PDA

View Full Version : Oakland Owner Suggests One-Game 1st Round Playoff


Brian26
11-20-2008, 07:18 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3712578

Oakland's owner suggests that MLB reduce the first round of playoffs to one game. Does anyone actually think this is a good idea?

It seems like playing a 162-game schedule while using a four or five-man rotation sets up the concept of playing, at a minimum, a best-of-five playoff series so that a team can at least use its top three pitchers.

The beauty of baseball is that any team can beat any other team on any given day, but not over the long haul.

PKalltheway
11-20-2008, 07:22 PM
I think it's a terrible idea. This is baseball, not football. I don't see anything wrong with the current 5-7-7 system as it is.:shrug:

MUsoxfan
11-20-2008, 07:24 PM
That's because a Billy Beane team is seemingly incapable of winning more than that

PKalltheway
11-20-2008, 07:34 PM
Here's a suggestion for Oakland's owner: stop being so ****ing cheap.

I want Mags back
11-20-2008, 07:39 PM
thats actually the worst idea ive never heard

oeo
11-20-2008, 07:50 PM
thats actually the worst idea ive never heard

No kidding. A 5 game series is tough enough with the first two games in one ballpark. You don't win at least one there, and you're in trouble.

Daver
11-20-2008, 07:50 PM
thats actually the worst idea ive never heard

It's not as bad as adding the wild card to the MLB playoffs.

thomas35forever
11-20-2008, 08:08 PM
Hell no. Baseball is meant to be played in series, not single games. Only makeups and playoff tiebrakers should be one game.

october23sp
11-20-2008, 08:27 PM
It's not as bad as adding the wild card to the MLB playoffs.

I like the Wild Card. It benefits a strong division. Yeah its almost always been AL East teams but its a great idea.

I want Mags back
11-20-2008, 08:36 PM
It's not as bad as adding the wild card to the MLB playoffs.

really
:rolleyes:

oeo
11-20-2008, 08:41 PM
It's not as bad as adding the wild card to the MLB playoffs.

You never cease to amaze me.

turners56
11-20-2008, 08:45 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3712578

Oakland's owner suggests that MLB reduce the first round of playoffs to one game. Does anyone actually think this is a good idea?

It seems like playing a 162-game schedule while using a four or five-man rotation sets up the concept of playing, at a minimum, a best-of-five playoff series so that a team can at least use its top three pitchers.

The beauty of baseball is that any team can beat any other team on any given day, but not over the long haul.

That guy is out of his mind.

cwsfannick
11-20-2008, 08:55 PM
I believe the wild card has been a positive for baseball overall. Wild card teams tend to be hotter teams down the stretch. Unlike division winners who get off to a quick start and hold on only to limb into the playoffs.

If there is a negative that I can see it is the lack of player movement due to more teams feeing they still have a chance to make the playoffs.

Daver
11-20-2008, 08:57 PM
If there is a negative that I can see it is the lack of player movement due to more teams feeing they still have a chance to make the playoffs.

The fact that teams that managed to be also rans in their division make the playoffs is a negative. It is rewarding mediocrity.

EuroSox35
11-20-2008, 09:04 PM
Nah, it just says the current set up of divisions is dumb. Fix the schedule, top 4 in each league, KISS

Gosox1917
11-20-2008, 09:09 PM
The fact that teams that managed to be also rans in their division make the playoffs is a negative. It is rewarding mediocrity.

Daver is right. We'll keep all 30 teams in the league and let just one team from each league play in the World Series...nobody watches the playoffs anyway.

BETTER YET!!!!...Let's contract the M's, Angels, Twins, Rays, Royals, Blue Jays, Rangers, Orioles, Nationals, Padres, Rockies, Marlins, D'backs, Astros, and Brewers so we can go back to having just two teams making the playoffs and go right to the world series. Then we wouldn't have to worry about those silly expansion teams diluting the game...or cut just half those teams so we don't have to at least worry about the wild card. The 1993 San Francisco Giants can't get pissed that they were a year too late with the wild card.

God, could you imagine another exciting Game 7 ALCS between another mediocre wild card team and a division winner? ICK!!!

I can't believe they let the White Sox in the playoffs this year with just 89 wins...they shouldn't allow that...nobody would get pissed, right?

Daver...I challenge you do come up with a response longer than this sentence.

cwsfannick
11-20-2008, 09:11 PM
The fact that teams that managed to be also rans in their division make the playoffs is a negative. It is rewarding mediocrity.

Yes also rans like the 2006 Tigers, 2007 Rockies, 2005 Astros all of whom made the World Series.

