The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
The A's beating the Yankees is almost too much to ask for. How wonderful that would be.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3484
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
2820233422222E410 wrote: Now if only the A's can find a way to take out the Yankees, all will be right in the world. Though, I wouldn't mind seeing Cutch and Walker get rings.
I cannot wait to hear the uproar after the Yankees had such a great season and then saw it go down the drain because of one good pitching performance in a one game playoff.
Cry me a river, yaknow? But MLB will change it after this, because Yankees.
I kind of hate the one game playoff because I think the Pirates were very real contenders when they got taken out by Arrieta. I think it is unfair to really good teams in divisions with other really good teams but these one game playoffs are exciting. Even if the Yankees lose, I don't think they are changing it. Maybe if it is an Oakland-Colorado world series and the ratings tank they may tweak it but, even if not fair, the format works for excitement.
I get the Yankee hate but I would be really happy for Neil and Cutch if they get a ring, particularly if they are real contributors. They were good players, helped end the streak and only had solid reputations for being good in the community.
I like the idea of a best of three Wild Card Series, but in order to do that I think MLB should reduce the season by one week,or in other words 156 or 154 season. A 156 season would eliminate 3 home games and 3 road games. Owners may grumble losing three home dates, but TV revenue would somehow cover the loss of the 3 home dates. The one negative concerning a best of 3 Wild Card would be that the Division winning teams could be waiting as much as a week before they begin playing their Division Series. They could set up their pitching, but being idle for almost a week could be a negative effect.
I cannot wait to hear the uproar after the Yankees had such a great season and then saw it go down the drain because of one good pitching performance in a one game playoff.
Cry me a river, yaknow? But MLB will change it after this, because Yankees.
I kind of hate the one game playoff because I think the Pirates were very real contenders when they got taken out by Arrieta. I think it is unfair to really good teams in divisions with other really good teams but these one game playoffs are exciting. Even if the Yankees lose, I don't think they are changing it. Maybe if it is an Oakland-Colorado world series and the ratings tank they may tweak it but, even if not fair, the format works for excitement.
I get the Yankee hate but I would be really happy for Neil and Cutch if they get a ring, particularly if they are real contributors. They were good players, helped end the streak and only had solid reputations for being good in the community.
I like the idea of a best of three Wild Card Series, but in order to do that I think MLB should reduce the season by one week,or in other words 156 or 154 season. A 156 season would eliminate 3 home games and 3 road games. Owners may grumble losing three home dates, but TV revenue would somehow cover the loss of the 3 home dates. The one negative concerning a best of 3 Wild Card would be that the Division winning teams could be waiting as much as a week before they begin playing their Division Series. They could set up their pitching, but being idle for almost a week could be a negative effect.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3630
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
597479686F7E69292A1B0 wrote: Now if only the A's can find a way to take out the Yankees, all will be right in the world. Though, I wouldn't mind seeing Cutch and Walker get rings.
I cannot wait to hear the uproar after the Yankees had such a great season and then saw it go down the drain because of one good pitching performance in a one game playoff.
Cry me a river, yaknow? But MLB will change it after this, because Yankees.
If that's what it takes to change the format, I'm all for it. WC should at least be 2 out of 3. 1 game playoffs in baseball are bad because of the pitching situation. Steve Carlton (27-10, 1.97 ERA) would have beaten anyone in a 1 game playoff in 1972 for the 97 loss Phillies. Terrible format.
What I'm calling BS on is that nobody cared when it happened to the Pirates, but there will be national stories when it happens to the Yanksox. Do you think it is a coincidence that they expanded the playoffs just when it was looking like Tampa was going to be good for a while? Or that they altered the draft when Boston complained that us getting Josh Bell wasn't fair (LOL). Anything to keep BostonNYY in the playoffs.
Sure. But I hate the WC format so much that I won't mind if they change it because of the Yankees. They might not change it for any other reason but it would benefit all of MLB.
I'm just sure how to make a multiple game WC work without adding even more teams, and hope that doesn't happen. Maybe have WCs play the division winners straight off but require them to win 5/7 to advance.
I cannot wait to hear the uproar after the Yankees had such a great season and then saw it go down the drain because of one good pitching performance in a one game playoff.
Cry me a river, yaknow? But MLB will change it after this, because Yankees.
If that's what it takes to change the format, I'm all for it. WC should at least be 2 out of 3. 1 game playoffs in baseball are bad because of the pitching situation. Steve Carlton (27-10, 1.97 ERA) would have beaten anyone in a 1 game playoff in 1972 for the 97 loss Phillies. Terrible format.
