PDA

View Full Version : MLB Adding Two Wild Card Teams, Possibly in 2012


Sockinchisox
11-17-2011, 12:03 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/mlb-will-add-two-wild-card-teams.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

mrwag
11-17-2011, 02:05 PM
Great - so now the Red Sox and Yankees are both guaranteed a post-season.

sox1970
11-17-2011, 02:11 PM
Great - so now the Red Sox and Yankees are both guaranteed a post-season.

One of them will be forced to win a one-game playoff many years. This is good for the rest of the field.

I don't like this new format, but this actually goes against the Red Sox and Yankees.

Moses_Scurry
11-17-2011, 02:15 PM
Question: does this mean the end of the stupid rule where a team can't play another tam in there division? Otherwise, the top seed might get screwed out of the built in advantage. For example, let's say the Sox win 102 games next year and have the one seed by a large margin. Let's further say that the Tigers are one of the wild card teams. If the Tigers win the play-in game, will the Sox get the advantage of not facing Verlander until game 3 and only once in the series, or will the Sox have to play the AL west winner and a 2nd seed gets the Tigers?

Fenway
11-17-2011, 02:23 PM
One of them will be forced to win a one-game playoff many years. This is good for the rest of the field.

I don't like this new format, but this actually goes against the Red Sox and Yankees.

and given Tampa Bay's recent success - the one game playoff could be against each other.

The reality is the real playoffs are still 8 teams - but the play in winner will have already used their ace.

WhiteSox5187
11-17-2011, 02:40 PM
This is a stupid ****ing idea that negates the importance of a 162 game season and would end the drama of the last week of the baseball season we saw this year. But it ensures that the Red Sox and Yankees will always be in the playoffs, so Selig is happy. I wish he would just go away before he hurts the game anymore.

mantis1212
11-17-2011, 03:09 PM
This is a stupid ****ing idea that negates the importance of a 162 game season and would end the drama of the last week of the baseball season we saw this year. But it ensures that the Red Sox and Yankees will always be in the playoffs, so Selig is happy. I wish he would just go away before he hurts the game anymore.

This actually puts more importance on winning your division, which is a positive when thinking about the value of a 162-game season. The current wild card spot has just been devalued.

PaleHoser
11-17-2011, 03:35 PM
What do you chant when you win the second Wild Card? "We're #5"?

If MLB is going to this, I'd much rather the Wild Card play-in be a three game series. They could do it in two days by playing the second and third game as a double-header.

Bud loves to manufacture drama. What could be better than playing two games in the same day with the prospects of going home for the season if you lose one?

TheOldRoman
11-17-2011, 03:55 PM
One of them will be forced to win a one-game playoff many years. This is good for the rest of the field.

I don't like this new format, but this actually goes against the Red Sox and Yankees.For the first few years, maybe. But after you have the first Red Sox team which won 95 games lose that play-in, the media will be howling about it. It will last for a decade max before baseball decides it wasn't fair to have a season hinge on one game, so they will make it a best of 3 or 5.

DSpivack
11-17-2011, 04:44 PM
What do you chant when you win the second Wild Card? "We're #5"?

If MLB is going to this, I'd much rather the Wild Card play-in be a three game series. They could do it in two days by playing the second and third game as a double-header.

Bud loves to manufacture drama. What could be better than playing two games in the same day with the prospects of going home for the season if you lose one?

Or do it like the Japanese league does, and have every game of that short series at the home of the team with the better record.

Zakath
11-17-2011, 07:50 PM
This makes "Legends" and "Leaders" sound brilliant.

Oblong
11-17-2011, 09:33 PM
This actually puts more importance on winning your division, which is a positive when thinking about the value of a 162-game season. The current wild card spot has just been devalued.

that's how I view it.

For example, in 2010 the White Sox were only 1 game behind the Red Sox for a chance to play the Yankees in the one game playoff. THe Yankees were only a game behind the Rays for best record in the AL But neither team really cared about winning the division, it was more important to set the rotation for the ALDS. In the new format it would have been vital and 3.

I actually see this as an improvement to the current system with 3 divisions and a wild card. This makes it harder on the wild card team. In fact, I don't even consider the two teams in the one game playoff as "playoff teams". I don't see this as an expansion of the playoffs as much as a way to punish the wild card team more.

TommyJohn
11-17-2011, 09:47 PM
that's how I view it.

For example, in 2010 the White Sox were only 1 game behind the Red Sox for a chance to play the Yankees in the one game playoff. THe Yankees were only a game behind the Rays for best record in the AL But neither team really cared about winning the division, it was more important to set the rotation for the ALDS. In the new format it would have been vital and 3.

I actually see this as an improvement to the current system with 3 divisions and a wild card. This makes it harder on the wild card team. In fact, I don't even consider the two teams in the one game playoff as "playoff teams". I don't see this as an expansion of the playoffs as much as a way to punish the wild card team more.


That's really silly. Why have a wild card team at all if the object is to "punish" them?

Oblong
11-17-2011, 10:08 PM
That's really silly. Why have a wild card team at all if the object is to "punish" them?

because they didn't win their division. Right now there's not much of a gap between the wild card team and the team that wins their division. That was my problem with the current system.

Why have divisions at all if we're not going to make them important?

Fenway
11-18-2011, 05:48 PM
The plan that they are working on would have a 3 year rotation for inter-league that in the end would guarantee that a team would visit every park once every 6 years.

However to keep the same city series going every year - teams would play their designated rival 4 times a season ( 2 home - 2 away) and every 3 years would play each other 7 times.

OK - but some teams don't have a designated rival...

Obviously you have NYY-NYM, CWS-CHC, BAL-WAS, LAD-LAA, OAK-SF check

then you have BOS-PHL, CLE-CIN, MIL-MIN, TB-MIA, STL-KC

I suppose DET-PIT would be one, SD-SEA (at least they share a time zone)

Atlanta and Arizona could get one of the Texas teams...

What becomes of Colorado and Toronto????

ChicagoG19
11-18-2011, 06:02 PM
After taking some time to think about this, I am starting to warm up to the idea. I like that it will mean more for a team to win its division. Additionally, it gives Sox and the non Red Sox and Yankee teams in the AL East a better chance of making the playoffs.

Daver
11-19-2011, 01:14 AM
Baseball really does need even more also rans to make it into the post season, every division needs to have a third place team with a shot at October baseball.



MLB is trying it's damnedest to be a complete and utter joke of a sport.

cub killer
11-19-2011, 02:09 AM
because they didn't win their division. Right now there's not much of a gap between the wild card team and the team that wins their division. That was my problem with the current system.

Why have divisions at all if we're not going to make them important?
Well said. This is a happy medium between harsh punishment (Giants in 1993), and easy street, which exists today and has allowed way too many wild card World Series champs or pennant winners.

For example, in 2006, the Tigers lead the division all season, yet failed to win it. But not a tear was shed, 'cause it didn't really make a difference. The Tigers had no real disadvantage, and took advantage of that all the way to the pennant.

Our current WS champ was a WC team, and there was a stretch where there were 3 straight WC WS champs, and 7 of 12 pennant winners. That's right, in a system where a WC team has a 25% chance to win a pennant, they won 7/12, which is more than 50%.

