PDA

View Full Version : Sunday scenarios

Brutus
10-02-2010, 08:14 PM
With this evening's San Diego win, my understanding is that with a win tomorrow, they clinch the division (on account of a 12-5 record against San Fran), UNLESS...

Atlanta wins Sunday (I'm assuming a loss tonight).

If San Diego wins & Atlanta loses, San Diego wins the division with San Francisco getting the wildcard. This means San Fran would travel to Philadelphia and Cincinnati would go to San Diego.

However, if Atlanta wins, it forces a 3-way tie, which means San Diego and San Francisco are not guaranteed of both making the playoffs, thereby scrapping the head-to-head record.

My understanding, then, is there would be two (2) one-game playoffs to settle the wildcard & West division. Perhaps someone can clarify how that goes down.

If Atlanta wins and San Francisco wins, Cincinnati will play Philadelphia.

If Atlanta loses and San Francisco wins, Atlanta and San Diego will have a 1-game playoff for the wildcard. Atlanta winning would have the Reds facing Philadelphia. San Diego winning would have them playing San Francisco.

:D

mth123
10-02-2010, 08:22 PM
With this evening's San Diego win, my understanding is that with a win tomorrow, they clinch the division (on account of a 12-5 record against San Fran), UNLESS...

Atlanta wins Sunday (I'm assuming a loss tonight).

If San Diego wins & Atlanta loses, San Diego wins the division with San Francisco getting the wildcard. This means San Fran would travel to Philadelphia and Cincinnati would go to San Diego.

However, if Atlanta wins, it forces a 3-way tie, which means San Diego and San Francisco are not guaranteed of both making the playoffs, thereby scrapping the head-to-head record.

My understanding, then, is there would be two (2) one-game playoffs to settle the wildcard & West division. Perhaps someone can clarify how that goes down.

If Atlanta wins and San Francisco wins, Cincinnati will play Philadelphia.

If Atlanta loses and San Francisco wins, Atlanta and San Diego will have a 1-game playoff for the wildcard. Atlanta winning would have the Reds facing Philadelphia. San Diego winning would have them playing San Francisco.

:D

Why does a San Diego win not force a 1 game play-off to decide who is the wild card and who is the west champ?

Brutus
10-02-2010, 08:24 PM
Why does a San Diego win not force a 1 game play-off to decide who is the wild card and who is the west champ?

Because if both the Giants and Padres make the playoffs (which they would with a Braves loss & Padres win), a head-to-head tiebreaker is used instead of a 1-game playoff.

Kc61
10-02-2010, 08:25 PM
Here's my post from another thread. Assuming the Phils win over the Braves today, I think this is how it works.

If Giants and Braves win tomorrow, Reds play Philly. Braves would be wild card.

If Giants win tomorrow and Braves lose, then the Giants win the West. The wildcard then would be the winner of a playoff between the Padres and Braves in Atl. If Braves win that game, Reds play Philly. If Pads win that game, Reds play Giants.

If Pads win tomorrow and Braves lose, then the Giants and Pads make the playoffs and the Braves are out. The Pads would win the NL West due to tiebraker with Giants. Reds would then play the Padres in the playoffs. Phils would play the wildcard Giants.

If Pads and Braves both win tomorrow, then it is a three-way tie. The Pads and Giants would playoff Monday for the NL West title. The loser would play in Atlanta Tuesday for the wildcard. If the Braves win the wildcard, Reds play Philly. If the Pads win the wildcard Reds play Giants. If the Giants win the wildcard, Reds play Padres.

Kc61
10-02-2010, 08:26 PM
Why does a San Diego win not force a 1 game play-off to decide who is the wild card and who is the west champ?

Doesn't work that way. If two teams in the same division both make playoffs, you use head-to-head record to decide champ and wildcard. No playoff.

Brutus
10-02-2010, 08:26 PM
Here's my post from another thread. Assuming the Phils win over the Braves today, I think this is how it works.

If Giants and Braves win tomorrow, Reds play Philly. Braves would be wild card.