What I'm calling BS on is that nobody cared when it happened to the Pirates, but there will be national stories when it happens to the Yanksox. Do you think it is a coincidence that they expanded the playoffs just when it was looking like Tampa was going to be good for a while? Or that they altered the draft when Boston complained that us getting Josh Bell wasn't fair (LOL). Anything to keep BostonNYY in the playoffs.
Sure. But I hate the WC format so much that I won't mind if they change it because of the Yankees. They might not change it for any other reason but it would benefit all of MLB.
I'm just sure how to make a multiple game WC work without adding even more teams, and hope that doesn't happen. Maybe have WCs play the division winners straight off but require them to win 5/7 to advance.
-
Bobster21
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
0B3935352113303934313E39580 wrote: Now if only the A's can find a way to take out the Yankees, all will be right in the world. Though, I wouldn't mind seeing Cutch and Walker get rings.
I cannot wait to hear the uproar after the Yankees had such a great season and then saw it go down the drain because of one good pitching performance in a one game playoff.
Cry me a river, yaknow? But MLB will change it after this, because Yankees.
If that's what it takes to change the format, I'm all for it. WC should at least be 2 out of 3. 1 game playoffs in baseball are bad because of the pitching situation. Steve Carlton (27-10, 1.97 ERA) would have beaten anyone in a 1 game playoff in 1972 for the 97 loss Phillies. Terrible format.
What I'm calling BS on is that nobody cared when it happened to the Pirates, but there will be national stories when it happens to the Yanksox. Do you think it is a coincidence that they expanded the playoffs just when it was looking like Tampa was going to be good for a while? Or that they altered the draft when Boston complained that us getting Josh Bell wasn't fair (LOL). Anything to keep BostonNYY in the playoffs.
Sure. But I hate the WC format so much that I won't mind if they change it because of the Yankees. They might not change it for any other reason but it would benefit all of MLB.
I'm just sure how to make a multiple game WC work without adding even more teams, and hope that doesn't happen. Maybe have WCs play the division winners straight off but require them to win 5/7 to advance.
Why would they need to add more teams?
Going from 1 game to a 3 game series with 1 travel day would require 3 additional days. They could begin the season 3 days earlier and not have to finish the WS any later. They started the season this year on 3/30. Starting 3/27 wouldn't make much difference weatherwise. I don't like starting the season 3 days earlier but I think it's the lesser of 2 evils when the alternative is a 1 game WC playoff.
I cannot wait to hear the uproar after the Yankees had such a great season and then saw it go down the drain because of one good pitching performance in a one game playoff.
Cry me a river, yaknow? But MLB will change it after this, because Yankees.
If that's what it takes to change the format, I'm all for it. WC should at least be 2 out of 3. 1 game playoffs in baseball are bad because of the pitching situation. Steve Carlton (27-10, 1.97 ERA) would have beaten anyone in a 1 game playoff in 1972 for the 97 loss Phillies. Terrible format.
What I'm calling BS on is that nobody cared when it happened to the Pirates, but there will be national stories when it happens to the Yanksox. Do you think it is a coincidence that they expanded the playoffs just when it was looking like Tampa was going to be good for a while? Or that they altered the draft when Boston complained that us getting Josh Bell wasn't fair (LOL). Anything to keep BostonNYY in the playoffs.
Sure. But I hate the WC format so much that I won't mind if they change it because of the Yankees. They might not change it for any other reason but it would benefit all of MLB.
I'm just sure how to make a multiple game WC work without adding even more teams, and hope that doesn't happen. Maybe have WCs play the division winners straight off but require them to win 5/7 to advance.
Why would they need to add more teams?
Going from 1 game to a 3 game series with 1 travel day would require 3 additional days. They could begin the season 3 days earlier and not have to finish the WS any later. They started the season this year on 3/30. Starting 3/27 wouldn't make much difference weatherwise. I don't like starting the season 3 days earlier but I think it's the lesser of 2 evils when the alternative is a 1 game WC playoff.
-
DemDog
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
As far as the playoffs go I like how the NHL doe it. They take the top 8 teams in each conference, East and West and rank them buy records no matter what division they are in. Division winners automatically are seeded 1-2 based on records. Then the playoffs for the conference go 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 and so on. As they advance to each round the teams advancing play it that way again. 1 vs 4 etc. In some years you can get more teams from one division than another. Difference is there is no wild card team and no one game play ins. Each team is guaranteed at least 4 games with two on the road and two at home up to a max of 28 games if the champion takes 7 games to win each playoff series.
