Confession

[Vottomatic]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 757690

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]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

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]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Get off my lawn!!!

Bah I say, bah!!

[757690]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

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]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

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]

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]

Originally Posted by George Anderson

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]

Originally Posted by Chip R

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]

Originally Posted by Kc61

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]

Originally Posted by Chip R

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]

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?

Originally Posted by 757690

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]

Originally Posted by 757690

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]

Originally Posted by 757690

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.