Furthermore, this new WC game will eliminate many game 163s, since there is now a double chance that a team tied for a division title will also be in a WC play-in spot. Here's hoping that teams tied for play-in seed #2 will be decided by head-to-head, and not an extra game. That'd be ludicrous.

I've grown to dislike game 163 since it can give the winner an unfair advantage in playoff seeding, since they'll have an extra game to get more wins than another division champ. Also, MLB had a goofy system in place of a 3-way tie. A system which would give a team 164 games while the rest had less. Goofy.

sox1970
11-19-2011, 09:47 AM
http://twitter.com/#!/Buster_ESPN/status/137912964673052672

Source:Rule that a team cannot play another club from same division in Division Series will most likely be eliminated in new playoff format.

That's good at least.

sox1970
11-19-2011, 10:52 AM
Baseball really does need even more also rans to make it into the post season, every division needs to have a third place team with a shot at October baseball.

MLB is trying it's damnedest to be a complete and utter joke of a sport.

The fact is it's possible a 3rd place team in one division could be better than a 1st place team in a different division....that's why baseball doesn't need divisions---especially now with a 5th team getting in.

It would just make too much sense to get rid of divisions, play a balanced schedule, and actually reward the top 3 teams and let the 4th and 5th best teams play to get in.

Fenway
11-19-2011, 11:28 AM
It will change the dynamic of September.

No franchise since 1995 has gotten more out of the wild card than Boston. There have been many seasons where they were content to let NYY win the division knowing that come the LDS everything was reset as long as they were the wild card.

That luxury is now gone.

Now all the wild card will do is get you one game - and even if you win it, you have lost your ace for at least one start in the LDS.

Some are screaming that it guarantees Bos-NYY a playoff slot. No - what it does do is practically insure that the big local TV markets stay alive until the end.

But it will also guarantee that teams will go all out to win the division - and that is better for the game overall.

sox1970
11-19-2011, 11:35 AM
It will change the dynamic of September.

No franchise since 1995 has gotten more out of the wild card than Boston. There have been many seasons where they were content to let NYY win the division knowing that come the LDS everything was reset as long as they were the wild card.

That luxury is now gone.

Now all the wild card will do is get you one game - and even if you win it, you have lost your ace for at least one start in the LDS.

Some are screaming that it guarantees Bos-NYY a playoff slot. No - what it does do is practically insure that the big local TV markets stay alive until the end.

But it will also guarantee that teams will go all out to win the division - and that is better for the game overall.

You haven't necessarily lost your ace. What if the ace starts on Monday of the last series (Mon-Wed), and the Wildcard Game is Thursday and the Division Series starts on Saturday?

Yeah, he won't be used Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, but he'd be there for Game 1 of the DS.

Fenway
11-19-2011, 11:49 AM
You haven't necessarily lost your ace. What if the ace starts on Monday of the last series (Mon-Wed), and the Wildcard Game is Thursday and the Division Series starts on Saturday?

Yeah, he won't be used Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, but he'd be there for Game 1 of the DS.

Depends on the race.

This year Anaheim fell out of it with 4 games to go so under the new system Boston and Tampa would know they were playing and the last 3 games meant nothing.

This is better than what Selig first was thinking - a first half/second half winner like some minor leagues have and was used by MLB in 1981.

Of course that backfired when the Reds had more wins for the season than Houston and LA but didn't win either split season division.

http://www.shrpsports.com/mlb/stand/1981finaldiv.htm

Keep in mind Bud's Brewers snuck into the playoffs because of that.

Lip Man 1
11-19-2011, 01:19 PM
The season that neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox fail to make the postseason now, means that there was a plane crash.

Does anybody HONESTLY think these two teams which haven't had a losing season in what over 15 years aren't going to take 40% of the available playoff spots 98% of the time?

Please.

Yes big market TV is closely involved in this...guess who has two of the biggest TV markets....ummm let me guess. :rolleyes:

Lip

ChicagoG19
11-19-2011, 01:38 PM
The season that neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox fail to make the postseason now, means that there was a plane crash.

Does anybody HONESTLY think these two teams which haven't had a losing season in what over 15 years aren't going to take 40% of the available playoff spots 98% of the time?

Please.

Yes big market TV is closely involved in this...guess who has two of the biggest TV markets....ummm let me guess. :rolleyes:

Lip

Yes, but the Red Sox or Yankees can now be knocked out in one game.

Fenway
11-19-2011, 01:53 PM
The season that neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox fail to make the postseason now, means that there was a plane crash.

Does anybody HONESTLY think these two teams which haven't had a losing season in what over 15 years aren't going to take 40% of the available playoff spots 98% of the time?

Please.

Yes big market TV is closely involved in this...guess who has two of the biggest TV markets....ummm let me guess. :rolleyes:

Lip

You have a better solution? Didn't think so....

Chicago is not Pocatello, Idaho either.

Your hatred towards the east coast makes you blind to the fact that since the beginning of the TV era in baseball, both teams have combined for 2 pennants and one World Series win.

The Yankees are in a class by themselves for revenue - Boston has to spend as much as they can to try and compete - but the market can sustain it.

The White Sox are very much like the Mets. The resources are there but for whatever reason it hasn't worked out.

Philadelphia was a sleeping giant and since they moved into the new ballpark they have become a monster. Texas will be the next monster.

Why can't either Chicago team be dominant? I don't know that answer but at least Ricketts is going to try and change. It worked for the Tribune for awhile when they first took over and Dallas Green had control but then the tower started listening to John McDonough instead of the baseball people.

Lip Man 1
11-20-2011, 10:57 AM
ChicagoG19:

True but my point is that they are still going to make the playoffs practically every year now (short of a disaster). It might only be for one game (unlikely but possible) but they are still in there.

Lip

sox1970
11-20-2011, 11:37 AM
ChicagoG19:

True but my point is that they are still going to make the playoffs practically every year now (short of a disaster). It might only be for one game (unlikely but possible) but they are still in there.

Lip

Yeah, but who is going to care about the team that loses this one-game thing? Are they actually going to hoist a Wildcard flag even if they lose a one-game playoff?

Will these teams that have to play in a one-game playoff celebrate with hats, t-shirts and champagne when they clinch the berth to play in this one game, or will they wait until they actually win the one-game gimmick?

As far as Boston, they've earned the wildcard 4 or 5 times in the last 11 years, and they would have got the second wildcard 2 or 3 times in the last 11 years (depending on ties). So this new rule would have hurt the Red Sox more than it helped them.

Thus causing more randomness in the postseason, and making MLB more of a joke than it already is.

If they eliminated divisions, played a balanced league schedule, and had the top-3 make the playoffs, with the 4-and 5-seeds playing a best-of-3, at least we would know who earned the playoff spots fairly, and who earned home field advantage. I could respect that more than this made-for-TV, money grab.

When it comes to these one-game playoffs, unless it's a legitimate tie-breaker, I won't watch unless the White Sox are in it. I'll just wait until the real playoff series start.

Daver
11-20-2011, 11:40 AM
You have a better solution? Didn't think so....



Yes I do, every team plays 162 games, then the team with the best record in the AL plays the the team with the best record in the NL in a seven game series, the winner is declared the champion.

Fenway
11-20-2011, 11:52 AM
Yes I do, every team plays 162 games, then the team with the best record in the AL plays the the team with the best record in the NL in a seven game series, the winner is declared the champion.

