PDA

View Full Version : Confession



757690
10-19-2012, 02:21 AM
To be honest, I really don't mind it if the Cards win the World Series again. It won't mean much, and I will know that the Reds were a better team this year and had a better season.

For quite awhile now, the World Series has been tarnished, diminished in importance. Much has to do with the wild card, and Interleague play, which has made it not that special. Steroids played a big part in the way I looked at champions in the late '90's.

Looking back, since 1995, there really hasn't been a World Series Champ that I felt was truely deserving. I always thought that whoever won might have had a nice story behind them, but I never thought that winning their way through the current playoff system meant they were the best team in Baseball. Some might have been the best team in baseball, but I never felt and never will feel like winning these 11 games proved it.

Previously, if an underdog team won the World Series, I felt they deserved it because they beat the other best teams in baseball, who got into the playoffs by winning their division. And because it was the only time there were any games between the two leagues, it felt very unique and special.

Now, it's mostly luck, good and bad that decides who wins, and with two wild cards, winning these games is even less meaningful. If they just did a series of coin flips to decide who wins it, it wouldn't be much different in my mind and in my heart.

If the Cardinals win the World Series again, I say good for them. But they'll be more like Beauty Pagent winners than Champions of a sport. I will think the same thing, every time the Reds win the World Series in the future., it will be nice, but nothing like 1990, 1976 and 1975, the only times in my lifetime that the Reds truely will ever be World Champions.

dougdirt
10-19-2012, 02:49 AM
The 1998 Yankees want to have a talk with you. 114-48, went 11-2 in the playoffs.

AtomicDumpling
10-19-2012, 02:59 AM
To be honest, I really don't mind it if the Cards win the World Series again. It won't mean much, and I will know that the Reds were a better team this year and had a better season.

For quite awhile now, the World Series has been tarnished, diminished in importance. Much has to do with the wild card, and Interleague play, which has made it not that special. Steroids played a big part in the way I looked at champions in the late '90's.

Looking back, since 1995, there really hasn't been a World Series Champ that I felt was truely deserving. I always thought that whoever won might have had a nice story behind them, but I never thought that winning their way through the current playoff system meant they were the best team in Baseball. Some might have been the best team in baseball, but I never felt and never will feel like winning these 11 games proved it.

Previously, if an underdog team won the World Series, I felt they deserved it because they beat the other best teams in baseball, who got into the playoffs by winning their division. And because it was the only time there were any games between the two leagues, it felt very unique and special.

Now, it's mostly luck, good and bad that decides who wins, and with two wild cards, winning these games is even less meaningful. If they just did a series of coin flips to decide who wins it, it wouldn't be much different in my mind and in my heart.

If the Cardinals win the World Series again, I say good for them. But they'll be more like Beauty Pagent winners than Champions of a sport. I will think the same thing, every time the Reds win the World Series in the future., it will be nice, but nothing like 1990, 1976 and 1975, the only times in my lifetime that the Reds truely will ever be World Champions.

I agree with you. The integrity of the World Series was pawned for billions of dollars. A championship that doesn't go to the best team is a worthless championship. Postseason series of five or seven games are way too short to determine which team is better. They play a 162 game season to find out who is best. There is no need for a postseason tournament copied from other sports.

Baseball needs to go back to their Glory Days when baseball was the National Pastime and the only sport that mattered, back when you had to be the best to make it to the World Series. Of course that will never happen because of all the huge profits the owners and players are making, but we can dream.

I must disagree with you about the Cardinals though. I would root for them to lose at any game they played, especially Russian Roulette.

George Anderson
10-19-2012, 03:00 AM
Looking back, since 1995, there really hasn't been a World Series Champ that I felt was truely deserving. I always thought that whoever won might have had a nice story behind them, but I never thought that winning their way through the current playoff system meant they were the best team in Baseball. Some might have been the best team in baseball, but I never felt and never will feel like winning these 11 games proved it.





.

In 1987 the Twins with a record of 85-77 beat the Cardinals with a record of 95-67 in the WS.

Of the 4 teams to make the playoffs that year the Twins had the worst record.

Did you consider them to be the best team in baseball that year?

757690
10-19-2012, 03:30 AM
The 1998 Yankees want to have a talk with you. 114-48, went 11-2 in the playoffs.

Like I said, some WS champs were the best team in baseball that year, but what they did in the postseason had nothing to do with it.

757690
10-19-2012, 03:32 AM
In 1987 the Twins with a record of 85-77 beat the Cardinals with a record of 95-67 in the WS.

Of the 4 teams to make the playoffs that year the Twins had the worst record.

Did you consider them to be the best team in baseball that year?

They deserved to be World Champions because they won their division and beat the other teams that won their division. The best team won't win the WS every year, no matter what playoff system you use, but you need to use one that only lets in deserving teams.

Superdude
10-19-2012, 03:45 AM
I'm kind of torn on the double wildcard. On one hand, it makes winning the division much more critical, but it also opens up the chance of an even lesser team taking home the trophy ie. Cardinals.

vic715
10-19-2012, 04:24 AM
Nine teams won 90 games this year and it looks like none of them will be a world champion.I hate the one game wild card deal especially after Atlanta wins six more games than the Cards yet have to lay their season on the line for one game to them.If they want to continue this stupidity then at least make it two out of three,and if they don't want Baseball in November then get rid of the 5th team period. The 10th and the 11th best records in the MLB this year could be in the WS if the Cards advance.

GAC
10-19-2012, 05:38 AM
I'm kind of torn on the double wildcard. On one hand, it makes winning the division much more critical, but it also opens up the chance of an even lesser team taking home the trophy ie. Cardinals.

I totally disagreed with the 2nd WC, and the way they set up the entire post-season format this year. It was simply mind boggling to me. The Braves simply got screwed IMO.

But having said that... if the Cards do go on and win the WS, looking at who they had to go through to accomplish that, are the really a "lesser" team?

Superdude
10-19-2012, 05:57 AM
But having said that... if the Cards do go on and win the WS, looking at who they had to go through to accomplish that, are the really a "lesser" team?

Yes. ;) The St. Louis Cardinals have been, are, and always will be a lesser team.

oneupper
10-19-2012, 06:16 AM
1990

Pirates 95-67 Lost NLCS
Reds 91-71 Won WS
Mets 91-71 No playoff

A's 103-59 Lost WS
Chisox 94-68 No playoff
Bosox 88-74 Lost ALCS

Wanna give that one back?

Sea Ray
10-19-2012, 10:35 AM
I don't know. I've suddenly become a huge Tigers fan

Sea Ray
10-19-2012, 10:38 AM
1990

Pirates 95-67 Lost NLCS
Reds 91-71 Won WS
Mets 91-71 No playoff

A's 103-59 Lost WS
Chisox 94-68 No playoff
Bosox 88-74 Lost ALCS

Wanna give that one back?

Heck no. They earned it. They didn't finish 10 games back in their division. I have a better analogy for you. The Cardinals winning the World Series would be as tainted as the Dodgers winning in the strike year of 1981

mdccclxix
10-19-2012, 10:42 AM
I love the wild card and I love the Tigers. I think the Tigers win in 5.

The wild card has allowed an awesome, yes awesome, Cardinals team fight it out and get their postseason ace back in time to truly contend. Likewise, it made everyone jitter while Philly almost stormed back from a season beset by injuries. Meanwhile, a team like the Nats shut down their ace and were not the same team. So, it opens the door for teams that can have a say. I've felt all year that St. Louis is a much better team than their record, and their run differential is really good, so credit to them for advancing. They won't beat the Tigers this time, but if they do good for them.

mdccclxix
10-19-2012, 10:44 AM
...And the Reds were a better team, no doubt. Just talked to a Cardinal fan and wanted to tell him how bad they were going to lose to the Reds. He was somehow surprised they were doing well, he must not pay much attention.

Kc61
10-19-2012, 11:05 AM
Personally, I agree with 757690's opening post. Yes, it's great if your team wins the World Series and your team is the MLB champ. Fair and square.

But it no longer reflects the best overall team for the whole baseball season.

One third of MLB now makes the playoffs. And then, there are so many hurdles that it becomes a short-term obstacle course. One game wild card playoff, five game DS, 7 games league championship. Only then do teams qualify for the WS.

If you really want the full season championship, abandon divisions, have the top two records in each league play each other and then the World Series.

Today, it's a matter of which team is best suited and hottest for/during post-season tournament play. The winner is the champ, but not always the best team in baseball over a whole season of regular and post-season games.

mdccclxix
10-19-2012, 11:13 AM
I like it more like the NFL where the 6th or 7th team can make the super bowl, as opposed the the NBA where teams like the Hawks or 76ers are just a little blip and literally have zero hope of winning. Baseball has a wonderful dynamic that allows for the Astros to win a 3 game series against the Reds, etc. I'd say honoring that by letting a few more teams in, all while limiting the reward for winning a wild card slot, was a great idea for the sport. The life long guys like Leyland and Larussa on the committee were quickly all for it.

mdccclxix
10-19-2012, 11:15 AM
You also have to face more teams, all of good quality, just to win the WS, so you could say it's that much harder.

Finally, they say the new format will favor a team with a deep rotation, not your Brewers type teams with 1 maybe 2 guys. And as we know, had the Reds not lost Cueto, we'd be up 3-0 on the Cards right now. :)

traderumor
10-19-2012, 11:37 AM
The Tigers were the weakest division winner, based on record. They also tied the Cards for season record. Now, those two teams are steamrolling through the playoffs. I used to be on the fence about the playoffs and crapshoot. Having watched the craziness this year, the MLB playoffs are anti-climactic to the race to get there.

It is sort of like having your favorite meal every day for 6 months, then all of a sudden they give you a bologna sandwich, carrot sticks, and apple sauce lunchables for the last month.

The starter of the thread is on to something.

Sea Ray
10-19-2012, 11:43 AM
The Tigers were the weakest division winner, based on record. They also tied the Cards for season record. Now, those two teams are steamrolling through the playoffs. I used to be on the fence about the playoffs and crapshoot. Having watched the craziness this year, the MLB playoffs are anti-climactic to the race to get there.

It is sort of like having your favorite meal every day for 6 months, then all of a sudden they give you a bologna sandwich, carrot sticks, and apple sauce lunchables for the last month.

The starter of the thread is on to something.

We're also seeing that homefield in MLB is overrated

RedsBaron
10-19-2012, 11:53 AM
One change I would like to see for the Divisional Series is no home games for the wild card team. I would give the team with the league's best record a reward by having all of their Divisional Series games at home, with the team that emerges from the wild card game having to advance to the league Championship Series by winning out on the road. Wild card teams should face a major hurdle in order to advance.

RedsBaron
10-19-2012, 11:54 AM
We're also seeing that homefield in MLB is overrated

It is, but I still would want it, despite what happened in the Reds-Giants series. :(

George Anderson
10-19-2012, 11:57 AM
Maybe my reading comprehension is lacking but if we are complaining about teams winning the WS and not having the best regular season record, shouldn't we just put all the teams in the same division, cancel all the playoffs and instead just crown the team with the best record as champions?

In 1973 the Mets came very close the winning the WS with a 83-79 record. Had they won it would that of made their WS victory less legit? Or the 1987 Twins example that I gave earlier?

The NFL, NHL, NBA, NCAA and all the other sports often have teams with not the best record crowned champions. Are they less legit??

This has been going on forever throughout sports but now it is a problem?

What am I missing here?

dsmith421
10-19-2012, 12:02 PM
This has been going on forever throughout sports but now it is a problem?

What am I missing here?

I don't think you're missing anything. Our team won 97 games and choked in the playoffs. The team that finished 9 games behind us is steamrolling into the World Series.

If the roles were reversed no one on this site would be complaining about the playoff crapshoot.

mdccclxix
10-19-2012, 12:10 PM
Maybe my reading comprehension is lacking but if we are complaining about teams winning the WS and not having the best regular season record, shouldn't we just put all the teams in the same division, cancel all the playoffs and instead just crown the team with the best record as champions?

In 1973 the Mets came very close the winning the WS with a 83-79 record. Had they won it would that of made their WS victory less legit? Or the 1987 Twins example that I gave earlier?

The NFL, NHL, NBA, NCAA and all the other sports often have teams with not the best record crowned champions. Are they less legit??

This has been going on forever throughout sports but now it is a problem?

What am I missing here?

Exacty, makes no sense. This reminds me of the argument against conference tourney's in college. If you over-think these things, it will diminish them, until (invariably) it's your team that's coming out on top.

