PDA

View Full Version : New Wild Card per League Starting In 2012



TrueYankee
09-24-2011, 01:53 PM
Negotiations between the players' union and the owners are moving at a fast pace according to Joel Sherman of The New York Post, and he reports that the two sides have all but agreed to add one wild card team per league. A one-game playoff would then determine which wild card team advances. The system could be installed as soon as next season, but no later than 2013.

One of Sherman's sources said it was a done deal, another said it was likely to play out that way. Nothing will become official until the next Collective Bargaining Agreement is signed, however. The current CBA expires in December, but the intensity of the talks gives both sides hope that a new deal will be announced during the World Series. The owners are interested in expanding the playoffs to increase the number of contenders, as well as add inventory to sell a TV network. The one-game playoff would create additional incentive to winning the division.

A major hurdle that remains in the CBA negotiations is the draft, particularly whether or not to include a slotting system. Sherman says there is also a lot of work to be done creating two 15-team leagues, which in part hinges on the sale of the Astros since they are the club most likely to move from the NL to the AL. Six five-team divisions would help create a more balanced schedule.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/09/mlb-likely-to-add-wild-card-team-one-game-playoff.html

Talks sound very optimistic about this happening as early as next season. If not, definetely by the year 2013. I kinda have mixed feelings about this additional wild card in both the AL and NL.

I agree with the article that teams will have a higher incentive to win their division. Given the long MLB regular season (April-September) it seems that MLB wants atleast 2 more teams to have a shot at a chance to contend in the World Series.

So if I am understanding this correctly..2 NL/2 AL teams will play eachother at season's end to determine which advance to the post season?

VRP723
09-24-2011, 02:16 PM
I like 5 playoff teams, don't like a 1 game playoff, but whatever, better chance the Dodgers will make the playoffs.

TrueYankee
09-24-2011, 02:20 PM
Whats going to be interesting to see over the course of the next 10 years or so is how far the teams who get in from the added wild card make it through the post season. Obviously the teams who get in via the added wild card will be looked at as the under dogs throughout the entire post season...maybe thats another reason why they added it so the "under dogs" can prove themselves or some **** like that

VenezuelanMet
09-24-2011, 02:23 PM
I'm OK with this. Glad they decided a 1 game series instead of a short series.

VRP723
09-24-2011, 02:24 PM
Also means more meaningful baseball down the stretch. All in all, good move.

papipapsmanny
09-24-2011, 02:28 PM
im going to assume the WC with the better record will be at home for the playoff game?

also I hope they make the divisional round 7 games

1-7-7-7 is what I would like, what is that 4 days max added to the schedule?

jakedajewler
09-24-2011, 02:41 PM
Adding more teams to the playoffs is great, but having a 1 game playoff is stupid, any team can win 1 game, proves nothing.

VRP723
09-24-2011, 02:44 PM
Adding more teams to the playoffs is great, but having a 1 game playoff is stupid, any team can win 1 game, proves nothing.

Any team can win a 3 or 5 game playoff too.

gotoHcarolina52
09-24-2011, 02:46 PM
im going to assume the WC with the better record will be at home for the playoff game?

also I hope they make the divisional round 7 games

1-7-7-7 is what I would like, what is that 4 days max added to the schedule?

I hope so too. And while a one-game playoff is fine, I wouldn't mind a best-of-three Wild Card play-in series. I can't get enough postseason baseball.

getfoul
09-24-2011, 02:48 PM
Eliminate Divisions

Balanced Schedule--
Play four former division teams 11 games
Play ten other league opponents 10 games (Arizona moves to AL)
Play four interleague series

Top 3 make the playoffs.

4 and 5 play a best-of-3 to make the playoffs

Shorten the season to 156 and 50 series in 25 weeks.

Rest of postseason best-of-7 and the World Series ends in October.

This is the only way they should expand the playoffs. Anything else will be a train wreck.

Jeffy25
09-24-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm happy with it, if it happens. My understanding is that it was a long shot to happen for 2012.

Cards and Rays would be heading for a playoff chance this season :(

-Lavigne43-
09-24-2011, 03:04 PM
Hate it.

Sportfan
09-24-2011, 03:05 PM
love it

kmo429
09-24-2011, 03:12 PM
Like it a lot. Should be a 3 game playoff though. For instance, Lets say the yanks and Sox are by a good margin the 2 best teams in the league.

The YAnks win the division, and the Sox miss by 2 games, with 98 wins. They win the WC, and the 2nd WC team, the Angels, has 91 wins.

Now the Red Sox, who are 7 games ahead of the angels, play them in one game, and because they were the 2nd best team in the AL< they have a 50% shot of advancing to the real playoffs??

