PDA

View Full Version : MLB To Announce Expanded Playoffs For 2012



Gallen5862
02-29-2012, 07:49 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

MLB To Announce Expanded Playoffs For 2012
By Tim Dierkes [February 29 at 3:32pm CST]
3:32pm: MLBPA executive director Michael Weiner told Bob Nightengale of USA Today that "we'll have an answer in the next couple of days." Nightengale confirms that players and owners have agreed to expand the postseason for 2012.

redsfaninbsg
02-29-2012, 08:58 PM
Basically, if the Reds miss the playoffs now we will all be furious.

AtomicDumpling
03-01-2012, 01:30 AM
As if having 2nd place teams winning the World Series wasn't bad enough. Might as well open the doors to 3rd place teams as well.

Why play 162 games to determine the best teams if you are going to allow teams into the playoffs that have already proven they are not the best?

Winning the World Series used to mean that your team had a great season and earned a hallowed place in history. Now it often means that your team proved they weren't all that good in the regular season but snuck into the post-season anyway, caught a few breaks and had a little hot streak at the right time. Teams that can't even win their own little division do not deserve a chance to earn a spot in history. It cheapens the World Series championship and dilutes the accomplishments of the great teams of yesteryear to now be lumped in with some of the mediocre World Series winners of recent years. 2nd place = not good enough, or at least it used to.

How far will Bud Selig go? Won't be long until MLB sinks to the level of the NFL, NBA and NHL where the regular season is almost meaningless and only the playoffs matter.

Making the postseason used to be an exhilarating experience for the fans because it meant your team was thisclose to winning a World Series, but now it doesn't really mean much since 1/3 of all teams make it. Then you still have to win a big tournament before you can claim the championship. It is kind of like youth athletics nowadays where everybody gets a trophy even if you stink.

1990REDS
03-01-2012, 07:50 AM
As if having 2nd place teams winning the World Series wasn't bad enough. Might as well open the doors to 3rd place teams as well.

Why play 162 games to determine the best teams if you are going to allow teams into the playoffs that have already proven they are not the best?

Winning the World Series used to mean that your team had a great season and earned a hallowed place in history. Now it often means that your team proved they weren't all that good in the regular season but snuck into the post-season anyway, caught a few breaks and had a little hot streak at the right time. Teams that can't even win their own little division do not deserve a chance to earn a spot in history. It cheapens the World Series championship and dilutes the accomplishments of the great teams of yesteryear to now be lumped in with some of the mediocre World Series winners of recent years. 2nd place = not good enough, or at least it used to.

How far will Bud Selig go? Won't be long until MLB sinks to the level of the NFL, NBA and NHL where the regular season is almost meaningless and only the playoffs matter.

Making the postseason used to be an exhilarating experience for the fans because it meant your team was thisclose to winning a World Series, but now it doesn't really mean much since 1/3 of all teams make it. Then you still have to win a big tournament before you can claim the championship. It is kind of like youth athletics nowadays where everybody gets a trophy even if you stink.
You don't think a 1 game playoff between cardinals/braves last season would have been exciting and made for great tv.

1990REDS
03-01-2012, 07:51 AM
Sorry on my phone and did not mean to bold that section in your post

blumj
03-01-2012, 09:02 AM
It's going to be fun, but people are still going to freak out when a 95 win team that used their best pitchers trying to win the division falls a game short and ends up losing the 1 game to an 88 win team that coasted to the 2nd WC and got their pitching lined up and rested.

cumberlandreds
03-01-2012, 09:17 AM
This will actually help the division winners. The two wild cards will have to use their best pitcher in the one game playoff. Which will throw the rotation out of whack for the winner of that game. In a weird sort of way it legitimizes the regular season just a bit more, IMO.

bucksfan2
03-01-2012, 09:22 AM
This will actually help the division winners. The two wild cards will have to use their best pitcher in the one game playoff. Which will throw the rotation out of whack for the winner of that game. In a weird sort of way it legitimizes the regular season just a bit more, IMO.

Not necessarily. It all depends on how the season winds up. If you are contending for a division championship your going to keep your pitchers pitching on normal rest. The only time your going to set your rotation is if you are guaranteed something.

WildcatFan
03-01-2012, 10:00 AM
My one gripe is that one game in baseball rarely determines the better team--it usually only determines the better ace. Also last year the AL East would have had three teams in, which, puke.

muddie
03-01-2012, 10:05 AM
Why play 162 games to determine the best teams if you are going to allow teams into the playoffs that have already proven they are not the best?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

IslandRed
03-01-2012, 06:21 PM
If it's the format they were talking about last fall, I don't have a problem with it. They've come up with a format that accomplishes seemingly opposite goals: keeping hope alive in more places in September while making it far more important to win the division. The wild-card play-in game will be must-see TV. I usually don't give MLB credit for being that smart.

1990REDS
03-01-2012, 06:49 PM
If it's the format they were talking about last fall, I don't have a problem with it. They've come up with a format that accomplishes seemingly opposite goals: keeping hope alive in more places in September while making it far more important to win the division. The wild-card play-in game will be must-see TV. I usually don't give MLB credit for being that smart.

