PDA

View Full Version : Expanded Playoffs



brad1176
02-29-2012, 03:16 PM
Per MLBTR: The MLB playoffs will expand from eight to ten teams for 2012.

Alpha Zero
02-29-2012, 04:00 PM
I like this a lot. It gets more teams into the playoffs while giving the division winners a decided advantage over the wild card teams. It should add excitement and increase interest in the sport.

Captain13
02-29-2012, 05:51 PM
I like this a lot. It gets more teams into the playoffs while giving the division winners a decided advantage over the wild card teams. It should add excitement and increase interest in the sport.

I agree with that 100%. Anything that adds interest to baseball is good in my book.

takealeake
02-29-2012, 06:20 PM
Selig is crap. What a horrible move to add to his legacy of ruining the game.

texasdave
02-29-2012, 06:28 PM
Selig is crap. What a horrible move to add to his legacy of ruining the game.

If it is going to be a one game crap shoot, I tend to agree. You can tell the better team in one game? I don't think so. Not even close. If getting more teams involved is good then let the division winners get a spot and draw a freaking ping pong ball out for the fourth participant. One game is a joke, in line with pretty much everything else Selig has done.

takealeake
02-29-2012, 06:39 PM
If it is going to be a one game crap shoot, I tend to agree. You can tell the better team in one game? I don't think so. Not even close. If getting more teams involved is good then let the division winners get a spot and draw a freaking ping pong ball out for the fourth participant. One game is a joke, in line with pretty much everything else Selig has done.

Yup. In a one game situation, anyone can beat anyone. I already dont like how the divisional series are best of 5.

The simple answer to me is to go back to two division and go to a 156 game flex schedule. Two divisions eliminated the one crap division winner that in inevitable, and schedule 156 fairly for everyone, and then making the last 6 games between the teams fighting for spots makes the end of the year much more important.

Instead they learned nothing from how last year turned out, and it was one of the greatest nights of baseball in recent history for those playoffs spots, determined completely by luck scheduling. Most of the time its "oh hey can X wildcard team beat the Pirates this weekend who have their late season call up starters making his 2nd career start?"

This isn't complicated, but Selig makes it more complicated.

LeDoux
02-29-2012, 08:42 PM
I think the wildcard winners should be determined by:

1. The entire team (including mascots, managers, and bullpen catchers) urinate into a barrel at the end of the regular season.

2. A sample is taken from the barrel for PED testing. The “cleanest barrel” obtains spot #1- after all, they play fair.

3. The team which is able to drink the most urine from the barrel in an hour wins spot #2- after all, they really, really want it.

texasdave
02-29-2012, 09:24 PM
I think the wildcard winners should be determined by:

1. The entire team (including mascots, managers, and bullpen catchers) urinate into a barrel at the end of the regular season.

2. A sample is taken from the barrel for PED testing. The “cleanest barrel” obtains spot #1- after all, they play fair.

3. The team which is able to drink the most urine from the barrel in an hour wins spot #2- after all, they really, really want it.

:lol:

=== The manager of the team winning the World Series gets a urine shower instead of a gatorade shower.
=== If you go 0 for 4 with four strikeouts you have to play the next came in a hat dipped in the urine barrel. Now that is a real Golden Sombrero.

The Rage
03-01-2012, 03:07 AM
Actually by expanding the playoffs this way, Selig is trying to make life for the "WC" winner tougher as they hit the divisionals.

texasdave
03-01-2012, 08:43 PM
Joe Sheehan on the ridiculousness of the addition of a second wild card team and a one-game coin flip.

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/writers/joe_sheehan/02/29/wild.card/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

texasdave
03-02-2012, 08:05 AM
A third-place team in a five-team division will hang the World Championship banner one day. Sweet. Now baseball has a regular season and a postseason tournament. October Sadness. Thanks, Bud Selig.

swaisuc
03-02-2012, 09:21 AM
A third-place team in a five-team division will hang the World Championship banner one day. Sweet. Now baseball has a regular season and a postseason tournament. October Sadness. Thanks, Bud Selig.