Teams that are truly great will be remembered and will always stand out above the others. The Big Red Machine is a reference to the teams that were fielded before, during, and after the 75-76 run. In general, I don't think there are many people that accept as fact that the WS champ is the definitive version of any particular year's best team. It's a title, it's a tournament. The benefit of winning that title is that you can at least lay claim to the best team, even if others will protest. No, the best team doesn't always win, never has.

*BaseClogger*
10-19-2012, 12:25 PM
Teams that are truly great will be remembered and will always stand out above the others. The Big Red Machine is a reference to the teams that were fielded before, during, and after the 75-76 run. In general, I don't think there are many people that accept as fact that the WS champ is the definitive version of any particular year's best team. It's a title, it's a tournament. The benefit of winning that title is that you can at least lay claim to the best team, even if others will protest. No, the best team doesn't always win, never has.

Exactly. Dynasties will always be remembered for their prolonged dominance, whether they won the Fall Classic every year or not. The important thing is to win at least one World Series crown...

757690
10-19-2012, 12:35 PM
Maybe my reading comprehension is lacking but if we are complaining about teams winning the WS and not having the best regular season record, shouldn't we just put all the teams in the same division, cancel all the playoffs and instead just crown the team with the best record as champions?

In 1973 the Mets came very close the winning the WS with a 83-79 record. Had they won it would that of made their WS victory less legit? Or the 1987 Twins example that I gave earlier?

The NFL, NHL, NBA, NCAA and all the other sports often have teams with not the best record crowned champions. Are they less legit??

This has been going on forever throughout sports but now it is a problem?

What am I missing here?

I am not talking about that at all. I even replied to your Twins example. I'll restate my position so it's clearer.

The playoffs are always going to be a crapshoot, based mostly on luck factors instead, like whose hot and whose cold. The best teams will not always win in the playoffs because of this. To make the playoffs meaningful and the winner of the playoffs legitimate, only deserving teams should be able to make them and play in them. For me, this means teams that won their division after a long regular season. If all the teams in the playoffs deserve to be there, then the results are acceptable and legitimate, no matter how much luck is involved.

One can argue that one wild card team per league is deserving to make the playoffs, I disagree, but I can understand that argument. I can't see any way in which a second wild card team deserves team deserves to get in, and thus, the whole playoff system is corrupted, making the winner meaningless, imo.

As for the other sports, I think you are making my point. In Football, and especially Basketball and Hockey, there is strong disconnect between the regular season and the playoffs, making whoever wins the playoffs less meaningful.

That is happening in baseball and it shouldn't. One thing that makes baseball so great and better than the other sports is that the regular season matters. Adding an extra wild card team to the playoffs ruins that.

757690
10-19-2012, 12:40 PM
I don't think you're missing anything. Our team won 97 games and choked in the playoffs. The team that finished 9 games behind us is steamrolling into the World Series.

If the roles were reversed no one on this site would be complaining about the playoff crapshoot.

I absolutely would not feel comfortable with a Reds World Series Championship won in a season in which they were a wild card team. I would enjoy it, and celebrate it, but it would always feel dirty and cheap and I would be embarrassed by it.

I have a lot of Cardinal fans as friends and everyone of them feels a little guilty about last seasons World Series win, and their success so far. Granted they, are all my age, and I doubt younger Cardinal fans feel the same way, but those who grew up without the wild card all feel that way I do.

George Anderson
10-19-2012, 12:44 PM
I am not talking about that at all. I even replied to your Twins example. I'll restate my position so it's clearer.

The playoffs are always going to be a crapshoot, based mostly on luck factors instead, like whose hot and whose cold. The best teams will not always win in the playoffs because of this. To make the playoffs meaningful and the winner of the playoffs legitimate, only deserving teams should be able to make them and play in them. For me, this means teams that won their division after a long regular season. If all the teams in the playoffs deserve to be there, then the results are acceptable and legitimate, no matter how much luck is involved.

One can argue that one wild card team per league is deserving to make the playoffs, I disagree, but I can understand that argument. I can't see any way in which a second wild card team deserves team deserves to get in, and thus, the whole playoff system is corrupted, making the winner meaningless, imo.

As for the other sports, I think you are making my point. In Football, and especially Basketball and Hockey, there is strong disconnect between the regular season and the playoffs, making whoever wins the playoffs less meaningful.

That is happening in baseball and it shouldn't. One thing that makes baseball so great and better than the other sports is that the regular season matters. Adding an extra wild card team to the playoffs ruins that.

I understand your point better now and maybe adding another team to mix might dilute the playoffs a bit but at the same time having the WC race adds to the excitement of the regular season. Would you be in favor of going back to pre 1969 when only 2 teams made the playoffs?

757690
10-19-2012, 12:59 PM
I understand your point better now and maybe adding another team to mix might dilute the playoffs a bit but at the same time having the WC race adds to the excitement of the regular season. Would you be in favor of going back to pre 1969 when only 2 teams made the playoffs?

The wild card race does add to the excitement, but at what cost?

No, I would not want only two teams making the playoffs, but only because there are more teams now. I'd be fine with eight teams making the playoffs, if there were eight divisions, although you would need to add two teams to make that work.

Vottomatic
10-19-2012, 01:01 PM
All I know is that the Cardinals are one of the luckiest franchises ever, considering they've had some of the most mediocre teams go on to win it all.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2012, 01:08 PM
Who is to say the Reds' 97 wins are better than the Giants' 94 wins when the Reds get to fatten up on the pathetic Cubs and Astros? This is just a very subjective argument as to what "best team" means.

RedsBaron
10-19-2012, 01:14 PM
I absolutely would not feel comfortable with a Reds World Series Championship won in a season in which they were a wild card team. I would enjoy it, and celebrate it, but it would always feel dirty and cheap and I would be embarrassed by it.

I have a lot of Cardinal fans as friends and everyone of them feels a little guilty about last seasons World Series win, and their success so far. Granted they, are all my age, and I doubt younger Cardinal fans feel the same way, but those who grew up without the wild card all feel that way I do.

Good luck finding any Red Sox fans who were embarassed when the 2004 Red Sox won the World Series even though they were a wild card team.

westofyou
10-19-2012, 01:16 PM
Who is to say the Reds' 97 wins are better than the Giants' 94 wins when the Reds get to fatten up on the pathetic Cubs and Astros? This is just a very subjective argument as to what "best team" means.

Get off my lawn!!!

Roy Tucker
10-19-2012, 01:19 PM
Get off my lawn!!!

Bah I say, bah!!

757690
10-19-2012, 01:28 PM
Who is to say the Reds' 97 wins are better than the Giants' 94 wins when the Reds get to fatten up on the pathetic Cubs and Astros? This is just a very subjective argument as to what "best team" means.

That's a good point. Which is why the playoffs are a good thing. But only when the teams that get in deserve to get in. The Reds beat up on the Cards in the regular season, finishing 9 games ahead of them. No need for a playoff to determine which team is better.

Kc61
10-19-2012, 01:29 PM
Maybe my reading comprehension is lacking but if we are complaining about teams winning the WS and not having the best regular season record, shouldn't we just put all the teams in the same division, cancel all the playoffs and instead just crown the team with the best record as champions?

In 1973 the Mets came very close the winning the WS with a 83-79 record. Had they won it would that of made their WS victory less legit? Or the 1987 Twins example that I gave earlier?

The NFL, NHL, NBA, NCAA and all the other sports often have teams with not the best record crowned champions. Are they less legit??

This has been going on forever throughout sports but now it is a problem?

What am I missing here?



Baseball has a 162 game season. By far the longest regular season. The importance of that regular season has been badly diluted by all the playoff rounds and playoff teams. IMO, there should be fewer playoff rounds and fewer playoff teams in major league baseball.

Some other sports, NBA, NHL, NCAA long ago decided that the regular season was simply a qualifying round for the playoffs. In the NBA, teams with .500 records or even below qualify for the playoffs. In these sports, the playoffs are the whole deal.

In baseball, with such a marathon regular season, I think it should count for more. Gimmicks like the one-game wild card as well as home field advantages - designed to give advantages to the best teams - don't compensate IMO.

This is a dollars and cents issue for baseball, it won't change. But the more playoffs and playoff teams they add on, the less the long regular season counts, the less meaningful a WS championship is IMO.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2012, 01:39 PM
So do you build a team for the regular season or for playoffs? What about a manager like Dusty who's people management strength work well for the big 162 but his lousy game management gets magnified in the post-season?

Chip R
10-19-2012, 01:41 PM
Maybe my reading comprehension is lacking but if we are complaining about teams winning the WS and not having the best regular season record, shouldn't we just put all the teams in the same division, cancel all the playoffs and instead just crown the team with the best record as champions?

This.

Kc61
10-19-2012, 01:51 PM
This.

It's not a viable argument to say, oh well, then why have any playoffs at all. It's just an extreme argument.

There should be playoffs, but include fewer teams to give more rewards for a great regular season.

I can understand the 8-team playoff system. Three division winners and one wild card team which in a given year might have a great record yet lose its division. Four in each league.

In the NL, I can understand adding Atlanta this year.

More than that, to me, is really pushing it. One third of MLB teams shouldn't make the cut.

Chip R
10-19-2012, 02:01 PM
It's not a viable argument to say, oh well, then why have any playoffs at all. It's just an extreme argument.

There should be playoffs, but include fewer teams to give more rewards for a great regular season.

I can understand the 8-team playoff system. Three division winners and one wild card team which in a given year might have a great record yet lose its division. Four in each league.

In the NL, I can understand adding Atlanta this year.

More than that, to me, is really pushing it. One third of MLB teams shouldn't make the cut.

But people keep complaining about the wild cards doing well in the playoffs. George just took that argument to its logical extreme. If you are looking for the best team and want the regular season to mean something, just get rid of divisions and the first place team is declared world champ. Because once you get past that, then you have the danger of the team winning it all not being the best team. I don't care if you are just separating it with 2 leagues, or 4 divisions or 6 divisions and 2 wild cards, unless the team with the best record doesn't automatically win the world championship, then the best team may not win it all.

757690
10-19-2012, 02:15 PM
But people keep complaining about the wild cards doing well in the playoffs. George just took that argument to its logical extreme. If you are looking for the best team and want the regular season to mean something, just get rid of divisions and the first place team is declared world champ. Because once you get past that, then you have the danger of the team winning it all not being the best team. I don't care if you are just separating it with 2 leagues, or 4 divisions or 6 divisions and 2 wild cards, unless the team with the best record doesn't automatically win the world championship, then the best team may not win it all.

But no one is complaining that the best team doesn't win the World Series every year. No one in this thread has a problem with that. That will always be a possibility in any playoff system.

I just want the World Series Champion to be one of the best teams in league, a team that deserves to be in the playoffs, that earned it during the regular season, not an average team that snuck in.

UKFlounder
10-19-2012, 02:19 PM
One of the how many best teams? 2? 4? 6? the Cardinals were "one of the best teams " in the league, based on record, unless you answer the first question with "4 or less."

You use the phrase "deserve to be in the playoffs," but how do you define that? Does it change next year if the 5 th best team in the league wins 92 games but loses the division?



But no one is complaining that the best team doesn't win the World Series every year. No one in this thread has a problem with that. That will always be a possibility in any playoff system.

I just want the World Series Champion to be one of the best teams in league, a team that deserves to be in the playoffs, that earned it during the regular season, not an average team that snuck in.

oneupper
10-19-2012, 02:19 PM
But no one is complaining that the best team doesn't win the World Series every year. No one in this thread has a problem with that. That will always be a possibility in any playoff system.

I just want the World Series Champion to be one of the best teams in league, a team that deserves to be in the playoffs, that earned it during the regular season, not an average team that snuck in.

Problem is that any cutoff point will be subjective. The wild card was put in to reward good teams who just didn't get to win their division. Many times wild card teams have had better records than division winners. The Cards won 88 this year, not great, but quite good and exactly as many as the Tigers.

Kc61
10-19-2012, 02:20 PM
But no one is complaining that the best team doesn't win the World Series every year. No one in this thread has a problem with that. That will always be a possibility in any playoff system.

I just want the World Series Champion to be one of the best teams in league, a team that deserves to be in the playoffs, that earned it during the regular season, not an average team that snuck in.

This is the point.

Some leagues (NBA) make no pretense about it. The NBA Championship is completely playoff driven. There's no notion that regular season excellence is particularly relevant.