Agreed, I love how much emphasis this new format would put on winning your division.

Gallen5862
03-01-2012, 06:57 PM
Think about this interesting scenario. Two teams end the season tied for the division lead. They also had the best record in the League. The winner of tie breaker game is a division champion and the loser is wildcard seed number 1. The team that knows it will be wildcard number 2 knows this in advance. They get their rotation lined up for the wildcard playin game. Meanwhile the wildcard number 1 team uses their ace and lost in the division playin game. Now a team that possibly could have been the team with the second best record in the league will be at a severe disadvantage to a weaker team.

AtomicDumpling
03-01-2012, 08:03 PM
You don't think a 1 game playoff between cardinals/braves last season would have been exciting and made for great tv.

No I don't. Because neither one of those teams deserved to be in the playoffs last year. Both of them got smacked around in their own divisions and finished in second place by wide margins.

Do we really want to determine who gets a chance to win the World Series based on TV ratings?

Seems to me the goal should be to reward the best team with a championship, not create a system that makes it less likely that the best team wins the championship. How often in the era of expanded playoffs has the best team in baseball won the World Series? Not very often.

It used to be that the World Series winner had a very strong claim to being the best team in baseball that year. Nowadays that is simply not the case. For example, the Cardinals last year were nowhere close to the best team in baseball, and not coincidentally we saw one of the worst-played World Series in history as a result. That mediocre Cardinals team earned the same accolade as the great 1975-76 Big Red Machine. It cheapens the honor earned by great champions of the past to be lumped in the same category as the 2nd-place champions of the wild card era.

BCubb2003
03-01-2012, 08:15 PM
We could have the coaches and sportswriters vote for the champion, like in a poll or something.

But I always wondered why the 63rd to 66th best college basketball teams in the country act like they expect a shot at the championship.

IslandRed
03-01-2012, 08:23 PM
No I don't. Because neither one of those teams deserved to be in the playoffs last year. Both of them got smacked around in their own divisions and finished in second place by wide margins.

Do we really want to determine who gets a chance to win the World Series based on TV ratings?

Seems to me the goal should be to reward the best team with a championship, not create a system that makes it less likely that the best team wins the championship. How often in the era of expanded playoffs has the best team in baseball won the World Series? Not very often.

It used to be that the World Series winner had a very strong claim to being the best team in baseball that year. Nowadays that is simply not the case. For example, the Cardinals last year were nowhere close to the best team in baseball, and not coincidentally we saw one of the worst-played World Series in history as a result. That mediocre Cardinals team earned the same accolade as the great 1975-76 Big Red Machine. It cheapens the honor earned by great champions of the past to be lumped in the same category as the 2nd-place champions of the wild card era.

Carried to its logical conclusion, that argument leads us back to pre-1969, a time when ONLY the best team in each league gained admittance to the World Series. I'm sure you'd have been saying exactly the same thing in 1973 about that dadgum division setup that allowed the far-superior Reds to be bumped off by the mediocre Mets. And from a purist level you're exactly right about all of it.

Alas, there aren't enough purists to go around. Most fans care about their local team's fortunes far more than they care about the sanctity of the World Series. The same system that used to maximize the potential for a memorable Series ensured that all but a few cities had rolled up the sidewalks to the ballpark before Labor Day most years.

And then there's the pragmatic current-day Reds fan view: how likely is it we're going to be THE best team in the NL this year? If that's what it took, the anticipation level around here wouldn't be nearly as high, in my opinion.

RedsManRick
03-01-2012, 08:27 PM
With all the incentive issues and whatnot, I definitely understand the purist perspective. But hey, you've already broken the seal by introducing the first wild card. This just makes it all the more interesting. And at the end of the day, another playoff spot is fun. Everybody likes have a shot at the championship and I'd rather have too many get a shot than too few.

AtomicDumpling
03-01-2012, 08:33 PM
Carried to its logical conclusion, that argument leads us back to pre-1969, a time when ONLY the best team in each league gained admittance to the World Series. I'm sure you'd have been saying exactly the same thing in 1973 about that dadgum division setup that allowed the far-superior Reds to be bumped off by the mediocre Mets. And from a purist level you're exactly right about all of it.

Alas, there aren't enough purists to go around. Most fans care about their local team's fortunes far more than they care about the sanctity of the World Series. The same system that used to maximize the potential for a memorable Series ensured that all but a few cities had rolled up the sidewalks to the ballpark before Labor Day most years.

And then there's the pragmatic current-day Reds fan view: how likely is it we're going to be THE best team in the NL this year? If that's what it took, the anticipation level around here wouldn't be nearly as high, in my opinion.

How excited can you get about a championship when you KNOW your team was not the best team? I guess the word "champion" no longer means "the best" to people anymore.

If what you cared about was your team's fortune wouldn't you want your team to get what they deserved? If your team was the best team in baseball would you want to see them beaten in a short playoff series by an inferior team and denied a chance to win the World Series?