If Giants win tomorrow and Braves lose, then the Giants win the West. The wildcard then would be the winner of a playoff between the Padres and Braves in Atl. If Braves win that game, Reds play Philly. If Pads win that game, Reds play Giants.

If Pads win tomorrow and Braves lose, then the Giants and Pads make the playoffs and the Braves are out. The Pads would win the NL West due to tiebraker with Giants. Reds would then play the Padres in the playoffs. Phils would play the wildcard Giants.

If Pads and Braves both win tomorrow, then it is a three-way tie. The Pads and Giants would playoff Monday for the NL West title. The loser would play in Atlanta Tuesday for the wildcard. If the Braves win the wildcard, Reds play Philly. If the Pads win the wildcard Reds play Giants. If the Giants win the wildcard, Reds play Padres.

It looks like we're on the same page.

Kc61
10-02-2010, 08:28 PM
It looks like we're on the same page.

Yes, I think we are.

wheels
10-02-2010, 08:29 PM
The Reds don't have home field in any scenario, do they?

Kc61
10-02-2010, 08:30 PM
The Reds don't have home field in any scenario, do they?

No. Reds open on the road in any scenario.

Reds Fanatic
10-02-2010, 08:31 PM
The Reds don't have home field in any scenario, do they?
No. They are either starting in Philly on Wednesday or San Francisco or San Diego on Thursday.

cincinnati chili
10-02-2010, 08:31 PM
Tim Stauffer has been really flying under the radar this year. He knows how to pitch.

BCubb2003
10-02-2010, 08:32 PM
I don't think I can take another West Coast roadtrip.

Boss-Hog
10-02-2010, 08:32 PM
Thanks Brutus and KC. I really wish we had a better September to have home field in the NLDS, but as is, I'm hoping for a Padres win and Braves loss tomorrow. I don't really want the Reds to go to the West Coast, either, but going to San Diego is preferable to going to Philly, IMO.

Reds Fanatic
10-02-2010, 08:32 PM
The bad thing about the multiple playoff game scenario is the Reds won't know where they are going until sometime Tuesday night if that happens. They would then either need to be in Philly the next day or out west on Thursday.

reds1869
10-02-2010, 08:32 PM
I don't think I can take another West Coast roadtrip.

Me either. I honestly prefer the Phillies.

mth123
10-02-2010, 08:34 PM
Doesn't work that way. If two teams in the same division both make playoffs, you use head-to-head record to decide champ and wildcard. No playoff.

I see that now. What a crummy method. Let 'em play a game to break the tie. Tie breakers using secondary criteria like that (instead of overall wins and losses) are for sports that can't fit an extra game in the schedule. Baseball shouldn't come to a tie-breaker if its even after 162 games. Settle it on the field. JMO.

Brutus
10-02-2010, 08:39 PM
I see that now. What a crummy method. Let 'em play a game to break the tie. Tie breakers using secondary criteria like that (instead of overall wins and losses) are for sports that can't fit an extra game in the schedule. Baseball shouldn't come to a tie-breaker if its even after 162 games. Settle it on the field. JMO.

I would argue that in the very scenario you mentioned, San Diego winning 13 of 18 games this year against San Fran (which is exactly what would have happened) is settling it on the field

How is it fair for San Diego to go 13-5 against the team they're tied with and have to win again?

To me, it's actually a very fair method. It's only for seeding anyhow. So it's not like San Fran would be out on the streets.

Kc61
10-02-2010, 08:40 PM
I would argue that in the very scenario you mentioned, San Diego winning 13 of 18 games this year against San Fran (which is exactly what would have happened) is settling it on the field

How is it fair for San Diego to go 13-5 against the team they're tied with and have to win again?

To me, it's actually a very fair method. It's only for seeding anyhow. So it's not like San Fran would be out on the streets.

Baseball's view seems to be that you playoff to decide on who gets a playoff spot.

You don't play off if the only issue is seeding.

Brutus
10-02-2010, 08:44 PM
Baseball's view seems to be that you playoff to decide on who gets a playoff spot.

You don't play off if the only issue is seeding.