Maybe they should just have 5 teams make it, and give the #1 seed a bye til the LCS? lol

Ron!n
09-24-2011, 03:22 PM
Like it a lot. Should be a 3 game playoff though. For instance, Lets say the yanks and Sox are by a good margin the 2 best teams in the league.

The YAnks win the division, and the Sox miss by 2 games, with 98 wins. They win the WC, and the 2nd WC team, the Angels, has 91 wins.

Now the Red Sox, who are 7 games ahead of the angels, play them in one game, and because they were the 2nd best team in the AL< they have a 50% shot of advancing to the real playoffs??

Maybe they should just have 5 teams make it, and give the #1 seed a bye til the LCS? lol
Well thats sort of the problem with the current Wild Card. Why should a team that didn't win their division be on even keel with a team that did?

This why the WC team is at a disadvantage and the division winners get more rest.

rapsjaysfan88
09-24-2011, 04:53 PM
as a jays fan i love this.

CAIN=FUTURE
09-24-2011, 05:34 PM
Why? So if the Giants make the WC next season Tim Lincecum can personaly get the Giants into the next round? ********. Why would you have a playoff series shorter than 5 games? If you want a additonal round it should be

Series A 3v6
Series B 4v5
Both 3 games series

Reseed:
1v4
2v3
5 game series

Reseed
1v2
7 game series.

World Series.

Randy Marsh
09-24-2011, 05:38 PM
I don't like how you could have the pleasure to make it to the playoffs then to just play one game and lose. It would be much better if they had a 5 game series for the wild card teams then have 7 games for each after that.

CAIN=FUTURE
09-24-2011, 05:45 PM
I don't like how you could have the pleasure to make it to the playoffs then to just play one game and lose. It would be much better if they had a 5 game series for the wild card teams then have 7 games for each after that.

Yea. Or even a 3 game series. Or they could have the 3 division champs with 4 WC teams vying for the Wild Card division.

Series A 1v4 1 gm
Series B 2v3 1 gm

Series C (reseed) 1v2 1 gm

Just a thought.

BradyIsTheMan12
09-24-2011, 05:48 PM
A one game playoff to decide a team's fate is ridiculous in my opinion. Your team may have a 5-10 game lead on the other Wild Card over a 162 game schedule, and then a one game winner take all decides the fate of each team? Really stupid in my opinion...

thenetslegend
09-24-2011, 05:50 PM
cmon now make at least a 3 game series, just because they added one more team doesnt mean they have to make it sudden death. unfair to both WC teams

mtf
09-24-2011, 05:59 PM
cmon now make at least a 3 game series, just because they added one more team doesnt mean they have to make it sudden death. unfair to both WC teams

I agree. A 1 game series seems so stupid. On any given day, the worst team can beat the best team, it doesn't mean they would be able to sustain that over a best of 3, 5 or 7.

I'm glad they're at least taking steps to a couple more teams to the playoffs, but the way they're going about it seems sloppy.

VenezuelanMet
09-24-2011, 06:16 PM
Adding more teams to the playoffs is great, but having a 1 game playoff is stupid, any team can win 1 game, proves nothing.

Playoffs in general prove nothing. That's why we filter the teams in 162 games so generally only the good teams make it.

gotoHcarolina52
09-24-2011, 06:18 PM
A one game playoff to decide a team's fate is ridiculous in my opinion. Your team may have a 5-10 game lead on the other Wild Card over a 162 game schedule, and then a one game winner take all decides the fate of each team? Really stupid in my opinion...

:clap: I agree. The wild card round should be at least a three game series, maybe even a five game one.

VenezuelanMet
09-24-2011, 06:32 PM
A one game playoff to decide a team's fate is ridiculous in my opinion. Your team may have a 5-10 game lead on the other Wild Card over a 162 game schedule, and then a one game winner take all decides the fate of each team? Really stupid in my opinion...
It's ridiculous thanks to America's obsession with bracket playoffs and championship trophies. Not saying it's a bad thing, just the way it is.
Division Championships should be celebrated too, they're proof of good play through a 6 month season. And I think Baseball needs a trophy for the Best regular season record, though probably no one would care about it, just like NHL's Presidents Trophy.

Also, I don't know why you seem to think that a 3 game series (which would be the alternative) is any less of a crapshoot than a single game. And for that matter, 5 game series are as well.

mtf
09-24-2011, 06:40 PM
Also, I don't know why you seem to think that a 3 game series (which would be the alternative) is any less of a crapshoot than a single game. And for that matter, 5 game series are as well.

Um, you don't understand why it's LESS of a crapshoot?