Yes most teams used to roll up the sidewalks before Labor Day most years, but you know what else happened? Those seasons when your team was genuinely good that month of September was incredibly exciting. It didn't happen every year, but when it did it meant everything. That pennant race was so compelling because everything was on the line -- all the marbles were at stake because there was only one spot in the postseason. Now the September pennant races are nearly meaningless because the only thing at stake is one of 10 spots in the postseason, therefore it is not nearly as compelling and all-consuming as it used to be. Everything is watered down now so more cities can feel like they are still in the race in late September.

RedsBaron
03-01-2012, 08:42 PM
If it was up to me there would be no wild cards. Each league would have the three divisional champions in the playoffs, with the team with the best record in each league getting a first round bye.
Better yet IMO would be two divisions in each league and no wild card.
No chance of that.

Crumbley
03-02-2012, 01:12 AM
How excited can you get about a championship when you KNOW your team was not the best team? I guess the word "champion" no longer means "the best" to people anymore.

Reds should give back their 1990 World Series going by this logic.

AtomicDumpling
03-02-2012, 01:33 AM
Reds should give back their 1990 World Series going by this logic.

Why? The Reds didn't finish second. They won a tough division, won the playoffs and swept the World Series. Nobody ever proved they were better than the Reds that year.

You can say the Pirates won more games than the Reds that year, but they played a different schedule because they played more games against each team in their own division than against each team in the other division. Since the schedules were different the Reds could claim their division schedule was tougher and nobody can prove otherwise. But if you play in the same division you therefore play the same schedule, and the team with the better record can prove they were better than the 2nd place team over a 162 game schedule.

Last year the Cardinals played the same schedule as the Brewers and finished five games behind. The Cardinals proved they were not the best team in the division so therefore they couldn't be the best team in the league, but they were given an undeserved chance to win the World Series anyway.

Why should the second place team get a chance to claim to be the best team when they have already proven to be inferior to someone else?

We went a century without having a second-place team win the World Series, but it has happened several times already this century. A World Series Championship doesn't mean as much as it used to mean. It used to mean you had an irrefutable claim to being the best team in the league that year, now it doesn't.

RANDY IN INDY
03-02-2012, 07:00 AM
Reds should give back their 1990 World Series going by this logic.

That makes no sense at all. Wire to wire. Tough playoff win against a tough Pirates team. Sweep of the World Series. Crazy idea.

RANDY IN INDY
03-02-2012, 07:01 AM
If it was up to me there would be no wild cards. Each league would have the three divisional champions in the playoffs, with the team with the best record in each league getting a first round bye.
Better yet IMO would be two divisions in each league and no wild card.
No chance of that.

:beerme:

bucksfan2
03-02-2012, 08:47 AM
With all the incentive issues and whatnot, I definitely understand the purist perspective. But hey, you've already broken the seal by introducing the first wild card. This just makes it all the more interesting. And at the end of the day, another playoff spot is fun. Everybody likes have a shot at the championship and I'd rather have too many get a shot than too few.

I agree to an extent. More playoff baseball is a good thing. As long as there aren't too many teams involved. I like the extra wild card but hate the one game playoff. MLB is being very reactive because of last years game 162, instead they are going to create a series in which a mediocre team at best gets in and wins a one game playoff.

I just don't like the idea of playing 162 games and then be forced to play a 1 game playin. Make it a 3 game series and I am more happy.

Chip R
03-02-2012, 09:10 AM
If it was up to me there would be no wild cards. Each league would have the three divisional champions in the playoffs, with the team with the best record in each league getting a first round bye.
Better yet IMO would be two divisions in each league and no wild card.
No chance of that.

I agree about the 3 division champions and no wild card. However, people complain about MLB not having the parity that the NFL and other pro sports do. One of the reasons for this alleged disparity between the sports is that more teams from those other sports make the playoffs than do in MLB.

IslandRed
03-02-2012, 10:20 AM
How excited can you get about a championship when you KNOW your team was not the best team? I guess the word "champion" no longer means "the best" to people anymore.

Ask fans of teams that won the Super Bowl or World Series or NBA title when they weren't the best team in the regular season. 99.999% of them don't appear to have a problem with it. :p

Mainly, it's this. Sports fans have long since gotten used to the fact that the champion is the one who wins the playoffs. And as long as there are playoffs of any kind in any sport, you're accepting the possibility the best team may be beaten along the way. Even the notion of separate American and National leagues can be picked apart if what you're going for is to ensure the very best team in baseball gets the trophy. It's not pure but it's what's there.

BearcatShane
03-02-2012, 11:22 AM
Anything that gives the Reds a better chance at postseason play I'm all for. 33% of teams make the playoffs is not bad IMO. One game playoffs are awesome. My guess is the older fans like less teams and my generation wants more considering I've only been old enough to see the Reds play in the playoffs one time.

Crumbley
03-02-2012, 01:36 PM
Why? The Reds didn't finish second. They won a tough division, won the playoffs and swept the World Series. Nobody ever proved they were better than the Reds that year.

