PDA

View Full Version : Not enough coins to toss


CallMeNuts
09-24-2005, 01:33 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20050912&content_id=1206729&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

The brain trust in charge of MLB looked at the standings to try to predict all of the possible ties at the end of the season, and then flipped coins to determine where one-game playoffs would be held.

What happens if the White Sox tie Boston or New York for the Wild-Card? Oops! We didn't think of that combination. Where should we have the game?

In past years, the Sox sent season ticket holders tickets for these potential one-game playoffs along with their playoff ticket orders. But since we didn't win any coin tosses, no tickets were sent out this year.

A simple solution exists for picking the sites of tie-breakers: Put lottery balls numbered 1 to 30 in a barrel. One ball is then drawn for each team. If two teams have to play a tie-breaker, the team with the higher number gets to play the game at home.

And if you want to make the game a little more fair, have the home team bat first for this game. (I've always wondered what gives a team their home-field advantage: The venue, or having the last at-bat.)

downstairs
09-24-2005, 01:43 PM
Well... its not as if the ones they missed would take *that* long to quickly flip a coin over...

I think the coin flipping is stupid. Just go off record against each other.

MarySwiss
09-24-2005, 01:45 PM
Uh-oh! Did anyone else read the last three lines the same way I did?

It seems to say that if three clubs finish the season tied, and one will be a division winner and the other the WC, the two teams that are tied for the division WILL have to play off, with the loser playing the club from the other division for the WC.

What happened to head-to-head? Is this a policy change and, if so, why the hell did they have to pick THIS YEAR to change it? Or am I just misinterpreting?

SoxFan64
09-24-2005, 01:46 PM
Couldn't agree more. Coin flip is the dumbest way to decide

CLR01
09-24-2005, 01:58 PM
Uh-oh! Did anyone else read the last three lines the same way I did?

It seems to say that if three clubs finish the season tied, and one will be a division winner and the other the WC, the two teams that are tied for the division WILL have to play off, with the loser playing the club from the other division for the WC.

What happened to head-to-head? Is this a policy change and, if so, why the hell did they have to pick THIS YEAR to change it? Or am I just misinterpreting?


No you read it right. In a three way tie the two teams in the same division play for the division and the loser plays the other team. I believe it changed a few years ago but I could be wrong.

MarySwiss
09-24-2005, 02:10 PM
No you read it right. In a three way tie the two teams in the same division play for the division and the loser plays the other team. I believe it changed a few years ago but I could be wrong.

Well, that sucks! And it would also be unfair.

I know it's unlikely--although the way things have been going this year, nothing would surprise me!--but imagine this:

Three-way tie: Sox, Cleveland, and Yankees. We'd have to play Cleveland, and then either Cleveland or the Sox would have to play the Yankees, possibly at Yankee Stadium, while the Yankees just sat around and rested.

So I guess we'd better just go win this thing outright, then.

ilsox7
09-24-2005, 02:24 PM
Well, that sucks! And it would also be unfair.

I know it's unlikely--although the way things have been going this year, nothing would surprise me!--but imagine this:

Three-way tie: Sox, Cleveland, and Yankees. We'd have to play Cleveland, and then either Cleveland or the Sox would have to play the Yankees, possibly at Yankee Stadium, while the Yankees just sat around and rested.

So I guess we'd better just go win this thing outright, then.

I don't see how this is unfair at all. And it is the only way to determine things. Makes sense to me.

downstairs
09-24-2005, 02:28 PM
I don't see how this is unfair at all. And it is the only way to determine things. Makes sense to me.

Because 1 of 3 teams, ironically the one that ISN'T tied for a division win, gets only one game to play... then the two teams that actually tied for a division win have to play 2 games.

I think in the case of 3 team ties... they should pick a neutral field and do a quick tournament. If there are 3 teams, each face each other once (3 games... could do it all in one day at one field). In the case where everyone goes 1-1, then go off face-to-face records or other such stats.