Daver
11-20-2008, 09:13 PM
Daver is right. We'll keep all 30 teams in the league and let just one team from each league play in the World Series.

I agree with this.

oeo
11-20-2008, 09:16 PM
Yes also rans like the 2006 Tigers, 2007 Rockies, 2005 Astros all of whom made the World Series.

Not to mention the 2003 Marlins and 2004 Red Sox who won the World Series.

Or the 2008 Red Sox who won, what, 7 more games than the Sox?

Daver
11-20-2008, 09:24 PM
Yes also rans like the 2006 Tigers, 2007 Rockies, 2005 Astros all of whom made the World Series.

The fact that a handful of teams have taken advantage of a playoff berth they did not earn justifies it's existence?

cwsfannick
11-20-2008, 09:38 PM
The fact that a handful of teams have taken advantage of a playoff berth they did not earn justifies it's existence?

My opinion yes. it would have deprived fans of the game some of the more memorable playoff series to be played in recent times. The playoffs are about having he best teams playing for it all not just the ones that are good enough to win their respective divisions.

kittle42
11-20-2008, 09:46 PM
The fact that teams that managed to be also rans in their division make the playoffs is a negative. It is rewarding mediocrity.

Daver, you're an old school guy, and that's respectable, but you have to face economic reality. More playoffs equals more money. Eventually, they'll realign totally because that will make more money. It's possible that more and more teams will make the playoffs, because that will make money. I hope none of that happens, but looking at the other major sports, a 4-team playoff in each league isn't so bad.

Daver
11-20-2008, 09:48 PM
My opinion yes. it would have deprived fans of the game some of the more memorable playoff series to be played in recent times. The playoffs are about having he best teams playing for it all not just the ones that are good enough to win their respective divisions.

Wouldn't logic dictate that the best teams win their divisions?

doublem23
11-20-2008, 10:31 PM
Daver is right. We'll keep all 30 teams in the league and let just one team from each league play in the World Series...nobody watches the playoffs anyway.

BETTER YET!!!!...Let's contract the M's, Angels, Twins, Rays, Royals, Blue Jays, Rangers, Orioles, Nationals, Padres, Rockies, Marlins, D'backs, Astros, and Brewers so we can go back to having just two teams making the playoffs and go right to the world series. Then we wouldn't have to worry about those silly expansion teams diluting the game...or cut just half those teams so we don't have to at least worry about the wild card. The 1993 San Francisco Giants can't get pissed that they were a year too late with the wild card.

God, could you imagine another exciting Game 7 ALCS between another mediocre wild card team and a division winner? ICK!!!

I can't believe they let the White Sox in the playoffs this year with just 89 wins...they shouldn't allow that...nobody would get pissed, right?

Daver...I challenge you do come up with a response longer than this sentence.




Um, nobody does watch the play-offs... Have you seen Fox's ratings?

Baseball only had 1 play-off series for over 50 years and things worked out pretty well.

The three-team division set up and the wildcard suck. I understand why they're here and why they're not going away, but that doesn't mean they don't suck.

cwsfannick
11-20-2008, 10:35 PM
Wouldn't logic dictate that the best teams win their divisions?

Not necessarily. The season is long & teams go through droughts only to come back and play well enough to get into the postseason and are able to keep that momentum through the playoffs.

Just because teams maybe the best in their division does not necessarily mean they are representative of the best in their respective conferences. With the emergence of the unbalanced schedule teams like the Cubs for example can beat up on a mediocre NL Central and achieve the best record in the National League only to get swept away in the playoffs. It is a false sense of sucess.

doublem23
11-20-2008, 10:41 PM
Not necessarily. The season is long & teams go through droughts only to come back and play well enough to get into the postseason and are able to keep that momentum through the playoffs.

Just because teams maybe the best in their division does not necessarily mean they are representative of the best in their respective conferences. With the emergence of the unbalanced schedule teams like the Cubs for example can beat up on a mediocre NL Central and achieve the best record in the National League only to get swept away in the playoffs. It is a false sense of sucess.

You're correct that the unbalanced schedule is a sham and needs to be fixed. The fact that teams in the same division don't play the exact same schedule is more ridiculous than words can express.

That said, baseball is a 162-game marathon. You're telling me that after nearly endless ball for 6 months, you can't pick the cream from the rest? Of course some teams get hot and cold as the season goes, but the beauty of the long, drawn out schedule is that it rewards teams that are consistently the best. You shouldn't be rewarded for playing well 1/2 the year when you play poorly the other 1/2, unless everyone else plays even more poorly.

Daver
11-20-2008, 10:42 PM
Not necessarily. The season is long & teams go through droughts only to come back and play well enough to get into the postseason and are able to keep that momentum through the playoffs.

