PDA

View Full Version : Sigh...


doublem23
10-12-2003, 05:52 PM
What a joke the regular season has turned into... If the Cubs don't blow the next three games, they will become the 3rd team in 4 years to represent the National League after having finished with the worst record of all 4 play-off teams. Can the 162-game regular season be any more meaningless?

:chunks

jortafan
10-12-2003, 08:59 PM
Not that I'm rooting for the Cubs, but is it really any better for baseball that a Marlins victory would mean for the third time in the past four seasons, the wild card team would wind up being the National League champion?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-12-2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
Not that I'm rooting for the Cubs, but is it really any better for baseball that a Marlins victory would mean for the third time in the past four seasons, the wild card team would wind up being the National League champion?

If MLB doesn't want also-ran teams winning championships, they need to do away with the playoffs and make the World Series between the best team representing each league. That's the way it worked for 65 years.

Baseball plays 162 games (!) just so two piece of **** also-rans like the Flubs and Marlins get to decide who wins the pennant? I would say MLB got EXACTLY what they deserved. Given a choice, I'll take the Fish, thank you very much -- with absolutely no apologies.

If MLB wants to have playoffs, they ought to hold a separate "punchout" tournament, starting after the all-star game and running into the fall. Meanwhile leave the World Series for the two best teams from the regular season. Neither the Flubs or Marlins would qualify.

poorme
10-12-2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Baseball plays 162 games (!) just so two piece of **** also-rans like the Flubs and Marlins get to decide who wins the pennant? I would say MLB got EXACTLY what they deserved.

Well, all MLB cares about is making money, and extra playoff games make lots of money.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-12-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Well, all MLB cares about is making money, and extra playoff games make lots of money.

Fine. They ought to add more playoff games. In fact, I would be in favor of shortening the regular season to a tidy 120 games and adding nearly a month of extra playoff games. Invite all 30 teams to participate and play them over every weekend through the month of September--going head to head with the NFL and CFA. Talk about TV ratings and money!

(You may not know this, but I'm a real crackpot on this subject. I'm in favor of separate "champions", one for the World Series and another for the "Commisioner's Cup" punchout tournament. A really good team, like the Yankees, would aspire to win "the double" by beating everyone in both competitions. Ah, dreams...)

:smile:

ewokpelts
10-12-2003, 09:40 PM
does that mean the brewers have a chance?
Gene

PaleHoseGeorge
10-12-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
does that mean the brewers have a chance?


Hey, the more the merrier! :smile:

Think of it like the NCAA Mens' basketball tournament. The first round is meant to give the best teams the easiest route into the second round. The Brewers would be the perfect team to play the role of Yankees' roadkill each year.

Just watch out for Gonzaga...

:D:

RKMeibalane
10-12-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Hey, the more the merrier! :smile:

Think of it like the NCAA Mens' basketball tournament. The first round is meant to give the best teams the easiest route into the second round. The Brewers would be the perfect team to play the role of Yankees' roadkill each year.

Just watch out for Gonzaga...

:D:

I don't know. The idea that :hitless could have an impact on any kind of championship is... disturbing.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-12-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I don't know. The idea that :hitless could have an impact on any kind of championship is... disturbing.

Isn't that the beauty of it? Everybody knows Gonzaga sucks... everybody but Gonzaga. :smile:

:buddylee
"Look, lots of ballplayers wear gym shoes... including everyone from Gonzaga!"

ewokpelts
10-12-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Isn't that the beauty of it? Everybody knows Gonzaga sucks... everybody but Gonzaga. :smile:

:buddylee
"Look, lots of ballplayers wear gym shoes... including everyone from Gonzaga!"

HEY! DONT KNOCK THE CHOICE!

Brian26
10-13-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
What a joke the regular season has turned into... If the Cubs don't blow the next three games, they will become the 3rd team in 4 years to represent the National League after having finished with the worst record of all 4 play-off teams. Can the 162-game regular season be any more meaningless?


What's the point of even having playoff games or a World Series then? Why don't we just set up a balanced schedule between all 30 teams and whoever has the best record at the end of the year becomes champion?

Personally, I think the playoff setup right now is perfect. And what's the point of having a wild card team if you're going to complain if they win?

The mlb season is set up as a two-phase race. The first part is the marathon in order to qualify for the championship. Then the playoffs come, and you need a little luck and no time for mistakes in winning the first round best of 5.