In baseball, with 162 games in the regular season, there should be more of a premium on regular season performance. The ninth and tenth best teams shouldn't qualify.

It's a matter of degree. I understand the logical extreme, I'm not advocating it. I'm advocating a system that draws a proper balance. IMO, 10 playoff teams does not draw a proper balance with the regular season.

RedsFan75
10-19-2012, 02:25 PM
I've "felt" for a while that the preponderance of participants in the World Series have come from the wild card and that there is some advantage of playing for the wild card and not the division.... Nothing concrete, just something didn't feel right about it.

So a bit of simple research shows that the Wild Card team has been involved heavily in the Series....

Wild-card World Series participants

1997 Florida Marlins - Champion
2000 New York Mets
2002 Anaheim Angels - Champion
2002 San Francisco Giants
2003 Florida Marlins - Champion
2004 Boston Red Sox - Champion
2005 Houston Astros
2006 Detroit Tigers
2007 Colorado Rockies
2011 St. Louis Cardinals - Champion

Still don't know what I make of it, but there is a heavy volume of Wild Card in the World Series...

Kc61
10-19-2012, 02:32 PM
Problem is that any cutoff point will be subjective. The wild card was put in to reward good teams who just didn't get to win their division. Many times wild card teams have had better records than division winners. The Cards won 88 this year, not great, but quite good and exactly as many as the Tigers.

There are a lot of flaws in the playoff systems. Even divisional play itself is artificial. Sometimes, NFL teams with 9-7 or 8-8 records win their divisions, go to the playoffs, and get homefield advantage! Sometimes homefield in multiple games!

In baseball, there should be more emphasis on the regular season which has so many games. IMO, the Cards should not be in the playoffs this season. They lost their division by 9 games, they had the fifth best record in a league of 16 teams.

In the AL, five out of 14 teams made the playoffs. Doesn't exactly emphasize regular season excellence.

Not sour grapes, Cards have a tremendous ballclub in some respects, I particularly admire their offense. I wish the Reds' offense was more like it.

But there were nine teams with ninety wins or more in MLB this year, and I think it's ridiculous if none of them are in the World Series, largely because of the expansive playoff system.

MikeS21
10-19-2012, 02:59 PM
To me, the real culprit in tarnishing the WS has been free agency and exploding player salaries.

What made the World Series different in the 70's was that teams drafted players, and built their team from the ground up. Rosters were filled with mostly home-grown talent and with trade acquisitions acquired in return for home-grown talent. There was never a feeling that any team "bought" a WS by bringing in a bunch of high-priced players. Winners were determined by who had the best scouting, drafting, and development departments and who made the shrewdest trades, rather than who could afford the biggest payrolls. You had two first place finishers in both leagues competing to see who would play in the WS. Now, it has been watered down to watching teams in the post season who ought not be there to begin with.

Wild Card teams were unheard on in the 70's because there were only two divisions: East and West. The Reds and Dodgers usually dueled for 1st and 2nd place virtually every season in the West, and once the season ended, the West winner would play the East winner to see who advanced to the World Series. That set-up made the whole post-season simpler.

It all comes back to money. Somebody came to the conclusion that more post-season games means more money coming in - hence the decision to add a best of five playoff series prior to a championship series. The two division set-up was far superior in selecting "true" champions to appear in the WS.

George Anderson
10-19-2012, 03:01 PM
I just want the World Series Champion to be one of the best teams in league, a team that deserves to be in the playoffs, that earned it during the regular season, not an average team that snuck in.

But your not going to solve that problem if you still keep the current system because many average teams still may sneak into the playoffs. Just because a team wins its division doesn't automatically make that team an above average team. They may have been the best team in that division but the division may have been incredibly weak. My 1973 Mets example is perfect because they won the NL East with 83 games in a very weak division but beat our beloved Reds and their 99 wins in the NLCS. Maybe the system isn't overly fair but unless you want to put just the top 2 from each league in the WS then the possibility will always arise that a team that just snuck in will win the WS.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-19-2012, 03:18 PM
Winning the World Series now has little to do with "best team" and much more to do with just getting hot at the right time. Look at the Cards, who plodded unimpressively through the regular season, finishing a whopping nine games behind the Reds, but figured out how to turn it on at the right time.

Last year, the LA Kings were in a dogfight right down to the final game to barely claim the eighth and final seed in the NHL's Western Conference; they got in and breezed to the Stanley Cup.

The goal now should be to just get into the playoffs, since even mediocre teams can get the WC now. And take your chances when you get there. Building for the Big 162 like the Reds and Nats and even Yankees did doesn't mean much anymore if hack teams like STL can squeak in and beat, in a short series, the teams that dominated them all year.

In fact, the playoffs might even favor the second-place finisher since they're more likely to have stayed sharp by playing meaningful games down to the last weekend AND they get new life against the team that won the division. Seems really unfair.

How to make it better? Maybe WC teams shouldn't get to host any games until the WS. It seems really unfair to the Giants that they won their division and were a better team than the Cards. But they drop one at home and the next thing you know the WC team gets three straight in their park to wrap up the series.

757690
10-19-2012, 03:24 PM
I've "felt" for a while that the preponderance of participants in the World Series have come from the wild card and that there is some advantage of playing for the wild card and not the division.... Nothing concrete, just something didn't feel right about it.

So a bit of simple research shows that the Wild Card team has been involved heavily in the Series....

Wild-card World Series participants

1997 Florida Marlins - Champion
2000 New York Mets
2002 Anaheim Angels - Champion
2002 San Francisco Giants
2003 Florida Marlins - Champion
2004 Boston Red Sox - Champion
2005 Houston Astros
2006 Detroit Tigers
2007 Colorado Rockies
2011 St. Louis Cardinals - Champion

Still don't know what I make of it, but there is a heavy volume of Wild Card in the World Series...

Nice research.

I think wild card teams do better in the playoffs because they generally are the ones that were hot down the stretch, and then just carried their hot streak to the playoffs. You have to be on a hot streak down the stretch to win the wild card, but not the division. That gives the wild card teams an advantage.

757690
10-19-2012, 03:26 PM
But your not going to solve that problem if you still keep the current system because many average teams still may sneak into the playoffs. Just because a team wins its division doesn't automatically make that team an above average team. They may have been the best team in that division but the division may have been incredibly weak. My 1973 Mets example is perfect because they won the NL East with 83 games in a very weak division but beat our beloved Reds and their 99 wins in the NLCS. Maybe the system isn't overly fair but unless you want to put just the top 2 from each league in the WS then the possibility will always arise that a team that just snuck in will win the WS.

The Mets earned the right to be in the playoffs by winning a division. That's hard to do, and meaningful in and of itself, no matter how week the division is.

vic715
10-19-2012, 03:30 PM
But your not going to solve that problem if you still keep the current system because many average teams still may sneak into the playoffs. Just because a team wins its division doesn't automatically make that team an above average team. They may have been the best team in that division but the division may have been incredibly weak. My 1973 Mets example is perfect because they won the NL East with 83 games in a very weak division but beat our beloved Reds and their 99 wins in the NLCS. Maybe the system isn't overly fair but unless you want to put just the top 2 from each league in the WS then the possibility will always arise that a team that just snuck in will win the WS.

I think the Mets only won 82 that year as there was a rainout that wasn't made up but the thing that gripes me about that series was the Mets had home field advantage.Thats when they alternated every year and best record meant nothing.

George Anderson
10-19-2012, 03:33 PM
The Mets earned the right to be in the playoffs by winning a division. That's hard to do, and meaningful in and of itself, no matter how week the division is.

But if your goal is to put the best teams in the playoffs then in 1973 besides the Reds, the Giants and Dodgers both had superior records to the Mets. So thus it is not fair the Mets got in and the Giants and Dodgers didn't because they had better records. You can say the Giants and Dodgers had bad luck being in the tougher division but am I misunderstanding in that your goal is to get the best regular season teams in the playoffs? If that is the case then scrap the divisions and put all the teams in one division and pick the best records.

westofyou
10-19-2012, 03:41 PM
1968

The last true season.

And my first

757690
10-19-2012, 03:52 PM
But if your goal is to put the best teams in the playoffs then in 1973 besides the Reds, the Giants and Dodgers both had superior records to the Mets. So thus it is not fair the Mets got in and the Giants and Dodgers didn't because they had better records. You can say the Giants and Dodgers had bad luck being in the tougher division but am I misunderstanding in that your goal is to get the best regular season teams in the playoffs? If that is the case then scrap the divisions and put all the teams in one division and pick the best records.

Best record doesn't mean best team, not with unbalanced schedules and Interleague play. That's why winning your division means more.

And no system is perfect, but I think the older system without wildcards, or at least without two wild cards, was fairer than what we have now.

Always Red
10-19-2012, 04:03 PM
1968

The last true season.



Exactly.

The regular season has always served as "playoffs" as a sort for baseball, with teams fighting off each other down the stretch. The winner then takes the "Pennant" and goes on to the World Series, to face the survivor of the other league.

I'm in favor of going back, and throwing out Montreal, San Diego, and everyone who came after them and going back to playing real baseball. :beerme: I make an exception for Kansas City, as it took the Royals 25 years until they finished last in their division. They were truly an outstanding expansion franchise.

Seriously, if MLB is going to keep adding layer upon layer of wild card teams in order drum up TV ratings, it cheapens the regular season, and truly makes it too long, since the regular season has far less meaning. Shortening the season will wreak havoc on historic stats.

My solution (and I think I read it above as well) is to go back to NL and AL, get rid of divisions and wild cards, winner goes to the WS. You will still have all of the excitement and with this many teams, most years the race will go down to the wire. With all the excitement of drummed up "wild card games," except the winner will truly deserve to go to the WS.

MikeS21
10-19-2012, 04:10 PM
But if your goal is to put the best teams in the playoffs then in 1973 besides the Reds, the Giants and Dodgers both had superior records to the Mets. So thus it is not fair the Mets got in and the Giants and Dodgers didn't because they had better records. You can say the Giants and Dodgers had bad luck being in the tougher division but am I misunderstanding in that your goal is to get the best regular season teams in the playoffs? If that is the case then scrap the divisions and put all the teams in one division and pick the best records.
Actually, it made seasonal play much more interesting. In those days every series against a Western division rival had a playoff feel to it. The "poor" teams were not necessarily "bad" teams. But if you were the Braves or Padres in those days and had to play the Reds and Dodgers for about 25-30% of your games over a season, you were not going to finish very high in the standings.

AtomicDumpling
10-19-2012, 04:14 PM
Who is to say the Reds' 97 wins are better than the Giants' 94 wins when the Reds get to fatten up on the pathetic Cubs and Astros? This is just a very subjective argument as to what "best team" means.

Neither one of them finished in 2nd place and proved they were not as good as someone else.

There is no good reason to allow a team to win the World Series after they already proved they were not the best.

REDREAD
10-19-2012, 04:22 PM
I'm actually pulling for the Cards.. have been since the Reds were eliminated. But not pulling for them enough to actually watch the games.
But I can understand why people don't like the Cards.

I can accept that the playoffs are purely for entertainment and money.. It's a flawed way of determining the "Best" team.. but there's no real practical way of doing it differently which would generate similiar excitement..
Do we have every team play an identical schedule and then declare the team with the best record the champ? That would probably be more accurate, but not very exciting. This year, we'd just have the "race" between the Reds and the Nats to finish with the best regular season record.

Chip R
10-19-2012, 04:32 PM
1968

The last true season.

And my first

1900. That was the last year that there was one league and one champion. No stinking playoffs like we have now.

REDREAD
10-19-2012, 04:38 PM
My solution (and I think I read it above as well) is to go back to NL and AL, get rid of divisions and wild cards, winner goes to the WS. You will still have all of the excitement and with this many teams, most years the race will go down to the wire. With all the excitement of drummed up "wild card games," except the winner will truly deserve to go to the WS.

But if we did that system this year, only Wash makes it to the playoffs. Reds aren't even in the playoffs, despite winning 97 games.
Now maybe if only one team gets in, Baker rests the players less, burns up his pen or whatever, and the results change.. But Washington would likely pull out all the stops too.

Even though the Reds were eliminated in the first round, it was fun to make the playoffs. The thing I remember most about 1999 was losing 2-3 to Milwaukee, then not making the playoffs thanks to the tie breaking game. Under the current system, the 1999 Reds would've made the playoffs.. Wouldn't that have been fun, even if we didn't advance?