With each extension of the length of a series, from best of 1, to best of 3, to best of 5, etc... you increase the likelihood that the better, more deserving, team wins.

That's why each current playoff series, in pretty much every major team sport, is not decided in game 1 (nfl is the exception for obvious reasons).

dodgerdave
09-24-2011, 07:11 PM
This is stupid. Screw Selig. It's fine the way it is.

Gigantes4Life
09-24-2011, 07:28 PM
At least they solved that instant replay problem.

"Ace"ves
09-24-2011, 07:44 PM
Any team can win a 3 or 5 game playoff too.

Riiight....let's look at what a series between the Phillies and Diamondbacks would look like in a 1-game and a 3-game.

Game 1: Halladay v Kennedy (Halladay preferred, but Kennedy is a solid ace this season, anything can happen)


1-game series result: Anything could happen, slight edge to Phillies

Game 1: Halladay v Kennedy (Halladay preferred, but Kennedy is a solid ace this season, anything can happen)

Game 2: Lee v Hudson (Lee preferred, but Hudson is decent and has his gems... still lopsided based off Lee's domination this season)

Game 3: Hamels v Saunders (not even a close one, sure each player could perform out of their norm, but its not even close 9 times out of 10)

3-game result: Edge is the Phillies



You get the picture with Oswalt v Collemeter for the last one. And i know thats just the pitching aspect, but pitching wins in the playoffs.

thenetslegend
09-24-2011, 07:53 PM
Riiight....let's look at what a series between the Phillies and Diamondbacks would look like in a 1-game and a 3-game.

Game 1: Halladay v Kennedy (Halladay preferred, but Kennedy is a solid ace this season, anything can happen)


1-game series result: Anything could happen, slight edge to Phillies

Game 1: Halladay v Kennedy (Halladay preferred, but Kennedy is a solid ace this season, anything can happen)

Game 2: Lee v Hudson (Lee preferred, but Hudson is decent and has his gems... still lopsided based off Lee's domination this season)

Game 3: Hamels v Saunders (not even a close one, sure each player could perform out of their norm, but its not even close 9 times out of 10)

3-game result: Edge is the Phillies



You get the picture with Oswalt v Collemeter for the last one. And i know thats just the pitching aspect, but pitching wins in the playoffs.

apparently the mlb doesnt realize this. only the nfl should play 1 game. well at least there adding another WC team..

mtf
09-24-2011, 08:07 PM
This is stupid. Screw Selig. It's fine the way it is.

yeah totally, it's awesome having so few teams playing meaningful games in september

TrueYankee
09-24-2011, 11:11 PM
I agree for the most part with everyone that 1 game is ridiculous. I also think 5 is too many...3 sounds good. But its not set in stone yet...so ya never know. Maybe someone out there is reading this :)

Toxeryll
09-24-2011, 11:22 PM
3 game series would be nice

3mikee_
09-24-2011, 11:32 PM
chance for the BLUE JAYS!

FelixMillan
09-24-2011, 11:35 PM
One game is perfect. Makes clinching the division that much more important since getting only a wild card means a very good chance of being one and done.

I wonder if this means a 3rd place team could play in the wild card SUDDEN DEATH GAME! if that 3rd place wild card has a better record that all the 2nd place teams in the other divisions.

LechWalesa
09-24-2011, 11:48 PM
The 1 game match up would just go to the team with the best starting pitcher more times than not. Pretty lame.

gotoHcarolina52
09-25-2011, 12:50 AM
yeah totally, it's awesome having so few teams playing meaningful games in september

Excellent use of the new Marlins color scheme. Good to see it catching on.

fadedmario
09-25-2011, 12:58 AM
I hate it.

fadedmario
09-25-2011, 01:00 AM
chance for the BLUE JAYS!

How so? The Rays and Angels are both better teams. Still won't get in. Boston or NY will almost always hold one of the wild cards.

MetsLegacy
09-26-2011, 01:54 AM
So you play 162 games and have it come down to 1 for 4 teams.

Sounds fair.

mtf
09-26-2011, 02:06 AM
How so? The Rays and Angels are both better teams. Still won't get in. Boston or NY will almost always hold one of the wild cards.

Rays and Angels are higher in the standings this year, obviously. 2011 was never thought of as a year to compete for the Blue Jays. Every real fan knew it was a rebuilding year, same as 2010, since Alex Anthopoulos took over.

The reason for the cautious optimism in Toronto regarding a second wildcard team is not for 2011, obviously, it's for the upcoming years. As you said, New York or Boston will spend their way to the division lead and 1st wild card almost every year, that's the case right there for a 2nd wild card.

Once again though, it must be extended beyond a 1 game playoff.