I know that, but I'm saying that especially in this case, I see no reason why San Diego hasn't earned the higher seed in that scenario anyhow. They will have gone 13-5 against San Francisco this year if it comes down to that tiebreaker. Now all cases will be as clear-cut, but I think 12 to 18 times playing in a season is a good way to settle it anyhow.

I guess in a roundabout way, I'm saying I like baseball's methods on this.

mth123
10-02-2010, 08:51 PM
I know that, but I'm saying that especially in this case, I see no reason why San Diego hasn't earned the higher seed in that scenario anyhow. They will have gone 13-5 against San Francisco this year if it comes down to that tiebreaker. Now all cases will be as clear-cut, but I think 12 to 18 times playing in a season is a good way to settle it anyhow.

I guess in a roundabout way, I'm saying I like baseball's methods on this.

OTOH, the primary goal is to have the most wins on the season. Head to Head, Run Differential or any other method is secondary to the primary criteria. I can see deviating from the primary criteria in a sport like the NFL where there aren't many games, ties are likely and playing a play-off would force backing up the entire schedule. Baseball has those off days after the season to allow extra games so the primary criteria can decide it. No reason not to use them IMO.

Kc61
10-02-2010, 08:54 PM
I know that, but I'm saying that especially in this case, I see no reason why San Diego hasn't earned the higher seed in that scenario anyhow. They will have gone 13-5 against San Francisco this year if it comes down to that tiebreaker. Now all cases will be as clear-cut, but I think 12 to 18 times playing in a season is a good way to settle it anyhow.

I guess in a roundabout way, I'm saying I like baseball's methods on this.

Interesting that in the two-way tie scenario SD's dominance over SF gives Pads the division with no playoff.

in the three-way tie sceniaro, SF and SD do have a playoff game for the division, with the loser then playing Atl for the wild card.

Not exactly consistent. But the reasoning, I think, is that in the two-way tie situation, both teams are in the playoffs. In the three-way tie situation, there is effectively a three team playoff for the two spots, with one club losing out.

hebroncougar
10-02-2010, 08:57 PM
Me either. I honestly prefer the Phillies.

Count me in here too. I don't want 10 PM start times for the Reds in the playoffs.

Brutus
10-02-2010, 08:59 PM
OTOH, the primary goal is to have the most wins on the season. Head to Head, Run Differential or any other method is secondary to the primary criteria. I can see deviating from the primary criteria in a sport like the NFL where there aren't many games, ties are likely and playing a play-off would force backing up the entire schedule. Baseball has those off days after the season to allow extra games so the primary criteria can decide it. No reason not to use them IMO.

But you said you wanted them to settle it on the field, i.e. playing head to head. How is head-to-head, then, not settling it on the field? Why play one more game when a team already beat the other 'x' number of times over the course of 18 games in a season? It just seems like it doesn't need settled any further.

If the Giants lost on a tiebreaker, after going 5-13 against a division foe, I don't think they have any argument that they deserve to settle it on the field. It was already settled pretty clearly.

I(heart)Freel
10-02-2010, 09:01 PM
Hate to say it... but the hangover lineup game was kind of important.

If Reds won that and tomorrow, that would have given them home field advantage in a few scenarios.

Near as I can figure, tomorrow's Reds game means absolutely nothing in any scenario. Hence... Harang Appreciation Day.

mth123
10-02-2010, 09:04 PM
But you said you wanted them to settle it on the field, i.e. playing head to head. How is head-to-head, then, not settling it on the field? Why play one more game when a team already beat the other 'x' number of times over the course of 18 games in a season? It just seems like it doesn't need settled any further.

If the Giants lost on a tiebreaker, after going 5-13 against a division foe, I don't think they have any argument that they deserve to settle it on the field. It was already settled pretty clearly.

If SD wins tomorrow, both teams have 91 wins. Having the most is the primary objective. Playing the extra game will give one team 92. IMO, all that other stuff is secondary to having the most wins. Why settle for some secondary stuff when they don't need to? Pure Wins and Loss. Its one of the things that used to set baseball apart from other sports and now its gone too.

mth123
10-02-2010, 09:07 PM
Near as I can figure, tomorrow's Reds game means absolutely nothing in any scenario. Hence... Harang Appreciation Day.