You can say the Pirates won more games than the Reds that year, but they played a different schedule because they played more games against each team in their own division than against each team in the other division. Since the schedules were different the Reds could claim their division schedule was tougher and nobody can prove otherwise. But if you play in the same division you therefore play the same schedule, and the team with the better record can prove they were better than the 2nd place team over a 162 game schedule.

Last year the Cardinals played the same schedule as the Brewers and finished five games behind. The Cardinals proved they were not the best team in the division so therefore they couldn't be the best team in the league, but they were given an undeserved chance to win the World Series anyway.

Why should the second place team get a chance to claim to be the best team when they have already proven to be inferior to someone else?

We went a century without having a second-place team win the World Series, but it has happened several times already this century. A World Series Championship doesn't mean as much as it used to mean. It used to mean you had an irrefutable claim to being the best team in the league that year, now it doesn't.
Your definition of "second place" is totally arbitrary. The A's won 12 more games than the Reds did. If the Reds and Cubs swapped divisions, and geographically speaking, they absolutely should have, they wouldn't have been a playoff team to begin with. Reds had the third most wins in baseball, sounds like third place to me. It doesn't matter who the "best" is, it matters who wins the World Series.

AtomicDumpling
03-02-2012, 03:44 PM
Your definition of "second place" is totally arbitrary. The A's won 12 more games than the Reds did. If the Reds and Cubs swapped divisions, and geographically speaking, they absolutely should have, they wouldn't have been a playoff team to begin with. Reds had the third most wins in baseball, sounds like third place to me. It doesn't matter who the "best" is, it matters who wins the World Series.

The Reds finished in 1st place in 1990. That is not arbitrary.

AtomicDumpling
03-02-2012, 04:18 PM
Anything that gives the Reds a better chance at postseason play I'm all for. 33% of teams make the playoffs is not bad IMO. One game playoffs are awesome. My guess is the older fans like less teams and my generation wants more considering I've only been old enough to see the Reds play in the playoffs one time.

Why don't they just decide the outcome of the wild card series with a coin flip? That is no different than playing a one game "series". Everyone knows one game is a terrible way to determine which baseball team is better. They have basically abandoned any notion of finding the best team. Television ratings and drama are more important than having the better team advance. Even a seven game series relies nearly as much on luck as skill, one game is just random. A championship has no meaning if luck is a big part of winning it.

Just because the Reds have only been to the playoffs once in your lifetime is not a good reason to support expanded playoffs in my opinion. Since your team has been terrible that means we should allow mediocre teams into the playoffs? Shouldn't a team have to earn it's place in history? Or should we introduce as much luck and randomness into the equation as possible so we can help weak teams upset the great teams? Why strive to have the best team if being merely mediocre gives you the same chance of winning the championship? In the 17 years of the wild card era a second-place team has won the World Series 5 times already. Now we are going to open up the doors to 3rd place teams too.

For a century baseball was the one sport that made every effort to find out which team was the very best. They played a very long schedule of 154 or 162 games to make sure the best team would come out on top at the end. No second-place teams ever won the World Series. Now Bud Selig comes along and ruins that legacy of greatness. In the name of television ratings he decides it would be a good idea to allow mediocre teams to earn a place in history alongside the great teams of the past. His goal is to make sure the millionaire players and billionaire owners get even more money in their pockets. If the integrity of the game is sacrificed in the process who cares?

RANDY IN INDY
03-02-2012, 08:31 PM
:beerme:

WebScorpion
03-04-2012, 05:24 AM
I kind of like the extra wild card combined with a one game play-in. It gives at least 2 more teams a little more hope at the end of the season and at the same time it makes it just a bit harder to get to the Series as the wild card team. The division champs should have a distinct advantage in the playoffs against a (admittedly hot) second place team who has had one less day of rest and has burned their ace for the first game. In the 17 seasons (I won't count '94 since the playoffs & series were cancelled) since the creation of the wild card, at least one wild card team has made it to the World Series 9 times, and a wild card team has won it all 5 times. That is a TON of success for second place teams...hopefully this will temper that trend. Either way, I think it's worth a try. :thumbup:

_Sir_Charles_
03-04-2012, 11:19 AM
I understand WHY they did this, but I'll be honest, I don't care for it. Heck, I don't care for the wild card at all. I feel that if you can't win your division, you shouldn't advance further. I'd be in favor of going back to the 2 division format, one 5 or 7 game pennant series and then a 7 game world series. Extending the playoffs until later in the season is just bad business too due to the conflicts with other sports.

I always thought that the extremely long baseball season was to ensure that the inferior teams get weeded out. To make sure the cream rises to the top. So now, after all of that, we dig down and let some of the crud play for the WS too? No thanks. If baseball wants to have an NBA type of playoffs, fine...then cut the season length in half because it's not needed. If teams want their towns to have a shot at the WS too, then they have 162 games to work at it.