Just because teams maybe the best in their division does not necessarily mean they are representative of the best in their respective conferences. With the emergence of the unbalanced schedule teams like the Cubs for example can beat up on a mediocre NL Central and achieve the best record in the National League only to get swept away in the playoffs. It is a false sense of sucess.

Since when does baseball have conferences?

chaerulez
11-20-2008, 11:08 PM
The fact that teams that managed to be also rans in their division make the playoffs is a negative. It is rewarding mediocrity.

Well sometimes a wild card team has more wins than the other division winners. And it's really not fair the AL West teams only have to beat out three teams while the NL Central has to beat out five teams for a postseason spot. In the end the unbalanced schedule also screws things up. With the set up now, the wild card is needed. If you wanted to split the teams into two 15 team leagues and have the top two teams play for the World Series, then that's fine (with a more even schedule). But in this current setup the wild card is neccessary.

Daver
11-20-2008, 11:22 PM
Well sometimes a wild card team has more wins than the other division winners. And it's really not fair the AL West teams only have to beat out three teams while the NL Central has to beat out five teams for a postseason spot.

Since when is life fair?

Is being rewarded with something that was unearned over 162 game season fair? Or is it just MLB being greedy?

Based on playoff ratings for the last few I would guess Fox would rather have less games and a quicker end, and where the money goes dictates what happens.

The wildcard sucks.

guillensdisciple
11-20-2008, 11:25 PM
that's because a billy beane team is seemingly incapable of winning more than that


hayooooo!!!

MisterB
11-21-2008, 01:06 AM
As long as MLB goes with its arbitrary 3-division setup, I'm fine with the wild card.

In the 13 full seasons with the WC in place, 15 teams have won their division with less than 90 wins; in that same time span only 3 teams have won the wild card with less than 90 wins.

LITTLE NELL
11-21-2008, 05:16 AM
If anything go to a 7-7-7 playoff format and cut back the season to 154 games.

TommyJohn
11-21-2008, 07:13 AM
The fact that teams that managed to be also rans in their division make the playoffs is a negative. It is rewarding mediocrity.

Yes also rans like the 2006 Tigers, 2007 Rockies, 2005 Astros all of whom made the World Series.

Actually, I agree that with the 2006 Tigers it rewarded mediocrity. The Tigers had a horrible second half and blew a 10.5 game lead. They couldn't even beat the Royals once at the end of the season to clinch the division. They deserve to go down as one of baseball's all-time chokers. Instead, the wild card gave them a chance to get hot and get to the World Series, where they choked to St. Louis.

I suppose the wild card adds more pennant races, but the risk is allowing in someone like the 2006 Detroit Chokers, one of the most undeserving playoff teams in recent years.

kittle42
11-21-2008, 08:01 AM
If anything go to a 7-7-7 playoff format and cut back the season to 154 games.

That'll probably never happen. The extra 8 regular season games would generate more revenue overall than 2 extra playoff games.

Red Barchetta
11-21-2008, 08:30 AM
Dumb idea. Too many random factors could decide the winner. A series usually allows the better team to proceed. If anything, knock the regular season down to 160 games and a 2 games to the divisional playoffs so we have 3 best of seven series.

palehozenychicty
11-21-2008, 09:23 AM
That's because a Billy Beane team is seemingly incapable of winning more than that


:tongue:

For real! That is the most ludicrous idea I've heard in awhile. As someone said, if you don't want to spend on your team, then get out. I'm tired of these pathetic owners who don't put anything into their teams and expect civic support, in terms of land, dollars, etc.

pythons007
11-21-2008, 09:46 AM
Well with this god awful suggestion the full season means completely nothing. I'm going to one up that suggestion and propose something more idiotic. Why don't they just seed each division by regular season record and have them play a division tournament to see who wins the right to the playoffs. Then go ahead and do a regular ALCS/NLCS and World Series best of 7.

Haha, take that Oakland!

Iwritecode
11-21-2008, 10:22 AM
Yes also rans like the 2006 Tigers, 2007 Rockies, 2005 Astros all of whom made the World Series.

Not to mention the 2003 Marlins and 2004 Red Sox who won the World Series.

Or the 2008 Red Sox who won, what, 7 more games than the Sox?

The fact that a handful of teams have taken advantage of a playoff berth they did not earn justifies it's existence?

Handful = At least one WC team in the WS every year between 2003 and 2007?

Um, nobody does watch the play-offs... Have you seen Fox's ratings?

Baseball only had 1 play-off series for over 50 years and things worked out pretty well.