4 teams... then you could actually just have 2 groups of 2 teams... the 2 winners go to the playoffs.

MarySwiss
09-24-2005, 03:10 PM
[QUOTE=downstairs]Because 1 of 3 teams, ironically the one that ISN'T tied for a division win, gets only one game to play... then the two teams that actually tied for a division win have to play 2 games. QUOTE]

Yes, this was my point. And it's a valid one, I think. And not just because the two teams have to play an extra game, but because they--for obvious reasons--have to use one of their best pitchers and the third team doesn't.

It's actually kind of ironic when you think about it. Conceivably, one of the two tied teams would be better off winning the WC outright instead of tying for the division win. Let's just hope none of this stuff actually comes up. We win the division and I don't care at this point who the WC is!

downstairs
09-24-2005, 03:12 PM
It's actually kind of ironic when you think about it. Conceivably, one of the two tied teams would be better off winning the WC outright instead of tying for the division win.

Yeah... and then you may, in the case of the last SOX/CLE game, get a situation where a team is better off losing the game than winning...

MarySwiss
09-24-2005, 03:21 PM
Yeah... and then you may, in the case of the last SOX/CLE game, get a situation where a team is better off losing the game than winning...

Well, this whole thing is just plain nuts. We have a better head-to-head than Cleveland, so if we wind up tied, that should be it. That's why we play all those games. IMO, the coin flip/playoff thing should only be used if the two teams were tied AND had identical records--and I'm not even sure they shouldn't consider record against common opponents before that. I know it's all tied to advance planning and things like that, but I still think it's nuts.

And as CallMeNuts points out, what happens if we have to play off against the Yanks or Boston? Where does advance planning come in there?

Ol' No. 2
09-24-2005, 03:32 PM
Because 1 of 3 teams, ironically the one that ISN'T tied for a division win, gets only one game to play... then the two teams that actually tied for a division win have to play 2 games.

I think in the case of 3 team ties... they should pick a neutral field and do a quick tournament. If there are 3 teams, each face each other once (3 games... could do it all in one day at one field). In the case where everyone goes 1-1, then go off face-to-face records or other such stats.

4 teams... then you could actually just have 2 groups of 2 teams... the 2 winners go to the playoffs.There's another way of looking at it. The two teams that tie get two chances to win one game to get into the playoffs, while the other has only one chance.

ilsox7
09-24-2005, 03:33 PM
There's another way of looking at it. The two teams that tie get two chances to win one game to get into the playoffs, while the other has only one chance.

Yep. That's why I think it's quite fair.

MarySwiss
09-24-2005, 03:48 PM
There's another way of looking at it. The two teams that tie get two chances to win one game to get into the playoffs, while the other has only one chance.

Good point. But I'm not sure it outweighs the minus of using up one of your starters, not to mention the possibility of someone getting injured. I mean if you have to have a playoff game, that's one thing, but it should be a last resort. And having two playoff games when there is a logical way to avoid it seems pointless.

Besides, I seem to remember a discussion on this tiebreaker issue a few days ago in which people gave examples of cases where head-to-head was the determining factor. When did that change and why, I wonder?

Ol' No. 2
09-24-2005, 03:56 PM
Good point. But I'm not sure it outweighs the minus of using up one of your starters, not to mention the possibility of someone getting injured. I mean if you have to have a playoff game, that's one thing, but it should be a last resort. And having two playoff games when there is a logical way to avoid it seems pointless.

Besides, I seem to remember a discussion on this tiebreaker issue a few days ago in which people gave examples of cases where head-to-head was the determining factor. When did that change and why, I wonder?Teams don't get eliminated from the playoffs except on the field. Other tiebreakers only determine seeding. That basic philosophy has always been there and is part of what makes baseball unique.

ilsox7
09-24-2005, 04:03 PM
Teams don't get eliminated from the playoffs except on the field. Other tiebreakers only determine seeding. That basic philosophy has always been there and is part of what makes baseball unique.