Pretty much. I wish the Reds had a chance at home field tomorrow, but Harang does deserve a last day in the sun in Cincy. He's toast IMO, but over the last several years he's been one of my favorites.

Brutus
10-02-2010, 09:08 PM
If SD wins tomorrow, both teams have 91 wins. Having the most is the primary objective. Playing the extra game will give one team 92. IMO, all that other stuff is secondary to having the most wins. Why settle for some secondary stuff when they don't need to? Pure Wins and Loss. Its one of the things that used to set baseball apart from other sports and now its gone too.

But if you tie for the number of overall wins, direct competition should matter. It seems the team that won the majority of those games is being penalized for taking direct control of their destiny against the team they tied with. Those games should count for something additional. If someone ties over 162 games, the games they played against each other should decide it, not a fluke 1-game result.

18 games is more important than 1.

mth123
10-02-2010, 09:11 PM
But if you tie for the number of overall wins, direct competition should matter. It seems the team that won the majority of those games is being penalized for taking direct control of their destiny against the team they tied with. Those games should count for something additional. If someone ties over 162 games, the games they played against each other should decide it, not a fluke 1-game result.

18 games is more important than 1.

I don't want to keep going back and forth on this and ruin it for everybody else (probably too late), but IMO, using your logic, 162 is more important than 18. Both teams had the opportunity to get another win somewhere along the line. Having the most wins over 163 games isn't a fluke IMO.

fearofpopvol1
10-02-2010, 09:11 PM
Explained very easily and well right here: http://dave-andriesen.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/24977324

Brutus
10-02-2010, 09:18 PM
I don't want to keep going back and forth on this and ruin it for everybody else (probably too late), but IMO, using your logic, 162 is more important than 18. Both teams had the opportunity to get another win somewhere along the line. Having the most wins over 163 games isn't a fluke IMO.

It's a discussion board, so I would hope a debate doesn't ruin anything, as that's the spirit of the community.

Yes, 162 is more important than 18. That's not the issue. My point is that if 162 didn't decide it outright, I'd rather rely on what happened over the 18 times the two teams already played than playing one game where a fluke outcome could decide it.

A team beating the team 13 times in 18 carries more importance toward 162 than one game does to 163.

RED VAN HOT
10-02-2010, 09:25 PM
Best outcome for the Reds is SD win and ATL loss. That would not only match them up with a SD team that could be emotionally spent, it would also give the Giants a shot at knocking out the Phils. I think SF has the pitching to do so.

flyer85
10-02-2010, 09:27 PM
If there is a three way tie and SF and SD have a one game playoff wouldn't that make the Braves the wild card team by virtue of being a half game ahead of the loser

Brutus
10-02-2010, 09:29 PM
Best outcome for the Reds is SD win and ATL loss. That would not only match them up with a SD team that could be emotionally spent, it would also give the Giants a shot at knocking out the Phils. I think SF has the pitching to do so.

Or a San Diego win, Atlanta win, San Diego win in the 1-game playoff against San Fran and San Fran a win in a 1-game playoff against Atlanta?

That would require San Diego playing yet another day and getting another win.

I(heart)Freel
10-02-2010, 09:39 PM
I know we're all saying the same thing in different ways, but maybe this is easier to follow and more Reds-focused.

If ATL loses, SD wins = Reds at SD

If ATL wins, SF wins = Reds at Philly

If ATL wins, SD wins then...
SD-SF play-in for WEST on Monday and WEST LOSER plays ATL for Wild Card on Tuesday. If ATL wins that, Reds at Philly; if WEST LOSER wins, Reds at WEST WINNER.

If ATL loses, SF wins then...
SD-ATL play-in for Wild Card on Monday. If ATL wins, Reds at Philly; if SD wins, Reds at Giants.