This will bother me less than the current mindset of nobody caring about winning the division. I think it's a good move. It provides more excitement by giving more teams "a chance", but makes winning the division and avoiding the 1 game situation a huge advantage.

takealeake
03-02-2012, 12:07 PM
This will bother me less than the current mindset of nobody caring about winning the division. I think it's a good move. It provides more excitement by giving more teams "a chance", but makes winning the division and avoiding the 1 game situation a huge advantage.

How does adding another team make the division title mean more? You just then added yet another team to the playoffs who doesn't have to worry about winning the division to get in the playoffs. Maybe the #1 WC team would wish they won the division, but if they're five games behind the best team in the league in their own division and at the same time 6 games better than some mediocre division winner (ahem, NL West many a year) - division "winning" becomes even more of a farce.

Selig screwed up. Again. He's an idiot.

swaisuc
03-02-2012, 12:48 PM
How does adding another team make the division title mean more? You just then added yet another team to the playoffs who doesn't have to worry about winning the division to get in the playoffs. Maybe the #1 WC team would wish they won the division, but if they're five games behind the best team in the league in their own division and at the same time 6 games better than some mediocre division winner (ahem, NL West many a year) - division "winning" becomes even more of a farce.

Selig screwed up. Again. He's an idiot.

Teams will try very hard to get the bye and avoid the 1 game crap shoot. The last few years, people have been playing AAA lineups once they clinched the WC and it's been ugly.

getfoul
03-02-2012, 02:54 PM
How does adding another team make the division title mean more? You just then added yet another team to the playoffs who doesn't have to worry about winning the division to get in the playoffs. Maybe the #1 WC team would wish they won the division, but if they're five games behind the best team in the league in their own division and at the same time 6 games better than some mediocre division winner (ahem, NL West many a year) - division "winning" becomes even more of a farce.

Selig screwed up. Again. He's an idiot.

Do you really look at these wildcard teams as playoff teams? I don't.

The way to look at this is there are 6 playoff teams that get in because they won their division, and there are four other teams that had good years, but didn't win their divsion that have a second chance to make the playoffs. There are still 8 playoff teams at the end of this process.

It's not like the losing wildcard team is going to raise a banner the next season--or at least they shouldn't. Heck, I don't think these wildcard teams should celebrate in the clubhouse or have t-shirts, hats, etc., until they actually win the Wildcard Game and get in the playoffs.

drowg14
03-02-2012, 09:00 PM
I don't like this. I like the idea one poster said (too lazy to scroll up and quote) about 2 divisions.

Selig, imho, terrible for baseball. Great for owners, bad for baseball.

RedsfaninMT
03-03-2012, 01:59 PM
I am not thrilled with this system, BUT (!) I do think too many wildcard teams have gone on to win the World Series - they are at no disadvantage going into the playoffs, and that is flat out wrong. If you're going to have the wildcard at all, this new system is one way to force teams to try to win their divisions.

Think of last year. The Cards would have played the Braves. Both would have gone all out for that one game win. There is no setting up your rotation if you get in as a wildcard. Meanwhile, the division winners DO get a chance, at least somewhat, to set up their rotations.

You make it more than one game, the division winners have a risk of sitting too long. One game does not mean you will get a true indicator who's better, but it does increase the likelihood of wild card winners being eliminated in the next round. I would much prefer getting rid of the wild card altogether, but that isn't going to happen. So giving the wildcards a handicap seems appropriate.

SweetLou1990
03-04-2012, 08:38 AM
I would like to see them set it up with 6 teams per league, with the top 2 seeds getting a bye. (similiar to NFL). The lowest 4 seeds per league play in a 3 day, 3 game series while the 2 best teams per league are resting for 4 days. The "cream" should rise to the top.
The one game playoff is no different than the play in game that the Reds had to go thru in 99', its no good for deciding a 162 game season.

goreds2
03-04-2012, 08:57 AM
Selig, imho, terrible for baseball. Great for owners, bad for baseball.