Any more playoff rounds would completely dilute the system. The way it is set up right now, affording a 92-win team, for example, a wild card birth if their division was won by a team with 102 wins, is completely fair. It makes for dramatic races down the stretch. If the Giants can't get it done in round one against Florida, then so be it. The White Sox had the best record in baseball in 1983 and didn't go to the World Series. It's part of the game.

longshot7
10-13-2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
(You may not know this, but I'm a real crackpot on this subject. I'm in favor of separate "champions", one for the World Series and another for the "Commisioner's Cup" punchout tournament. A really good team, like the Yankees, would aspire to win "the double" by beating everyone in both competitions. Ah, dreams...)

That's soccer, not baseball.

Playoffs are good - keep them. It's all about momentum, and in that regard, everyone has a chance.

But this wild-card thing smells funny. Eliminate all the divisions - have one league with a balanced schedule - the top 4 teams play each other in the playoffs - and are seeded like the NBA/NHL playoffs. that way mediocore division-winners like the cubs or twins do not qualify.

bc2k
10-13-2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If MLB doesn't want also-ran teams winning championships, they need to do away with the playoffs and make the World Series between the best team representing each league. That's the way it worked for 65 years.

Under this format that worked for 65 years, is this where they referred to teams as being in the upper and lower divisions based on wins?

Kilroy
10-13-2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If MLB doesn't want also-ran teams winning championships, they need to do away with the playoffs and make the World Series between the best team representing each league. That's the way it worked for 65 years.

It also was the case for 65 years, that a team could win 98 games and not make the postseason, like the Sox did in '64. Personally, I'd rather not see that. If the teams that are the best all season long truly are the best, then they will prove it in the post season.

You assume that MLB cares who wins. They do not. They only care that a whole lot of people believe their teams have a chance and thereby, watch on TV, go to games, and buy MLB licensed merchandise.

In truth, that's better for us. I don't care how the White Sox win the world series; division title, best all season, wild card, who cares? Just win it.

MarqSox
10-13-2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy

In truth, that's better for us. I don't care how the White Sox win the world series; division title, best all season, wild card, who cares? Just win it.
Exactly. Imagine if there were just one (or even just two) divisions this year. The Sox would have been out of the playoff picture by mid-June. Instead they came within two weeks of making the playoffs. Yeah, they choked at the end, but the point remains: this summer would have been completely useless under the old format. Same with Minnesota's, same with Boston's, Seattle's, Kansas City's, Philadelphia's, Florida's, North Side's, LA's, Montreal's, St. Louis', Houston's. Practically half the league's fans had summerlong excitement that would not have existed under a no-playoffs scenario. Excitement is good for baseball, as long as it's in the reasonable realm, which I believe it is.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
That's soccer, not baseball.

Playoffs are good - keep them. It's all about momentum, and in that regard, everyone has a chance.

But this wild-card thing smells funny. Eliminate all the divisions - have one league with a balanced schedule - the top 4 teams play each other in the playoffs - and are seeded like the NBA/NHL playoffs. that way mediocore division-winners like the cubs or twins do not qualify.

You lost me. You like the playoffs, but you don't want wild cards and you don't want divisions either? So if I understand you correctly, everybody plays in one giant league and after everybody has played an identical schedule of 162 games, you take the top four teams and determine a champion--based on a dozen or so games. Huh?

:?:

How is *that* fair? The Sox could win 102 games, win the league in a rout, and still not win the championship because some other team got hot for 2 weeks in October.

Either you have playoffs, diluting the meaning of the 162-game regular season, or you don't hold playoffs at all. You can't escape making this choice.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
Under this format that worked for 65 years, is this where they referred to teams as being in the upper and lower divisions based on wins?

Ah, a student of baseball history... I like it.

Yes, you are correct. When each league had 8 teams (and no divisions), those in first through fourth place were known as "first division teams" and those 5-8 were "second division." Teams like the Senators, Phillies, and White Sox were perrennial "second division" teams.

There was a stigma attached to being second division, and just achieving a fourth place finish was something to aspire to. Of course MLB today has carved up the leagues into so many divisions, it's practically impossible to finish any *lower than* fourth anymore. The more ignorant fans don't understand that the quality of the team has not been improved one iota for having finished "higher" in the standings.

:(:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
It also was the case for 65 years, that a team could win 98 games and not make the postseason, like the Sox did in '64. Personally, I'd rather not see that. If the teams that are the best all season long truly are the best, then they will prove it in the post season.