How bad would the ratings be for the regular season when you have fans of 28 teams that have no shot at the playoffs because there is one team in each league running away from the pack?

cub killer
11-21-2008, 08:54 PM
The wildcard sucks.

When did Bob Costas join WSI?

Gosox1917
11-21-2008, 08:59 PM
With 30 teams in the league and allowing only one team from each league to get in would make the last two months of the season meaningless for 87% of the teams in MLB.

So...contract half the league, right? Tell that to the fans. Good luck.

I still don't understand how this current system "sucks".

Over the last 13 years of the two-round format...teams that won the World Series had an average of 95 wins.

In the last 13 years of the three-round format...teams that won the World Series had an average of...95 wins.

Honestly answer me this...would you rather have your team, I assume the White Sox, out of the playoff race in mid-September because they have only 83 wins...or within a game of the wild card?

And that is why there is the wild-card.

If the team with the best record in each league wants to play in the World Series...win in the first two rounds of the damn playoffs.

Now to get to the one-game playoff format...terrible. You don't play 162 games to let everything be settled for one game...unless you tie for your division.

If anything, shorten the season to 154 games as was mentioned...and make it a 7-7-7 format.

Gosox1917
11-21-2008, 09:00 PM
When did Bob Costas join WSI?

HA...If he's Bob Costas then I'm Jack Buck.

IlliniSox4Life
11-24-2008, 05:08 AM
Since when is life fair?

Is being rewarded with something that was unearned over 162 game season fair? Or is it just MLB being greedy?

Based on playoff ratings for the last few I would guess Fox would rather have less games and a quicker end, and where the money goes dictates what happens.

The wildcard sucks.

I don't get how it isn't fair. The rule is that the division winners and the team with the next best record make the playoffs in each league. Every team knows this going in to the season. Every team has equal opportunity to benefit from the wild card.

The only thing I can see as potentially unfair about it is that teams play different schedules and thus their records might be slightly different than if they played the other teams schedule, but that has more to do with the schedule itself than the actual wild card.

FarmerAndy
11-24-2008, 09:24 AM
It's not the wild card that bothers me. It's the divisional structure and unbalanced schedule that bothers me. And these things make the wild card necessary. (What is the rappers say? Don't hate the player, hate the game.)

The wild card doesn't reward mediocrity. Giving a division title to a team that wins 83 games while playing an unbalanced schedule in a weak division....... that's rewarding mediocrity.

I know it won't ever happen, but I'd rather see divisions done away with. Play a balanced schedule across the board, and the top 4 teams in each league go to the playoffs. People will say that taking away the divisional races would kill excitement at the end of the season. But I'm sure there would still be quite a race to clinch the last spot or two. I don't know, maybe that's a bad idea. I'd just like to see a structure that rewards the best teams in the league. Often times, winning a particular division isn't much of an accoplishment, and the wild-card team is far supperior to said division winner.

Oblong
11-24-2008, 10:32 AM
A one game 1st round is the dumbest idea since a neutral world series site.

And I like the wild card as it is right now. If it were to add more teams than I'd hate it.

soxinem1
11-25-2008, 02:57 PM
I could see the banner for the victorious team now:

2009 ALDCG CHAMPION
(American League Division Championship Game)

That would look GREAT on the rafters!!!!!!

Sounds like some charity celebrity Softball Game..........

spiffie
11-25-2008, 04:23 PM
Since when is life fair?

Is being rewarded with something that was unearned over 162 game season fair? Or is it just MLB being greedy?

Based on playoff ratings for the last few I would guess Fox would rather have less games and a quicker end, and where the money goes dictates what happens.

The wildcard sucks.
Divisions suck. As do Leagues. Why is it you'll let some also-ran who might only be the 4th best team in baseball have a shot at winning the World Series but the 7th best team offends you so much?

Add 3 teams. Eliminate all leagues and divisions. Have each team play every other team 5 times for a 160 game season. Top two teams play a best of 9 series for the World Series.

Then you have a reasonable shot at the best and most deserving team winning each year.

Anything else is simply compromise.

FarmerAndy
11-25-2008, 05:11 PM
The Dodgers were the 8th best team in the N.L. this year. (Aside from the teams that made the playoffs, the Mets, Astros, Cardinals, and Marlins all had better records.) There are 16 teams in the N.L., which means the Dodgers were in the middle of the pack...... the very definition of mediocrity.

The wild-card does not reward mediocrity, divisions do.

Zisk77
11-25-2008, 06:18 PM
The Dodgers were the 8th best team in the N.L. this year. (Aside from the teams that made the playoffs, the Mets, Astros, Cardinals, and Marlins all had better records.) There are 16 teams in the N.L., which means the Dodgers were in the middle of the pack...... the very definition of mediocrity.

