MLB National League Wild Card race - Page 2

I'd love to see the Pirates and Braves duke it out for a spot in the NLDS, as long as the Braves win.

I'm not personally a fan of the second wild-card team. If WC1 is four games better than WC2, then their number four goes out, lays an egg, and gives up six runs, they're out. I don't really like that. At least make it a three-game play-in. If the NBA Playoffs can last longer than the season, why can't the MLB's?

let me just say that there is still 50 games left in the season and STL will rebound and make the playoffs.. and then it all clicks together for the redbirds, time for 12 in 12 baby. and to the above talking about the 1 game thing being hard to tell who's the better team.. thats the beauty of baseball my friend. on any given day the worst team in the MLB could beat the best. its all about who shows up to play with the right mentality and who executes better than their opponent. and if 1 team has a dominant ace and the other doesnt.. thats tough. lol

Hopefully my Redlegs will trade for Shane Victorino and get Joey Votto back healthy in Mid August so we don't have to be in this one game playoff race discussion. Gotta keep smacking the bad teams though and we'll walk away with the Central.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaxBomber17 

I'd love to see the Pirates and Braves duke it out for a spot in the NLDS, as long as the Braves win.

I'm not personally a fan of the second wild-card team. If WC1 is four games better than WC2, then their number four goes out, lays an egg, and gives up six runs, they're out. I don't really like that. At least make it a three-game play-in. If the NBA Playoffs can last longer than the season, why can't the MLB's?

If WC1 has a four game lead they should be able to set up their rotation so that their best pitcher pitches the single playoff game.  WC2 most likely is fighting for their spot so they won't have that luxury.  So that favors WC1.  I would think the team that has the best record would get home field advantage in the game so that is another advantage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorCallaway 

Hopefully my Redlegs will trade for Shane Victorino and get Joey Votto back healthy in Mid August so we don't have to be in this one game playoff race discussion. Gotta keep smacking the bad teams though and we'll walk away with the Central.

That would be outstanding...my old high school center fielder is in Double-A with the Phils waiting for an opening in that outfield lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo 


To answer that question you posed in the last sentence: because for some reason Bug Selig is absolutely horrified of starting any earlier than April 1st (or thereabouts) or ending later than ~November 4th.
I like the new wild card system, if only because of that thing I posted earlier: neither of the WIld Card spots really "deserve" the spot anyway. Want to be in great position? Win your division. If you don't it's sort of a gift you made the playoffs anyway.

That's a solid point. I like the wild card idea, simply because it gives a good team a shot if one team just runs away with a division, or like in the AL East, where they'll routinely have two 90-win teams. But you're right. Win the division if you want a truly fair shake.

i think the wild card deserves a playoff spot. im an stl cardinals fan, but think about yanks/bosox for example. they've had the #1 and #2 records in the entire MLB before. without the wild card, one of them wouldnt make the playoffs. a lot of times wild card teams have better records than other division champs because their own division is stacked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota Atkinson 

i think the wild card deserves a playoff spot. im an stl cardinals fan, but think about yanks/bosox for example. they've had the #1 and #2 records in the entire MLB before. without the wild card, one of them wouldnt make the playoffs. a lot of times wild card teams have better records than other division champs because their own division is stacked.

Right, so then perhaps the better method would be to let six teams in like the NFL: three conference champs and three with the next best set of records. Shorten the season to 154 games and play 3, 5, and 7 game series.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Right, so then perhaps the better method would be to let six teams in like the NFL: three conference champs and three with the next best set of records. Shorten the season to 154 games and play 3, 5, and 7 game series.

That's a cool idea. Give the two best teams first-round byes. Also ends the bickering over 162-game season records not counting if the original record was set in a 154-game season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Right, so then perhaps the better method would be to let six teams in like the NFL: three conference champs and three with the next best set of records. Shorten the season to 154 games and play 3, 5, and 7 game series.

While this makes the most sense...Baseball is inundated with self-appointed "purists" and stat nerds who'd never allow for a shortened season. It'd be blasphemous.

As a Braves fan, I would have LOVED for the season to have been shortened last year, if only by one game...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

While this makes the most sense...Baseball is inundated with self-appointed "purists" and stat nerds who'd never allow for a shortened season. It'd be blasphemous.

 

As a Braves fan, I would have LOVED for the season to have been shortened last year, if only by one game...

As another Braves fan...agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

While this makes the most sense...Baseball is inundated with self-appointed "purists" and stat nerds who'd never allow for a shortened season. It'd be blasphemous.

 

As a Braves fan, I would have LOVED for the season to have been shortened last year, if only by one game...