Exactly. And if you have 2 chances to win one game to go to the playoffs and cannot do it, then you do not deserve a spot in the post season. I'd much rather be given 2 chances to win one game than one chance to win one game.

MarySwiss
09-24-2005, 04:07 PM
Teams don't get eliminated from the playoffs except on the field. Other tiebreakers only determine seeding. That basic philosophy has always been there and is part of what makes baseball unique.

Yeah, but we're not talking about teams getting eliminated from the playoffs except on the field. None of the three teams in question would be eliminated. My point is that if head-to-head would determine division leader and WC were it a two-way tie, then that should be the first tiebreaker and whichever team has the better record should be division champion, which is what I believe has happened in the past. The other team would be the WC and would have to play off against the third team. The addition of a third team to the mix should have no bearing on the divisional race. This may seem unfair to the third team, but it really isn't because that team will have to play somebody anyway. You may find it hard to believe--actually, so do I!--but if the situation was reversed and it was Cleveland with the better head-to-head, I'd feel exactly the same way. The team that won the most games against the other team during the regular season should have something to show for it.

ilsox7
09-24-2005, 04:11 PM
Yeah, but we're not talking about teams getting eliminated from the playoffs except on the field. None of the three teams in question would be eliminated. My point is that if head-to-head would determine division leader and WC were it a two-way tie, then that should be the first tiebreaker and whichever team has the better record should be division champion, which is what I believe has happened in the past. The other team would be the WC and would have to play off against the third team. The addition of a third team to the mix should have no bearing on the divisional race. This may seem unfair to the third team, but it really isn't because that team will have to play somebody anyway. You may find it hard to believe--actually, so do I!--but if the situation was reversed and it was Cleveland with the better head-to-head, I'd feel exactly the same way. The team that won the most games against the other team during the regular season should have something to show for it.

That's exactly what we're talking about. If the Sox and Cleveland tie for the AL Central and the Red Sox win the East, but the Yanks have the same record as the Sox and Cleveland, then only two of those teams can go to the playoffs. That's why it is determined on the field. Now, if the Sox and Cleveland tie and their record is better than any ohter division winner, the Sox get the top seed and the Division Championship while Cleveland gets the WC, due to head-to-head. Both teams go to the playoffs so it'd be pointless to hold a 1 game playoff where neither team would play its regulars.

Ol' No. 2
09-24-2005, 04:15 PM
Yeah, but we're not talking about teams getting eliminated from the playoffs except on the field. None of the three teams in question would be eliminated.But one of the three would be eliminated, while one gets a pass that they didn't earn on the field. It's still a case of a playoff spot being decided somewhere other than on the field. In this case, one team would get a playoff spot while the other would be put in jeapordy of losing theirs.

MarySwiss
09-24-2005, 04:27 PM
But one of the three would be eliminated, while one gets a pass that they didn't earn on the field. It's still a case of a playoff spot being decided somewhere other than on the field. In this case, one team would get a playoff spot while the other would be put in jeapordy of losing theirs.

Sorry, Ol' No. 2, but I just don't see it that way. If you have a better head-to-head record against the other team, you did earn it on the field, even if you haven't been playing so well lately and even if you earned it months ago. And one of the three will be eliminated anyway. The only question is whether it should take one playoff game or two. If we wound up tied with identical records and identical head-to-head, two probably would be unavoidable. But that will not be the case here.

Well, this is not something any of us can control, so let's just hope we can win outright, preferably the division, but if not, then the WC. The thing that really kills me is why all these close races had to take place this year!

whtsxfn
09-24-2005, 04:30 PM
If the sox tie for a one game playoff in the wildcard, and are the home team... fans will use ther ALDS game 1 ticket, because, since they have three, they will only need 2 because there is only a possibility of 2 home games if you win the wildcard. with that extra ticket, that would be the ticket for a one game playoff game.

CallMeNuts
09-24-2005, 09:54 PM
IIRC there used to be a far worse rule for breaking 3 way ties where two teams are tied for the lead in one division and both are tied for the wild-card with a team from another division.

