PDA

View Full Version : Tiebreakers?


voodoochile
04-08-2012, 08:38 PM
In the game just now they are talking about pitching matchups and how if two teams end up tied in the same division and both are guaranteed a playoff spot, they still have the one game playoff to determine who is the division winner and who is the WC. I thought they changed that and if both teams are guaranteed a slot the division winner is decided by tiebreakers. Did they change it back when they added the 5 playoff team?

doublem23
04-08-2012, 08:47 PM
In the game just now they are talking about pitching matchups and how if two teams end up tied in the same division and both are guaranteed a playoff spot, they still have the one game playoff to determine who is the division winner and who is the WC. I thought they changed that and if both teams are guaranteed a slot the division winner is decided by tiebreakers. Did they change it back when they added the 5 playoff team?

They must have changed it with the 5-team play-off now because up until last year if both teams would be in the postseason they gave the division title to the team that won the season series between the two. 1-game play-off was only used if someone's season had to end.

It's why the White Sox clinched the division in 2005 in Detroit, even though they could have technically tied the Indians had the Tribe swept up in the last series of the year. We both would have had 96 wins, but the Sox would have won the season series 10-9, but had Cleveland finished with 96 wins it would have been impossible for both the Yankees and Red Sox to match that win total, so Cleveland would have been the Wild Card.

voodoochile
04-08-2012, 08:55 PM
They must have changed it with the 5-team play-off now because up until last year if both teams would be in the postseason they gave the division title to the team that won the season series between the two. 1-game play-off was only used if someone's season had to end.

It's why the White Sox clinched the division in 2005 in Detroit, even though they could have technically tied the Indians had the Tribe swept up in the last series of the year. We both would have had 96 wins, but the Sox would have won the season series 10-9, but had Cleveland finished with 96 wins it would have been impossible for both the Yankees and Red Sox to match that win total, so Cleveland would have been the Wild Card.

Yeah that's what I thought. I was following this discussion the announcers were having and they were talking about whether to use your #1 for the tiebreaker and risk having to use your #2 for the 1 game WC playoff and then possibly your #3 to open the first round. Obviously none of that matters if the tiebreaker is still in effect.

cub killer
04-09-2012, 12:31 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_tie-breaking_procedures

Yup, a redundant game would be played. Why? $$$$$$$

I say you DON'T risk your #1 for the redundant game. Save him for game 1 of the LDS or for the WC game.

TDog
04-11-2012, 05:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_tie-breaking_procedures

Yup, a redundant game would be played. Why? $$$$$$$

I say you DON'T risk your #1 for the redundant game. Save him for game 1 of the LDS or for the WC game.

It's not a redundant game. What many fans haven't grasped yet is that the additional wild card team means that you don't have one more team from each league in the postseason. It means the two teams with the best record that don't win divisions will play for a right to get to the postseason. It sets up the same sort of one-game playoff that would exist if two teams tied for the wild card spot under the old rules. Of course, if two teams tie for the wild card, as the Cubs and Giants did in 1998, things would be done exactly as they were then, except that homefield in the game wouldn't be decided by a coin toss. But the new system guarantees that one game playoff.

Under the new system, winning the division means much more than winning the wild card. Under the old system, losing the division and winning the wild card meant no more than losing homefield advantage. You can't decide who wins the division with tiebreakers if the loser is forced to win a one-game playoff.