You assume that MLB cares who wins. They do not. They only care that a whole lot of people believe their teams have a chance and thereby, watch on TV, go to games, and buy MLB licensed merchandise.

In truth, that's better for us. I don't care how the White Sox win the world series; division title, best all season, wild card, who cares? Just win it.

There was no good argument against the 98-win '64 Sox getting a shot at postseason glory -- with one big exception, of course -- the 99-win Yankees. :smile:

Nobody can predict how good the second-place team is going to be. For example, the Indians of the mid/late-90's were beating up the AL Central in a big way. Nobody -- not even me -- would suggest the second-place Sox deserved a shot at knocking off the Indians in the postseason. They beat us up across 162 games... they proved everything they needed to.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I'm not advocating eliminating the playoffs. However those of you who like the current playoff format must help me (and others) understand the relevance of playing 162 games if teams like the Marlins and Flubs get to decide who wins the National League pennant.

Ah... such a conundrum baseball can be...

:gulp:

DrCrawdad
10-13-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
It also was the case for 65 years, that a team could win 98 games and not make the postseason, like the Sox did in '64...

It's not just 1964, which was a fantastic year for all things outside of baseball. Take a look at the history of the White Sox and see how many times the Sox have won 90+ games. Then take a look at the Cubbies.

Consider this too, if the Cubbies go on to win the World Series they'll become only the 2nd NL team with a measly 88 regular season wins to win it all in the last 60+ years. (I'm excluding strike shortened seasons.) The other NL team to win it all with 88 wins? The 1959 LA Dodgers!

TornLabrum
10-13-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Ah, a student of baseball history... I like it.

Yes, you are correct. When each league had 8 teams (and no divisions), those in first through fourth place were known as "first division teams" and those 5-8 were "second division." Teams like the Senators, Phillies, and White Sox were perrennial "second division" teams.

There was a stigma attached to being second division, and just achieving a fourth place finish was something to aspire to. Of course MLB today has carved up the leagues into so many divisions, it's practically impossible to finish any *lower than* fourth anymore. The more ignorant fans don't understand that the quality of the team has not been improved one iota for having finished "higher" in the standings.

:(:

Those divisions in the 8-team leagues became important when it was decided somewhere along the line it was decided that a share of the World Series money would go to those teams finishing in the first division of each league, the share based on position in the standings.

The Sox were perennial second division finishers until 1951. Then they went on their string of 17 consecutive seasons above .500. Their worst finish, iirc, was fifth in a 10-team league, still first division.

Hangar18
10-13-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
[B]What a joke the regular season has turned into... If the Cubs don't blow the next three games, they will become the 3rd team in 4 years to represent the National League after having finished with the worst record of all 4 play-off teams. Can the 162-game regular season be any more meaningless?



I think whats at "ISSUE" here, is the BOGUS Unbalanced Schedules. the cubs finished barely 2 games BETTER than the Sox, and now have homefield advantage? THey got to fatten their records against the Pirates and Reds. How did they finish down the stretch against those two? 14-2 I believe? And one of the cub losses was only AFTER they had "clinched".
I never ever liked this bogus unbalanced deal. the Pittsburgh Pirates (a team NOT in the playoffs mind you) DECIDED THE 2003 Playoffs

poorme
10-13-2003, 09:55 AM
The Cubs took care of business against bad teams. Something we couldn't do.

DrCrawdad
10-13-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by poorme
The Cubs took care of business against bad teams. Something we couldn't do.

You're right. But why am I not surprised that PoorMe is talking up the Cubbies?

joejacksonsshoes
10-13-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad



Consider this too, if the Cubbies go on to win the World Series they'll become only the 2nd NL team with a measly 88 regular season wins to win it all in the last 60+ years. (I'm excluding strike shortened seasons.) The other NL team to win it all with 88 wins? The 1959 LA Dodgers!


And the Dodgers did it in six fewer games played. 88-68 (The season was 154 games then. The Dodgers won two straight from the Braves in a playoff.)


_____________________________________________

To Be a White Sox Fan in This Town. - F.T.C.

Hangar18
10-13-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by poorme
The Cubs took care of business against bad teams. Something we couldn't do.

Going along that argument, IMAGINE if the SOX DIDNT have to play the Tigers that many times? Sure, Manuel wouldve found a way im sure to put out the worst lineup. HOWEVER, it is something to think about

poorme
10-13-2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
You're right. But why am I not surprised that PoorMe is talking up the Cubbies?