The wildcards kept a lot more teams interested this year. There were a lot less salary dump trades (like in the "good old days").. IMO, this is good for baseball.
Keep more fans interested in September. Lots of teams were within a few games of the WC in the last few weeks of the season.

AtomicDumpling
10-19-2012, 04:39 PM
I understand your point better now and maybe adding another team to mix might dilute the playoffs a bit but at the same time having the WC race adds to the excitement of the regular season. Would you be in favor of going back to pre 1969 when only 2 teams made the playoffs?

Yes, I would go back to the pre-1969 system that worked so great for many decades when baseball was the most popular sport in the country.

Baseball's decline in popularity relative to other sports has coincided exactly with the dilution of the playoffs and diminished integrity of the World Series.

I don't think having the Wild Card race adds to the excitement of the regular season. It just transfers the excitement down from the top of the pack to the middle of the pack. The folks who are excited with this system are the fans of the mediocre teams rather than the fans of the best teams.

It is much more exciting to be fighting several teams in September for a berth in the World Series rather than fighting for the final berth in a big post-season tournament. You can't get all that excited over winning something that 1/3 of the whole league also got. What is so special about that?

The best teams in the National League all knew weeks in advance that they were going to the playoffs. There was no excitement there. But if the Reds, Nationals and Giants had all been competing in a winner-takes-all cage match for the league pennant and a place in the World Series it would have been tremendously exciting. The divisional structure and two Wild Cards cheated Reds fans out of what could have been a historic and memorable season.

Rather than address the true cause of competitive imbalance ( e.g. payroll inequity) by creating a system offering a level playing field where every franchise has an equal chance to build a great team based solely on their skill and aptitude, the league has opted to essentially distribute the championships randomly by creating a playoff structure that rewards mediocrity by giving run-of-the-mill teams who have already proven themselves second-rate to upset far better teams in short playoff series and claim a meaningless title.

Leave it up to Bud Selig to create a system where the 5th best team in each league makes it to the World Series.

George Anderson
10-19-2012, 04:44 PM
Yes, I would go back to the pre-1969 system that worked so great for many decades when baseball was the most popular sport in the country.

Baseball's decline in popularity has coincided exactly with the dilution of the playoffs and diminished integrity of the World Series.

I don't think having the Wild Card race adds to the excitement of the regular season. It just transfers the excitement down from the top of the pack to the middle of the pack. The folks who are excited with this system are the fans of the mediocre teams rather than the fans of the best teams.

It is much more exciting to be fighting several teams in September for a berth in the World Series rather than fighting for the final berth in a big post-season tournament. You can't get all that excited over winning something that 1/3 of the whole league also got. What is so special about that?

The best teams in the National League all knew weeks in advance that they were going to the playoffs. There was no excitement there. But if the Reds, Nationals and Giants had all been competing in a winner-takes-all cage match for the league pennant and a place in the World Series it would have been tremendously exciting. The divisional structure and two Wild Cards cheated Reds fans out of what could have been a historic and memorable season.

Rather than address the true cause of competitive imbalance ( e.g. payroll inequity) by creating a system offering a level playing field where every franchise has an equal chance to build a great team based solely on their skill and aptitude, the league has opted to essentially distribute the championships randomly by creating a playoff structure that rewards mediocrity by giving run-of-the-mill teams who have already proven themselves second-rate to upset far better teams in short playoff series and claim a meaningless title.

Leave it up to Bud Selig to create a system where the 5th best team in each league makes it to the World Series.

For money purposes MLB will never go for this. To much money to be made with the playoffs.

Personally I don't want to see MLB end up like the NHL where about everyone makes the playoffs. However I have no problem with the system prior to this year. Having 2 WC's with a one game playoff is something I don't like.

AtomicDumpling
10-19-2012, 04:51 PM
For money purposes MLB will never go for this. To much money to be made with the playoffs.

Personally I don't want to see MLB end up like the NHL where about everyone makes the playoffs. However I have no problem with the system prior to this year. Having 2 WC's with a one game playoff is something I don't like.

Yes, obviously money is the reason they sold the integrity of the World Series. There is no question about that. They will no never go back to the days when the goal of a season was to find out which team was best and crown them as champion. Baseball is just a business now more than ever, competition doesn't have much to do with it anymore. It is all about the money.

They will eventually have a 32 team March Madness style single-elimination tournament because boy wouldn't that be exciting!

Perhaps they shouldn't have a regular season at all. It is too boring. They should just have a World Series Championship Tournament every 3 months. Imagine the TV ratings.

reds44
10-19-2012, 05:03 PM
The more playoff teams that are added, the less the regular season means and the more random the playoffs become.

The fact baseball plays 162 games and then a 5 game first round is one of the dumbest things in sports. They all should at least be best of 7's. I wouldn't even mind if the World Series was best of 9.

RedsBaron
10-19-2012, 05:12 PM
I think the Mets only won 82 that year as there was a rainout that wasn't made up but the thing that gripes me about that series was the Mets had home field advantage.Thats when they alternated every year and best record meant nothing.

Yes, and home field was huge in the 1973 NLCS, with Met "fans" throwing everything except hand grenades at Reds players.

Red in Chicago
10-19-2012, 05:13 PM
So if the Cards win it all again, are they considered a dynasty:confused:
To me, that's ludicrous.

RedsBaron
10-19-2012, 05:14 PM
The more playoff teams that are added, the less the regular season means and the more random the playoffs become.

The fact baseball plays 162 games and then a 5 game first round is one of the dumbest things in sports. They all should at least be best of 7's. I wouldn't even mind if the World Series was best of 9.

The problem with that is the post season already is touching on November. Unless the regular season is shortened (and that is unlikely), an expanded post season increases the risk of extended weather delays as the weather turns more and more unbaseball like.

westofyou
10-19-2012, 05:49 PM
So if the Cards win it all again, are they considered a dynasty:confused:
To me, that's ludicrous.

Actually They already are, at least based on some criteria that Bill James came up with on his web site this summer, I'll dig it up this weekend and add it here

kaldaniels
10-19-2012, 05:53 PM
Why don't we just award the trophy to the team with the most total WAR at the end of 162 games and be done with it? ;)

Joseph
10-19-2012, 05:58 PM
Look, I'm no Cards fan either, but are we really debating that they aren't the champs if they win? If thats the case we should just stop the World Series altogether and just award it to the best regular season.

I love baseball, I love the playoffs. I have no issues with the extra wildcard, it works.

Baseball will likely never again be the top sport. It's just not that world anymore. People don't like lulls or 'boring'. They want things that go 10000 miles an hour and explode when you touch them.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2012, 06:21 PM
Maybe we should have a BCS-style computer rankings. Or maybe an NCAA-style commottee that looks at strength of schedule and records against power teams.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2012, 06:24 PM
And I'd like to see a poll of Reds fans to see which you would rather win, the regular seaon championship or the World Series.

AtomicDumpling
10-19-2012, 06:37 PM
And I'd like to see a poll of Reds fans to see which you would rather win, the regular seaon championship or the World Series.

I would like to win both, but I would be much more proud of having the best record in the league (they used to call that "winning the pennant"), which is an achievement that is actually based on the skill and talent level of your team.

757690
10-19-2012, 07:25 PM
Look, I'm no Cards fan either, but are we really debating that they aren't the champs if they win? If thats the case we should just stop the World Series altogether and just award it to the best regular season.

I love baseball, I love the playoffs. I have no issues with the extra wildcard, it works.

Baseball will likely never again be the top sport. It's just not that world anymore. People don't like lulls or 'boring'. They want things that go 10000 miles an hour and explode when you touch them.

I am not. Of course they will be Champions. I just think that being World Champions of baseball doesn't mean what it used to, and that's a shame.

Roy Tucker
10-19-2012, 07:50 PM
I guess I'm just feeling contrary today.

Sure I''d like both. But I'll take a wild card 88 wins and a World Championship trophy over a Division win and a playoff loss every day and twice on Sunday. People remember 1975, 1976, and 1990. Divisions wins are great, but they fade. Who won the WS the last 5 years and who had the best record the last 5 years? I can tell you the former but not at all the latter.

And I don't view the past in such sepia-colored glasses. I think its harder to win the World Series now than it ever has before and means more.

RedsBaron
10-19-2012, 07:56 PM
I guess I'm just feeling contrary today.

Sure I''d like both. But I'll take a wild card 88 wins and a World Championship trophy over a Division win and a playoff loss every day and twice on Sunday. People remember 1975, 1976, and 1990. Divisions wins are great, but they fade. Who won the WS the last 5 years and who had the best record the last 5 years? I can tell you the former but not at all the latter.

And I don't view the past in such sepia-colored glasses. I think its harder to win the World Series now than it ever has before and means more.

Absolutely. I will take the World Series every time.

757690
10-19-2012, 08:11 PM
I guess I'm just feeling contrary today.

Sure I''d like both. But I'll take a wild card 88 wins and a World Championship trophy over a Division win and a playoff loss every day and twice on Sunday. People remember 1975, 1976, and 1990. Divisions wins are great, but they fade. Who won the WS the last 5 years and who had the best record the last 5 years? I can tell you the former but not at all the latter.

And I don't view the past in such sepia-colored glasses. I think its harder to win the World Series now than it ever has before and means more.

1. Under the old rules, absolutely. But under these new rules, I care about winning the division first and foremost. Anything after that is gravy. Honestly, if the Reds had won the World Series this year, I wouldn't feel any prouder of the team. I'd happier, but only because I wouldn't have to deal with annoying fans from other teams gloating about there team. And if the Reds win the wild card next season and the World Series, I would be less proud of them than I am of this current team.

2. It's harder to win, but for all the wrong reasons, therefore, it's less meaningful. You don't have to be better than you were u dee the old rules, to win now, in fact, history tells us it might be easier to win if you are worse. If they changed the rules that in order to win your playoff series, you didn't have to win more games, you had to guess winning lottery numbers, it would be harder, but less meaningful.

3. I have an easier time remembering who were the dominant teams each of the least five, ten, or fifteen years than I do remembering who won the World Series. Much easier. And that didn't use to be the case.

DGullett35
10-19-2012, 08:11 PM
The 1998 Yankees want to have a talk with you. 114-48, went 11-2 in the playoffs.

I thought the exact same thing

757690
10-19-2012, 08:22 PM
I thought the exact same thing

Funny, looking back over the last 17 years, we seem to only find one example of a team that won the World Series and was also clearly the best team in baseball. While in the previous 25 years, we can only think of one example (Twins '91) in which a team won the World Series that some think didn't deserved it.

Revering4Blue
10-19-2012, 09:09 PM
I guess I'm just feeling contrary today.

Sure I''d like both. But I'll take a wild card 88 wins and a World Championship trophy over a Division win and a playoff loss every day and twice on Sunday. People remember 1975, 1976, and 1990. Divisions wins are great, but they fade. Who won the WS the last 5 years and who had the best record the last 5 years? I can tell you the former but not at all the latter.

And I don't view the past in such sepia-colored glasses. I think its harder to win the World Series now than it ever has before and means more.

You are a wise man, Roy.

Phhhl
10-19-2012, 09:23 PM
I agree with the concept that the game has been diminished by expanded playoffs. And, it really irritates me that the Cardinals have advanced this far, knowing that they could not have even made the playoffs in any other season in the history of the game. So irritated that I am not even watching baseball again until February...

But, I am not going to pretend I won't be extremely happy one of these years when an underwhelming Reds team takes a wild card spot and turns it into November magic. A lot of this indignance has to do with the perspective we have from watching our team destroy a team over the course of 162 games, only to be sitting at home watching them now. The roles will like be reversed sooner than later under this format.

vic715
10-19-2012, 09:27 PM
Look, I'm no Cards fan either, but are we really debating that they aren't the champs if they win? If thats the case we should just stop the World Series altogether and just award it to the best regular season.

I love baseball, I love the playoffs. I have no issues with the extra wildcard, it works.

Baseball will likely never again be the top sport. It's just not that world anymore. People don't like lulls or 'boring'. They want things that go 10000 miles an hour and explode when you touch them.

As I stated earlier make it best 2 of 3 and I can live with it.One game isn't fair in my estimation.

mth123
10-19-2012, 10:43 PM
This won't be popular.

The Cardinals run differential of 117 was second best in the NL. It was better than the Braves (100), the Reds (81) or the Giants (69). Only the Nationals, with a Run Differential of 137, was better than the Cardinals in the 2012 NL season and the Cards did beat them head to head in a fair series.