There is merit to that.

The last great pure pennant race was in 1967 - where with 5 days to go 4 teams had a shot at the AL Pennant - and on the last day 3 were still alive.

KMcMahon817
11-20-2011, 11:55 AM
The season that neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox fail to make the postseason now, means that there was a plane crash.

Does anybody HONESTLY think these two teams which haven't had a losing season in what over 15 years aren't going to take 40% of the available playoff spots 98% of the time?

Please.

Yes big market TV is closely involved in this...guess who has two of the biggest TV markets....ummm let me guess. :rolleyes:

Lip

Meh. I disagree, this is not some conspiracy theory. I hate Boston and the Yankees as much as anyone, but I mostly hate them because they're always good. I don't think this new set-up helps the Yankees or Red Sox. In the current system, one is going to make the playoffs every year, anyway. With the new system, they have a chance as being knocked out after one game....any team can win on any given night. This does not really help the Yankees or Red Sox at all. With that said, stop ****ing with the system, Bud.

Oblong
11-20-2011, 09:58 PM
I know officially it adds another playoff team but if my team were one of the WC teams and lost the play in game, I wouldn't consider it a playoff team or year for that matter.

What it really should be called in fact is a play in game to determine the wild card team, instead of 2 wild card teams.

Tragg
11-21-2011, 11:49 PM
A 1 game playoff after playing 162 games is just daft.

pudge
11-24-2011, 12:52 AM
There is merit to that.

The last great pure pennant race was in 1967 - where with 5 days to go 4 teams had a shot at the AL Pennant - and on the last day 3 were still alive.

I'm sorry, but there is no merit to that in 2011.

Fine and dandy for the middle of the century, when baseball was THE pastime. Today, you have to create drama to keep 30+ cities interested in a sport when there are gobs of other ways to be entertained. One game-163 can save baseball for decades in certain towns. If you went back to two teams make the playoffs, you might as well shut down the sport in about 20 cities.

Daver
11-24-2011, 12:29 PM
If you went back to two teams make the playoffs, you might as well shut down the sport in about 20 cities.

Contraction would certainly make the league better overall, as it is far too watered down as it is now, but profit issues keep that from ever happening.

TomBradley72
11-24-2011, 01:14 PM
I don't mind this change- one thing I've really learned since baseball expanded the playoffs in the mid-90's- is that baseball, as great as it is, is even greater when it's October baseball with everything on the line. The extra round of playoffs and more teams in the hunt in the regular season has made the game that much more exciting. As others have mentioned- when a team/city gets even a small taste of postseason baseball- the ripple effect can last for several years- which brings more balance to the league overall- as shown by the attendance figures for teams like the Brewers, Rangers, etc.

The one game "play in" game is going to bring more excitement to the post season- as well as the final week of the regular season. Personally- I'll love it if every last day of the season is like this year's epic Wednesday night finale.

I also like the extra advantage it gives to winning the Division- the day of rest- along with going with your #1 vs. the wild card team's #2, etc.

Fenway
11-27-2011, 12:32 PM
http://mt.nesn.com/.a/6a0115709f071f970b0162fcfd1d3e970d-500wi

TommyJohn
11-27-2011, 01:57 PM
http://mt.nesn.com/.a/6a0115709f071f970b0162fcfd1d3e970d-500wi

This cartoonist better watch it-he might give Bud ideas.

TDog
11-27-2011, 03:04 PM
The season that neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox fail to make the postseason now, means that there was a plane crash.

Does anybody HONESTLY think these two teams which haven't had a losing season in what over 15 years aren't going to take 40% of the available playoff spots 98% of the time?

Please.

Yes big market TV is closely involved in this...guess who has two of the biggest TV markets....ummm let me guess. :rolleyes:

Lip

As I hinted at in another thread, I don't believe the wild cards aren't really making the postseason but making the opportunity to play into the postseason, just as tying for a division title or wild card and forcing a one-game playoff doesn't put you in the postseason.

I don't think there is anything conspiratorial at all about the addition of a wild card team in each league. Thinking it through, I think it makes the wild card a bit wilder. It is true that increasing the number of teams who play after the regular season will increase the chances of Boston and New York making the postseason. Eveyrone's chances increase. The better teams continue to have a better chance.

But if you want to increase the chance of the Yankees and Red Sox as a wild card, forcing the wild card to play a one-game playoff (maybe two one-game playoffs of there is a three-way wild card tie) before a road division series would put the wild card at a disadvantage. There would be no way to set the pitching rotation for the division series, barring horrendously bad weather.

The more I think about the one-game wild card playoff, the more intriguing the possibilities. I think it makes it less likely for a hot wild card team, as wild card teams tend to be, to have success in the postseason.

cub killer
11-28-2011, 08:53 AM
http://mt.nesn.com/.a/6a0115709f071f970b0162fcfd1d3e970d-500wiThere are actually people who want this. I have read threads where people will argue that this is a good idea because they don't want their kids staying up late to watch extra inning games. It messes up the kids' sleep schedule, which will hinder their grades. Also, they don't want to have to miss the end of games that they buy tickets to go see. Games where they'd have to leave after the 9th because of work the next day, so they're stuck having to listen to the end on the radio during the drive home.

If Bud were to ever implement this, there'd be a backlash, but not enough to kill the game, then people would eventually get used to it. Plus, we'd all appreciate postseason extra innings more, since that'd be the only time they'd exist.

As I hinted at in another thread, I don't believe the wild cards aren't really making the postseason but making the opportunity to play into the postseason, just as tying for a division title or wild card and forcing a one-game playoff doesn't put you in the postseason.

I don't think there is anything conspiratorial at all about the addition of a wild card team in each league. Thinking it through, I think it makes the wild card a bit wilder. It is true that increasing the number of teams who play after the regular season will increase the chances of Boston and New York making the postseason. Eveyrone's chances increase. The better teams continue to have a better chance.

But if you want to increase the chance of the Yankees and Red Sox as a wild card, forcing the wild card to play a one-game playoff (maybe two one-game playoffs of there is a three-way wild card tie) before a road division series would put the wild card at a disadvantage. There would be no way to set the pitching rotation for the division series, barring horrendously bad weather.

The more I think about the one-game wild card playoff, the more intriguing the possibilities. I think it makes it less likely for a hot wild card team, as wild card teams tend to be, to have success in the postseason.Good points, but there shouldn't be an extra tiebreaker. That's just too much. If there's a 3-way tie for WC #1, or a 2-way tie for WC #2, they should just go to all applicable tiebreakers until there are only 2 teams eligible for the WC spot.

downstairs
11-28-2011, 01:12 PM
As I hinted at in another thread, I don't believe the wild cards aren't really making the postseason but making the opportunity to play into the postseason, just as tying for a division title or wild card and forcing a one-game playoff doesn't put you in the postseason.

I don't think there is anything conspiratorial at all about the addition of a wild card team in each league. Thinking it through, I think it makes the wild card a bit wilder. It is true that increasing the number of teams who play after the regular season will increase the chances of Boston and New York making the postseason. Eveyrone's chances increase. The better teams continue to have a better chance.

But if you want to increase the chance of the Yankees and Red Sox as a wild card, forcing the wild card to play a one-game playoff (maybe two one-game playoffs of there is a three-way wild card tie) before a road division series would put the wild card at a disadvantage. There would be no way to set the pitching rotation for the division series, barring horrendously bad weather.