Reds Fanatic
10-02-2010, 09:42 PM
If there is a three way tie and SF and SD have a one game playoff wouldn't that make the Braves the wild card team by virtue of being a half game ahead of the loser

No because they don't count the extra game toward that. They will do the wild card playoff based on the records not counting the extra playoff game.

dsmith421
10-02-2010, 09:43 PM
Me either. I honestly prefer the Phillies.

I've heard some chatter in other places about preferring to play Phila in a 7-game series rather than a 5-game series, because theoretically you'd have a Blanton start in there. But think about it: you've still got to win three games against Philly's TOR arms.

I like the Reds' chances over a 5-game series better than a 7-game series. The fact that Citizen's Bell is a roughly equivalent park to GABP is good, because it means we won't have to adjust our game to the no-homer wind tunnel in SD. The shorter road trips are also good. Numerous offdays increase the effectiveness of our old men (Rolen, Rhodes, Edmonds). And if we can knock out Philly, the road gets easier in the NLCS.

klw
10-02-2010, 09:45 PM
Is there a scenario in which the Reds open against the Pirates and meet the Brewers in the NLCS?

I(heart)Freel
10-02-2010, 09:47 PM
Only thing we know for sure...

Reds NLDS home games are Oct. 10 and (if necessary) Oct. 11.

Typing that makes me feel good.

OnBaseMachine
10-02-2010, 10:10 PM
How huge was that loss last night by the Reds? The defense gave that one away. If the Reds win that game they would have a decent chance at securing homefield advantage.

I'll be rooting for the Padres tomorrow, and I guess the Phillies too. At first, I was rooting for the Braves to make the playoffs in Bobby Cox's final season but not now. I'm more worried about what's best for the Reds and I think the best case scenario for the Reds is for the Padres to win tomorrow and the Braves to lose.

Tomorrow should be an exciting day of baseball.

Redsfaithful
10-03-2010, 02:38 AM
Just as a baseball fan I'm rooting for the 3 team tie. As a Reds fan I honestly don't know what would be best. Every team has it's strengths once you get to the postseason.

Deepred05
10-03-2010, 08:11 AM
Just as a baseball fan I'm rooting for the 3 team tie. As a Reds fan I honestly don't know what would be best. Every team has it's strengths once you get to the postseason.

+1
Has this ever happened? It sounds exciting to me....

blumj
10-03-2010, 10:27 AM
+1
Has this ever happened? It sounds exciting to me....

I just read on another board that it almost happened in '95, except the rule then was that the first extra game loss counted against that team's record, so there wouldn't have been a 2nd extra game. And that's when they changed the rule so there'd have to be a 2nd.

macro
10-03-2010, 10:45 AM
This feels an awfully lot like the final weekend of the NFL season. :laugh:

I don't remember anything quite like this in MLB, but then again, I've been tuning out MLB by this point in all but one season since 1995.

I'd rather go to Philadelphia than go to either San Diego OR San Francisco.

top6
10-03-2010, 11:06 AM
I just read on another board that it almost happened in '95, except the rule then was that the first extra game loss counted against that team's record, so there wouldn't have been a 2nd extra game. And that's when they changed the rule so there'd have to be a 2nd.

Thank you. This is the only reasonable explanation I have heard as to why there would still be a second 1-game playoff if SD and San Fran tied.

Not sure I agree with the rule, given that the one game playoff counts as a regular season game for all other statistical purposes, but it makes sense.

cincrazy
10-03-2010, 11:49 AM
With this evening's San Diego win, my understanding is that with a win tomorrow, they clinch the division (on account of a 12-5 record against San Fran), UNLESS...

Atlanta wins Sunday (I'm assuming a loss tonight).

If San Diego wins & Atlanta loses, San Diego wins the division with San Francisco getting the wildcard. This means San Fran would travel to Philadelphia and Cincinnati would go to San Diego.

However, if Atlanta wins, it forces a 3-way tie, which means San Diego and San Francisco are not guaranteed of both making the playoffs, thereby scrapping the head-to-head record.

My understanding, then, is there would be two (2) one-game playoffs to settle the wildcard & West division. Perhaps someone can clarify how that goes down.

If Atlanta wins and San Francisco wins, Cincinnati will play Philadelphia.