In baseball you could do something similar. Logistics might be difficult and we could be playing til Thanksgiving but that is one problem that could be solved. Especially like this year between the Rocks and the Dodgers and the Cubs and Brewers. Have some kind of statistical tie-breaker. Then have a 3 game wild card series and LCS of 5 games and WS of 7.
In baseball you could do something similar. Logistics might be difficult and we could be playing til Thanksgiving but that is one problem that could be solved. Especially like this year between the Rocks and the Dodgers and the Cubs and Brewers. Have some kind of statistical tie-breaker. Then have a 3 game wild card series and LCS of 5 games and WS of 7.
-
rucker59@gmail.com
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
1F3E361F343C5B0 wrote: As far as the playoffs go I like how the NHL doe it. They take the top 8 teams in each conference, East and West and rank them buy records no matter what division they are in. Division winners automatically are seeded 1-2 based on records. Then the playoffs for the conference go 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 and so on. As they advance to each round the teams advancing play it that way again. 1 vs 4 etc. In some years you can get more teams from one division than another. Difference is there is no wild card team and no one game play ins. Each team is guaranteed at least 4 games with two on the road and two at home up to a max of 28 games if the champion takes 7 games to win each playoff series.
In baseball you could do something similar. Logistics might be difficult and we could be playing til Thanksgiving but that is one problem that could be solved. Especially like this year between the Rocks and the Dodgers and the Cubs and Brewers. Have some kind of statistical tie-breaker. Then have a 3 game wild card series and LCS of 5 games and WS of 7.
There’s a lot of untapped money in the MLB playoffs. I have no doubt there will be a longer playoff season with more teams in the not so distant future. Good or bad, I don’t know. I know I wouldn’t want to go back to two pennant winners playing a WS. The playoffs are exciting even if not necessarily “pure”.
In baseball you could do something similar. Logistics might be difficult and we could be playing til Thanksgiving but that is one problem that could be solved. Especially like this year between the Rocks and the Dodgers and the Cubs and Brewers. Have some kind of statistical tie-breaker. Then have a 3 game wild card series and LCS of 5 games and WS of 7.
There’s a lot of untapped money in the MLB playoffs. I have no doubt there will be a longer playoff season with more teams in the not so distant future. Good or bad, I don’t know. I know I wouldn’t want to go back to two pennant winners playing a WS. The playoffs are exciting even if not necessarily “pure”.
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
303721292730777B02252F232B2E6C212D2F420 wrote: As far as the playoffs go I like how the NHL doe it. They take the top 8 teams in each conference, East and West and rank them buy records no matter what division they are in. Division winners automatically are seeded 1-2 based on records. Then the playoffs for the conference go 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 and so on. As they advance to each round the teams advancing play it that way again. 1 vs 4 etc. In some years you can get more teams from one division than another. Difference is there is no wild card team and no one game play ins. Each team is guaranteed at least 4 games with two on the road and two at home up to a max of 28 games if the champion takes 7 games to win each playoff series.
In baseball you could do something similar. Logistics might be difficult and we could be playing til Thanksgiving but that is one problem that could be solved. Especially like this year between the Rocks and the Dodgers and the Cubs and Brewers. Have some kind of statistical tie-breaker. Then have a 3 game wild card series and LCS of 5 games and WS of 7.
There’s a lot of untapped money in the MLB playoffs. I have no doubt there will be a longer playoff season with more teams in the not so distant future. Good or bad, I don’t know. I know I wouldn’t want to go back to two pennant winners playing a WS. The playoffs are exciting even if not necessarily “pure”.
Personally, I'd like to see one of two things happen...either go back to four teams, the three division winners and one WC, or go to eight...three division winners and five WCs, or what I think most likely to happen, go to four divisions like the NFL and expand by two teams. There are lots of options for expansion...Montreal, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Mexico City, San Juan just off the top of my head. Personally, I'd love to see Des Moines and stop having six teams get blacked out in Iowa! Some obviously are more feasible than others.
Anyway...MLB expands to 32 teams. Two leagues, four divisions per league, four teams per division. Eight teams per league make the playoffs. Either the four division winners and top four WCs regardless of division, or four division winners and four second place teams in each division.
First round is best of 3, second round best of 5, LCS and WS best of 7.
There are some downfalls with this, to be sure. Scheduling could be a conflict. A major negative IMHO is that expansion and realignment almost certainly means the DH comes to the NL, and I for one HATE the DH. It would cheapen the regular season to some extent. But, eight teams in the NHL and NBA make the playoffs in each league, and I don't feel like it particularly cheapens the regular seasons. This year, for instance, in the NL, Arizona and Washington tied for 8th place with 82-80 records. So, above .500. In the AL, the Angels finished eighth with a record of 80-82...not world beaters by any stretch, but not out of the realm of possibility that they could make a run.
