2013 Playoffs Game Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't understand how people can be given a free decisive game and think "You know what the playoffs really need? More non-decisive early round games."

Boring people like to be bored.

 

Or baseball is a game based on a pitching STAFF, so some people would like more than one game. I understand why people like the one game. I understand why people like the three game series. I understand why people don't even want the second wild card. There is no correct way of doing it just differing opinions.

Baseball is not a game based on a pitching staff.

You're joking, right? I'm not discounting that some people think non-decisive games are boring. What percentage of them do? I don't know.

 

Not every stance you take has to be debated so that you win the argument. When you try to win every debate instead of discussing them you say things like, "Baseball is not a game based on a pitching staff."

 

I am not joking. Baseball is not a game based on a pitching STAFF. You just made that up.

 

Baseball is a game based on 9 innings, during which each team has 3 outs to try and score runs. The success of any major league baseball team over the course of a full season is largely dependent on its pitching staff, but not entirely. And the importance of that staff is diminished significantly in any short series.

 

You count on your pitching staff, and your entire roster, to get you into position to compete in the playoffs. If you are good enough, you win your division. If you aren't good enough to win your division, you hope for an opportunity with the wild card. This system opens up that opportunity to more teams, which means more fan bases have more reason to pay attention late in the season and care. And it rewards both winning your division, and being the 1 seed.

[Guest]

Can we have Michael Keaton as our fan mascot please?

 

What's wrong with Jim Belushi?

 

Not sure if serious since you don't live here...

[Guest]

Can we have Michael Keaton as our fan mascot please?

 

What's wrong with Jim Belushi?

 

Not sure if serious since you don't live here...

 

Not at all serious but I guess I should have made it more obvious.

[Guest]

Can we have Michael Keaton as our fan mascot please?

 

What's wrong with Jim Belushi?

 

Not sure if serious since you don't live here...

 

Not at all serious but I guess I should have made it more obvious.

 

I totally should've taken it as such and was still like 70% sure it was.

[Guest]

1-game WC matchups are awesome. Having them play three games while everybody else sits around and waits would be dumb.

The Division Series don't even start until Thursday and Friday, which means there is plenty of room to fit a 3-game series. There is no reason to let 1-game decide a "playoff" round in a sport that plays a 162 game regular season.

 

1. It was decided over those 162 games that you're stuck in the do or die situation. If you want a chance at a full series, win your division.

 

2. In the case of the AL this year, you'd have Tampa traveling from Toronto on Sunday to Arlington on Monday to Cleveland on Tuesday(then presumably) back to Tampa on Thursday, and then to Boston on Fridady.

 

And needing to leave Monday open for tiebreakers/make-up games, you wouldn't be able to start any of the DS games on Thursday.

I think you would feel differently if a 94-win Cubs team finished 2nd to the Cardinals and ended up losing the 1 game playoff to an 89-win 2nd Wild Card team. If anything, it was decided over 162 games that the Cubs were better than Team B, so why should one essentially random game decide who moves on? Sure, they could also lose a 3 game series, but that outcome would be a little easier to swallow.

I wouldn't. It should be much harder to win from the Wild Card. Anything they can do to make it harder is fine by me.

[Sammy Sofa]

1-game WC matchups are awesome. Having them play three games while everybody else sits around and waits would be dumb.

The Division Series don't even start until Thursday and Friday, which means there is plenty of room to fit a 3-game series. There is no reason to let 1-game decide a "playoff" round in a sport that plays a 162 game regular season.

 

1. It was decided over those 162 games that you're stuck in the do or die situation. If you want a chance at a full series, win your division.

 

2. In the case of the AL this year, you'd have Tampa traveling from Toronto on Sunday to Arlington on Monday to Cleveland on Tuesday(then presumably) back to Tampa on Thursday, and then to Boston on Fridady.

 

And needing to leave Monday open for tiebreakers/make-up games, you wouldn't be able to start any of the DS games on Thursday.

I think you would feel differently if a 94-win Cubs team finished 2nd to the Cardinals and ended up losing the 1 game playoff to an 89-win 2nd Wild Card team. If anything, it was decided over 162 games that the Cubs were better than Team B, so why should one essentially random game decide who moves on? Sure, they could also lose a 3 game series, but that outcome would be a little easier to swallow.

I wouldn't. It should be much harder to win from the Wild Card. Anything they can do to make it harder is fine by me.

 

Yes, this. I like that the WC isn't effectively a free pass to sneak in anymore. You still have to fight to claim it.

[Guest]

1-game WC matchups are awesome. Having them play three games while everybody else sits around and waits would be dumb.