Maybe the Wild Card and the Cards' post season run is righting an injustice that was reflected in the regular season standings. Being 36 net runs better than the Reds suggests that they were a better team by about 3 to 4 games which is a far cry from finishing 9 games back.

In general, I've been in the camp of trying to maintain the sanctity of the 162 game regular season, but this Cards' team is hardly the best example of why the wild card is such an injus,tice. I somehow think if it were any other team, and if the Reds had not just laid an egg in their post-season appearance, that this topic would be getting barely a wimper.

mth123
10-19-2012, 10:46 PM
As I stated earlier make it best 2 of 3 and I can live with it.One game isn't fair in my estimation.

I think the whole idea is for it to be unfair. Want to avoid it? Win the Division.

Tony Cloninger
10-19-2012, 10:52 PM
Baseball did not lose it's popularity with football beacuse it went to 4 divisions in 1969.

It lost it and continued to lose it due to the sport not translating as well on TV....football just became more popular and fun to watch, and it's only once a week. Rozelle did a better job of marketing the game compared to Eckett and then Kuhn. And anyone who remember watching football in the 70's with the zone defense and teams running 70% of the time will tell you it was not even that exciting.

Baseball however messed itself up in the 60's with the increased strike zone to avoid any Maris like implosions with expansion here. The game got lower scoring....with minimal speed (Besides Dodgers and the Cardinals)

It became popular again with scoring, speed picking up and then the 1975 WS. It just kept shooting itself in the foot however in 1981 and the battles between the MLBPA and the owners. Fans do not seem to care that football players strike (1982) or owners get replacement players (1987)
and the NBA also got out of it's cocaine induced fog in the early 80's and Magic and Bird and then Jordan happened.

I remember watching NBA 1980-81-82 finals on Tape Delay.

The WS does still mean something, even with IL play....and it means a lot to win it.
The cardinals get lucky but still find ways to come through.....and I have been harping all year on how they are able to pluck hitters out of the minors like the Reds used to in the 70's. Well now that depth is helping them, along the usual Denny Doyle/David Eckstien type of player just showing up and hitting out of nowhere.

The Reds blew a 2-0 lead with 3 at home. They have no one to blame but themselves. So do the Nationals and basically Gonzales was terrible for them. Turned almost Rick Ankiel with his control problems.

757690
10-19-2012, 10:57 PM
This won't be popular.

The Cardinals run differential of 117 was second best in the NL. It was better than the Braves (100), the Reds (81) or the Giants (69). Only the Nationals with a Run Differential of 137 was better than the Cardinals in the 2012 NL season and the Cards did beat them head to head in a fair series.

Maybe the Wild Card and the Cards' post season run is righting an injustice that was reflected in the regular season standings. Being 36 net runs better than the Reds suggests that they were a better team by about 3 to 4 games which is a far cry from finishing 9 games back.

In general, I've been in the camp of trying to maintain the sanctity of the 162 game regular season, but this Cards' team is hardly the best example of why the wild card is such an injustice. I somehow think if it were any other team, and if the Reds had not just laid an egg in their post-season appearance, that this topic would be getting barely a wimper.

Pythag is way overrated. A good run differential doesn't mean a team was good. A bad run differential doesn't mean a team was bad. It's a very blunt tool that kinda works in broad generalizations, but doesn't mean much in individual instances.

This year, Dave Cameron, the founder of Fangraphs, said this:


The entire concept of pythag record is now actively doing more harm than good. We'd all be better off if no one ever talked about it again.

And this question and response in a chat:


If you reject pythag, how do you measure team quality?

Dave Cameron:
Just look at the true talent levels of each player on the active roster. It might take more work, but it's worth it.

I personally think the best way to judge a team's quality is to look at their won lost record. The goal of baseball is to win games, not to accumulate stats.

mdccclxix
10-19-2012, 11:09 PM
If you reject pythag, how do you measure team quality?

Dave Cameron:
Just look at the true talent levels of each player on the active roster. It might take more work, but it's worth it.

Even by this metric would I say the Cardinals were a great team this year.

Tadasimha
10-19-2012, 11:14 PM
I would like to win both, but I would be much more proud of having the best record in the league (they used to call that "winning the pennant"), which is an achievement that is actually based on the skill and talent level of your team.

Gotta call BS on this: we all would be thrilled to have the Reds have a World Series title and it wouldn't matter if they had the worst record of any of the teams in the playoffs or not, we all would be trumpeting it to the moon and back.

757690
10-19-2012, 11:15 PM
Even by this metric would I say the Cardinals were a great team this year.

Great hitters. Decent pitching. Bad defense. The definition of mediocre. Also, a lot of players producing well above their career numbers and projections.

Tony Cloninger
10-19-2012, 11:20 PM
Great hitters. Decent pitching. Bad defense. The definition of mediocre. Also, a lot of players producing well above their career numbers and projections.

We said this last year, almost all of this year.....but here they are again. And they keep getting reloaded from no name prospects like no problem at all.

Tony Cloninger
10-19-2012, 11:21 PM
Yes, and home field was huge in the 1973 NLCS, with Met "fans" throwing everything except hand grenades at Reds players.


The Pirates had a better winning pct in 1972....by a game really but still better....and they had to play 3 in a row in Cincy.

How lucky were the Reds in 1975 not to lose the 1st two games? NOT to have the DH be in play and not have to face Jim Rice?

There was some luck in the BRM, even in their excellence.

mdccclxix
10-19-2012, 11:22 PM
I'd call them the definition of "good", not great or anything. But I don't think mediocre would describe them. If so, the name certainly wouldn't escape teams like Detroit or Texas, either.

mth123
10-19-2012, 11:26 PM
Pythag is way overrated. A good run differential doesn't mean a team was good. A bad run differential doesn't mean a team was bad. It's a very blunt tool that kinda works in broad generalizations, but doesn't mean much in individual instances.

This year, Dave Cameron, the founder of Fangraphs, said this:



And this question and response in a chat:



I personally think the best way to judge a team's quality is to look at their won lost record. The goal of baseball is to win games, not to accumulate stats.

I've never been completely sold on pythag either, but its far from meaningless and does suggest that the Reds aren't clearly better as the standings and the general stance in this thread suggest.

westofyou
10-19-2012, 11:27 PM
We said this last year, almost all of this year.....but here they are again. And they keep getting reloaded from no name prospects like no problem at all.

They score runs they have pitching that doesn't suck.

The later is something Reds fans have seen little of in the past

mth123
10-19-2012, 11:31 PM
The Pirates had a better winning pct in 1972....by a game really but still better....and they had to play 3 in a row in Cincy.

How lucky were the Reds in 1975 not to lose the 1st two games? NOT to have the DH be in play and not have to face Jim Rice?

There was some luck in the BRM, even in their excellence.

Yep, and don't forget a very favorable call, from the Reds perspective, on the Armbrister play that tipped the scales in game 3.

757690
10-19-2012, 11:31 PM
I'd call them the definition of "good", not great or anything. But I don't think mediocre would describe them. If so, the name certainly wouldn't escape teams like Detroit or Texas, either.

You're right, Cardinals are a good team, I was wrong to use the term mediocre, but definitely not a great team. Not one that deserves to be in the playoffs. I also think that the Rangers aren't much better. The Tigers have a great offense, better than the Cardinals, the best starting pitcher in baseball, and one of the best managers ever. Hard to say they're a great team, but hard to say that they don't deserve to be in the playoffs.

Matt700wlw
10-20-2012, 01:40 AM
The Reds are closer to being the Cardinals than you think.

How long did it take the Tony LaRussa Cardinals to get to this point?

Tom Servo
10-20-2012, 03:16 AM
Cardinals are a good team, 5th best in the NL means you're good. But it doesn't mean you should be in the playoffs.

vic715
10-20-2012, 03:34 AM
The Pirates had a better winning pct in 1972....by a game really but still better....and they had to play 3 in a row in Cincy.

How lucky were the Reds in 1975 not to lose the 1st two games? NOT to have the DH be in play and not have to face Jim Rice?

There was some luck in the BRM, even in their excellence.

Thats because the Pirates played one more game than the Reds did that year due to the strike.

AtomicDumpling
10-20-2012, 04:13 AM
I guess I'm just feeling contrary today.

Sure I''d like both. But I'll take a wild card 88 wins and a World Championship trophy over a Division win and a playoff loss every day and twice on Sunday. People remember 1975, 1976, and 1990. Divisions wins are great, but they fade. Who won the WS the last 5 years and who had the best record the last 5 years? I can tell you the former but not at all the latter.

And I don't view the past in such sepia-colored glasses. I think its harder to win the World Series now than it ever has before and means more.

So you would be prouder of an "accomplishment" that has more to do with outright luck than with skill and talent. I see.

It's kind of like being proud of a coin-flipping championship. It has nothing to do with skill. Just pure luck.

The playoffs are based on luck. That is why the best team rarely wins the World Series and the wild card 2nd-place teams have won it regularly lately. The team with the best record has only a 50-50 chance of winning each series in the playoffs. The talent and skill of a team does not have time to manifest and assert itself in a 5 or 7 game series. All of us have known since childhood that it takes a large number of baseball games to figure out which team is better. Even the best teams in baseball only win 65% of their games over the course of a full season. A series is just a crapshoot. Even the best teams lose many series over the course of a season. It is not like football where the best team can go without losing a single game in an entire season. That is why baseball has a 162 game season -- because 16 or 30 games (like in other sports) is simply not enough to determine the best team.

AtomicDumpling
10-20-2012, 04:20 AM
The Reds are closer to being the Cardinals than you think.

How long did it take the Tony LaRussa Cardinals to get to this point?

Tony LaRussa's Cardinals weren't really all that good. They won a championship in a season where they were two losses from a losing record -- they had the worst record for a World Series team ever.

The Reds are better than the Cardinals already.

AtomicDumpling
10-20-2012, 04:23 AM
The Pirates had a better winning pct in 1972....by a game really but still better....and they had to play 3 in a row in Cincy.

How lucky were the Reds in 1975 not to lose the 1st two games? NOT to have the DH be in play and not have to face Jim Rice?

There was some luck in the BRM, even in their excellence.

Just goes to show you how even one of the best teams in the history of the game still needs to have luck on their side to win a short playoff series.

AtomicDumpling
10-20-2012, 04:41 AM
This won't be popular.

The Cardinals run differential of 117 was second best in the NL. It was better than the Braves (100), the Reds (81) or the Giants (69). Only the Nationals, with a Run Differential of 137, was better than the Cardinals in the 2012 NL season and the Cards did beat them head to head in a fair series.

Maybe the Wild Card and the Cards' post season run is righting an injustice that was reflected in the regular season standings. Being 36 net runs better than the Reds suggests that they were a better team by about 3 to 4 games which is a far cry from finishing 9 games back.

In general, I've been in the camp of trying to maintain the sanctity of the 162 game regular season, but this Cards' team is hardly the best example of why the wild card is such an injus,tice. I somehow think if it were any other team, and if the Reds had not just laid an egg in their post-season appearance, that this topic would be getting barely a wimper.

The Cards would have lost to the Nationals in Game 5 if that pitch that David Freese looked at in the bottom of the 9th had been called strike 3 like PitchFx said it should have been. Just another lucky break for the Cardinals that allowed them to advance over a better team.

I agree the 2012 Cardinals are not the best example of a bad team doing well in the playoffs, but just look at the last 15 years and you can find a whole bunch of mediocre teams winning championships. Has any team ever gotten beaten so badly in their own division and gone on to win the World Series as the 2012 Cardinals?

Run differential is a very rough and crude indication of how good a team could be, not a metric of how good they really are or how well they actually played on the field during all the unique scenarios and challenges that presented themselves over a six-month season. There is a lot of strategy, skill, talent, craft and experience that goes into winning 95+ baseball games.

The ultimate measure of how good a team played is how many games they won over a meaningful sample size. 5-7 games is not a meaningful sample size in the sport of baseball. 162 games is certainly much more indicative of a team's true talent level.

And let's not pretend that this issue just arose this week. This debate over the luck-based postseason has been going on for 15 years, ever since the first 2nd-place team won a World Series. Writing it off simply as Reds fans having sour grapes this year is way off base. Heck, we had a big thread about it right here on Redszone last year when the Reds didn't even come close to making the playoffs.

