Confession

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by mth123

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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]

Originally Posted by GAC

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

[Red in Chicago]

Taint is a funny word if you know what I mean

[Strikes Out Looking]

I confess that I want the Cardinals to lose every single game the franchise plays forever.

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by GAC

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]

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]

Originally Posted by RedsFan75

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-Hutchinso.../dp/0786459425

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Brutus

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]

Originally Posted by Tony Cloninger

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]

Originally Posted by vic715

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]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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.