Regardless, I don't like the one-game WC playoff. I think one of the best potential things that can happen to the long-term health of the game is for the A's to knock off the 100 win Yankees tonight like 1-0, or 2-1. Two big market teams go down in two days to two clutch pitching performances. Say bye-bye to the one and done.
In baseball you could do something similar. Logistics might be difficult and we could be playing til Thanksgiving but that is one problem that could be solved. Especially like this year between the Rocks and the Dodgers and the Cubs and Brewers. Have some kind of statistical tie-breaker. Then have a 3 game wild card series and LCS of 5 games and WS of 7.
There’s a lot of untapped money in the MLB playoffs. I have no doubt there will be a longer playoff season with more teams in the not so distant future. Good or bad, I don’t know. I know I wouldn’t want to go back to two pennant winners playing a WS. The playoffs are exciting even if not necessarily “pure”.
Personally, I'd like to see one of two things happen...either go back to four teams, the three division winners and one WC, or go to eight...three division winners and five WCs, or what I think most likely to happen, go to four divisions like the NFL and expand by two teams. There are lots of options for expansion...Montreal, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Mexico City, San Juan just off the top of my head. Personally, I'd love to see Des Moines and stop having six teams get blacked out in Iowa! Some obviously are more feasible than others.
Anyway...MLB expands to 32 teams. Two leagues, four divisions per league, four teams per division. Eight teams per league make the playoffs. Either the four division winners and top four WCs regardless of division, or four division winners and four second place teams in each division.
First round is best of 3, second round best of 5, LCS and WS best of 7.
There are some downfalls with this, to be sure. Scheduling could be a conflict. A major negative IMHO is that expansion and realignment almost certainly means the DH comes to the NL, and I for one HATE the DH. It would cheapen the regular season to some extent. But, eight teams in the NHL and NBA make the playoffs in each league, and I don't feel like it particularly cheapens the regular seasons. This year, for instance, in the NL, Arizona and Washington tied for 8th place with 82-80 records. So, above .500. In the AL, the Angels finished eighth with a record of 80-82...not world beaters by any stretch, but not out of the realm of possibility that they could make a run.
Regardless, I don't like the one-game WC playoff. I think one of the best potential things that can happen to the long-term health of the game is for the A's to knock off the 100 win Yankees tonight like 1-0, or 2-1. Two big market teams go down in two days to two clutch pitching performances. Say bye-bye to the one and done.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3630
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
I'd rather it stay the way it is than see it expand.
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
484A505640250 wrote: The A's beating the Yankees is almost too much to ask for. How wonderful that would be.
That was my first thought, but Poni on the FAN mentioned that if the A's win, Nutting/Coonely/Huntington can double down on their claim that the team doesn't need to spend more money to be successful.
(And I'm not talking about signing Machado or Harper, but signing anyone who could help. Unlike last spring when they were the only team in MLB to sit out a historic buyers market for free agents.)
That was my first thought, but Poni on the FAN mentioned that if the A's win, Nutting/Coonely/Huntington can double down on their claim that the team doesn't need to spend more money to be successful.
(And I'm not talking about signing Machado or Harper, but signing anyone who could help. Unlike last spring when they were the only team in MLB to sit out a historic buyers market for free agents.)
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3630
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
The year of PLayoff and Wild Card berths
63444F6C210 wrote: The A's beating the Yankees is almost too much to ask for. How wonderful that would be.
That was my first thought, but Poni on the FAN mentioned that if the A's win, Nutting/Coonely/Huntington can double down on their claim that the team doesn't need to spend more money to be successful.
(And I'm not talking about signing Machado or Harper, but signing anyone who could help. Unlike last spring when they were the only team in MLB to sit out a historic buyers market for free agents.)
The best thing that can happen long term is actually that some combination of Los Angeles, Chicago, New York teams destroy everyone else year after year after year until the other cities have finally had enough and decide that there needs to be real fundamental change this time.
That was my first thought, but Poni on the FAN mentioned that if the A's win, Nutting/Coonely/Huntington can double down on their claim that the team doesn't need to spend more money to be successful.
(And I'm not talking about signing Machado or Harper, but signing anyone who could help. Unlike last spring when they were the only team in MLB to sit out a historic buyers market for free agents.)
The best thing that can happen long term is actually that some combination of Los Angeles, Chicago, New York teams destroy everyone else year after year after year until the other cities have finally had enough and decide that there needs to be real fundamental change this time.