AtomicDumpling
10-20-2012, 04:45 AM
I think the whole idea is for it to be unfair. Want to avoid it? Win the Division.

You don't have a problem with intentionally designing an athletic contest to be unfair?

GAC
10-20-2012, 05:56 AM
The Cardinals winning the World Series would be as tainted as the Dodgers winning in the strike year of 1981

I don't know what is being inferred with the word "tainted"; but is every instance where a WC team has went on to win the WS, such as the Marlins, also tainted? Or is it just with the Cardinals? ;)

KronoRed
10-20-2012, 07:31 AM
I don't know what is being inferred with the word "tainted"; but is every instance where a WC team has went on to win the WS, such as the Marlins, also tainted? Or is it just with the Cardinals? ;)

Probably just the Cardinals ;)

I'm now rooting for the Cards just so some of you guys heads explode :D

Red in Chicago
10-20-2012, 07:39 AM
Taint is a funny word if you know what I mean:laugh:

Strikes Out Looking
10-20-2012, 09:07 AM
I confess that I want the Cardinals to lose every single game the franchise plays forever.

Roy Tucker
10-20-2012, 10:06 AM
So you would be prouder of an "accomplishment" that has more to do with outright luck than with skill and talent. I see.

It's kind of like being proud of a coin-flipping championship. It has nothing to do with skill. Just pure luck.

The playoffs are based on luck. That is why the best team rarely wins the World Series and the wild card 2nd-place teams have won it regularly lately. The team with the best record has only a 50-50 chance of winning each series in the playoffs. The talent and skill of a team does not have time to manifest and assert itself in a 5 or 7 game series. All of us have known since childhood that it takes a large number of baseball games to figure out which team is better. Even the best teams in baseball only win 65% of their games over the course of a full season. A series is just a crapshoot. Even the best teams lose many series over the course of a season. It is not like football where the best team can go without losing a single game in an entire season. That is why baseball has a 162 game season -- because 16 or 30 games (like in other sports) is simply not enough to determine the best team.

Two words: hell yes.

I understand your point and I don't think its without merit.

But I think its plain old silly to say "my team won 97 games and your team won 94 games so my team is clearly superior and your team has no business in the playoffs". How much luck went into that difference of 3 games?

I like competition. I like watching 2 teams in the playoffs going at each other tooth and nail. The games are played harder and with more intensity. It exposes teams' strengths and weaknesses. I would like teams that had the better record have a clear advantage in the playoffs, but I have no problem with a good second place team making it through.

I would have liked to have seen the Yankees of the 50's have to grind through the Indians or the White Sox in a short LCS series and see how many times they get to the WS. Seen the Koufax/Drysdale Dodgers against the Marichal Giants or the Gibson Cardinals. More better baseball.

This discussion just reeks of sour grapes. God knows I'm not a Cardinal lover. But I have to admire their playoff run this year (and last year) and I hardly think its "pure luck" they are winning.

I've seen and lived pennant races and I thought they were great. Don't ever say the name John Tsitouris to me. The meaningful baseball was played during the regular season. The last 2 weeks were often nail biters. But the game has changed and that meaningful baseball is played in the playoffs now. Each method has their merits. But I don't pine away for the old days. The baseball played on the field is better than its ever been. I like it.

Always Red
10-20-2012, 11:16 AM
I've seen and lived pennant races and I thought they were great. Don't ever say the name John Tsitouris to me. The meaningful baseball was played during the regular season. The last 2 weeks were often nail biters. But the game has changed and that meaningful baseball is played in the playoffs now. Each method has their merits. But I don't pine away for the old days. The baseball played on the field is better than its ever been. I like it.

Tsitouris did throw the shutout that September day in 1964 that started the Phillies on that fateful 10 game losing streak, but with what happened 2 weeks later, I'm sure Dick Sisler agrees with you. What can you expect from a guy the Reds traded Joe Nuxhall away for? But I digress..

Excellent post, Roy, the game has changed. I do sometimes pine for those older simpler days, without TV and money ruling every decision. Change isn't always good, but it always happens, nothing ever stays the same, and reading your post reminds me to always keep that in mind. :thumbup:

And it is true that the players on the field are better than ever- bigger, faster, stronger. Maybe not quite fundamentally sound, but that varies from organization to organization.

I hope our Redlegs can take advantage of the newer format to win a couple of more World Championships in the next few years. They certainly have the core talent to compete every year. Nowadays, geting in is the first step and gives everyone a chance to move on. A team needs a couple of good hammers in the rotation, and good relief pitching to continue to move on. And a hot hitter or two. And some luck.

RedsFan75
10-20-2012, 11:29 AM
I think my problem is with the wild card setup the most. As I said earlier, something about it just doesn't feel right. As someone mentioned, teams really didn't fight that hard for the division, just kept fighting to get to the wild card, while the ones with the division locked up, sorta sat back.... maybe that losing the edge is what bothers me the most and why the WC teams always seem to have that edge, that hot streak.

I DO like the extra baseball, I do like the quality of baseball now. But there's something about the wild card that has always irked me.

I'd wouldn't mind going back to 2 divisions with divisional playoffs. (course I could never understand why St. Louis was in the Eastern division but Cincinnati and Atlanta was in the West??)

Maybe if baseball would implement a salary cap, that could do more good than a playoff change. And the Luxury tax doesn't count as a salary cap. really. Get some 'competitive balance' back in the game. Isn't that what Costas called it in his book...

Sure we may be having a bit of sour grapes, and the playoff losses always leave some sour grapes taste regardless of your team, but we wouldn't be fans if it didn't bother us a bit. :) I think what makes this year worse is the WC berth being fostered in by the 1 game playoff. I dearly hate those more than anything. 1999 anyone? If they want a second WC team it should be a play in series?? But the logistics of that would be maddening...

Oh and Roy had to look that name up, because I didn't really get started watching the Reds until '68...

Sea Ray
10-20-2012, 11:30 AM
I don't know what is being inferred with the word "tainted"; but is every instance where a WC team has went on to win the WS, such as the Marlins, also tainted? Or is it just with the Cardinals? ;)

It's not just the Cardinals. It's that they got in via a spot that is available for the first time in history. In that respect it mirrors the 1981 Dodgers. The Cards were so far behind in the regular season, they never threatened our Reds. By the time they took over 2nd place, the division was pretty much settled. This team now has a chance to win it all because things have fallen their way, including our losing Cueto in game one.

I think a lot of us were OK with expanding the playoffs this year but we didn't really expect that extra WC team to win it all. If this new system means we're going to have some close to .500 teams winning the WS in the future then there will be a lot of complaining in MLB circles. I don't think that's what we had in mind

Brutus
10-20-2012, 11:48 AM
The way this thread reads, we should just eliminate playoffs in all sports. Let's just subjectively crown a champion at the end of the regular season. I am amazed by the harping on baseball playoffs, considering with the exception of college football, every sport at every level has playoffs.

Personally I like the playoffs mostly as-is, though I'd certainly make a few changes... i.e. fewer off-days and a 7-game series in the LDS instead of 5. That said, while I like interleague play, I would not be opposed to going to a 168-game schedule of playing 12 games round-robin within your league doing away with divisions, and then having a 9-game World Series among the two league champions.

Short of doing that, however, I don't think the problem is necessarily with having 5 teams from each league making the playoffs, but rather how the playoffs are set up to begin with. The whole season is a marathon and they've got the playoff schedules set up to be a sprint. The wildcard round adds an extra team but it also restores the importance of winning the division -- at least in theory. In practice, it would restore the importance by going to a 7-game LDS; cutting out the extraneous travel days during a series; and lastly, playing all the games in a series at home of the higher-seed.

Always Red
10-20-2012, 11:58 AM
Oh and Roy had to look that name up, because I didn't really get started watching the Reds until '68...

That's about the same time I started paying serious attention, and I never saw Tsitouris pitch, but here's a great bit of winter reading for serious Reds history junkies: http://www.amazon.com/Fred-Hutchinson-1964-Cincinnati-Reds/dp/0786459425

Sea Ray
10-20-2012, 12:03 PM
The way this thread reads, we should just eliminate playoffs in all sports. Let's just subjectively crown a champion at the end of the regular season. I am amazed by the harping on baseball playoffs, considering with the exception of college football, every sport at every level has playoffs.



The difference is that in other sports like football, the WC teams are generally "in it" 'till the end of the season. If certain games go their way they can still win the division. Now that MLB has extended the playoffs you can get an also ran--a team that finished 10 games behind-- that wins the WS. Given this system the 1975 Dodgers who finished 20 games behind our Reds, could have erased the BRM in the post season. That Dodger team was literally "out of it" by the All Star break that year

Chip R
10-20-2012, 12:48 PM
We said this last year, almost all of this year.....but here they are again. And they keep getting reloaded from no name prospects like no problem at all.

Gotta give the devil his due. They lost Pujols and Carpenter and Furcal didn't play for the last month. Wainwright was coming back from surgery. Not exactly a recipe for success.

Tony Cloninger
10-20-2012, 01:49 PM
Thats because the Pirates played one more game than the Reds did that year due to the strike.

Correct. However it was in the Reds favor that they got the last 3 games in Cincy that year and then bit them in the A the following yar.

Heck look at 1976....1st two in Philly? But the Phils did win 101 that year, so they were only one game better in regards to standings than the Reds....but clearly the Reds were better and it showed.

Tony Cloninger
10-20-2012, 01:52 PM
Just goes to show you how even one of the best teams in the history of the game still needs to have luck on their side to win a short playoff series.

The 1972 series is a good example.

Reds get lucky not to see Reggie Jackson, but instead freaking Geno Tenace hits like Jackson AND the Reds blow a 9th inning lead beacuse Davey told Sparky he knew how to play Angel Mangual and the ball goes where Sparky wanted Davey to be at.

7th game..... and Rose is held up at 3rd on a ball Morgan thought he had a triple on and they cannot tie the game.

mth123
10-20-2012, 01:54 PM
The Cards would have lost to the Nationals in Game 5 if that pitch that David Freese looked at in the bottom of the 9th had been called strike 3 like PitchFx said it should have been. Just another lucky break for the Cardinals that allowed them to advance over a better team.

I agree the 2012 Cardinals are not the best example of a bad team doing well in the playoffs, but just look at the last 15 years and you can find a whole bunch of mediocre teams winning championships. Has any team ever gotten beaten so badly in their own division and gone on to win the World Series as the 2012 Cardinals?

Run differential is a very rough and crude indication of how good a team could be, not a metric of how good they really are or how well they actually played on the field during all the unique scenarios and challenges that presented themselves over a six-month season. There is a lot of strategy, skill, talent, craft and experience that goes into winning 95+ baseball games.

The ultimate measure of how good a team played is how many games they won over a meaningful sample size. 5-7 games is not a meaningful sample size in the sport of baseball. 162 games is certainly much more indicative of a team's true talent level.

And let's not pretend that this issue just arose this week. This debate over the luck-based postseason has been going on for 15 years, ever since the first 2nd-place team won a World Series. Writing it off simply as Reds fans having sour grapes this year is way off base. Heck, we had a big thread about it right here on Redszone last year when the Reds didn't even come close to making the playoffs.

I've been thinking some of the things you've written since 1969 when the team with the best record in each league didn't automatically go to the series. As a Reds fan, I remember saying almost all of the same things that you've been saying, but I was using the '73 Mets as my reason for hating expanded play-offs (all the way to 4 teams).

The Cardinals got healthy with their frontline starters Wainwright rounding into form over the season and Carpenter coming back to give strong outings at the end. All season long, the Cards had a better offense and while the Reds had a better closer, the rest of the pen isn't far off the Reds. I'd say with Wainwright back in form and Carpenter pitching, the Cards rotation is at least a push with the Reds. I just don't buy that the Reds are so clearly better. The Run Differential says otherwise and so does a look at the roster. Position for position, I'd give the Reds the edge at 1st, 2nd, 4th OF and closer. RF is probably a push, so is the middle of the pen. The Rotations are close. I'd say the Cardinals are better everywhere else. The Reds may be better at SS wth Furcal out.

I still think this thread is largely in existance because the Reds just tanked and the Cardinals are involved.

Brutus
10-20-2012, 02:00 PM
Pythag is way overrated. A good run differential doesn't mean a team was good. A bad run differential doesn't mean a team was bad. It's a very blunt tool that kinda works in broad generalizations, but doesn't mean much in individual instances.