The Division Series don't even start until Thursday and Friday, which means there is plenty of room to fit a 3-game series. There is no reason to let 1-game decide a "playoff" round in a sport that plays a 162 game regular season.

 

1. It was decided over those 162 games that you're stuck in the do or die situation. If you want a chance at a full series, win your division.

 

2. In the case of the AL this year, you'd have Tampa traveling from Toronto on Sunday to Arlington on Monday to Cleveland on Tuesday(then presumably) back to Tampa on Thursday, and then to Boston on Fridady.

 

And needing to leave Monday open for tiebreakers/make-up games, you wouldn't be able to start any of the DS games on Thursday.

I think you would feel differently if a 94-win Cubs team finished 2nd to the Cardinals and ended up losing the 1 game playoff to an 89-win 2nd Wild Card team. If anything, it was decided over 162 games that the Cubs were better than Team B, so why should one essentially random game decide who moves on? Sure, they could also lose a 3 game series, but that outcome would be a little easier to swallow.

I wouldn't. It should be much harder to win from the Wild Card. Anything they can do to make it harder is fine by me.

 

He's kind of got a point about the great teams stuck behind other great teams in the same division though.

 

It'd be nice if it were just a seeding arrangement and divisions didn't exist but that'll never happen. So the occasional 86 win division champion will just have to slip through the cracks.

[Guest]

But I am in the camp that prefers this arrangement to the previous one. One game playoffs are awesome and adding importance to a division title is cool.

[SouthSideRyan]

He's kind of got a point about the great teams stuck behind other great teams in the same division though.

 

It'd be nice if it were just a seeding arrangement and divisions didn't exist but that'll never happen. So the occasional 86 win division champion will just have to slip through the cracks.

 

I think a good compromise is to keep the wild card as a 1-game playoff, but if the wild card team happens to have a top 2 record, they get to host a playoff series. I know baseball always uses the excuse for the world series that home sites need to be determined in advance for accommodations, but I've always considered it bs.

[Guest]

He's kind of got a point about the great teams stuck behind other great teams in the same division though.

 

It'd be nice if it were just a seeding arrangement and divisions didn't exist but that'll never happen. So the occasional 86 win division champion will just have to slip through the cracks.

 

I think a good compromise is to keep the wild card as a 1-game playoff, but if the wild card team happens to have a top 2 record, they get to host a playoff series. I know baseball always uses the excuse for the world series that home sites need to be determined in advance for accommodations, but I've always considered it bs.

 

Not a bad idea and yes, the whole world series home field thing is ridiculous.

[jersey cubs fan]

He's kind of got a point about the great teams stuck behind other great teams in the same division though.

 

It'd be nice if it were just a seeding arrangement and divisions didn't exist but that'll never happen. So the occasional 86 win division champion will just have to slip through the cracks.

 

I think a good compromise is to keep the wild card as a 1-game playoff, but if the wild card team happens to have a top 2 record, they get to host a playoff series. I know baseball always uses the excuse for the world series that home sites need to be determined in advance for accommodations, but I've always considered it bs.

 

What if the division winner with the worse record actually played in a division with 4 tough opponents while the 2nd place team with a better record got there by beating up on 3 creampuffs?

 

I don't see the point or need to even consider this. You play the regular season to win your division. The wild card is for the teams that didn't win their divisions.

[Guest]

I'd go fully balanced schedule and everything. [expletive] divisions.

[SouthSideRyan]

He's kind of got a point about the great teams stuck behind other great teams in the same division though.

 

It'd be nice if it were just a seeding arrangement and divisions didn't exist but that'll never happen. So the occasional 86 win division champion will just have to slip through the cracks.

 

I think a good compromise is to keep the wild card as a 1-game playoff, but if the wild card team happens to have a top 2 record, they get to host a playoff series. I know baseball always uses the excuse for the world series that home sites need to be determined in advance for accommodations, but I've always considered it bs.

 

What if the division winner with the worse record actually played in a division with 4 tough opponents while the 2nd place team with a better record got there by beating up on 3 creampuffs?

 

I don't see the point or need to even consider this. You play the regular season to win your division. The wild card is for the teams that didn't win their divisions.

 

I find it really unlikely that a division winner would have 4 tough division-mates and wind up with a worse record than the 2nd place team in a bad division. Divisions are an arbitrary construct.

[Irrelevant Dude]

I'd go fully balanced schedule and everything. [expletive] divisions.

I am in favor of that, but they would also need to balance across the other league or eliminate Interleague Play altogether. I would be ok with either option.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd go fully balanced schedule and everything. [expletive] divisions.