AtomicDumpling
03-04-2012, 04:46 PM
I understand WHY they did this, but I'll be honest, I don't care for it. Heck, I don't care for the wild card at all. I feel that if you can't win your division, you shouldn't advance further. I'd be in favor of going back to the 2 division format, one 5 or 7 game pennant series and then a 7 game world series. Extending the playoffs until later in the season is just bad business too due to the conflicts with other sports.

I always thought that the extremely long baseball season was to ensure that the inferior teams get weeded out. To make sure the cream rises to the top. So now, after all of that, we dig down and let some of the crud play for the WS too? No thanks. If baseball wants to have an NBA type of playoffs, fine...then cut the season length in half because it's not needed. If teams want their towns to have a shot at the WS too, then they have 162 games to work at it.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Amen brother.

KronoRed
03-04-2012, 05:16 PM
Expand by two teams, eight 4 team divisions, no freaking wild cards, if you can't win a 4 team division, stay home.

Reds Fanatic
05-17-2012, 04:47 PM
MLB has announced at least for this year the divisional series will shift to a 2-3 format where the team with the home field advantage will actually start on the road for 2 games and then be home for potentially the next 3 games.

They are doing this to reduce travel days but it could really cause a disadvantage for the better teams who now have to start the playoffs on the road for 2 games. Also with the new one game playoffs a team would not even know where they have to travel to until after those one game playoffs. So the teams with the best record will be traveling the day before the playoffs and start the playoffs on the road.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7942366/owners-approve-wild-card-winners-hosting-games-1-2-division-series

Also one other change announced is a few of the divisional playoff games will shift from TBS to MLB Network

WVRedsFan
05-17-2012, 05:20 PM
As if having 2nd place teams winning the World Series wasn't bad enough. Might as well open the doors to 3rd place teams as well.

Why play 162 games to determine the best teams if you are going to allow teams into the playoffs that have already proven they are not the best?

Winning the World Series used to mean that your team had a great season and earned a hallowed place in history. Now it often means that your team proved they weren't all that good in the regular season but snuck into the post-season anyway, caught a few breaks and had a little hot streak at the right time. Teams that can't even win their own little division do not deserve a chance to earn a spot in history. It cheapens the World Series championship and dilutes the accomplishments of the great teams of yesteryear to now be lumped in with some of the mediocre World Series winners of recent years. 2nd place = not good enough, or at least it used to.

How far will Bud Selig go? Won't be long until MLB sinks to the level of the NFL, NBA and NHL where the regular season is almost meaningless and only the playoffs matter.

Making the postseason used to be an exhilarating experience for the fans because it meant your team was thisclose to winning a World Series, but now it doesn't really mean much since 1/3 of all teams make it. Then you still have to win a big tournament before you can claim the championship. It is kind of like youth athletics nowadays where everybody gets a trophy even if you stink.Totally agree. Why play the season. Just take the six best teams on paper in the league and have a playoff in October? that's a loittle extreme, but the love of money tends to control these decisions. It's like NASCAR where of the 12 in the final playoffs called The Chase, only 4 or them proved worthy. Last year you had a guy in 7th win the battle on a tie breaker while a season of excellence meant nothing. I'm against any expansion of the playoffs. Ever.

WVRedsFan
05-17-2012, 05:24 PM
I understand WHY they did this, but I'll be honest, I don't care for it. Heck, I don't care for the wild card at all. I feel that if you can't win your division, you shouldn't advance further. I'd be in favor of going back to the 2 division format, one 5 or 7 game pennant series and then a 7 game world series. Extending the playoffs until later in the season is just bad business too due to the conflicts with other sports.

I always thought that the extremely long baseball season was to ensure that the inferior teams get weeded out. To make sure the cream rises to the top. So now, after all of that, we dig down and let some of the crud play for the WS too? No thanks. If baseball wants to have an NBA type of playoffs, fine...then cut the season length in half because it's not needed. If teams want their towns to have a shot at the WS too, then they have 162 games to work at it.Agreed. To show what a dinosaur I am, I liked it when the winner of the National League played the winner of the American League in the World Series. Last year, we had a wild card win the World Series and a lesser team (my team) win the Super Bowl and I still didn't like it. Call me T Rex.

KronoRed
05-17-2012, 07:36 PM
MLB has announced at least for this year the divisional series will shift to a 2-3 format where the team with the home field advantage will actually start on the road for 2 games and then be home for potentially the next 3 games.

They are doing this to reduce travel days but it could really cause a disadvantage for the better teams who now have to start the playoffs on the road for 2 games. Also with the new one game playoffs a team would not even know where they have to travel to until after those one game playoffs. So the teams with the best record will be traveling the day before the playoffs and start the playoffs on the road.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7942366/owners-approve-wild-card-winners-hosting-games-1-2-division-series

Also one other change announced is a few of the divisional playoff games will shift from TBS to MLB Network
So if a good team sweeps they lose a home game of revenue. :confused:

MikeThierry
05-17-2012, 08:44 PM
No I don't. Because neither one of those teams deserved to be in the playoffs last year. Both of them got smacked around in their own divisions and finished in second place by wide margins.