With the old rule, the two teams tied for the division would play a one game playoff. The winner would be the division winner and would go to the play-offs.

The loser would be out. Their logic was based on the fact that the one game playoff counts as part of the regular season record, and the loser of the one game playoff would be 1/2 game behind the team that they would have previously been tied for the wild card with.

So if the Sox, Indians & Yankees were all tied, The Sox and Indians would have had to play one game for the division championship, and the Yankees would have automatically won the wild card.

Thank goodness this never actually occurred.

The system as they have it set up now is much more fair. Teams tied for the division & the wild card would get two shots at making the play-offs.

MarySwiss
09-24-2005, 10:14 PM
IIRC there used to be a far worse rule for breaking 3 way ties where two teams are tied for the lead in one division and both are tied for the wild-card with a team from another division.
With the old rule, the two teams tied for the division would play a one game playoff. The winner would be the division winner and would go to the play-offs.
The loser would be out. Their logic was based on the fact that the one game playoff counts as part of the regular season record, and the loser of the one game playoff would be 1/2 game behind the team that they would have previously been tied for the wild card with. So if the Sox, Indians & Yankees were all tied, The Sox and Indians would have had to play one game for the division championship, and the Yankees would have automatically won the wild card. Thank goodness this never actually occurred. The system as they have it set up now is much more fair. Teams tied for the division & the wild card would get two shots at making the play-offs.

Assuming the "old rule" facts are as you have stated them, the new system would be much fairer. However, I would need to see evidence that there was ever such a rule, considering that the whole playoff/wildcard system hasn't been around all that long. And once again, I'd need to see a definition of "tied for the division." Does MLB have one of those? Because to my mind, that's what this whole discussion hinges on. In other words, if you are tied for the division in wins and losses, does that qualify? Or if you are tied for the division W/L, but one of you has a head-to-head advantage, does that qualify? Based on the evidence presented so far, it depends. It depends on whether it's two teams or three. Or on whether both of the two tied teams would qualify for postseason regardless. To my mind, "it depends" is one hell of a way to run an MLB.

One last time, here's my logic. The regular season is played for a reason, correct? So the Sox have already won their head-to-head. Even if Cleveland sweeps them the last three. But let's just suppose--just for the hell of it--that the Sox had been even more dominant. Let's say they won 17 out of 20 from the Tribe. But because they wound up tied in the division--won/loss anyway--they have to play a playoff? Then again, why the hell play the season?

I GET IT that people like the whole "two shots at making the playoffs" bit. But I am saying that when two teams are in the same division and one of the two has won more games head-to-head, then that one team has won the division and should be exempt from any "tiebreakers," because in fact there was no tie. I've said this any number of times and I have yet to see a conclusive argument to the contrary.

ilsox7
09-24-2005, 10:59 PM
I GET IT that people like the whole "two shots at making the playoffs" bit. But I am saying that when two teams are in the same division and one of the two has won more games head-to-head, then that one team has won the division and should be exempt from any "tiebreakers," because in fact there was no tie. I've said this any number of times and I have yet to see a conclusive argument to the contrary.

The argument is 100 years of tradition. It's the way it's always been done.

CallMeNuts
09-24-2005, 11:07 PM
Assuming the "old rule" facts are as you have stated them, the new system would be much fairer. However, I would need to see evidence that there was ever such a rule, considering that the whole playoff/wildcard system hasn't been around all that long. . . . .

Per http://www.all-baseball.com/ref/tie.html the old rule as I described it was applicable in 1999:


4. When there is a tie for a Division Championship and the tied teams have the same record as a team having the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions, the Division Championship tie shall be broken as follows:

a. Tie among two teams for Division Championship with one team having the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions. The League President shall conduct a coin flip to determine the site of a playoff game between the two teams tied for the Division Championship, the game to be played the day after the conclusion of the championship series. The winner of the game shall be declared Division Champion and the team with the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions shall be declared the Wild Card team. .