The more I think about the one-game wild card playoff, the more intriguing the possibilities. I think it makes it less likely for a hot wild card team, as wild card teams tend to be, to have success in the postseason.

Gotta disagree. The one-game play in (manufactured excitement) is silly in baseball- of all sports- where any team can have a bad day against any other team.

I believe the single Wild Card system always awards a very, very good team. Often much better than the worst division winner.

I don't know, I think the MLB and NFL playoffs as they are through this year, are as perfect as possible. (I know the NFL has more teams in, and is always one and done... but the game is completely different.)

Also, now the only interesting playoff races will most likely be in the worst divisions. Two weak teams battling it out to the end, just to lose in round one.

doublem23
11-28-2011, 01:29 PM
Gotta disagree. The one-game play in (manufactured excitement) is silly in baseball- of all sports- where any team can have a bad day against any other team.

I believe the single Wild Card system always awards a very, very good team. Often much better than the worst division winner.

I don't know, I think the MLB and NFL playoffs as they are through this year, are as perfect as possible. (I know the NFL has more teams in, and is always one and done... but the game is completely different.)

Also, now the only interesting playoff races will most likely be in the worst divisions. Two weak teams battling it out to the end, just to lose in round one.

Maybe, but I think this new 2nd wild card team will add some drama that has not existed before. In the past, generally there was nothing of excitement regarding the best division in baseball, both top teams were making the playoffs so for the last month it was kind of a prep; this was especially true of the recent AL East before the Rays kind of made themselves a presence. Now that there is added emphasis on actually winning one's division, I think it will add an extra spice to the races, since, as you noted, on any given day, any team can beat any other in baseball.

Truth be told, and we'll have to see how it plays out, but right now I kind of like the 2nd Wild Card idea. Adds emphasis on winning your division that was not always there in the past.

TDog
11-28-2011, 02:21 PM
Gotta disagree. The one-game play in (manufactured excitement) is silly in baseball- of all sports- where any team can have a bad day against any other team.

I believe the single Wild Card system always awards a very, very good team. Often much better than the worst division winner.

I don't know, I think the MLB and NFL playoffs as they are through this year, are as perfect as possible. (I know the NFL has more teams in, and is always one and done... but the game is completely different.)

Also, now the only interesting playoff races will most likely be in the worst divisions. Two weak teams battling it out to the end, just to lose in round one.

I would prefer not to see any wild card. I believe if you don't finish first in your division, you shouldn't make the postseason, unless you're talking high school basketball. If the Yankees finish ahead of the Red Sox, the Red Sox shouldn't have an opportunity to play for the championship. It doesn't matter how good the Red Sox are. The Yankees seem to have already eliminated them. But more ridiculous than a wild card is three teams in a league playoff series. The World Series winner is supposed to be the MLB champion, not the champion of the MLB postseason tournament.

What intrigues me, though, is that adding a wild card handicaps that team that might coast into the postseason behind a division winner but comfortably ahead of the next second-place team. No more setting up your pitching for a short series. This adds something to the divisional races in that a wild card team can't coast in. A team may have clinched a wild card berth with a week to go left in the season, but it will still have to face a do-or-die elimination game to make it to that division series, just as if it managed only to tie for the wild card.

If you have three teams tie for those two wild card spots, you get a defacto extra tier of pseudo postseason games. There is no reason baseball would eliminate a play-in game for the play-in game. Play a tie-breaker, not to determine who has homefield advantage but to determine who will advance beyond the regular season, and fans will show up. People will watch on television. Fans of the winning team will sing in praise of the heroism for years to come, even if their team doesn't advance past the division series. Joe Nathan will whine if he loses.

The more I think about it, the more adding a wild card team would make for a better baseball season than just having the one wild card.

Oblong
11-28-2011, 03:02 PM
Ok, I'll be the geek:

1995
The Yanks won the Wild Card and would have faced the Angels (who lost to Sea for divison title in a playoff. One win separated the two). The Rockies won the NL WC, by one game over the Astros.

1996
Dodgers won NL WC by 2 games over Expos. Orioles won AL WC by 3 games over Boston, CHW, and Mariners.

1997
Yankees (96 wins) won AL WC by large margin, 12 games. However Indians only had 86 wins for AL Central. Marlins won NL WC by 4 games over Dodgers.

1998
Cubs won NL WC in one game playoff. Red Sox (92 wins) won AL WC by large margin. However Blue Jays finished 3rd with 88 wins, while Rangers and Indians had 88 and 89 wins respectively.

skipping ahead at random....

2002
Angels won WC with 99 wins, 6 games over Red Sox/Mariners. Twins won one more game than those two teams. Giants won NL WC over Dodges by 3.5 games.

2006
Dodgers won WC over Phillies by 3 games. Tigers won WC over White Sox by 5.


I could go on and on but I think the point is clear. I don't see it as any big travesty of justice that a team that finished 2nd place might get knocked out by another team in a one game playoff. If they don't like it hen they should have won the division. I started at the beginning of the WC era and then randomly picked 2 more years (I have to go home now).
I don't think the dropoff is that dramatic and in many cases where it is, there's another division winner with similar win totals.

SephClone89
01-12-2012, 09:35 PM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/stark_jayson/id/7307141/expanded-mlb-postseason-2012-not-fast

Jayson Stark had a good column/blog post on the feasibility of implementing the expanded playoffs this year, 2012, rather than just waiting for 2013.

Whitesox029
01-13-2012, 01:41 AM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/stark_jayson/id/7307141/expanded-mlb-postseason-2012-not-fast

Jayson Stark had a good column/blog post on the feasibility of implementing the expanded playoffs this year, 2012, rather than just waiting for 2013.
Earning the right to play in a one-game playoff and then losing it doesn't deserve a title or banner. The winner of the game is that league's single Wild Card, in my mind.

SephClone89
01-13-2012, 02:05 AM
Earning the right to play in a one-game playoff and then losing it doesn't deserve a title or banner. The winner of the game is that league's single Wild Card, in my mind.

That's how I see it, too.

thomas35forever
02-29-2012, 03:25 PM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7630682/mlb-union-close-finalizing-expanded-playoffs
Getting closer to happening.

voodoochile
02-29-2012, 09:04 PM
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7630682/mlb-union-close-finalizing-expanded-playoffs
Getting closer to happening.

Crawl below the Bulls game on ESPN says it's a done deal and they getting ready to announce.

TommyJohn
03-01-2012, 10:59 AM
I still say that this is designed to get the Red Sox and Yankees in the postseason every year, despite Fenway's protests to the contrary. It helps them in that if one of them lags behind the Rays in the East, the one game will give them a "second chance." It would have come in handy last year. Both the Red Sox and Braves would have played in the one game playoff. Now I am not saying that it is specifically designed to do this, but this will be one of the benefits. The network will at least have one game featuring one of the teams to hype up.

Of course, one benefit would be if the Bosox are the wildcard and they have to face the Rays in the play-in game, and lose. The negative is that "Red Sox Nation" will moan and groan about it ad nauseum.

sox1970
03-01-2012, 11:44 AM
I still say that this is designed to get the Red Sox and Yankees in the postseason every year, despite Fenway's protests to the contrary. It helps them in that if one of them lags behind the Rays in the East, the one game will give them a "second chance." It would have come in handy last year. Both the Red Sox and Braves would have played in the one game playoff. Now I am not saying that it is specifically designed to do this, but this will be one of the benefits. The network will at least have one game featuring one of the teams to hype up.

