PDA

View Full Version : 1995 playoff question


lumpyspun
08-26-2005, 03:29 PM
Can anyone help me out with this question?

In 1995, the first year of the wild card system, the Clevland Indians were the best team in the AL. Theoretically, they should have played the wild card team, which was the new york yankees. However, they ended up playing the AL east champs, the Red Sox. This makes no sense. The Indians ended up beating the Red Sox, but if I were a Red Sox fan, which I am definitely not, I would be pissed b/c they should have played the Mariners in the ALDS...

If you don't understand what I am saying, this link shows it:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_1995.shtml

A similar situation occured in the AL in 1997. Every other year since then it has worked out they way it should...

Does anyone out there know why '95 and '97 were different?

fledgedrallycap
08-26-2005, 03:33 PM
God we sucked that year. :gulp:

Baby Fisk
08-26-2005, 03:34 PM
Hopefully when the Tampa franchise finally withers away and dies, they can go back to that 1995 divisional alignment. Detroit deserves to be in the East, Milwaukee deserves to be in the Central. Tampa deserves to be eliminated. [sorry for not speaking to your question -- I don't know the answer.]

fledgedrallycap
08-26-2005, 03:34 PM
Could it be due to the fact the Yankees and Red Sox couldn't match up?

Baby Fisk
08-26-2005, 03:38 PM
Could it be due to the fact the Yankees and Red Sox couldn't match up? The WC team never plays the team in its own division in the Divisional Series, regardless of the division winners' records.

Ol' No. 2
08-26-2005, 03:41 PM
Could it be due to the fact the Yankees and Red Sox couldn't match up?No. Read the original post.

I can't figure it out, either. In fact, they matched up the two teams with the best records. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Kogs35
08-26-2005, 03:47 PM
they also used todo the lower seed got the first 2 home games then the higher seed got the last 3 games

Baby Fisk
08-26-2005, 03:48 PM
No. Read the original post.

I can't figure it out, either. In fact, they matched up the two teams with the best records. It doesn't make any sense at all.
Dare I say, Time Zones? TV? :?:

fledgedrallycap
08-26-2005, 03:49 PM
No. Read the original post.

I can't figure it out, either. In fact, they matched up the two teams with the best records. It doesn't make any sense at all.

My bad...it mad perfect sense to me for a minute....:kukoo:

SouthSide_HitMen
08-26-2005, 03:52 PM
1. 1994 was the first season with the wild card and we all know how well that turned out.

2. MLB changed their seeding format after 1997. For 1995 - 1997, baseball had some bizarre rule rotating the division winners for home field advantage which granted them the right to face the wild card . Baseball realized how silly this was and changed to the current format in 1998.



In 1995, Major League Baseball went to a playoff system that includes the use of a Wildcard team. This meant that for the first time, a team would make the playoffs without winning its division. While purists bemoaned this step as yet another in the downhill slide of baseball (which also includes the Designated Hitter and Astroturf), the fact is that because of the wildcard, teams that ordinarily would have been playing out the string were still trying hard in August and September. The purpose of this page is not to argue whether or not there should be a Wildcard in baseball. The purpose is to explain who gets to be the Wildcard and figure out who they will play in the playoffs.

In 1998, Major League Baseball made two very important changes to the way the playoffs are run:

They gave home field advantage to the division winners with the best records, instead of rotating it among the divisions. The wild-card team plays the division winner with the best record, unless those two teams are in the same division.
They changed the Division Championship Series from a 2-3 format to a 2-2-1 format, giving the team with a better record true home-field advantage.

Brian26
08-26-2005, 03:52 PM
The current format actually started in 1998.

From the introduction of the divisional format [technically 1994, but the first
playoff held under it was 1995] until 1997, the first round matchups were
determined before any teams filled in the blanks. One division leader was
locked in to face another and the third was locked in to face the wild card,
_no matter who won those divisions_.

Starting in 1998, there was actual seeding. The div. leader with the best record was 1, the next best 2 and the other one 3. The wild card was 4. The intention is for 1 to meet 4 and 2 to meet 3, with the higher one getting more home games.

But there was another rule added. No two divisional rivals may meet in the first round.

I did a quick search and found this info on rec.sport.baseball.

:bandance:

Baby Fisk
08-26-2005, 03:55 PM
From the introduction of the divisional format [technically 1994, but the first
playoff held under it was 1995] until 1997, the first round matchups were
determined before any teams filled in the blanks. One division leader was
locked in to face another and the third was locked in to face the wild card,
_no matter who won those divisions_.

Wow, that's just nutty. What next, playoff teams with sub-.500 records?

Lip Man 1
08-26-2005, 04:12 PM
Fisk:

That shouldn't be in teal...had the 1994 season continued, the A.L. West winner would have had a losing record. Texas was 'leading' the division at the time the games stopped.....they were ten games under .500!

Lip

DaleJRFan
08-26-2005, 04:13 PM
Wow, that's just nutty. What next, playoff teams with sub-.500 records?