Do we really want to determine who gets a chance to win the World Series based on TV ratings?

Seems to me the goal should be to reward the best team with a championship, not create a system that makes it less likely that the best team wins the championship. How often in the era of expanded playoffs has the best team in baseball won the World Series? Not very often.

It used to be that the World Series winner had a very strong claim to being the best team in baseball that year. Nowadays that is simply not the case. For example, the Cardinals last year were nowhere close to the best team in baseball, and not coincidentally we saw one of the worst-played World Series in history as a result. That mediocre Cardinals team earned the same accolade as the great 1975-76 Big Red Machine. It cheapens the honor earned by great champions of the past to be lumped in the same category as the 2nd-place champions of the wild card era.

Automic, if you are true to your logic, I will call hypocrisy on your part if you come into the ORG celebrating a Reds WC play in game win this year. This stance you have on this topic is certainly mind boggling considering that you root for a mid-market team and often the team with the biggest payroll in the past often became "the best team in baseball". With the archaic system of old, teams like the Rays would have no shot at making the playoffs in the salary rich rosters of the AL East. It's also shocking that you would call a team mediocre that not only beat the best team in baseball during the regular season but beat by far and away the best team in the AL to win the championship.

AtomicDumpling
05-17-2012, 11:47 PM
Automic, if you are true to your logic, I will call hypocrisy on your part if you come into the ORG celebrating a Reds WC play in game win this year. This stance you have on this topic is certainly mind boggling considering that you root for a mid-market team and often the team with the biggest payroll in the past often became "the best team in baseball". With the archaic system of old, teams like the Rays would have no shot at making the playoffs in the salary rich rosters of the AL East. It's also shocking that you would call a team mediocre that not only beat the best team in baseball during the regular season but beat by far and away the best team in the AL to win the championship.

It is easy to beat a superior team in a short playoff series. That is exactly the point I was making.

Celebrating a championship and claiming to be the best team are two different things. You can be proud of being a 2nd-place "champion" if you like. Just don't try to claim your achievement is the same as championships of the last century. Some people can realize that winning a playoff series doesn't prove anything -- especially if you have already proven yourself to be a mediocre team during the regular season.

Secondly, if you read all my posts I clearly state that real parity involves balancing the financial landscape as all other major sports leagues have done. Introducing random luck into the post-season makes it easy for mediocre teams to win the championship, but it does not create real parity. The Reds and Cardinals have won plenty of championships despite being at a disadvantage financially.

My stance has nothing to do with the Cardinals or the Reds. It is the integrity of baseball and the World Series that I am considered about. 2nd-place "champions" are anathema to a lot of people. It never happened for a century until Bud Selig came along.

MikeThierry
05-18-2012, 09:18 AM
I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but if it's so "easy" to beat a superior team in a short playoff series, why did the Reds get swept by the Phillies the last time they made the playoffs? It isn't easy to defeat the best teams in baseball regardless if it's a short series or a series where they just add two additional games. To say it is, is boarderline silly.

Secondly, the old the winner of the World Series had to only win a total of 4 games to get the title. In what world is that more difficult than the current system where teams have to win a total of 11 games to win it all?

On the mediocre comment. You can have this old, curmudgeony attitude of calling a World Series winner "mediocre" but all I'm going to say about that is scoreboard. Maybe I'm just a bit offended when you call a team who won a championship mediocre. The long playoff series generally weeds out the teams that are the best. The 2011 Cardinals were a good example of this. Yes, they had an average season (mostly due to a horrible June). A huge part of that was due to injuries and they didn't really have their full team on the field until really the last two months of the season. Regardless of injury, they had by far and away the best offense in the NL last year. It wasn't even close except for maybe the runs scored department. When they revamped the bullpen, added a legit starter, and got their injured players back; it's hard to say that they were a mediocre team. They stacked up pretty much with anyone in baseball and they proved it.

PuffyPig
05-18-2012, 09:39 AM
The division champs should have a distinct advantage in the playoffs against a (admittedly hot) second place team who has had one less day of rest and has burned their ace for the first game.

Don't assume the "ace" has pitched the one game wild card playoff. The wild card teams will likely be fighting for a playoff spot right down to the wire and it's doubtful they will be able to set their rotation in any kind of order.

Unless you are clearly a diviison winner for some time, and can set up your rotation in advance, the wild cards teams' rotation will be whatever it happens to be at end of the season.

And the wild card tream has no more chance of being "hot" as the division winner. Perhaps the wild card team has fallen from being a division winner into the wild card spot and is cold?

bucksfan2
05-18-2012, 10:43 AM
Don't assume the "ace" has pitched the one game wild card playoff. The wild card teams will likely be fighting for a playoff spot right down to the wire and it's doubtful they will be able to set their rotation in any kind of order.

Unless you are clearly a diviison winner for some time, and can set up your rotation in advance, the wild cards teams' rotation will be whatever it happens to be at end of the season.