Of course, one benefit would be if the Bosox are the wildcard and they have to face the Rays in the play-in game, and lose. The negative is that "Red Sox Nation" will moan and groan about it ad nauseum.

There's no question that the new format hurts one team more than any other in the long run: Boston Red Sox.

Think about it, they've won the wildcard fair and square over the last 17 years more than anyone. If now they have to win that AND a one-game playoff, it penalizes them more than anyone. Not making excuses for them or feeling sorry for them...it's just a fact.

And did the team that loses the wildcard game really make the playoffs? Not really. It's really a second chance at making the playoffs. They shouldn't celebrate in the clubhouse until they win the wildcard game. In my opinion, 8 teams still make the playoffs, but 10 teams have a shot at it.

It puts a premium on winning your division, so it's going to work better in most years.

asindc
03-01-2012, 11:59 AM
There's no question that the new format hurts one team more than any other in the long run: Boston Red Sox.

Think about it, they've won the wildcard fair and square over the last 17 years more than anyone. If now they have to win that AND a one-game playoff, it penalizes them more than anyone. Not making excuses for them or feeling sorry for them...it's just a fact.

And did the team that loses the wildcard game really make the playoffs? Not really. It's really a second chance at making the playoffs. They shouldn't celebrate in the clubhouse until they win the wildcard game. In my opinion, 8 teams still make the playoffs, but 10 teams have a shot at it.

It puts a premium on winning your division, so it's going to work better in most years.

Boston is my least favorite MLB team, but I have to agree with this. I was adamently opposed to this idea at first, but now I think it provides more integrity to the regular season and makes winning the division the incentive it was always meant to be.

russ99
03-01-2012, 12:31 PM
I actually see this as an improvement to the current system with 3 divisions and a wild card. This makes it harder on the wild card team. In fact, I don't even consider the two teams in the one game playoff as "playoff teams". I don't see this as an expansion of the playoffs as much as a way to punish the wild card team more.

I don't for the sole reason that the teams with the bigger payrolls in the wild-card (and the division winners who usually are the big payroll teams) are helped by this system.

If a team like the Yankees has 3 really good starters and the other wild card team only has one really good starter, then the Yankees have a leg up in the Division Series if they win the game, and the low-payroll team is punished in the Division Series if they win the game.

Also, with the wonky TV schedules due to ensuring the "right teams" are in prime time, there's going to be a lot of wild card winners (specifically non-East coast ones) enduring punishing travel schedules before and during the Division Series, even furthering the advantage for the big teams.

I long for the days when the commissioner didn't put two teams and TV money over every other team in the league...

TDog
03-01-2012, 12:49 PM
I still say that this is designed to get the Red Sox and Yankees in the postseason every year, despite Fenway's protests to the contrary. It helps them in that if one of them lags behind the Rays in the East, the one game will give them a "second chance." It would have come in handy last year. Both the Red Sox and Braves would have played in the one game playoff. Now I am not saying that it is specifically designed to do this, but this will be one of the benefits. The network will at least have one game featuring one of the teams to hype up.

Of course, one benefit would be if the Bosox are the wildcard and they have to face the Rays in the play-in game, and lose. The negative is that "Red Sox Nation" will moan and groan about it ad nauseum.

Qualifying for a one-game playoff at the end of the season isn't getting to the postseason, it's having to win a game to reach the postseason, as it was for the White Sox in 2008. That can be an intense thing, and I can understand why baseball wants such a game every year.

It also puts the wild card team at a bit of a disadvantage in the division series, depending on the depth of its starting rotation.

SI1020
03-01-2012, 01:24 PM
Sooner rather than later a superior team is going to lose a one game play in which will be followed by long and loud howls of protest. Then what to do? Expanding it to best of 3 or 5 will mean an extended layoff that would seem unfair to the other 6 qualifying teams. Whatever happens I don't think this will be the final expansion of MLB playoffs.

Soxman24
03-01-2012, 01:36 PM
I'm not against making the playoffs longer I just wish they would shorten the regular season.

Foulke You
03-01-2012, 01:43 PM
Sooner rather than later a superior team is going to lose a one game play in which will be followed by long and loud howls of protest. Then what to do? Expanding it to best of 3 or 5 will mean an extended layoff that would seem unfair to the other 6 qualifying teams. Whatever happens I don't think this will be the final expansion of MLB playoffs.
I tend to agree. It won't necessarily be a superior team losing that causes the howls of protest though. It might just have to be a media darling team. If an 88 win Red Sox or Yankees team knocked off a 95 win White Sox team, there wouldn't be any complaints about it. Imagine the outrage though if an 88 win White Sox team knocked off a 95 win Yankees or Red Sox team in that 1 game wild card round. The east coast media would be huffing and puffing about an unfair system.

sox1970
03-01-2012, 01:52 PM
I tend to agree. It won't necessarily be a superior team losing that causes the howls of protest though. It might just have to be a media darling team. If an 88 win Red Sox or Yankees team knocked off a 95 win White Sox team, there wouldn't be any complaints about it. Imagine the outrage though if an 88 win White Sox team knocked off a 95 win Yankees or Red Sox team in that 1 game wild card round. The east coast media would be huffing and puffing about an unfair system.

But if down the stretch, it made Yankees/Red Sox games more meaningful, then it will have served its purposes for the networks.

palehozenychicty
03-01-2012, 03:42 PM
Joe Sheehan has a good rant in SI. I like him a lot more now.

http://m.si.com/news/to/to/detail/4766695

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

sox1970
03-02-2012, 02:27 PM
They finalized this today.

The division series will start at the worst team's park for 2 games, off day, and then 3 games at the higher seed's park. So a 1-seed could conceivably only have one home game and have their season come to an end.

They should have waited until 2013.

doublem23
03-02-2012, 03:28 PM
The division series will start at the worst team's park for 2 games, off day, and then 3 games at the higher seed's park. So a 1-seed could conceivably only have one home game and have their season come to an end.

That's the stupidest ****ing thing I've ever heard.

sox1970
03-02-2012, 03:46 PM
That's the stupidest ****ing thing I've ever heard.

Yeah, it's not good. They could have just made it 2-2-1, with no off day between Games 4 and 5, and make Game 4 a day game but that's the TV networks for you.

Luckily this will only be like this for one year. They'll go back to 2-2-1 next year. Again, they should have just waited until the Astros move in 2013.

amsteel
03-02-2012, 03:47 PM
The division series will start at the worst team's park for 2 games, off day, and then 3 games at the higher seed's park. So a 1-seed could conceivably only have one home game and have their season come to an end.


That's only for 2012: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7638357/mlb-expand-playoffs-two-teams-10

haganaga
03-02-2012, 03:48 PM
-ViF6JRNjTk

doublem23
03-02-2012, 03:57 PM
Yeah, it's not good. They could have just made it 2-2-1, with no off day between Games 4 and 5, and make Game 4 a day game but that's the TV networks for you.

Luckily this will only be like this for one year. They'll go back to 2-2-1 next year. Again, they should have just waited until the Astros move in 2013.