This year, Dave Cameron, the founder of Fangraphs, said this:



And this question and response in a chat:



I personally think the best way to judge a team's quality is to look at their won lost record. The goal of baseball is to win games, not to accumulate stats.

I think you're taking Cameron's thoughts out of context. His point was that Pythag doesn't account for personnel changes throughout the year that might not be properly contextualized through the season's overall run differential. He's not suggesting that run differential isn't important or telling; he's saying that it might not always give proper credit for teams that improve or regress through player changes.

westofyou
10-20-2012, 02:00 PM
Thats because the Pirates played one more game than the Reds did that year due to the strike.

That's how my first favorite team won the AL East in 72, they played one more game than the Sox and they won by 1/2 a game.

Life isn't always fair

Brutus
10-20-2012, 02:02 PM
The difference is that in other sports like football, the WC teams are generally "in it" 'till the end of the season. If certain games go their way they can still win the division. Now that MLB has extended the playoffs you can get an also ran--a team that finished 10 games behind-- that wins the WS. Given this system the 1975 Dodgers who finished 20 games behind our Reds, could have erased the BRM in the post season. That Dodger team was literally "out of it" by the All Star break that year

Not seeing how that's any more true in baseball than it is in football. You really think the Cleveland Browns, with a couple of wins halfway through the year, was in the playoff race last season?

vic715
10-20-2012, 04:51 PM
That's how my first favorite team won the AL East in 72, they played one more game than the Sox and they won by 1/2 a game.

Life isn't always fair

Tigers are still my favorite AL team.Remember what Eddie Brinkman said on live radio after the Tigers clinched the division.

westofyou
10-20-2012, 05:08 PM
Tigers are still my favorite AL team.Remember what Eddie Brinkman said on live radio after the Tigers clinched the division.

Dave Diles Michigan Sports Hall of Fame: Eddie Brinkman Interview - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE0xtfDt6Bo)

Tony Cloninger
10-20-2012, 05:15 PM
Dave Diles Michigan Sports Hall of Fame: Eddie Brinkman Interview - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE0xtfDt6Bo)

How they have no recordings of those games of that series and PITT/CIN series and Game 7 of that WS is amazing.

I would buy those without any problem....just like the 1975 WS DVD's

Tony Cloninger
10-20-2012, 06:17 PM
This won't be popular.

The Cardinals run differential of 117 was second best in the NL. It was better than the Braves (100), the Reds (81) or the Giants (69). Only the Nationals, with a Run Differential of 137, was better than the Cardinals in the 2012 NL season and the Cards did beat them head to head in a fair series.

Maybe the Wild Card and the Cards' post season run is righting an injustice that was reflected in the regular season standings. Being 36 net runs better than the Reds suggests that they were a better team by about 3 to 4 games which is a far cry from finishing 9 games back.

In general, I've been in the camp of trying to maintain the sanctity of the 162 game regular season, but this Cards' team is hardly the best example of why the wild card is such an injus,tice. I somehow think if it were any other team, and if the Reds had not just laid an egg in their post-season appearance, that this topic would be getting barely a wimper.


You know what is amazing is that the 1970 Reds with 102 wins had a +11 RD.
+11? For 102 wins? With that offense?
Looks like the pitching staff injuries caused a lot of games to get out of hand late in the year.
They also played a lot of close games....as evidenced by the 60 saves they had.

So if we knew what we know now....the collapse of 1971 was written in the Pythags.

Kc61
10-20-2012, 06:21 PM
I've been thinking some of the things you've written since 1969 when the team with the best record in each league didn't automatically go to the series. As a Reds fan, I remember saying almost all of the same things that you've been saying, but I was using the '73 Mets as my reason for hating expanded play-offs (all the way to 4 teams).

The Cardinals got healthy with their frontline starters Wainwright rounding into form over the season and Carpenter coming back to give strong outings at the end. All season long, the Cards had a better offense and while the Reds had a better closer, the rest of the pen isn't far off the Reds. I'd say with Wainwright back in form and Carpenter pitching, the Cards rotation is at least a push with the Reds. I just don't buy that the Reds are so clearly better. The Run Differential says otherwise and so does a look at the roster. Position for position, I'd give the Reds the edge at 1st, 2nd, 4th OF and closer. RF is probably a push, so is the middle of the pen. The Rotations are close. I'd say the Cardinals are better everywhere else. The Reds may be better at SS wth Furcal out.

I still think this thread is largely in exisence because the Reds just tanked and the Cardinals are involved.

Yes, but one's subjective view of a team really is not the key point IMO. I agree that it is arguable that the Cards all around are a better team right now than the Reds. The Cards' offense is quite a bit better IMO.

But the issue for me is whether the Cards' full season performance warrants a playoff spot. Should a team, even if it is strong at the end, get a playoff spot when it is ninth or tenth in MLB in regular season record?

In a season when there are nine teams with 90 wins, should a team below 90 which did not win its division be in the playoffs?

IMO, the playoffs should reward regular season excellence. Otherwise, the 162 game season is badly diminished.

So while I agree that the Cards may be a top team at this moment, I still think that MLB should not allow such a team in the playoffs given its regular season record coupled with its failure to win a division.

Sour grapes? Maybe, but it's how I feel about this situation.

OnBaseMachine
10-20-2012, 06:24 PM
When the Reds were eliminated I said I really didn't care if the Cardinals won it all again. But after reading that garbage that Mike Thierry posted, it just reminded me that the Cardinals have the worst fans in baseball and they don't deserve another lucky championship. They were barely the fifth best team in the National League and here they are one game from reaching the World Series. I used to like the Wild Card but now it wouldn't bother me if they got rid of both wild cards.

dougdirt
10-20-2012, 06:28 PM
I lied. I haven't been able to watch much baseball. I watched some of the ALCS, but I haven't watched any of the NLCS. I am going to force myself to watch the World Series, but I am sure it will be painful.

Brutus
10-20-2012, 06:36 PM
When the Reds were eliminated I said I really didn't care if the Cardinals won it all again. But after reading that garbage that Mike Thierry posted, it just reminded me that the Cardinals have the worst fans in baseball and they don't deserve another lucky championship. They were barely the fifth best team in the National League and here they are one game from reaching the World Series. I used to like the Wild Card but now it wouldn't bother me if they got rid of both wild cards.

Yeah that was totally uncalled for. Being baited and going after one or two posters is one thing, but making those remarks about the entire board was bush league.

George Anderson
10-20-2012, 06:38 PM
I still think this thread is largely in exisence because the Reds just tanked and the Cardinals are involved.

Yep

George Anderson
10-20-2012, 06:44 PM
Tigers are still my favorite AL team.Remember what Eddie Brinkman said on live radio after the Tigers clinched the division.

I can't believe Eddie Brinkman, a HS teammate of our very own Peter Rose would be so crash.

757690
10-20-2012, 08:56 PM
You know what is amazing is that the 1970 Reds with 102 wins had a +11 RD.
+11? For 102 wins? With that offense?
Looks like the pitching staff injuries caused a lot of games to get out of hand late in the year.
They also played a lot of close games....as evidenced by the 60 saves they had.

So if we knew what we know now....the collapse of 1971 was written in the Pythags.

Actually, it was written in training room, lol. Bench played hurt most of the season and dropped over 200 OPS points. It affect the whole lineup as pretty much everyone's numbers fell drastically. Carbo's off the field issues started, and Tolen was gone. Those were the biggest reasons for the steep decline that season.

757690
10-20-2012, 09:02 PM
I still think this thread is largely in existance because the Reds just tanked and the Cardinals are involved

Absolutely. No denying that. But it doesn't make it any less true. I have felt this way since 1995, but never felt the need to make a big deal about it.

I really thought that the second wild card was terrible for the integrity of baseball, but didn't think I would be proven right so quickly and to such an extreme. Had the Reds advanced this the Cardinals not made the playoffs, I would feel exactly the same way, but I would not have felt the need to talk about it here.

Always Red
10-20-2012, 09:43 PM
You know what is amazing is that the 1970 Reds with 102 wins had a +11 RD.
+11? For 102 wins? With that offense?
Looks like the pitching staff injuries caused a lot of games to get out of hand late in the year.
They also played a lot of close games....as evidenced by the 60 saves they had.

So if we knew what we know now....the collapse of 1971 was written in the Pythags.

That team started out 70-30, believe it or not, until the pitching fell apart. And they moved into a different ballpark that required a different approach to the game, mainly, more pitching and defense. Howsam was smart enough to recognize that and fix it early on.

Roy Tucker
10-21-2012, 01:06 AM
Absolutely. No denying that. But it doesn't make it any less true. I have felt this way since 1995, but never felt the need to make a big deal about it.

I really thought that the second wild card was terrible for the integrity of baseball, but didn't think I would be proven right so quickly and to such an extreme. Had the Reds advanced this the Cardinals not made the playoffs, I would feel exactly the same way, but I would not have felt the need to talk about it here.

I suppose. But OK, I have something that's been on my chest for a while now reading this (and other threads) and I have to let it out.

I've raged at the game and the baseball gods for a myriad of offenses to my sensibilities. The aforementioned John Tsitouris who broke my 11 yr. old heart for losing the last game of the 1964 season and dooming me to a lifelong love affair with the Reds, Bill Dewitt for trading Frank Robinson and hiring Don Heffner, Ken Burkhardt completely blowing the call of Carbo out at home, Brooks Robinson putting on a show for the ages, Gene bleeping Tenace and Joe bleeping Rudi, Bud punk-ass Harrelson and the bleeping Mets, Bernie Carbo and Carlton Fisk and I still turn that replay of Fisk waving the ball fair every time it comes on TV to this day, the end of the '76 season when I thought the BRM would go on forever and little did I know it was already over, Bowie Kuhn vetoing the Vida Blue trade because it was "bad for baseball" (what!?!??!), Garvey/Lopes/Russell/Cey, Wagner firing Sparky, 1981 with the best record in baseball and not even MAKING THE PLAYOFFS, being foolish enough to buy 81 game season tickets for the 1981 season and watching the Reds pull an all-time suck for the ages and hence developing a taste for large amounts of Hudepohl, the era of the 2nd place Pete Rose teams and his ultimate public self-destruction, Marge making the city a laughing stock and her dog taking dumps on the field, the 1990 team like a blazing comet that was over almost before it began, the '94 strike and what an ultimate act of stupidity and a dagger to the heart of baseball that was, 1995 and Reggie Sanders single-handedly losing the NLCS (no, wait, Mark Portugal giving up a 3 run bomb to Javy freaking Lopez in the 10th), John Allen, the false spring of 1990 when I thought they had something and Al Leiter and how can a 99 win team *not* deserve to make the playoffs, and then the decade of the 2000's and Griffey squandering his talent and Carl Lindner not giving a crap, and the steroid era cheapening and invalidating a whole set of cherished and hallowed records, Bud saying its a tie, and yes, wild card teams storming the playoffs and beating the "favorites", Roy Halliday, and the heartbreak of losing a 2-0 game lead at home.

I've had plenty of reasons to hate the game. But it hit me just last week standing in the middle of a berserk group of Reds fans screaming their heads off and blowing their voices out as if by just a collective act of will, they could bring the team back, that its all about the athletes on the field and the fans in the stands and the C on their chest and the game. The competition on the field is all that ultimately matters. All the rest of that crap, well yeah, you can find plenty of places to find fault and dislike the game and get all pissed off and think its unfair and waste a lot of time being bitter. Its all too easy to let all that distract you and take your focus away from the play on the field. But teams win championships (and world championships) on the field with their play, be it the Reds or the Cardinals or whoever. They earn it and there ain't no luck to it.

So, even a bad day at the ballpark beats the snot out of most other good days. I'll take my scorecard and pencil and beer and hot dog and rage at the dips and cheer at the highs, but I'm not ever going to stop loving this game and this team and nobody will ever take that away from me.

</rant>

westofyou
10-21-2012, 01:28 AM
I suppose. But OK, I have something that's been on my chest for a while now reading this (and other threads) and I have to let it out.

