MLB To Announce Expanded Playoffs For 2012

[PuffyPig]

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

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

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

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

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

[PuffyPig]

Regardless of injury, they had by far and away the best offense in the NL last year. It wasn't even close except for maybe the runs scored department.

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

[MikeThierry]

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

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

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

[MikeThierry]

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

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

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

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

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

[PuffyPig]

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

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

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

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

[PuffyPig]

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

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

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

[AtomicDumpling]

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

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

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

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

[AtomicDumpling]

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

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

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

[IslandRed]

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

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

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

[BCubb2003]

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

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

[AtomicDumpling]

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

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

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

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

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

[IslandRed]

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

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

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

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