VRP723
09-26-2011, 03:12 AM
So you play 162 games and have it come down to 1 for 4 teams.

Sounds fair.

Then win your division, it's pretty simple. The biggest loser here is the Yankees and Red Sox, being as how as opposed to an even slate for WC winners, now winning your division means a lot more. Should be fun to watch, essentially two Game 163's every year? Sign me up.

Belmonts
09-26-2011, 03:19 AM
Then win your division, it's pretty simple. The biggest loser here is the Yankees and Red Sox, being as how as opposed to an even slate for WC winners, now winning your division means a lot more. Should be fun to watch, essentially two Game 163's every year? Sign me up.

Bingo. The point is not to rely on the One Game Wonder.

ahoda
09-26-2011, 06:23 AM
I honestly hate this idea. Puts the WC teams at huge disadvantage as they will have to use their ace in the 1 game playoff and then he won't be able to pitch but 1 game in the next round. This hampers great playoff series imo. Stupid idea.

ahoda
09-26-2011, 06:27 AM
yeah totally, it's awesome having so few teams playing meaningful games in september

There were a ton of teams playing meaningful games in September, so I'm really sure what point your sarcastically trying to make here.

mtf
09-26-2011, 07:05 AM
There were a ton of teams playing meaningful games in September, so I'm really sure what point your sarcastically trying to make here.

Really? a ton?

If not for the giant collapse of the Red Sox, there'd be none in the American League. Because of it, there's 2 (with arguably a 3rd if you actually think the Angels had a legitimate chance to leapfrog two teams). And in the National League? St. Louis and Atlanta.

Not a single division had real competition for 1st place late into September. Yeah, TONS of meaningful games around baseball.

ahoda
09-26-2011, 07:24 AM
Really? a ton?

If not for the giant collapse of the Red Sox, there'd be none in the American League. Because of it, there's 2 (with arguably a 3rd if you actually think the Angels had a legitimate chance to leapfrog two teams). And in the National League? St. Louis and Atlanta.

Not a single division had real competition for 1st place late into September. Yeah, TONS of meaningful games around baseball.

WTF? The Angels, Rays, Indians, White Sox, and the playoff teams in the AL all played meaningful games in September.

TrueYankee
09-26-2011, 09:54 AM
I think everyone fails to realize that the MLB wants to install an "INCENTIVE FOE TEAMS TO WIN THEIR DIVISION!"

Who wants to go to sudden death in a 1-game situation? Exactly no one. But the winner will go to the post season and the loser will not.

I look at it this way...if you do not win your division, and you still do not win the original wild card, than you should feel fortunate you are good enough to play a 1-game death match at seasons' end to adavnce.

mtf
09-26-2011, 10:59 AM
WTF? The Angels, Rays, Indians, White Sox, and the playoff teams in the AL all played meaningful games in September.

The Angels? Sorta. I mean, not really, but the illusion that they could have made the playoffs if they lucked out in a big way. So, in selling that illusion, they had the illusion of meaningful games.

The Rays? Yes. I admitted that they were one of the privileged few.

The Indians and the White Sox? Please, get real. 12 and 15 games back respectively. They did not play meaningful games down the stretch.

The rest of the playoff teams? No. New York, Detroit and Texas were coasting all the way. They all have huge leads in their divisions. The only thing they were playing for was perhaps being a spoiler if they played the Rays or the Red Sox.

Perhaps you just have a different and much looser idea of what a meaningful game is, which is fine. It will bring much more intensity to a wider variety of games for you than it will most real fans. A meaningful game in September is one that has playoff implications for the team playing in it.

There were 4 teams of 30 in MLB that were playing meaningful games all the way to the end.

ahoda
09-26-2011, 11:08 AM
The Angels? Sorta. I mean, not really, but the illusion that they could have made the playoffs if they lucked out in a big way. So, in selling that illusion, they had the illusion of meaningful games.

The Rays? Yes. I admitted that they were one of the privileged few.

The Indians and the White Sox? Please, get real. 12 and 15 games back respectively. They did not play meaningful games down the stretch.

The rest of the playoff teams? No. New York, Detroit and Texas were coasting all the way. They all have huge leads in their divisions. The only thing they were playing for was perhaps being a spoiler if they played the Rays or the Red Sox.

Perhaps you just have a different and much looser idea of what a meaningful game is, which is fine. It will bring much more intensity to a wider variety of games for you than it will most real fans. A meaningful game in September is one that has playoff implications for the team playing in it.

There were 4 teams of 30 in MLB that were playing meaningful games all the way to the end.

You must not realize that the Indians and White Sox were only a couple games back going into the month of September, hence both teams played meaningful games in September. You can say it is luck all you want about the Angels and Rays, but the fact remains they are playing meaningful games down the stretch.