The season was 154 games for a long time.  

Its all about the money, anyway.  Erik's plan would lose 128 regular season games, and about 12 playoff games.  That will never happen.

Even if you have the second best record in the league, if you don't win your division you don't really deserve to be there.  If over the course of 162 games you show that you're not the best team of the 5 in your division, then why do we want you in a playoff to see who the best team in the league is?   And the way schedules are weighted now, its not really apple to apples to compare records across different divisions.  

I'm not really a fan of wild cards, so I like this system because it puts the emphasis back on winning the division.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

Its all about the money, anyway.  Erik's plan would lose 128 regular season games, and about 12 playoff games.  That will never happen.

My plan would not lose playoff games. 3 games x 2 teams in each league x 2 leagues + (5 x 2 x 2) + (7 x 2) + the world series (7 games) = 12 + 20 + 14 + 7 = 53 possible post-season games and a minimum of (4+12+8+4) = 28.

The current plan provides either 14 + 14 + 7 or 8 + 8 + 4, or 34 minimum 20.

If I made a math error let me know but I think it's right.

Losing 8 games per team also doesn't mean the revenue is lost as a) it will decrease expenses, and b) attendance could go up slightly. It might even be a net benefit.

I think iacas's idea is pretty good but i wouldn't expect a change anytime soon. selig doesn't really do too much

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota Atkinson 

I think iacas's idea is pretty good but i wouldn't expect a change anytime soon. selig doesn't really do too much

Oh, yeah, it's got about a 0% chance of happening. Give or take. :)

I couldn't disagree with this more. MLB schedules are not created equal - especially with interleague. What if you have the 2nd best record in the league, but you had to play a series of top flight teams from the opposing league during interleague play, while the 1st place team in your division played a bunch of patsies?

What if you had a better head-to-head record against the 1st place team in your division but they had a considerably easier schedule? Or your ace had to sit a month with a shoulder injury.

I'm in the opposite camp. If you can prove, over a 162 game season, that you're one of the best in your league, irrespective of division standings, you deserve a spot in the show.

It's the same argument people try to make in the college football playoffs when they want only conference champions. "You can't win your conference, you don't deserve it." As if all conferences are created equal - and a 1 loss 2nd placed SEC team with a #1 strength of schedule doesn't deserve a spot in the playoffs, but a 9-3 conference champ from the Big East with a #63 strength of schedule does...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

 

I couldn't disagree with this more. MLB schedules are not created equal - especially with interleague. What if you have the 2nd best record in the league, but you had to play a series of top flight teams from the opposing league during interleague play, while the 1st place team in your division played a bunch of patsies?

 

What if you had a better head-to-head record against the 1st place team in your division but they had a considerably easier schedule? Or your ace had to sit a month with a shoulder injury.

 

I'm in the opposite camp. If you can prove, over a 162 game season, that you're one of the best in your league, irrespective of division standings, you deserve a spot in the show.

 

It's the same argument people try to make in the college football playoffs when they want only conference champions. "You can't win your conference, you don't deserve it." As if all conferences are created equal - and a 1 loss 2nd placed SEC team with a #1 strength of schedule doesn't deserve a spot in the playoffs, but a 9-3 conference champ from the Big East with a #63 strength of schedule does...

I think your facts are wrong.  Teams within a division play the same interleague teams (all of the AL east played NL east this year), with the exception of the rival series.  And I think they play other teams in their league the same, or at least very close.  The lack of balance effects the comparison between teams of different divisions more so than teams within the same division. You play your division rivals twice as often as other teams in your league.  The worst team in the AL east is 2 games under .500.  So the Orioles play the same teams as the yankees, but have a much harder schedule than the white sox who get to play against three teams under .500.  That calls into question whether the White Sox have really outplayed the O's, but its unquestionable that the Yankees have outplayed the O's.  

So after 162 games, the yanks and O's have played almost the exact same schedule, and whoever wins the divison has proven the better team.

The point of a playoff system is to determine the best.  Because of the unbalanced schedules, you don't really know whether the winner of one division is better than the winner of another division.  All you know is that they're better than the teams in their division.

If I were revamping the NCAA, I would have a playoff among the conference champions.  Just because sports writers think a second place team in one conference is better than the first place team in the other, that doesn't mean that the 2nd place team might be the best team in the country.  They've already proven that they are not.  Putting them in the playoff just gives them a do-over.  

If you were going to create a true "world series" would you let the team that loses their national championship into the tournament?  Of course not.

Injuries don't enter into the equation.  I dont think anyone would argue that the best