MLB To Announce Expanded Playoffs For 2012

[IslandRed]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RedsManRick]

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

[AtomicDumpling]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RedsBaron]

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

[Crumbley]

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

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

[AtomicDumpling]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RollyInRaleigh]

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

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

[RollyInRaleigh]

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

[bucksfan2]

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

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

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

[Chip R]

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

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

[IslandRed]

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

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

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

[BearcatShane]

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

[Crumbley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AtomicDumpling]

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

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

[AtomicDumpling]

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

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

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

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