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/pressbox/photos/headshots_players_coaches/110481_90x135.jpg
"Wait till next year..."

Ol' No. 2
08-26-2005, 04:18 PM
Fisk:

That shouldn't be in teal...had the 1994 season continued, the A.L. West winner would have had a losing record. Texas was 'leading' the division at the time the games stopped.....they were ten games under .500!

LipIt's even money to happen this year. The Padres are at .500 now.

soxfan26
08-26-2005, 04:54 PM
God we sucked that year. :gulp:

But we still finished ahead of the Twinkies! :redneck

C-Dawg
08-26-2005, 05:08 PM
1. 1994 was the first season with the wild card and we all know how well that turned out.



Shhh, don't say that out loud where someone can hear you. Its more fun to tell young naive Cub fans that Bud Selig created the wild-card system in 1995 to make everyone forget there was a strike the previous year.

lumpyspun
08-26-2005, 05:45 PM
thanks for the help on the question...that totally makes sense to me now. the current format is obviously much better than the 95-97 version....

Foulke You
08-27-2005, 06:30 PM
God we sucked that year. :gulp:
We only finished 32 games back! We were right there until the end!!


I remember that season, ugh. Chris Sabo and John Kruk at DH, hot young pitching prospects like Mike Bertotti, Rodney Bolton, and Scott Ruffcorn make their MLB debuts, and Lamont gets fired one month into the season which ushered in the Terry Bevington era.

1995 also was the beginning of shifting the focus off the field to "problems" with the New Comiskey Park's design and a major focus on attendance as fans mad about the strike was named as the main reason attendance dropped off. I'm sure finishing 32 back of the Tribe had nothing to do with it.

Those were dark, dark days for the Sox. What a difference 10 years makes! :cool:

SOXSINCE'70
08-27-2005, 06:58 PM
God we sucked that year. :gulp:

Aw,c'mon!! We got all star efforts out of John Kruk,:roflmao: Mike Deveroux(sp??)
and who could forget the ruthian clouts of Chris Sabo??:rolling: :rolling:

Oh,I almost forgot Dave Martinez!!!:D: :D:

doublem23
08-28-2005, 12:09 PM
It's even money to happen this year. The Padres are at .500 now.

Aside from the Sox, I'd like to see San Diego win the World Series this year with a sub-.500 record, just so everyone can see what a **** system MLB has for its postseason.

Ol' No. 2
08-28-2005, 12:14 PM
Aside from the Sox, I'd like to see San Diego win the World Series this year with a sub-.500 record, just so everyone can see what a **** system MLB has for its postseason.They're now 2 games under. And BTW, they beat Atlanta 5 out of 6 games this year. You think Bobby Cox is worried about playing them in the post-season? Not hardly. People need to chill out about facing teams in the playoffs that the Sox couldn't beat in the regular season.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2005, 03:15 PM
They're [San Diego] now 2 games under. And BTW, they beat Atlanta 5 out of 6 games this year. You think Bobby Cox is worried about playing them in the post-season? Not hardly. People need to chill out about facing teams in the playoffs that the Sox couldn't beat in the regular season.

The Sox have the best pitching staff in the league, the most solid starting rotation, and the best record, too. The Sox have a phenomenal record in 1-run games and own a better road record than home record.

Any team not fearing playing the Sox in a short playoff series is either stupid or terribly (fatally) mistakened.

Ol' No. 2
08-28-2005, 03:49 PM
The Sox have the best pitching staff in the league, the most solid starting rotation, and the best record, too. The Sox have a phenomenal record in 1-run games and own a better road record than home record.

Any team not fearing playing the Sox in a short playoff series is either stupid or terribly (fatally) mistakened.Only the mediots can afford to take the Sox lightly. The people who play and coach this game for a living know better.

I want Mags back
08-28-2005, 05:04 PM
Detroit deserves to be in the East,

Cleveland is further east thatn Detroit

Railsplitter
08-29-2005, 11:03 AM
Hopefully when the Tampa franchise finally withers away and dies, they can go back to that 1995 divisional alignment. Detroit deserves to be in the East, Milwaukee deserves to be in the Central. Tampa deserves to be eliminated. [sorry for not speaking to your question -- I don't know the answer.]

One problem here: that would give the National League an odd number of teams. Or would you move the D-Rays to somewhere more deserving?

Interesting that St. Petersburg (which is where the D-Rays play) tried to snag the Sox and the Twins on different occasions, but won't support a team.

SABRSox
08-29-2005, 03:26 PM
One problem here: that would give the National League an odd number of teams. Or would you move the D-Rays to somewhere more deserving?

Interesting that St. Petersburg (which is where the D-Rays play) tried to snag the Sox and the Twins on different occasions, but won't support a team.

Would you support that organization? The owners take the shared revenues money they recieve and keep it for themselves, fielding crappy team after crappy team.

They've got some nice young talent, and with some new ownership that's willing to up payroll to some semblance of respectability, they could make a little bit of noise in the AL East. If the fans don't come out at that point, maybe I'd put the onus on them. But as for now, how can you blame them?