And the wild card tream has no more chance of being "hot" as the division winner. Perhaps the wild card team has fallen from being a division winner into the wild card spot and is cold?

The problem I have with the 1 game playoff is in most years it won't come down to the last week of the season. Bud saw last year's game 162 and said lets recreate that year in year out. But it won't happen like it did last year. I would be willing to be in most years the two wild card teams are going to be able to set their rotation to the best of their ability.

If your the Reds and you had a one game lead for the 4th spot, would you start Cueto/Latos on short rest or go with Bailey and save your ace for the playoff game on the road?

PuffyPig
05-18-2012, 11:13 AM
If your the Reds and you had a one game lead for the 4th spot, would you start Cueto/Latos on short rest or go with Bailey and save your ace for the playoff game on the road?


Or would you start your ace on normal rest to ensure you make the playoffs or save him in case you do? Why do you assume that it's Bailey's turn when the last game comes up? Maybe it's Cueto's turn? If you are fighting for a playoff spot, you are pitching your guys in their normal rotation.

In 1999 the Reds went with Harnisch when they needed a win to make the one game playoff. It was then Paris turn and he pitched the playoff game.

Teams will do everything they can to make the playoffs.

PuffyPig
05-18-2012, 11:20 AM
I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but if it's so "easy" to beat a superior team in a short playoff series, why did the Reds get swept by the Phillies the last time they made the playoffs? It isn't easy to defeat the best teams in baseball regardless if it's a short series or a series where they just add two additional games. To say it is, is boarderline silly.



It's actually not silly, it's true.

The best team in baseball only wins about 60% of the time. If they play a tema who's only won 55% of their games, they may have finished 8 games ahead of them in the standings, but their chance of winning any series is likely no better than 55%.

That's baseball, get in the playoffs and you have a chance to win.

The last two times the Cards have won the world series they were not the best team. That's not to say they didn't deserve to win, because they did win. But the best team frequently loses a baseball game. Otherwise there would be some teams that win 140 games in a season. But the randomness of baseball ensures inferior teams win all the time.

PuffyPig
05-18-2012, 11:23 AM
Regardless of injury, they had by far and away the best offense in the NL last year. It wasn't even close except for maybe the runs scored department.

After considering the "runs scored" department in assessing a teams offense for a season, do you really need to look at anything else? Over a long season, nothnig else is relevant.

MikeThierry
05-18-2012, 01:25 PM
After considering the "runs scored" department in assessing a teams offense for a season, do you really need to look at anything else? Over a long season, nothnig else is relevant.

Well they did lead the NL in runs and the only team close to them last year was Cincy. They scored 27 more runs than Cincy yet played in a lot more pitcher friendly park. If you look at the run leaders in the AL, Boston (who led the league in Runs in that league) only outscored the Yankees by 8 runs. Now that I think about it more, the disparity between runs scored between the next opponent for the Cards last year wasn't close.

EDIT: For NL teams, the run disparity generally isn't that great. In fact, in the past 3 years (starting from 2011), the 2008 Cubs had a greater run differential from the next place team in runs scored than the 2011 Cards. I'm only going off of NL stats though.

MikeThierry
05-18-2012, 01:34 PM
It's actually not silly, it's true.

The best team in baseball only wins about 60% of the time. If they play a tema who's only won 55% of their games, they may have finished 8 games ahead of them in the standings, but their chance of winning any series is likely no better than 55%.

That's baseball, get in the playoffs and you have a chance to win.

The last two times the Cards have won the world series they were not the best team. That's not to say they didn't deserve to win, because they did win. But the best team frequently loses a baseball game. Otherwise there would be some teams that win 140 games in a season. But the randomness of baseball ensures inferior teams win all the time.

I realize that but would you consider it easy? The Wild Card team does have a shot to win, as you pointed out, but I wouldn't go so far to say it's easy for a WC team to win. That's esp. true in your scenario where WC teams win only 55% of their games. From a statistical point of view, a team that barely has a 50/50 shot at winning a series, doesn't translate into "easy" series wins. That was my main problem with Automic's point. Nothing is truely "easy" in the playoffs, even in a short series.

PuffyPig
05-18-2012, 01:48 PM
I realize that but would you consider it easy? The Wild Card team does have a shot to win, as you pointed out, but I wouldn't go so far to say it's easy for a WC team to win. That's esp. true in your scenario where WC teams win only 55% of their games. From a statistical point of view, a team that barely has a 50/50 shot at winning a series, doesn't translate into "easy" series wins. That was my main problem with Automic's point. Nothing is truely "easy" in the playoffs, even in a short series.


The point is, every team who makes the playoffs has pretty much the same chance of winning. No it's not easy for a WC team to win; it's not easy for any team to win. Sure the better teams have a better chance, but statistically it's not a large margin.

Automatic's point was that it's easy for a WC team to upset the division winner. In that case "easy" would mean a realistic chance.

In baseball, there is no such thing as an upset. In one game or any series.