The Players Association also had to agree to this format.

* Sent from BlackBerry *

goreds2
03-04-2012, 09:11 AM
Please delete: Duplicate
* Sent from BlackBerry *

joshua
03-06-2012, 01:18 AM
In a sport that's more about sample size than any other, you're letting you championship potentially ride on a one game playoff after a 162 game season? I think it's stupid. Expand to 32 teams, have 8 divisions of four teams each and only take division winners. If there's a tie in a division there should be a three game series. That would be perfect. Right now, it doesn't matter if you were the second, or in some scenarios even THIRD best team in your division, as long as you enter the post season on a hot streak you can ride it to a World Series. So the question is: should a team that can't finish first or even SECOND in their division have a shot at the most prestigious title in sports? I don't think so.

Also, the excuse that it will allow the small markets to compete better, that's a bunch of crap and I'm not buying it. If these rules existed going back to 2002, here's who would've made it:

2011 Boston (90 wins), Atlanta (89 wins)

2010 Boston (89 wins), San Diego (90 wins)

2009 Texas (87 wins), San Francisco (88 wins)

2008 NYY (89 wins), NYM (89 wins)

2007 One game playoff between Detroit and Seattle (88 wins), San Diego (89 wins)

2006 LAA (89 wins), Phillies (85 wins)

2005 Cleveland (93 wins), Phillies (89 wins)

2004 Oakland (91 wins), San Fran (91 wins)

2003 Seattle (93 wins), Houston (87 wins)

2002 Boston (93 wins), LAD (92 wins)

getfoul
03-06-2012, 09:58 AM
To the previous poster, you can't have 4 divisions of 4 teams. That's the worst sceanrio, because, 1) how many games are you going to play against your three opponents?, and 2) What if all four teams suck? Say one of the divisions is White Sox, Indians, Twins, and Royals, and they're all bad teams? Just because one of them finishes first doesn't make them good. If the strike didn't happen in 1994, the AL West winner would have made the playoffs with a losing record. That was a 4-team division with a balanced schedule.

At least with five team divisions, you have a better chance of having one team be at least pretty good. Of course the most logical thing to do would be to eliminate divisions, play a balanced schedule, and seed the teams in the right order. But the system is the system--6 division winners, and 4 teams playing for the right to get in.

I like the new system. It's not perfect, but it's going to bring more teams into the race for the 2nd wildcard, which is good for attendance and TV ratings. And in the process, it will legitimize winning your division. There won't be two teams from the same division coasting in September knowing they're both making the playoffs on the same level.

Is a one-game playoff ideal? No, but those teams didn't win their division, so why should anyone feel sorry for them? The 4-seed still gets to host the game. Win it, and move on. If not, remind yourself you didn't win the division.

And as far as 3rd place teams qualifying for the wildcard game, no big deal in my opinion. A non-division winner is a non-division winner whether you come in 2nd or 3rd.

I think there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction right now, but over the next decade I think this new plan is going to work out better than it has over the last 17 years.

texasdave
03-06-2012, 12:28 PM
And if anyone thinks Boston having a zillion dollar payroll and missing the playoffs two years running wasn't a factor in the decision, they are kidding themselves. Money talks. Always has and always will.

texasdave
03-06-2012, 12:31 PM
I think there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction right now, but over the next decade I think this new plan is going to work out better than it has over the last 17 years.

Including yours. No one has any idea how this is going to work out. It is all speculative at this point.

getfoul
03-06-2012, 12:40 PM
And if anyone thinks Boston having a zillion dollar payroll and missing the playoffs two years running wasn't a factor in the decision, they are kidding themselves. Money talks. Always has and always will.