CallMeNuts
09-24-2005, 11:19 PM
Asked:

. . .
One last time, here's my logic. The regular season is played for a reason, correct? So the Sox have already won their head-to-head. Even if Cleveland sweeps them the last three. But let's just suppose--just for the hell of it--that the Sox had been even more dominant. Let's say they won 17 out of 20 from the Tribe. But because they wound up tied in the division--won/loss anyway--they have to play a playoff? Then again, why the hell play the season?

. . . .

Previously answered:

Teams don't get eliminated from the playoffs except on the field. Other tiebreakers only determine seeding. That basic philosophy has always been there and is part of what makes baseball unique.

TOTAL won / loss record has always been the only thing that matters in determining what teams make it to the play-offs and what team goes home. Head-to-head records, intra-division records, runs scored, etc., have never matterred for this purpose.

If two teams are tied and one has won head to head by one game, that means they were one game worse when playing against everybody else.

MarySwiss
09-25-2005, 12:16 AM
Allow me to muddy the waters even further. Then I'll say--good night all! And magic number = 7. (Unless of course it's not!) :D:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=58093&highlight=tiebreakers

Ol' No. 2
09-25-2005, 12:28 AM
Assuming the "old rule" facts are as you have stated them, the new system would be much fairer. However, I would need to see evidence that there was ever such a rule, considering that the whole playoff/wildcard system hasn't been around all that long. And once again, I'd need to see a definition of "tied for the division." Does MLB have one of those? Because to my mind, that's what this whole discussion hinges on. In other words, if you are tied for the division in wins and losses, does that qualify? Or if you are tied for the division W/L, but one of you has a head-to-head advantage, does that qualify? Based on the evidence presented so far, it depends. It depends on whether it's two teams or three. Or on whether both of the two tied teams would qualify for postseason regardless. To my mind, "it depends" is one hell of a way to run an MLB.

One last time, here's my logic. The regular season is played for a reason, correct? So the Sox have already won their head-to-head. Even if Cleveland sweeps them the last three. But let's just suppose--just for the hell of it--that the Sox had been even more dominant. Let's say they won 17 out of 20 from the Tribe. But because they wound up tied in the division--won/loss anyway--they have to play a playoff? Then again, why the hell play the season?

I GET IT that people like the whole "two shots at making the playoffs" bit. But I am saying that when two teams are in the same division and one of the two has won more games head-to-head, then that one team has won the division and should be exempt from any "tiebreakers," because in fact there was no tie. I've said this any number of times and I have yet to see a conclusive argument to the contrary.If two teams have the same record, it's a tie, regardless of head-to-head records. As has been pointed out, if the two teams are tied and one is one game better in head-to-head, that just means they were one game worse playing everyone else.

These convoluted tiebreaker schemes are a recent invention devised by other sports who have much different playoff systems. It's impractical for football teams to have tiebreaker games. Basketball and hockey play 82 game seasons to eliminate 1/3 of their teams. Their last playoff spots go to below .500 teams that have no chance anyway, so who cares? Baseball has always had a much more exclusive playoff system and berths are settled on the field by the best record. Period. No head to head record. No best division record. No best league record. Just most wins. I hope they never change it.

Daver
09-25-2005, 12:43 AM
Getting rid of the ridiculous wildcard would do a lot to make this easier to figure out.

ilsox7
09-25-2005, 12:46 AM
Getting rid of the ridiculous wildcard would do a lot to make this easier to figure out.

Sadly, if anything, they will be adding another team in each league.

ChiSoxRowand
09-25-2005, 12:54 AM
Sadly, if anything, they will be adding another team in each league.

Hopefully this years NL west will keep MLB from thinking about that.