Your words were only a couple teams are playing meaningful games, but you should have clarified down the stretch and not some generalization and false claims.

mtf
09-26-2011, 11:18 AM
You must not realize that the Indians and White Sox were only a couple games back going into the month of September, hence both teams played meaningful games in September. You can say it is luck all you want about the Angels and Rays, but the fact remains they are playing meaningful games down the stretch.

Your words were only a couple teams are playing meaningful games, but you should have clarified down the stretch and not some generalization and false claims.

That's the second time you've implied that I grouped the Rays into the 26 teams that did not playing meaningful games throughout most of September. That is not the case.

The Angels would have required quite a bit of luck to make the playoffs, that's why it's the illusion of meaningful games. They were not going to catch Texas, and it would've been quite lucky to leapfrog both the Rays and Red Sox for the wildcard. Even if you want to count the Angels, that's 5 teams out of 30 that had meaningful games. Baseball would be much more exciting if more teams were playing for something.

nycericanguy
09-26-2011, 11:23 AM
I honestly hate this idea. Puts the WC teams at huge disadvantage as they will have to use their ace in the 1 game playoff and then he won't be able to pitch but 1 game in the next round. This hampers great playoff series imo. Stupid idea.

I LOVE IT!

And yes it puts the WC team at a huge disadvantage, it SHOULD! Why should the WC team be on the same playing field as the division winner?

Right now there is almost no advantage to winning the division, WC teams should have a much tougher road.

One Nut Kruk
09-26-2011, 11:35 AM
I LOVE IT!

And yes it puts the WC team at a huge disadvantage, it SHOULD! Why should the WC team be on the same playing field as the division winner?

Right now there is almost no advantage to winning the division, WC teams should have a much tougher road.

I agree. He's complaining about the WC team having to pitch their ace in that one game playoff. Well, no kidding. If you don't like it, win the division.

ahoda
09-26-2011, 11:56 AM
Figures, a Yankees fan and Phillies fan argument is "win the division".

:bla:

One Nut Kruk
09-26-2011, 12:04 PM
Figures, a Yankees fan and Phillies fan argument is "win the division".

:bla:

I'm a Phillies fan? Wow, that's news to me. Are you ok? Beer bongs for breakfast perhaps?

ahoda
09-26-2011, 12:11 PM
Beer bong sounds like a great idea for breakfast.

nycericanguy
09-26-2011, 12:17 PM
Figures, a Yankees fan and Phillies fan argument is "win the division".

:bla:

You do realize the Yankees probably have the most to lose with this new rule right?

One of those teams, BOS or NY, usually wins 95 games year in and year out, yet won't win the division. The Yankees have gone to the playoffs via the wildcard several times already so this new rule could really hurt them.

But its fair, if roles are reversed next year and BOS wins the division they SHOULD have an advantage over the yankees or any WC winner.

Right now you have BOS collapsing and NY figures to end up winning the division by 7 or 8 games, yet if BOS sneaks in as the WC the Yankees have gained nothing by winning the division.

S.P.
09-26-2011, 12:19 PM
This year it looks like both wildcards will be undeserving, so yay for 2 more.

/sarcasm

Bombtista
09-26-2011, 12:27 PM
Not a fan of both Wildcard teams not making the playoffs.

Anything can happen in a one game series and chances are one of the two teams had a much better season than the other.

Anyway, better chance for the Jays i guess.

Bombtista
09-26-2011, 12:36 PM
How so? The Rays and Angels are both better teams. Still won't get in. Boston or NY will almost always hold one of the wild cards.

So adding another WC to try to open up the league and avoid Boston and New York winning the division every year is a bad thing?

What you just said is exactly what is wrong with the MLB and why another WC is necessary to change the pattern that will never be changed unless another WC is added, perhaps a salary cap or years from now when all teams have a chance to re-brand the look of their team

S.P.
09-26-2011, 12:52 PM
So adding another WC to try to open up the league and avoid Boston and New York winning the division every year is a bad thing?



I think this extra WC is being added specifically to prevent NYY and BOS from missing the postseason in the same year, which has happened a twice in the last few years, and may happen this year.

Fred
09-26-2011, 12:58 PM
While I like the current structure, I am interested in the idea of adding another team...but, is this happening because the Yankees and Bosox have already wrapped up the wild card each year (in theory)? If so, it is a stupid idea - there would have to be better ways to even the playing field...
...being a Phillies fan, I like the idea of being in the hunt even if you are not in the race for your division...right now while they have this pitching staff, they should have a shot at winning their division for the next few years...but, when Doc, Cliff and the boys are retired, then it still gives my Phils a shot at catching the up-and-coming teams like Atlanta (and possibly Washington in the future) who likely will be ahead of them in the standings...