I've raged at the game and the baseball gods for a myriad of offenses to my sensibilities. The aforementioned John Tsitouris who broke my 11 yr. old heart for losing the last game of the 1964 season and dooming me to a lifelong love affair with the Reds, Bill Dewitt for trading Frank Robinson and hiring Don Heffner, Ken Burkhardt completely blowing the call of Carbo out at home, Brooks Robinson putting on a show for the ages, Gene bleeping Tenace and Joe bleeping Rudi, Bud punk-ass Harrelson and the bleeping Mets, Bernie Carbo and Carlton Fisk and I still turn that replay of Fisk waving the ball fair every time it comes on TV to this day, the end of the '76 season when I thought the BRM would go on forever and little did I know it was already over, Bowie Kuhn vetoing the Vida Blue trade because it was "bad for baseball" (what!?!??!), Garvey/Lopes/Russell/Cey, Wagner firing Sparky, 1981 with the best record in baseball and not even MAKING THE PLAYOFFS, being foolish enough to buy 81 game season tickets for the 1981 season and watching the Reds pull an all-time suck for the ages and hence developing a taste for large amounts of Hudepohl, the era of the 2nd place Pete Rose teams and his ultimate public self-destruction, Marge making the city a laughing stock and her dog taking dumps on the field, the 1990 team like a blazing comet that was over almost before it began, the '94 strike and what an ultimate act of stupidity and a dagger to the heart of baseball that was, 1995 and Reggie Sanders single-handedly losing the NLCS (no, wait, Mark Portugal giving up a 3 run bomb to Javy freaking Lopez in the 10th), John Allen, the false spring of 1990 when I thought they had something and Al Leiter and how can a 99 win team *not* deserve to make the playoffs, and then the decade of the 2000's and Griffey squandering his talent and Carl Lindner not giving a crap, and the steroid era cheapening and invalidating a whole set of cherished and hallowed records, Bud saying its a tie, and yes, wild card teams storming the playoffs and beating the "favorites", Roy Halliday, and the heartbreak of losing a 2-0 game lead at home.

I've had plenty of reasons to hate the game. But it hit me just last week standing in the middle of a berserk group of Reds fans screaming their heads off and blowing their voices out as if by just a collective act of will, they could bring the team back, that its all about the athletes on the field and the fans in the stands and the C on their chest and the game. The competition on the field is all that ultimately matters. All the rest of that crap, well yeah, you can find plenty of places to find fault and dislike the game and get all pissed off and think its unfair and waste a lot of time being bitter. Its all too easy to let all that distract you and take your focus away from the play on the field. But teams win championships (and world championships) on the field with their play, be it the Reds or the Cardinals or whoever. They earn it and there ain't no luck to it.

So, even a bad day at the ballpark beats the snot out of most other good days. I'll take my scorecard and pencil and beer and hot dog and rage at the dips and cheer at the highs, but I'm not ever going to stop loving this game and this team and nobody will ever take that away from me.

</rant>


Everything he said...

Look back for a second, back beyond your own memory of life.

This game is big, this game is bigger than you and me and any gerrymandered excuse you might make on why it sucks when your team isn't playing anymore.

It's bigger than wins and losses, bigger than OPS, RC/27, WAR and VORP, it's poetry, magic, first love and the best piece of music you've ever heard all rolled up in one thing.

Baseball is the only game where the defense controls the moment that instigates the games offensive moment.

It's unique, it's archaic, it's wonderful.

It's life.

mth123
10-21-2012, 05:54 AM
I suppose. But OK, I have something that's been on my chest for a while now reading this (and other threads) and I have to let it out.

I've raged at the game and the baseball gods for a myriad of offenses to my sensibilities. The aforementioned John Tsitouris who broke my 11 yr. old heart for losing the last game of the 1964 season and dooming me to a lifelong love affair with the Reds, Bill Dewitt for trading Frank Robinson and hiring Don Heffner, Ken Burkhardt completely blowing the call of Carbo out at home, Brooks Robinson putting on a show for the ages, Gene bleeping Tenace and Joe bleeping Rudi, Bud punk-ass Harrelson and the bleeping Mets, Bernie Carbo and Carlton Fisk and I still turn that replay of Fisk waving the ball fair every time it comes on TV to this day, the end of the '76 season when I thought the BRM would go on forever and little did I know it was already over, Bowie Kuhn vetoing the Vida Blue trade because it was "bad for baseball" (what!?!??!), Garvey/Lopes/Russell/Cey, Wagner firing Sparky, 1981 with the best record in baseball and not even MAKING THE PLAYOFFS, being foolish enough to buy 81 game season tickets for the 1981 season and watching the Reds pull an all-time suck for the ages and hence developing a taste for large amounts of Hudepohl, the era of the 2nd place Pete Rose teams and his ultimate public self-destruction, Marge making the city a laughing stock and her dog taking dumps on the field, the 1990 team like a blazing comet that was over almost before it began, the '94 strike and what an ultimate act of stupidity and a dagger to the heart of baseball that was, 1995 and Reggie Sanders single-handedly losing the NLCS (no, wait, Mark Portugal giving up a 3 run bomb to Javy freaking Lopez in the 10th), John Allen, the false spring of 1990 when I thought they had something and Al Leiter and how can a 99 win team *not* deserve to make the playoffs, and then the decade of the 2000's and Griffey squandering his talent and Carl Lindner not giving a crap, and the steroid era cheapening and invalidating a whole set of cherished and hallowed records, Bud saying its a tie, and yes, wild card teams storming the playoffs and beating the "favorites", Roy Halliday, and the heartbreak of losing a 2-0 game lead at home.

I've had plenty of reasons to hate the game. But it hit me just last week standing in the middle of a berserk group of Reds fans screaming their heads off and blowing their voices out as if by just a collective act of will, they could bring the team back, that its all about the athletes on the field and the fans in the stands and the C on their chest and the game. The competition on the field is all that ultimately matters. All the rest of that crap, well yeah, you can find plenty of places to find fault and dislike the game and get all pissed off and think its unfair and waste a lot of time being bitter. Its all too easy to let all that distract you and take your focus away from the play on the field. But teams win championships (and world championships) on the field with their play, be it the Reds or the Cardinals or whoever. They earn it and there ain't no luck to it.

So, even a bad day at the ballpark beats the snot out of most other good days. I'll take my scorecard and pencil and beer and hot dog and rage at the dips and cheer at the highs, but I'm not ever going to stop loving this game and this team and nobody will ever take that away from me.

</rant>

:clap::clap::clap:

Tony Cloninger
10-21-2012, 10:41 AM
Actually, it was written in training room, lol. Bench played hurt most of the season and dropped over 200 OPS points. It affect the whole lineup as pretty much everyone's numbers fell drastically. Carbo's off the field issues started, and Tolen was gone. Those were the biggest reasons for the steep decline that season.

I thought Bench got hurt from doing all those winter caravan shows and Bob Hope Specials and Johnny Carson. :D

Tony Cloninger
10-21-2012, 10:45 AM
I suppose. But OK, I have something that's been on my chest for a while now reading this (and other threads) and I have to let it out.

I've raged at the game and the baseball gods for a myriad of offenses to my sensibilities. The aforementioned John Tsitouris who broke my 11 yr. old heart for losing the last game of the 1964 season and dooming me to a lifelong love affair with the Reds, Bill Dewitt for trading Frank Robinson and hiring Don Heffner, Ken Burkhardt completely blowing the call of Carbo out at home, Brooks Robinson putting on a show for the ages, Gene bleeping Tenace and Joe bleeping Rudi, Bud punk-ass Harrelson and the bleeping Mets, Bernie Carbo and Carlton Fisk and I still turn that replay of Fisk waving the ball fair every time it comes on TV to this day, the end of the '76 season when I thought the BRM would go on forever and little did I know it was already over, Bowie Kuhn vetoing the Vida Blue trade because it was "bad for baseball" (what!?!??!), Garvey/Lopes/Russell/Cey, Wagner firing Sparky, 1981 with the best record in baseball and not even MAKING THE PLAYOFFS, being foolish enough to buy 81 game season tickets for the 1981 season and watching the Reds pull an all-time suck for the ages and hence developing a taste for large amounts of Hudepohl, the era of the 2nd place Pete Rose teams and his ultimate public self-destruction, Marge making the city a laughing stock and her dog taking dumps on the field, the 1990 team like a blazing comet that was over almost before it began, the '94 strike and what an ultimate act of stupidity and a dagger to the heart of baseball that was, 1995 and Reggie Sanders single-handedly losing the NLCS (no, wait, Mark Portugal giving up a 3 run bomb to Javy freaking Lopez in the 10th), John Allen, the false spring of 1990 when I thought they had something and Al Leiter and how can a 99 win team *not* deserve to make the playoffs, and then the decade of the 2000's and Griffey squandering his talent and Carl Lindner not giving a crap, and the steroid era cheapening and invalidating a whole set of cherished and hallowed records, Bud saying its a tie, and yes, wild card teams storming the playoffs and beating the "favorites", Roy Halliday, and the heartbreak of losing a 2-0 game lead at home.

I've had plenty of reasons to hate the game. But it hit me just last week standing in the middle of a berserk group of Reds fans screaming their heads off and blowing their voices out as if by just a collective act of will, they could bring the team back, that its all about the athletes on the field and the fans in the stands and the C on their chest and the game. The competition on the field is all that ultimately matters. All the rest of that crap, well yeah, you can find plenty of places to find fault and dislike the game and get all pissed off and think its unfair and waste a lot of time being bitter. Its all too easy to let all that distract you and take your focus away from the play on the field. But teams win championships (and world championships) on the field with their play, be it the Reds or the Cardinals or whoever. They earn it and there ain't no luck to it.

So, even a bad day at the ballpark beats the snot out of most other good days. I'll take my scorecard and pencil and beer and hot dog and rage at the dips and cheer at the highs, but I'm not ever going to stop loving this game and this team and nobody will ever take that away from me.

</rant>


Is this a cut rant by James Earl Jones from "Field Of Dreams"? :)

757690
10-21-2012, 02:28 PM
Everything he said...

Look back for a second, back beyond your own memory of life.

This game is big, this game is bigger than you and me and any gerrymandered excuse you might make on why it sucks when your team isn't playing anymore.

It's bigger than wins and losses, bigger than OPS, RC/27, WAR and VORP, it's poetry, magic, first love and the best piece of music you've ever heard all rolled up in one thing.

Baseball is the only game where the defense controls the moment that instigates the games offensive moment.

It's unique, it's archaic, it's wonderful.

It's life.

I agree. I still love the game, always will. And I was just upset over all the same incidents and more that Roy Tucker mentioned.

But this is different. All those incidents were part of the game that I loved, and the drama, the ups and downs of baseball is one of its most alluring features. But with these new rules, baseball has changed.

Previously, when something heartbreaking happened, I knew that it was part of a fair system and that next season, my Reds would get another fair shot, and if they made the right moves, and played their best, they could win the World Series.

Now I no longer feel like the system is fair. I no longer feel like playing your best and building the best team means anything anymore, at least not in terms of winning the World Series. All you need to do is to not suck, and get a bunch of breaks. Greatness isn't rewarded anymore. The World Series is now different, tainted, less meaningful.

Growing up, David Letterman dreamed of replacing Johnny Carson as host of the Tonight Show. He was poised to do it when Jay Leno went behind his back and stole it from him. When Leno started to fail in the reviews and ratings, NBC went to Letterman and offered him the job as host of the Tonight Show, replacing Jay Leno. Letterman turned them down, because the show was now tainted, different, less meaningful. Letterman realized that while the Tonight Show still existed, the Tonight Show he dreamed of hosting no longer existed. He would never be able to fulfill his dream. That was ruined when Jay Leno replaced Carson.

I feel the same way with baseball and the second wild card rule. I have dreamed since 1990 of the Reds winning the World Series, but that dream is gone. Sure, the Reds will win the World Series again, but it won't be the same World Series that I grew up loving and hoping to win. It's tainted, tarnished and different. It just doesn't mean what it used to, and never will.

AmarilloRed
10-21-2012, 04:48 PM
I'll admit the Commissioner would never let it happen, but it'd be great to eliminate the playoffs/divisions and go back to the pennant system. The best team in the AL/NL should be going to the World Series, not a team that gets hot in the playoffs.

mdccclxix
10-21-2012, 11:10 PM
Some really great teams were left in the dust during the era prior to the wild card. Meanwhile, 82 win Cardinal teams, Padre teams, etc would get to the postseason. It's nostalgia that would lead someone to believe the old system was somehow purer. It was obvious that the divisional format was often unfair to some amazing teams, and too kind to some mediocre teams. I will always say, let that next team in. That they have to burn their ace to qualify against another equally deserving team is a gesture to the divisional format. It's a nearly perfect solution. Baseball is cruel, just as baseball is life. Always has been, always will be. The game is still great. The champs now a days are just as, if not more, deserving of their accomplishments.