The wild-card does not reward mediocrity, divisions do.


But the opposite is also true. I believe the 90' White sox had the 2nd best record in baseball and didn't go to the playoffs because the A's were in their division. Were they mediocre Daver?

Daver
11-25-2008, 06:32 PM
Were they mediocre Daver?

Did they win anything?

PaleHoseGeorge
11-25-2008, 06:38 PM
It's not the wild card that bothers me. It's the divisional structure and unbalanced schedule that bothers me. And these things make the wild card necessary. (What is the rappers say? Don't hate the player, hate the game.)

The wild card doesn't reward mediocrity. Giving a division title to a team that wins 83 games while playing an unbalanced schedule in a weak division....... that's rewarding mediocrity.

Well stated. Anyone who believes divisions, wild-cards and unbalanced schedules haven't hurt MLB has simply been drinking too much NFL Kool-aid.

The Sox play literally TEN-TIMES more regular season games than the Bears. All this "NFL ****" makes those 162 games practically meaningless.

I know it won't ever happen, but I'd rather see divisions done away with. Play a balanced schedule across the board, and the top 4 teams in each league go to the playoffs. People will say that taking away the divisional races would kill excitement at the end of the season. But I'm sure there would still be quite a race to clinch the last spot or two. I don't know, maybe that's a bad idea. I'd just like to see a structure that rewards the best teams in the league. Often times, winning a particular division isn't much of an accoplishment, and the wild-card team is far supperior to said division winner.

Actually, I think it's the most sensible idea I've read on this subject in a long time. Let the #3, #4, #5, and #6 teams in both leagues fight it out for the final 2 playoff spots (1-game punchout or Best of 3?), then advance to a Best-of-5 round vs. #1 and #2, and finally a 7-game LCS before the World Series. That's a total of 12 playoff teams... four more than presently... and 100-times fairer since the regular season's best teams get advantages the current system fails to deliver.

Baseball is too good to succumb to bull**** like the NFL employs to decide fake champions. Of course Selig has to have the stones to stand up for it... fat chance.

Nellie_Fox
11-26-2008, 12:32 AM
The wild-card does not reward mediocrity, divisions do.Actually, they both do.

FarmerAndy
11-26-2008, 10:22 AM
Did they win anything?

Team A - 2nd place in division with 92 wins.
Team B - 1st place in another division with 83 wins.

I hate the line of reasoning that says Team A has no right to be in the playoffs, because even though they may have been the second best team in the whole league, they didn't "win anything." While Team B, who isn't even close to being as good as Team A, deserves to be there because they "won something."

That's the problem with the 3 division format....... Division titles are crap. And there's this illusion that winning one is an accomplishment worthy of award. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's not. (Although, it is always awarded no matter what.) You split up the league with these arbitrary lines, and just because a certain team happens to fall on one side of the line, they are able to get away with with complete mediocrity and be rewarded for it.

AGAIN - The Dodgers were the 8th best team in the National League, and they were awarded a playoff spot because they "won something." But you say the wild card rewards mediocrity? That's just plain crap, no matter how you try to spin it.

FarmerAndy
11-26-2008, 10:25 AM
Actually, they both do.

The wild-card in itself does not reward mediocrtiy. The divisional format that makes the wild-card necessary rewards mediocrity.

There are 4 playoff spots in each league. The wild card team is always one of the top 4 teams in the league. The same cannot be said for all division winners.

Michstate45
11-26-2008, 11:49 AM
Just be thankful baseball isn't like the NHL or NBA where over half the teams make the playoffs

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2008, 08:58 PM
Just be thankful baseball isn't like the NHL or NBA where over half the teams make the playoffs

This is the great dichotomy of baseball. The modernists want the excitement created by multiple rounds of playoffs played by a large number of qualifying teams. Meanwhile the traditionalists pine for the days of 2 leagues, 2 pennants and one best-of-7 World Series. You'll drive yourself nuts trying to satisfy both camps.

I've suggested MLB split the season into a traditional pennant race of 2 leagues and one World Series, interspersed with a separate "cup" tournament of round robin and single-elimination games involving all clubs. I even laid out a 162-game schedule (plus extra playoff games) to prove the financial viability of the concept.

This perfectly sensible solution is of course rejected out of hand because neither camp (modernists or traditionalists) can possibly imagine sharing the season with one another. So instead we wind up with MLB's season looking an awful lot like the NFL season, never mind that baseball plays TEN-TIMES more games than the NFL and the regular season is basically worthless for determining anything.

Some people like mediocrity. Selig is their kind of guy, not mine.