Why are the only doing it for one year? Testing?

It is my opinion that in the play-offs, the higher seeded team should
A) Never at any point in a series have to have played more road games than home and
B) Host the final, winner-take-all game if necessary.

sox1970
03-02-2012, 04:08 PM
Why are the only doing it for one year? Testing?

It is my opinion that in the play-offs, the higher seeded team should
A) Never at any point in a series have to have played more road games than home and
B) Host the final, winner-take-all game if necessary.

They're doing it this way for one year because the World Series is already bleeding into November, and they want Game 7 on a Thursday.

I think they'll go back to ending the season on a Sunday next year, or finish the season on a Tuesday with a 2-game series. Then they can have Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday available for tie-breakers, and the Wildcard Games.

amsteel
03-02-2012, 04:09 PM
I really really don't like the idea of having the second best team in the league having to play a 163rd game to qualify for the playoffs.

Also, who gets to host the play-in game? Best overall record, or best head-to-head? Or just rotate it between Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium.

thomas35forever
03-02-2012, 08:18 PM
I just don't want to have extra playoff teams in general, but nothing I can do about it I guess.

TDog
03-02-2012, 09:15 PM
I really really don't like the idea of having the second best team in the league having to play a 163rd game to qualify for the playoffs.

Also, who gets to host the play-in game? Best overall record, or best head-to-head? Or just rotate it between Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium.

Are you suggesting that ending the season for either the Red Sox or the Yankees before the ALDS would be a bad thing?

doublem23
03-02-2012, 10:03 PM
They're doing it this way for one year because the World Series is already bleeding into November, and they want Game 7 on a Thursday.

I think they'll go back to ending the season on a Sunday next year, or finish the season on a Tuesday with a 2-game series. Then they can have Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday available for tie-breakers, and the Wildcard Games.

OK yeah, the schedule wasn't drawn up to incorporate the Wild Card Play-In, I'm caught back up.

DoItForDanPasqua
03-04-2012, 10:03 AM
Though I am against expanding the playoffs there is a part of me that wishes this was around in the 90s when the Sox had consistently good teams but still missed the playoffs most years. Otherwise it's worsening a situation where a team can win 100 games and lose the pennant to a team that won 84.

Fenway
03-09-2012, 09:41 AM
The notion that this is designed to help Boston and New York is complete and utter nonsense and SABR has printed a paper on this.

http://sabr.org/latest/who-were-second-wild-card-teams-1995

Since 1995, Boston would have been the second wild card team twice and NYY once. The White Sox would have been the second team in 2006, and in 1996 would have been in a 2 or 3 way tie with Boston and Seattle and who knows how MLB would have handled 2008 as the Twins, White Sox and Yankees all had the same record.

Winning the division now means more than selling hats and t-shirts.

Yes more teams will have a shot, but a one game play-in is something to avoid as even if you win it, you then go to the ALDS with your ace pitcher available only once.

The reality is the new format 'helps' teams like the White Sox just as much as Boston and New York.

Fenway
03-10-2012, 01:31 AM
I am bumping this because because I really want a rebuttal on this.

Lip was screaming about how this was meant to help Boston and New York but when you look at history - not exactly.

Now I will agree that MLB wants to keep more RSN (local markets) alive in September - but guess what - that could include Chicago.

It burns me when a White Sox fan in Idaho says the new format is unfair when the historical evidence suggests otherwise.

If I am missing something please comment.


The notion that this is designed to help Boston and New York is complete and utter nonsense and SABR has printed a paper on this.

http://sabr.org/latest/who-were-second-wild-card-teams-1995

Since 1995, Boston would have been the second wild card team twice and NYY once. The White Sox would have been the second team in 2006, and in 1996 would have been in a 2 or 3 way tie with Boston and Seattle and who knows how MLB would have handled 2008 as the Twins, White Sox and Yankees all had the same record.

Winning the division now means more than selling hats and t-shirts.

Yes more teams will have a shot, but a one game play-in is something to avoid as even if you win it, you then go to the ALDS with your ace pitcher available only once.

The reality is the new format 'helps' teams like the White Sox just as much as Boston and New York.

ComiskeyBrewer
03-10-2012, 01:51 AM
I am bumping this because because I really want a rebuttal on this.

Lip was screaming about how this was meant to help Boston and New York but when you look at history - not exactly.

Now I will agree that MLB wants to keep more RSN (local markets) alive in September - but guess what - that could include Chicago.

It burns me when a White Sox fan in Idaho says the new format is unfair when the historical evidence suggests otherwise.

If I am missing something please comment.

I read somewhere that a computer simulation showed that on average, 26 teams will be within 3 games of the 2nd WC on Sept 1st. I think that will make for a pretty fun september. Sure, you won't see as many teams making blockbuster trades at the deadline because of it, but who cares? It will result in higher ratings, and IMO, more excitement from many more fan bases.

WhiteSox5187
03-10-2012, 04:29 AM
I am bumping this because because I really want a rebuttal on this.

Lip was screaming about how this was meant to help Boston and New York but when you look at history - not exactly.

Now I will agree that MLB wants to keep more RSN (local markets) alive in September - but guess what - that could include Chicago.

It burns me when a White Sox fan in Idaho says the new format is unfair when the historical evidence suggests otherwise.

If I am missing something please comment.

This theoretically could help a lot of teams but it seems to me that there is no coinicidence to the fact that this new wild card was instituted after Boston missed the playoffs the past two years. This expansion was done to bring in more TV revenue for the playoffs which have been lagging for awhile now largely because the teams that bring in the highest ratings (the Yankees and Boston) have either failed to make the playoffs or been eliminated quickly. Yes, this does help some small market teams but this was really done to make more money for MLB and the way you do that (or at least the way Bud Selig thinks you do that) is by doing everything you can to ensure that Boston and New York will be in the playoffs.

TommyJohn
03-10-2012, 07:00 AM
This theoretically could help a lot of teams but it seems to me that there is no coinicidence to the fact that this new wild card was instituted after Boston missed the playoffs the past two years. This expansion was done to bring in more TV revenue for the playoffs which have been lagging for awhile now largely because the teams that bring in the highest ratings (the Yankees and Boston) have either failed to make the playoffs or been eliminated quickly. Yes, this does help some small market teams but this was really done to make more money for MLB and the way you do that (or at least the way Bud Selig thinks you do that) is by doing everything you can to ensure that Boston and New York will be in the playoffs.

Agreed. Fenway can write all he wants about how since "1995, Boston would have been the second wild card twice." Great. The two years that you are talking about are 2010 and 2011. They won't have that problem in 2012. I hardly think Selig is concerned with the system since 1995. He is only looking at recent history. If Fenway doesn't think this was designed to help Boston and New York then I think he is in denial.

sox1970
03-10-2012, 08:48 AM
Agreed. Fenway can write all he wants about how since "1995, Boston would have been the second wild card twice." Great. The two years that you are talking about are 2010 and 2011. They won't have that problem in 2012. I hardly think Selig is concerned with the system since 1995. He is only looking at recent history. If Fenway doesn't think this was designed to help Boston and New York then I think he is in denial.

The new wild card is about bringing more teams into the race. That equals more fan interest in more cities, which means more TV watchers and butts in seats.

In the process, it makes winning the division that much more important. That means two teams from the same division can't both coast into October because the difference in winning the division and winning the wildcard was negligible. Now, those Yankees/Red Sox games from years past will have to played to win.