...this is different, and yet, could improve the quality of september baseball...it would certainly increase the number of "buyers" at the trade deadline...or possibly it could limit the number of trades at the deadline as more teams would be in the hunt and not be willing to trade away their best players for prospects...

Giants-49ers-Ws
09-26-2011, 02:03 PM
mixed feelings about this but overall i like it

con: I love how MLB only has 8/30 teams make playoffs..that's 26% and shows you really have to earn it to play in October...NBA is 53% (total joke)...NFL is 37.5%.....with the 2 additional WC's it is 33% now in playoff competition

pros: puts major emphasis on winning division (no one wants to play 1-game to decide their fate), gives more good teams a chance, will be highly entertaining, creates more meaningful games in September

hopefully it is installed for the 2012 season....Divisional races will be intense

also, the Astros need to go over to the AL West ASAP but does MLB really then want to have inter-league play all season long as there would be 15 teams in each league?...It doesn't bother me...and would put more of an emphasis on AL pitchers needing to learn to handle the bat a bit and NL teams to make sure they have at least one pretty damn valuable player off their bench (whether it be a power hitter or scrappy/speed guy)

nycericanguy
09-26-2011, 02:25 PM
I think this extra WC is being added specifically to prevent NYY and BOS from missing the postseason in the same year, which has happened a twice in the last few years, and may happen this year.

Maybe I don;t understand something here. But wouldn't this rule make it harder for NY or BOS to BOTH make the playoffs?

BOS & NY are usually 1-2 in the AL east. With this new rule lets say BOS finishes 2nd like this year, they would then play the 2nd WC which in this case would be TB in a 1 game playoff with the winner advancing to the real playoffs.

instead of basically guaranteeing the AL east runner up the WC, it would force them to play a 2nd WC to make the "real" postseason.

in the NL it would be ATL vs STL in a 1 game playoff.

Mr. Hangman
09-26-2011, 02:48 PM
This isn't being done to keep the Yankees or Red Sox out of the playoffs. It's being done, because it gives the league two more playoff games to sell.

It doesn't necessarily add any excitement to the season. Take this year for example. If this system were in place already, every playoff spot would be locked up. Whatever is gained from the two one-game playoffs is canceled out by the loss of three meaningful games and potential tie-breakers at the end of the regular season.

You also punish teams who play in good divisions. If a team leads the wild card by 5 games, why should they have to win a head-to-head match-up to claim a playoff spot?

S.P.
09-26-2011, 03:27 PM
Maybe I don;t understand something here. But wouldn't this rule make it harder for NY or BOS to BOTH make the playoffs?

BOS & NY are usually 1-2 in the AL east. With this new rule lets say BOS finishes 2nd like this year, they would then play the 2nd WC which in this case would be TB in a 1 game playoff with the winner advancing to the real playoffs.

instead of basically guaranteeing the AL east runner up the WC, it would force them to play a 2nd WC to make the "real" postseason.


I suppose you're right, In the case that BOS or NYY was the top WC. They have each once finished in what would be the second WC under the new format. BOS in 2010 and NYY in 2008. In those seasons, they would have had a shot at the postseason. But yes, as the top WC, they're season would be jeopardized with one game. I don't like it at all, just for the record.

In the case of this season I guess a one game playoff would be fair, but if the top WC finished say 4 or more games higher than the second WC and lost in a one game playoff, that would be messed up.

nycericanguy
09-26-2011, 04:12 PM
I suppose you're right, In the case that BOS or NYY was the top WC. They have each once finished in what would be the second WC under the new format. BOS in 2010 and NYY in 2008. In those seasons, they would have had a shot at the postseason. But yes, as the top WC, they're season would be jeopardized with one game. I don't like it at all, just for the record.

In the case of this season I guess a one game playoff would be fair, but if the top WC finished say 4 or more games higher than the second WC and lost in a one game playoff, that would be messed up.

Why? I mean its very common for teams with better records to not make the playoffs. Division winners from the central almost always have worse records than the AL WC. Thats just the way all sports go, you have to win the division. And I think this would be a great rule to make the less advantaged as they should.

I think if a team doesn't win the division their season SHOULD be jeopardized.

S.P.
09-26-2011, 04:17 PM
Why? I mean its very common for teams with better records to not make the playoffs. Division winners from the central almost always have worse records than the AL WC. Thats just the way all sports go, you have to win the division. And I think this would be a great rule to make the less advantaged as they should.

I think if a team doesn't win the division their season SHOULD be jeopardized.