PuffyPig
05-18-2012, 01:52 PM
Well they did lead the NL in runs and the only team close to them last year was Cincy. They scored 27 more runs than Cincy yet played in a lot more pitcher friendly park. If you look at the run leaders in the AL, Boston (who led the league in Runs in that league) only outscored the Yankees by 8 runs. Now that I think about it more, the disparity between runs scored between the next opponent for the Cards last year wasn't close.

EDIT: For NL teams, the run disparity generally isn't that great. In fact, in the past 3 years (starting from 2011), the 2008 Cubs had a greater run differential from the next place team in runs scored than the 2011 Cards. I'm only going off of NL stats though.

I was actually just poking a little fun at you for stating (as an afterthought, it appeared) when assessing the Cards dominance on offense that, oh yes, they also lead in runs scored. When assessing a team's offence on a larger sample size, I could care less about any other stat other than "runs scored".

AtomicDumpling
05-19-2012, 06:01 AM
The point is, every team who makes the playoffs has pretty much the same chance of winning. No it's not easy for a WC team to win; it's not easy for any team to win. Sure the better teams have a better chance, but statistically it's not a large margin.

Automatic's point was that it's easy for a WC team to upset the division winner. In that case "easy" would mean a realistic chance.

In baseball, there is no such thing as an upset. In one game or any series.

Exactly. The outcome of a playoff series is essentially random. It is a coin flip -- not an arbiter of which team is better. If you actually want to determine which team is better you have to play a lot more than 1, 5 or 7 games. Baseball fans intrinsically understand that fact. 162 games is a much better way to determine the best team, which is why few people will say the Cardinals were better than the Brewers or Phillies in 2011. The Cardinals were an also-ran that was given a chance to coin-flip their way into an undeserved 2nd place "championship".

AtomicDumpling
05-19-2012, 06:09 AM
Secondly, the old the winner of the World Series had to only win a total of 4 games to get the title. In what world is that more difficult than the current system where teams have to win a total of 11 games to win it all?

In the world where you have to finish in first place. :thumbup:

In the old days you had to actually win more games than any other team in your league in order to win a championship. Nowadays you only have to finish in the top 10.

IslandRed
05-19-2012, 11:11 AM
It is the integrity of baseball and the World Series that I am considered about. 2nd-place "champions" are anathema to a lot of people. It never happened for a century until Bud Selig came along.

There's anathema and then there's anathema. Wild cards and potential second-place champions (and some actual ones) have existed for nearly twenty years now, and if you're still following MLB, obviously this is not a true deal-breaker for you. Or, I would wager, hardly anyone. I have friends who quit following MLB in 1994 because of the strike, yes. But because the wild card was introduced? None. Maybe it's because the rest of sport has conditioned us to go along with this kind of system, but go along with it we did.

I'm no fan of Bud Selig, but expanding the playoffs in '94 is a bet he won.

BCubb2003
05-19-2012, 11:48 AM
There's a compelling purity to the idea of the best teams in two leagues that never see each other finally meeting to determine who is the best of all. But can you imagine what it would be like to not finish above 13th place for several years in a row?

It's like a biathlon of sorts: Do well enough in the marathon, then you have to win the sprint.

AtomicDumpling
05-19-2012, 05:33 PM
There's anathema and then there's anathema. Wild cards and potential second-place champions (and some actual ones) have existed for nearly twenty years now, and if you're still following MLB, obviously this is not a true deal-breaker for you. Or, I would wager, hardly anyone. I have friends who quit following MLB in 1994 because of the strike, yes. But because the wild card was introduced? None. Maybe it's because the rest of sport has conditioned us to go along with this kind of system, but go along with it we did.

I'm no fan of Bud Selig, but expanding the playoffs in '94 is a bet he won.

So if you don't like 2nd-place "champions" you have to quit following baseball? Lots of people think the Wild Card is a travesty, but that doesn't mean they all-of-a-sudden start hating the sport. A great sport with a meaningless championship is still a great sport.

The expanded playoffs were all about money. They have been able to sell those extra playoff games to the TV networks for billions of dollars in extra revenue. Bud Selig and the owners are businessmen more than sportsmen. They sold the integrity of the World Series championship for cold hard cash.

Winning the World Series title used to mean you were a great team who had a great season. Now it doesn't. It is that simple.

IslandRed
05-19-2012, 09:29 PM
So if you don't like 2nd-place "champions" you have to quit following baseball? Lots of people think the Wild Card is a travesty, but that doesn't mean they all-of-a-sudden start hating the sport. A great sport with a meaningless championship is still a great sport.

The expanded playoffs were all about money. They have been able to sell those extra playoff games to the TV networks for billions of dollars in extra revenue. Bud Selig and the owners are businessmen more than sportsmen. They sold the integrity of the World Series championship for cold hard cash.

Winning the World Series title used to mean you were a great team who had a great season. Now it doesn't. It is that simple.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that they bet that even if you hated it, you wouldn't hate it enough to stop being a customer, and they were right. So there was no downside from their perspective, for reasons you adequately covered in the second paragraph.