 

You can't with the 15/15 set-up, considering you need interleague matchups being played everyday.

[mul21]

I'd go fully balanced schedule and everything. [expletive] divisions.

 

I'd come close to that. I'd like something like this:

 

14 games against division (4 x 14 = 56 games)

6 games against the rest of your league (6 x 10 = 60)

3 games against the other league, plus a home and home with 2 games at each place for rivals (3 x 14, 1 x 4 = 46)

 

That's a lot more fair to everyone, especially when teams like Houston and Seattle are in the same division (or the Cubs and Brewers this year).

[Sammys Boombox]

Two divisions in each league. Four Wild Cards in each league.

 

Keep Monday open for Game 163. In the event of a 3-way or 4-way tie play all of the games in one park DH style. i.e. Team 1 vs. Team 2 winner plays Team 3 all in Team 1 home stadium. Or, Team 1 vs. Team 2 winner plays winner of Team 3 vs. Team 4 all on the same day in the same stadium.

 

3-game Wild Card Series:

DH on Tuesday. If necessary Game 3 on Wednesday. All games played in higher seeded team's stadium. Don't stagger the starts and put each series on its own network. I know the TV people will not like how these are not staggered, but this is never going to happen anyway, so I don't care.

 

Obviously, division winners get byes.

 

5-game Division Series 2-2-1

Starts on Thursday/Friday just like this year. Realign so that the league winner is guaranteed to face the worst WC team by record.

 

7-game League Championship Series 2-3-2

 

7-game World Series 2-3-2

Best record hosts with tie breaker of head-to-head then common games then just a coin flip.

 

This would create:

1. Meaningful race for the division vs. WC#1 and WC#2

2. Meaningful race for WC#1 and WC#2 vs. WC#3 and WC#4 (No home playoff games until LDS for WC#3 and WC#4)

3. Meaningful race for WC#3 and WC#4 vs. first team(s) left out

4. More teams would remain in contention longer.

5. A furious NCAA Basketball style elimination at the beginning of the playoffs. 4 teams would be eliminated in 1 or 2 days.

 

Could have as many as 5 teams from each division (of 7 or 8). You can't really complain about the division you are in at that point.

[Guest]

NO THREE GAME WILD CARD SERIES

[jersey cubs fan]

You complain about 1 game series but want double headers in the playoffs?

[Sammys Boombox]

You complain about 1 game series but want double headers in the playoffs?

 

I don't see the correlation here.

[Guest]

You complain about 1 game series but want double headers in the playoffs?

 

 

Then it's really about pitching staffs, man.

[Sammys Boombox]

You complain about 1 game series but want double headers in the playoffs?

 

 

Then it's really about pitching staffs, man.

 

The DH are not ideal, but if it hurts anybody it hurts the WC teams. I think from what most have posted if it hurts a WC team then we're cool with that. But as long as you win the WC spot outright you would have had a day off on Monday anyway, so you should be fine with your Monday starter for one game and Tuesday starter for a second game.

 

The DH is such a small part of the idea. Don't get hung up on it. A lot of it is about what it would do to the regular season division races and giving a huge advantage to the division winners without also making WC#1 and WC#4 basically the same spot.

 

I understand many like the single game and why they do. I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm just offering something that I think would have a lot of benefit to it not the least of which is the issue of some divisions being much tougher than others. This would greatly reduce the likelihood of a division being much tougher than average for many consecutive season.

[SouthSideRyan]

No byes, no 5th place finishers in the playoffs

[mul21]

Two divisions in each league. Four Wild Cards in each league.

 

 

You lost me here. This entirely defeats the purpose of having each league at 15 teams. You've unbalanced the divisions again.

[apete6]

Monday: Hold for tiebreaker games, including possibility of DH for both leagues.

Tuesday: NL WC2 hosts WC1

Wednesday: NL WC1 hosts WC2 in DH, AL WC2 hosts WC1

Thursday: NL: rain/travel day, AL WC1 hosts WC2 (DH)

Friday: NL: both division series start, AL rain/travel day

Saturday: NL: both division series continue, both AL division series start

Sunday: NL: rain/travel day, AL: both division series continue (ideally prime time to avoid as much NFL conflict)

 

So on and so forth adding a whole 1 or 2 days to the entire process and eliminating the "Reds get boned facing Liriano" situation. 1 game is far too random in baseball (really any sport, but especially baseball and hockey).

 

The big wrench in the whole plan is rain. If that DH gets rained out multiple times, it's mayhem.