And once again, the loser of the wild card game won't be in the playoffs as we know them now. This new system hurts the Red Sox more than any other team. That's a fact nobody wants to acknowledge because they only want to look at last year and say, "See, they did this to give the Red Sox a second chance."

Uh, no. This was going to happen whether the Red Sox went 7-20 or 20-7 last September.

My only problem with this new thing is that they should have waited until 2013 when the Astros move, and they can play a more balanced schedule within each division.

Fenway
03-10-2012, 09:28 AM
Actually Selig decided this had to be done in 2010 after the Yankees conceded the division to Tampa.

MLB still has not decided if the play-in games will be considered post-season or regular season or who gets to televise the games.

The day will come when either the White Sox will be the first wild card ( and WSI will fume about the play-in game ) or will be the second wild card team ( and WSI will be praising Selig for his vision )

The important thing is it will be much harder for the play-in game winner to advance beyond the LDS because of pitching matchups.

sox1970
03-10-2012, 09:34 AM
Actually Selig decided this had to be done in 2010 after the Yankees conceded the division to Tampa.

MLB still has not decided if the play-in games will be considered post-season or regular season or who gets to televise the games.

The day will come when either the White Sox will be the first wild card ( and WSI will fume about the play-in game ) or will be the second wild card team ( and WSI will be praising Selig for his vision )

The important thing is it will be much harder for the play-in game winner to advance beyond the LDS because of pitching matchups.

Yep. 10 of the 34 World Series teams over the last 17 years have been wild card winners.

That percentage is going to go down, which is good.

Win your division.

Fenway
03-10-2012, 09:45 AM
Yep. 10 of the 34 World Series teams over the last 17 years have been wild card winners.

That percentage is going to go down, which is good.

Win your division.

Exactly - this helps all of baseball.

Frater Perdurabo
03-10-2012, 10:02 AM
Actually Selig decided this had to be done in 2010 after the Yankees conceded the division to Tampa.

MLB still has not decided if the play-in games will be considered post-season or regular season or who gets to televise the games.

The day will come when either the White Sox will be the first wild card ( and WSI will fume about the play-in game ) or will be the second wild card team ( and WSI will be praising Selig for his vision )

The important thing is it will be much harder for the play-in game winner to advance beyond the LDS because of pitching matchups.

This is not exclusive to WSI. Every team's fan base will complain/praise if they are the first/second wild card.

Selig rightly deserves scorn for the PED mess. But unless you are an old-school purist, he deserves credit for increasing interest in lots of cities through the wild card. Fans speak from their wallets; MLB has never been more profitable than it is now.

Hendu
03-10-2012, 11:00 AM
This theoretically could help a lot of teams but it seems to me that there is no coinicidence to the fact that this new wild card was instituted after Boston missed the playoffs the past two years. This expansion was done to bring in more TV revenue for the playoffs which have been lagging for awhile now largely because the teams that bring in the highest ratings (the Yankees and Boston) have either failed to make the playoffs or been eliminated quickly. Yes, this does help some small market teams but this was really done to make more money for MLB and the way you do that (or at least the way Bud Selig thinks you do that) is by doing everything you can to ensure that Boston and New York will be in the playoffs.

If you're going to point to coincidences that may be driving the change, how about the 90 win Cards knocking off the 102 win World Series favorite Phillies in last year's NLDS? If the Cards had to play another do-or-die game just to get into the NLDS, they would have been at an even bigger disadvantage. Still, anything is possible.

I really like the new format because as others have pointed out, it makes winning your division that much more important. And it gives us a couple automatic do-or-die games that should be as much fun as last season's game 162.

Fenway
03-10-2012, 11:30 AM
I am not going to deny that network execs hope Boston makes it because the Sawx bring eyeballs nationally.

October 3rd could be crazy because we might not know who plays who until the dust settles.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/scoreboard/index.jsp?tcid=nav_mlb_scoreboard#date=10/3/2012



If you're going to point to coincidences that may be driving the change, how about the 90 win Cards knocking off the 102 win World Series favorite Phillies in last year's NLDS? If the Cards had to play another do-or-die game just to get into the NLDS, they would have been at an even bigger disadvantage. Still, anything is possible.

I really like the new format because as others have pointed out, it makes winning your division that much more important. And it gives us a couple automatic do-or-die games that should be as much fun as last season's game 162.

SI1020
03-10-2012, 11:32 AM
The playoffs already last too long. Some year there will be a weather disaster. That will give them an excuse to move the WS to a warm weather site. Shorten the regular season a little and allow doubleheaders. Let roster sizes increase by a player or 2. It will never happen. What probably will happen is further expansion of the playoffs.

Frater Perdurabo
03-10-2012, 12:14 PM
The playoffs already last too long. Some year there will be a weather disaster. That will give them an excuse to move the WS to a warm weather site. Shorten the regular season a little and allow doubleheaders. Let roster sizes increase by a player or 2. It will never happen. What probably will happen is further expansion of the playoffs.

I agree with expanding rosters. I also want the DH in both leagues. And make the DH like any other position so that players can rotate, and the DH slot can move in the batting order.

WhiteSox5187
03-10-2012, 02:11 PM
If you're going to point to coincidences that may be driving the change, how about the 90 win Cards knocking off the 102 win World Series favorite Phillies in last year's NLDS? If the Cards had to play another do-or-die game just to get into the NLDS, they would have been at an even bigger disadvantage. Still, anything is possible.

I really like the new format because as others have pointed out, it makes winning your division that much more important. And it gives us a couple automatic do-or-die games that should be as much fun as last season's game 162.

Last year the Cardinals pretty much did play a play-in game. It was against the Astros and they had their ace on the mound.

Oblong
03-10-2012, 02:21 PM
This system is not what I'd design from scratch. However two things:

1) It improves over 1995-2011

2) There are certain things baseball are beholden to and because of that certain thigns they wont' do. They will not decrease the regular season schedule. They will not decrease the # of playoff teams. That would be taking money off the table.

Considering that I think this is about as good as you can get without expansion.

Fenway
03-10-2012, 02:41 PM
Before expansion teams averaged about 70 openings for 77 home games.
Now many teams budget for 81 openings and the day of a real DH are gone.

Some year Mother Nature will cause havoc - we had one World Series game in 1997 played in a snow squall.


This system is not what I'd design from scratch. However two things:

1) It improves over 1995-2011

2) There are certain things baseball are beholden to and because of that certain thigns they wont' do. They will not decrease the regular season schedule. They will not decrease the # of playoff teams. That would be taking money off the table.

Considering that I think this is about as good as you can get without expansion.

SI1020
03-10-2012, 03:10 PM
Before expansion teams averaged about 70 openings for 77 home games.
Now many teams budget for 81 openings and the day of a real DH are gone.

Some year Mother Nature will cause havoc - we had one World Series game in 1997 played in a snow squall. I've been saying this for a long time. No one seems to give a ****.

Fenway
03-10-2012, 03:38 PM
I've been saying this for a long time. No one seems to give a ****.

http://www.jimmysawczuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/snowopener.jpg

Oblong
03-10-2012, 04:21 PM
In the 2006 ALCS and WS, I froze my butt off. Too cold to drink beer. Although it's hard to say because on opening days we're just so happy to be at a baseball game that we don't care, so maybe it wasn't colder than opening days. The point is, it was pretty cold and miserable.