Well, it looks like that's what we're gonna get. I'm sure the people who are against it, myself included, will get used to it pretty quickly.

Bombtista
09-26-2011, 04:33 PM
This isn't being done to keep the Yankees or Red Sox out of the playoffs. It's being done, because it gives the league two more playoff games to sell.

It doesn't necessarily add any excitement to the season. Take this year for example. If this system were in place already, every playoff spot would be locked up. Whatever is gained from the two one-game playoffs is canceled out by the loss of three meaningful games and potential tie-breakers at the end of the regular season.

You also punish teams who play in good divisions. If a team leads the wild card by 5 games, why should they have to win a head-to-head match-up to claim a playoff spot?

Exactly.

The series to only allow one WC team is just unusually stupid, even for the MLB. Its essentially the same thing as forcing the division leader to face the WC team to see who gets that advantage. The wildcard has been a lock since it was implemented and the point of another one shouldn't be to cause more competition but to allow more than one wildcard team to actually advance to the playoffs which would help the sport in pretty much every way.

nycericanguy
09-26-2011, 04:43 PM
Exactly.

The series to only allow one WC team is just unusually stupid, even for the MLB. Its essentially the same thing as forcing the division leader to face the WC team to see who gets that advantage. The wildcard has been a lock since it was implemented and the point of another one shouldn't be to cause more competition but to allow more than one wildcard team to actually advance to the playoffs which would help the sport in pretty much every way.

Agreed, I would love to see for instance BOS battle TOR in a 1 game WC playoff. Right now its very hard for TOR to make the playoffs even though they have had some good teams.

Bombtista
09-26-2011, 04:57 PM
Agreed, I would love to see for instance BOS battle TOR in a 1 game WC playoff. Right now its very hard for TOR to make the playoffs even though they have had some good teams.

A one game playoff would be crazy but one of the highest intensity scenarios in all sports.

Both teams starting rotations would be in the pen and really anything can happen.

Envisioning a gem pitched by Romero/Morrow/Alvarez topped off with a walk off homer by Bautista to beat the Sox is fairy tale awesome

nycericanguy
09-26-2011, 05:02 PM
You wouldn't be able to make it a 5 game series anyway because that would mean the rest of MLB can't play for 7-10 days while the 2 WC teams battle it out.

1 game playoff makes sense, makes the WC teams burn their ace, and doesn't guarantee them a playoff spot which makes winning the divison far more important.

theslick1
09-26-2011, 06:12 PM
Exactly.

The series to only allow one WC team is just unusually stupid, even for the MLB. Its essentially the same thing as forcing the division leader to face the WC team to see who gets that advantage. The wildcard has been a lock since it was implemented and the point of another one shouldn't be to cause more competition but to allow more than one wildcard team to actually advance to the playoffs which would help the sport in pretty much every way.

I don't see anything wrong with making the two WC teams play each other. It punishes both teams by making them play an extra series and use their best pitchers. You reward the WC team with the better record by giving them the home field for the entire series (or game, if it's just a single game, but I'd prefer seeing a 3-game series).

theslick1
09-26-2011, 06:13 PM
You wouldn't be able to make it a 5 game series anyway because that would mean the rest of MLB can't play for 7-10 days while the 2 WC teams battle it out.

1 game playoff makes sense, makes the WC teams burn their ace, and doesn't guarantee them a playoff spot which makes winning the divison far more important.

You could do a 3 game series without disrupting things too much.

Yankees90.
09-26-2011, 06:32 PM
Wow...so you play 162 games a year, you lead the wild card by lets say 5 games, but your eliminated by the team that came in 2nd in the WC?!?! One game playoff??!! WTF man stupid idea! Why dont we just become like the NBA where almost every damn team makes the playoffs! That'll get the ratings and cash flow going huh bud selig!!?

Yankees90.
09-26-2011, 06:36 PM
[QUOTE=Bombtista;19292543]

Exactly.

The series to only allow one WC team is just unusually stupid, even for the MLB. Its essentially the same thing as forcing the division leader to face the WC team to see who gets that advantage. The wildcard has been a lock since it was implemented and the point of another one shouldn't be to cause more competition but to allow more than one wildcard team to actually advance to the playoffs which would help the sport in pretty much every way.[QUOTE]

This..

Although im not liking this whole situation right now, this would make more sense.

CAIN=FUTURE
09-26-2011, 06:50 PM
2012 prediction:
Giants win the NLW and BOTH NL WC spots.

Mr. Hangman
09-26-2011, 06:54 PM
2012 prediction:
Giants win the NLW and BOTH NL WC spots.

And are subsequently eliminated from the playoffs after beating themselves in the first round.