You're wrong. This has been on the table for a couple years. This new format has nothing to do with the end of last season. It has nothing to do with the Red Sox or Yankees. It has to do with bringing more teams into the race, which boosts attendance and TV ratings. Ok, maybe it has a little to do with the Yankees and Red Sox, because now it also makes division games more meaningful in September. When they were both clinching spots no matter what, they rested guys. Now they have to try to win their division to avoid the extra game. That's a good thing.

And do you really consider the loser of the Wildcard Game a playoff team? I don't. It's not like Red Sox fans are going to watch that game, lose it, and feel like it was successful season because they "made the playoffs".

If anything, this new format hurts the Red Sox more than any team because they won the wildcard under the old format more than anyone. Now if they win the best wildcard, they have to win another game, and then be disadvantaged by playing the best division winner no matter who that is.

Billy Hamilton's Legs
03-06-2012, 06:08 PM
I'm not sure I really like the direction the league is taking. Originally, I was very much in favor of playoff expansion, but I've been convinced that it really is detracting from the integrity of the regular season. Increasing the number of teams makes sense in the NFL because 16 games isn't a huge sample size. This isn't the NFL. 10x as many games are played in the regular season. I would have hoped Selig and the owner's would have more respect for the tradition associated with America's favorite past-time, but let's be honest, Bud has let us down before...

Billy Hamilton's Legs
03-06-2012, 06:09 PM
also, props to joshua for that list. really solidifies my stance.

SweetLou1990
03-07-2012, 07:45 PM
according to the list, the Red Sox would have made it an add'l 3X in the past decade, the Yanks 1x and the Phils 2X. This will benefit the big markets of course. Integrity lost, but there is no choice but to enjoy it. On the plus side, if the Cards are a wild card, they have a 50/50 chance of losing this play-in game.

Tuff Nut
03-07-2012, 08:43 PM
I would like to see them set it up with 6 teams per league, with the top 2 seeds getting a bye. (similiar to NFL). The lowest 4 seeds per league play in a 3 day, 3 game series while the 2 best teams per league are resting for 4 days. The "cream" should rise to the top.
The one game playoff is no different than the play in game that the Reds had to go thru in 99', its no good for deciding a 162 game season.
I agree almost 100%, and brought a similar idea up awhile back. :beerme:
Would rather it best a best of 5, with 3 playing 6 and 4-5. With 1 and 2 getting a bye week. But everything else is dead on.
I am not a fan of proposal...One game.....heck ANY team can win ONE game

improbus
03-08-2012, 10:22 PM
I like it because it punishes the Wild Card teams. The WC team will have to burn their top pitcher to win the 1 game playoff and then have to travel to the division winners city. This most likely means that the WC team will only get to throw their "ace" once, which is a HUGE penalty. Also, if your team loses the one game playoff, it wouldn't really feel like a postseason appearance anyway (like the Reds in '99), so I'm not sure where the outrage is coming from.

mu4103
04-05-2012, 05:45 PM
Bud Selig may or may not be in heaven, but he is always a reminder that heaven is not on earth. Oh by the way, I'm glad there is 162 games so the wild card team can win the World Series every year. Haven't really cared much for the Fall Classic since 1993 and some of the games have been real classics. Oh, Bud please, please, please just do something right. It's hard to screw up a game that has been so good for 100+ years in one tenure - but you are have been quite successful nonetheless. Bud Selig reminds me of the emperor in Star Wars, he just won't go away. Why do the worst ones stay the longest? I think I have gone through the full cycle of abuse. I am no longer angry, just sad and depressed.

Finally, why can't Bud team up with Dusty and take a hint from a Western. Jump on Dusty's Harley and ride away into the sunset (never to return). I hope to see them both in heaven, where the winner of the two team (might have to eliminate some of the teams) NLCS and ALCS meet in the World Series, announced by Vin Scully with Joe Gargiola. Of course some pitchers will have to learn to hit ...