In the 2011 ALCS in Detroit, I wore shorts to 2 of the games and the other game I didn't because it was a rain delay but it was still a comfortable experience. We're a month from opening day now and looking at 60 degrees already.

I don't think you can really plan around the weather at this point. Yes it's generally warmer in early Oct than late Oct but we're past that point of having playoffs completed by mid October. It'll never happen so there's no need to talk about it. They won't shorten the schedule, they won't condense it, they won't have double headers, and they can't start earlier in the year because March is probably more sketchy than October.

SI1020
03-10-2012, 05:16 PM
In the 2006 ALCS and WS, I froze my butt off. Too cold to drink beer. Although it's hard to say because on opening days we're just so happy to be at a baseball game that we don't care, so maybe it wasn't colder than opening days. The point is, it was pretty cold and miserable.

In the 2011 ALCS in Detroit, I wore shorts to 2 of the games and the other game I didn't because it was a rain delay but it was still a comfortable experience. We're a month from opening day now and looking at 60 degrees already.

I don't think you can really plan around the weather at this point. Yes it's generally warmer in early Oct than late Oct but we're past that point of having playoffs completed by mid October. It'll never happen so there's no need to talk about it. They won't shorten the schedule, they won't condense it, they won't have double headers, and they can't start earlier in the year because March is probably more sketchy than October. OK so Thanksgiving baseball here we come and those that complain can just shove it. The networks say jump, baseball says how hi and the money is beyond obscene at this point. I mean I guess you are right but I don't have to like it.

Oblong
03-10-2012, 09:03 PM
OK so Thanksgiving baseball here we come and those that complain can just shove it. The networks say jump, baseball says how hi and the money is beyond obscene at this point. I mean I guess you are right but I don't have to like it.

who is talking about thanksgiving baseball?

Since we've had the wild card in 1995 the final games have occurred generally between the last few days of October or the first few days of November. In terms of weather issues that's insignificant. You can't plan based on a day here and there.

Fenway
03-10-2012, 09:37 PM
It was brutal at Fenway for the 2004 World Series. A writer friend from Montreal was complaining at how cold it was. While temp was officially in the high 40's, it was damp and raw with a 20-30 mph wind.

That said - weather is still worse in early April than late October.


In the 2006 ALCS and WS, I froze my butt off. Too cold to drink beer. Although it's hard to say because on opening days we're just so happy to be at a baseball game that we don't care, so maybe it wasn't colder than opening days. The point is, it was pretty cold and miserable.

In the 2011 ALCS in Detroit, I wore shorts to 2 of the games and the other game I didn't because it was a rain delay but it was still a comfortable experience. We're a month from opening day now and looking at 60 degrees already.

I don't think you can really plan around the weather at this point. Yes it's generally warmer in early Oct than late Oct but we're past that point of having playoffs completed by mid October. It'll never happen so there's no need to talk about it. They won't shorten the schedule, they won't condense it, they won't have double headers, and they can't start earlier in the year because March is probably more sketchy than October.

SI1020
03-10-2012, 11:00 PM
who is talking about thanksgiving baseball?

Since we've had the wild card in 1995 the final games have occurred generally between the last few days of October or the first few days of November. In terms of weather issues that's insignificant. You can't plan based on a day here and there. Average high, low and record low temperatures for selected MLB cities on November 1.

Chicago 56 41 21
Detroit 54 40 26
Cleve 57 41 25
Pitt 59 36 30
Boston 56 42 26
Denver 61 29 10
Minn 50 34 10

The games will all be played in the evening, so the temperatures will be closer to the average low. If the series ends before November 1 add a couple of degrees, if after of course subtract. These are just averages. A warm spell and MLB lucks out, a cold snap 10-15 degrees below normal and you have iceball. I may be a minority of 1 but this is 10 days to 2 weeks in the year too late for championship baseball.

Hendu
03-10-2012, 11:27 PM
Last year the Cardinals pretty much did play a play-in game. It was against the Astros and they had their ace on the mound.
Sure though he was still able to pitch game 2...but in the current format they would have had to play another play-in game. Anything is possible, of course. Still, as a baseball fan I love being guaranteed two play-in games per year. Assuming the Sox don't get screwed. And the division winners getting a real advantage, so no teams within striking distance of the division leader can safely settle for the wild card race.

Oblong
03-11-2012, 08:02 AM
Average high, low and record low temperatures for selected MLB cities on November 1.

Chicago 56 41 21
Detroit 54 40 26
Cleve 57 41 25
Pitt 59 36 30
Boston 56 42 26
Denver 61 29 10
Minn 50 34 10

The games will all be played in the evening, so the temperatures will be closer to the average low. If the series ends before November 1 add a couple of degrees, if after of course subtract. These are just averages. A warm spell and MLB lucks out, a cold snap 10-15 degrees below normal and you have iceball. I may be a minority of 1 but this is 10 days to 2 weeks in the year too late for championship baseball.

What are those figures for Oct 27? For Nov 4? You really are going to plan something based on 'average' temps? Do you or have you lived in the midwest? Don't know about Chicago but in Michigan the joke during the fall/winter is "If you don't like today's weather just wait until tomorrow". Those are averages. The actual temps could be 10 degrees warmer or 10 degrees cooler. And it wouldn't be unusual.

The point is it's foolish to not plan something on Nov 3 instead of Oct 29 because it will probably be colder.

SI1020
03-11-2012, 09:45 AM
What are those figures for Oct 27? For Nov 4? You really are going to plan something based on 'average' temps? Do you or have you lived in the midwest? Don't know about Chicago but in Michigan the joke during the fall/winter is "If you don't like today's weather just wait until tomorrow". Those are averages. The actual temps could be 10 degrees warmer or 10 degrees cooler. And it wouldn't be unusual.

The point is it's foolish to not plan something on Nov 3 instead of Oct 29 because it will probably be colder. The games will all be played in the evening, so the temperatures will be closer to the average low. If the series ends before November 1 add a couple of degrees, if after of course subtract. These are just averages. A warm spell and MLB lucks out, a cold snap 10-15 degrees below normal and you have iceball. I may be a minority of 1 but this is 10 days to 2 weeks in the year too late for championship baseball. Do you really want me to look up the temperature ranges for all the cities I listed? Oct. 27 in Chicago 58 high 42 low 24 record low. On November 4 it is 55, 40, and 15. In Detroit it's 56, 41, and 29 for Oct. 27 and 53, 39, and 20 for November 4. Your Tigers have a good shot this year so I hope it's warm enough to enjoy a beer if they make it to the WS. We have two completely different ways of looking at the issue so I'm done with this lonely tilting at windmills kind of argument. At some point the playoffs will be expanded again and it's just too damn cold for championship baseball that late in the year in the northern cities. You don't agree. Good luck to the Tigers if the White Sox tank. I always liked that team, and yes I spent many years in the midwest and miss it every day.

Frater Perdurabo
03-11-2012, 01:17 PM
Actually, the daily low temperatures generally occur just before dawn, and the daily high temperatures generally occur late in the afternoon. Therefore, unless a front is moving through, a 705 start generally will be closer to the high than the low, but it's reasonable to assume the temperature would drop throughout the game.