CAIN=FUTURE
09-26-2011, 07:05 PM
And are subsequently eliminated from the playoffs after beating themselves in the first round.

Sorry, but they also advance.

Bombtista
09-26-2011, 07:30 PM
I don't see anything wrong with making the two WC teams play each other. It punishes both teams by making them play an extra series and use their best pitchers. You reward the WC team with the better record by giving them the home field for the entire series (or game, if it's just a single game, but I'd prefer seeing a 3-game series).

I don't see why we should be "punishing" teams that are likely in the area of 20 games above .500.

The whole point of the playoffs is to have the best teams battle it out and in many cases teams with well above average records don't even make it that far in the MLB. In fact, most years there is a team with a better record than another team that made the playoffs but didnt because of divisional circumstance.

I mean as a Jays fan it seems like a positive thing but thinking of it as a whole it just seems like a really stupid way of doing it. This way isn't even expanding the playoffs, it's dragging out the regular season even more.

nycericanguy
09-26-2011, 07:38 PM
Wow...so you play 162 games a year, you lead the wild card by lets say 5 games, but your eliminated by the team that came in 2nd in the WC?!?! One game playoff??!! WTF man stupid idea! Why dont we just become like the NBA where almost every damn team makes the playoffs! That'll get the ratings and cash flow going huh bud selig!!?

who cares? THeres are plenty of teams that miss the playoffs every year despite having better records than even some division winners.

Why should WC teams be catered to so much? If you don't want to have your season hang on one game then win your division.

Toxeryll
09-26-2011, 07:38 PM
It makes sense, it gives more emphasis on winning the division.

getfoul
09-26-2011, 08:10 PM
who cares? THeres are plenty of teams that miss the playoffs every year despite having better records than even some division winners.

Why should WC teams be catered to so much? If you don't want to have your season hang on one game then win your division.

There's definitely two ways of looking at it, but in my baseball world, I want to see the best teams in the playoffs that earn their way in by playing the best baseball over six months regardless of geography.

Assuming you're a Yankees fan, you wouldn't have a problem with the Yankees losing a division with 98 wins, having to blow your best pitching the final 3 games for the possible division win in the process, and then have to face a 2nd best wildcard with 86-88 wins that clinched early and can save their best pitcher for the one-game playoff?

To me, no divisions and a balanced schedule is just so much more fair and appealing to every team.

Top-3 make the playoffs by a balanced schedule, and the 4th and 5th best record play a best-of-3 to get in. Hell, if it's the 4th and 5th best record, I could live with a one-gamer then. What I can't accept is a 100 game winner playing an 85 game winner in a one-game playoff. It's just stupid.

richardj
09-26-2011, 08:55 PM
^ Usually the wild card races are pretty close in September every year between about 2-4 teams, so i doubt that will see wild card team be 10 games up on the 5th place team very often. A team that wins 95 games and doesn't make the playoffs at all because they aren't the wild card team or the division winner, would be even worse scenario

"Ace"ves
09-26-2011, 09:09 PM
why don't we allow EVERY team into the playoffs?

forget the regular season, make it a tournament, that way its REALLY exciting :P

nycericanguy
09-26-2011, 09:15 PM
There's definitely two ways of looking at it, but in my baseball world, I want to see the best teams in the playoffs that earn their way in by playing the best baseball over six months regardless of geography.

Assuming you're a Yankees fan, you wouldn't have a problem with the Yankees losing a division with 98 wins, having to blow your best pitching the final 3 games for the possible division win in the process, and then have to face a 2nd best wildcard with 86-88 wins that clinched early and can save their best pitcher for the one-game playoff?

To me, no divisions and a balanced schedule is just so much more fair and appealing to every team.

Top-3 make the playoffs by a balanced schedule, and the 4th and 5th best record play a best-of-3 to get in. Hell, if it's the 4th and 5th best record, I could live with a one-gamer then. What I can't accept is a 100 game winner playing an 85 game winner in a one-game playoff. It's just stupid.

Yes I'm a Yankee fan and no I have no problem with it. And like the other poster said its rare to have a 10 game difference in the WC chase. It's usually a very close race. Also, and I know you're just making an example, but it would be extremely rare for a team to win 98 games and not win the division, not sure thats ever happened before. WC teams usually have around 85-90 wins. I don't think you'd ever see a 100 team vs an 85 win team, thats an EXTREME exaggeration. This year for instance you'd see an 89 win BOS team vs an 88 win TB team.

Also you say you want the top teams playing in the playoffs, but the top teams usually don't play anyway because division winners get in.

All in all I think WC teams need to have a distinct disadvantage, and yes even if that means the Yankees.