If Atlanta loses and San Francisco wins, Atlanta and San Diego will have a 1-game playoff for the wildcard. Atlanta winning would have the Reds facing Philadelphia. San Diego winning would have them playing San Francisco.

:D

In regards to the West race... I read on the ESPN bottom line yesterday that if the Padres win today, it forces a 1-game playoff with the Giants. It said nothing about the Braves having to win to make this scenario happen. I had assumed, if the Braves lost and Pads won, that the West would be settled by tiebreakers and the Reds would play the Pads, but the ESPN ticker threw me for a loop. So, just to confirm, there is NO one game playoff if the Braves lose and Pads win, correct? Me like :).

Slyder
10-03-2010, 11:51 AM
Hate to say it... but the hangover lineup game was kind of important.

If Reds won that and tomorrow, that would have given them home field advantage in a few scenarios.

Near as I can figure, tomorrow's Reds game means absolutely nothing in any scenario. Hence... Harang Appreciation Day.

Or the Atlanta Meltdown... or any one of what 5-7 blown saves?

oneupper
10-03-2010, 11:52 AM
In regards to the West race... I read on the ESPN bottom line yesterday that if the Padres win today, it forces a 1-game playoff with the Giants. It said nothing about the Braves having to win to make this scenario happen. I had assumed, if the Braves lost and Pads won, that the West would be settled by tiebreakers and the Reds would play the Pads, but the ESPN ticker threw me for a loop. So, just to confirm, there is NO one game playoff if the Braves lose and Pads win, correct? Me like :).

I think we already had this with the Cards and Astros, a few years back. They did NOT play an extra game. Astros won the div, Cards the wild card.

oneupper
10-03-2010, 11:53 AM
Also 2006.

oneupper
10-03-2010, 11:56 AM
Just looked it up. The Astros/Cards tie was in 2001. My memory is old.

Hoosier Red
10-03-2010, 11:58 AM
I think we already had this with the Cards and Astros, a few years back. They did NOT play an extra game. Astros won the div, Cards the wild card.

I think that was different though because the Astros and Cards were like the Yankees and Rays this year in that they had each clinched a playoff spot regardless.

If both teams finished tied with ATL they'd need to have a playoff and then the loser would have to play the Braves.

Tony Cloninger
10-03-2010, 11:59 AM
How huge was that loss last night by the Reds? The defense gave that one away. If the Reds win that game they would have a decent chance at securing homefield advantage.

I'll be rooting for the Padres tomorrow, and I guess the Phillies too. At first, I was rooting for the Braves to make the playoffs in Bobby Cox's final season but not now. I'm more worried about what's best for the Reds and I think the best case scenario for the Reds is for the Padres to win tomorrow and the Braves to lose.

Tomorrow should be an exciting day of baseball.

The MIL loss and the day after the clinching along with the PITT blown game....I was doing the same thing in 1999....except they did not make it that year (There was a loss in the 1st game in MIL that really should not have happened, McKeon pulled Neagle too early IMO, but he loved his bullpen that year)

oneupper
10-03-2010, 12:00 PM
I think that was different though because the Astros and Cards were like the Yankees and Rays this year in that they had each clinched a playoff spot regardless.

If both teams finished tied with ATL they'd need to have a playoff and then the loser would have to play the Braves.

That is correct. Cincrazy wanted to confirm that there would be no extra game if Braves Lose and Padres Win.

Tony Cloninger
10-03-2010, 12:09 PM
They are saying if both Padres and Braves win....there will be 2 games played, one on Monday and then another on tuesday to determine who wins what.

UKFlounder
10-03-2010, 12:24 PM
Reading all this, I'm just glad the Reds are in and fans of these other teams have to figure all this out. I know it can affect who the Reds play, but I'll gladly deal with that uncertainty instead of wondering "in or out" under each scenario.

mth123
10-03-2010, 02:28 PM
Looks like the Phils have all their starters in there with Hamels pitching,

Reds Fanatic
10-03-2010, 03:12 PM
2-0 phils on a Mayberry PH homer