock, the Cardinals would have been watching from home, which would have been perfectly fair.
|
|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Mar 4, 2012 18:58:28 GMT -5
I guess to some extent we're on the same side. My complaint was that having multiple divisions usually results in having some really weak divisions which allows weaker teams in the playoffs. If you want 4 teams in each league in the playoffs, just pick the best 4. If you cannot finish in the top 4 you don't make the playoffs. Divisions sometimes let the 10th best team get into the playoffs.
The wildcard is rarely the worst team that gets into the playoffs. The worst team is usually one of the division winners. That's why I hate when someone says, if you don't win the division you don't belong in the playoffs. Why does a team that has 5 or10 more wins than two of the other division winners not belong in the playoffs?
Last year the top 4 teams in each league got in with the wildcard with the 4th best record. Exception.
2010 wildcard- Yankees and Atlanta Yankees 3rd best record in baseball 2nd best in american league by 1 game. 5 games better than the worst AL playoff contender
NL Atlanta tied for third best record in NL with another playoff team.
The wildcard teams finished above some of the division winners. This is more the rule than the exception.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Mar 4, 2012 21:31:06 GMT -5
That's why I hate when someone says, if you don't win the division you don't belong in the playoffs. I understand what you're saying. I guess the reason why people like me would say that is because we just hate the entire system. The wild card is the most obvious symbol of the problem, so it gets all the blame, even if it's illogical.
|
|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Mar 4, 2012 22:37:16 GMT -5
A couple of last points.
How do you decide the best team?
You can't really go by record unless every team plays every other team exactly the same number of times since the team with the best record may be because of a weak schedule.
The team with the best players. How do you judge? Statistics can be manipulated. In baseball, there are players with 100 RBIs every season who always seem to get 4 or 5 RBIs in 12 to 2 blowouts and no RBIs in 2 to 1 losses. There are other players who only get 80 RBIs who always seem to be driving in the winning run. Whose the better player?
Whose the better player, a player with great natural skills but mentally weak or a player with more limited skills but mentally strong?
Rate players from A+ down to F using some kind of system with A+ players costing a fortune and weaker players costing less.
Teams rarely have all A+ players. So which is the better team a team with A+ Starters and B- backups or a team with A- Starters and B+ backups? (Even the Yankees find it difficult to find an A or A- player who is willing to play backup to an A+ player. If the starter is an A-, a B+ player might be able to beat out the A- player for his job)
In the playoffs, you're better off with A+ starters but the team is more subject to injuries . In the regular season your better off with the A- starters and stronger backups.
Whose the better team? Very strong starters with weak backups or Strong starters with slightly less strong backups.
Longer playoffs weed out the mentally weak teams with a lot of players who pad their statistics. Anyone can win in a short playoffs.
As you may have guessed, I'm a Red Sox fan. The Sox last year were the classic mentally weak team with mentally weak players with great stats. If they hadn't fallen apart, they might have won the division with a great record but if you watched them on a daily basis you knew that this team had no heart. The Patriots had a great record last year with some great players but everyone knew that this team lacked something. The 2001 team had a lot less talent than last years team but they had something special.
|
|
|
Post by BJ on Mar 5, 2012 1:26:14 GMT -5
All fun rhetorical questions, but that first one is interesting. If MLB contracted to 28 teams, you could have a 162 game season, with 3 game home/away series, one league, winner takes all. It's perfectly balanced, and all you have to do is win more games than everyone else. It'll never happen, and your average American would hate it, but it's the way most soccer leagues around the world handle the season. It's frustrating when your team is out of it in the middle of the year, but there's no argument over the winner. Like I said, it'll never happen in baseball, but it's food for thought.
Also, it's interesting you mentioned Boston. Sorry to be so blunt, but like most Americans, I loathe the Red Sox and Patriots. It's hard to defend them, but I'll try(Cam Neely would be next to Willie McGee on my sports Mt. Rushmore if that makes you feel any better). Anyway, my point is that the 2007 Patriots were the last straw for me caring about the NFL. You have one of the best teams in history playing against one of the most mediocre to ever make the Super Bowl. The thing is, the mediocre team got hot at just the right time and lucked out to win the whole thing. Within the structure of the NFL, there's nothing to complain about, and some people think that's a perfect Cinderella story. But what I think is that it's a complete waste of time to watch the first 17 weeks because they mean absolutely nothing. All a team has to do is sneak into the playoffs and everything's fine.
And when I didn't watch the season in '08, I found that I couldn't get excited about the playoffs. Now, I rarely even turn on the NFL (admittedly, the massive amount of down time during a game was also a major factor). If I spend months watching a season, I want it to really mean something. Right now, I don't see that in any American team sport besides college football, and that's so corrupt it's a complete waste of time.
|
|