I'm not talking up the Cubbies. Twins did the same thing. The Tigers and Indians were worse than the Pirates and Reds. Face it -- we sucked. No amount of Cubs bashing is going to hide that fact. We sucked.

KingXerxes
10-13-2003, 10:29 AM
Break up the two existing major league, and reformat them as four major leagues (call them the American, National, Federal and Union Leagues). Then place teams in each league that have geographical proximity to one another - this way all games will be played, for the most part, in the same time zones. Play balanced schedules within each league, with no interleague play. The four pennant winners advance to a championship series, and those two winners to the World Series. Games played at normal times, much lower travel expenses, and less impact of that travel on the players, and four teams advancing on without having watered down the regular season's impact.

It will never happen to be sure, but it should.

poorme
10-13-2003, 10:33 AM
I love that plan. Of course it will never happen. Baseball will just keep emulating the other sports. They'll keep adding more playoff teams. I hate it.

soxtalker
10-13-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Break up the two existing major league, and reformat them as four major leagues (call them the American, National, Federal and Union Leagues). Then place teams in each league that have geographical proximity to one another - this way all games will be played, for the most part, in the same time zones. Play balanced schedules within each league, with no interleague play. The four pennant winners advance to a championship series, and those two winners to the World Series. Games played at normal times, much lower travel expenses, and less impact of that travel on the players, and four teams advancing on without having watered down the regular season's impact.

It will never happen to be sure, but it should.

Why do you think that "it will never happen"? I'm not terribly crazy about it, as (a) I'd hate to lose the connection with the past and (b) I'd like to beat the Cubs in a WS.

However, the baseball owners might very well like your proposal, as long as it means increased profits for them. Then again, there might be signficant opposition to it from some teams; everyone wants to play the New York Yankees, for example.

One other objection that I would have is that while the owners might start with this setup, I could easily see them deciding to add a round of playoffs at some point.

KingXerxes
10-13-2003, 11:05 AM
If the Federal League were to hold:

White Sox
Cubs
Cardinals
Brewers
Tigers
Indians
Twins
Reds

and the White Sox were able to play the Cubs 22 times during the regular season (I'm assuming you go back to the 154 game schedule) - I think that would be better (year in and year out) than hoping that one day you'll meet them in the World Series. It would be as good as the New York Giants / Brooklyn Dodgers rivalries.

As far as wanting to face the Yankees - I think new rivalies would develop (White Sox / Cardinals), and old ones re-ignite (White Sox / Brewers) to more than supplant the loss of the Yankees (who we only play six times anyway these days). Keep in mind, you play each team 22 times throughout the season, rivalries will definitely emerge.

ewokpelts
10-13-2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I think whats at "ISSUE" here, is the BOGUS Unbalanced Schedules. the cubs finished barely 2 games BETTER than the Sox, and now have homefield advantage? THey got to fatten their records against the Pirates and Reds. How did they finish down the stretch against those two? 14-2 I believe? And one of the cub losses was only AFTER they had "clinched".
I never ever liked this bogus unbalanced deal. the Pittsburgh Pirates (a team NOT in the playoffs mind you) DECIDED THE 2003 Playoffs

dont forget the brew crew......


As for unbalanced Scheds...I thought the idea was good in the beginning(to boost attendance with natural rivals...look how well it has worked for the brewers), but i think it has gone overboard.....15-19 games against the tigers? no wonder we lost the division..

the unbalanced scheds can still work, but need to be rethought....no one considered the al west with four teams needing more teams to play in this system....which is a reason we play the a's a lot, and the single worst part of this is: why did we play the angels and rangers for two straight weeks? but we played two series against the yankees with a month between them?
Gene

ewokpelts
10-13-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Break up the two existing major league, and reformat them as four major leagues (call them the American, National, Federal and Union Leagues). Then place teams in each league that have geographical proximity to one another - this way all games will be played, for the most part, in the same time zones. Play balanced schedules within each league, with no interleague play. The four pennant winners advance to a championship series, and those two winners to the World Series. Games played at normal times, much lower travel expenses, and less impact of that travel on the players, and four teams advancing on without having watered down the regular season's impact.

It will never happen to be sure, but it should.

talk to eddie einhorn about it...he's nbeen proposing radical realignment for years now...and I know Jerry wouldn't mind the cubs playing the sox at teh cell for two series a year
Gene