MarySwiss
09-25-2005, 12:59 AM
If two teams have the same record, it's a tie, regardless of head-to-head records. As has been pointed out, if the two teams are tied and one is one game better in head-to-head, that just means they were one game worse playing everyone else.
These convoluted tiebreaker schemes are a recent invention devised by other sports who have much different playoff systems. It's impractical for football teams to have tiebreaker games. Basketball and hockey play 82 game seasons to eliminate 1/3 of their teams. Their last playoff spots go to below .500 teams that have no chance anyway, so who cares? Baseball has always had a much more exclusive playoff system and berths are settled on the field by the best record. Period. No head to head record. No best division record. No best league record. Just most wins. I hope they never change it.


Ol' No. 2: I just posted a link to a previous discussion in which a poster cites an example of a case in which a division winner was settled by head-to-head.

However, I should have done my homework better, because CallMeNuts cited this source to make his point:
http://www.all-baseball.com/ref/tie.html

But, he only quoted #4:
4. When there is a tie for a Division Championship and the tied teams have the same record as a team having the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions, the Division Championship tie shall be broken as follows: a. Tie among two teams for Division Championship with one team having the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions. The League President shall conduct a coin flip to determine the site of a playoff game between the two teams tied for the Division Championship, the game to be played the day after the conclusion of the championship series. The winner of the game shall be declared Division Champion and the team with the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions shall be declared the Wild Card team.

But then again, there's #1. Which comes before #4. Which usually gives it a hierarchical rating.

Allow me to quote #1:
When there is a tie for a Division Championship and the breaking of the tie will result in the losing team nonetheless being the Wild Card team, the Division Champion shall be:
a. the team with the better record in head-to-head competition, or in the event the teams have the same record in head-to-head competition,
b. the team with the better record, based on winning percentage in intradivisional competition, or, in the event the two teams have the same intradivisional winning percentages,
c. the team with the better record in League competition over the last 81 games played by each team, or, in the event the two teams have the same records over this period,
d. the team with the better record in League competition over the last 82 games, provided that the 82nd game was not a game between the tied teams.

Clear as mud, huh? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Actually, anyone who wants to access the site and wade through this entire scenario, feel free to do so. Since NOTHING WE SAY HERE MATTERS ANYWAY, I'm going to bed.

Good night and sweet dreams, fellow Sox fans. And I hope none of you stays awake too late trying to work out the various permutations. If you do, I'd recommend psychiatric help.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-25-2005, 12:59 AM
http://www.baggens.de/a%20tug%20of%20war.jpg

Big Hurt, Contreras, Konerko, AJ, El Duque, Jenks - We couldn't lose.

MarySwiss
09-25-2005, 01:05 AM
http://www.baggens.de/a%20tug%20of%20war.jpg

Big Hurt, Contreras, Konerko, AJ, El Duque, Jenks - We couldn't lose.

Works for me. But what if I got the Bears' offensive line, er, never mind. :rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
09-25-2005, 01:15 AM
Ol' No. 2: I just posted a link to a previous discussion in which a poster cites an example of a case in which a division winner was settled by head-to-head.

However, I should have done my homework better, because CallMeNuts cited this source to make his point:
http://www.all-baseball.com/ref/tie.html

But, he only quoted #4:
4. When there is a tie for a Division Championship and the tied teams have the same record as a team having the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions, the Division Championship tie shall be broken as follows: a. Tie among two teams for Division Championship with one team having the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions. The League President shall conduct a coin flip to determine the site of a playoff game between the two teams tied for the Division Championship, the game to be played the day after the conclusion of the championship series. The winner of the game shall be declared Division Champion and the team with the better record of the second place teams in the other two divisions shall be declared the Wild Card team.

But then again, there's #1. Which comes before #4. Which usually gives it a hierarchical rating.

Allow me to quote #1:
When there is a tie for a Division Championship and the breaking of the tie will result in the losing team nonetheless being the Wild Card team, the Division Champion shall be:
a. the team with the better record in head-to-head competition, or in the event the teams have the same record in head-to-head competition,
b. the team with the better record, based on winning percentage in intradivisional competition, or, in the event the two teams have the same intradivisional winning percentages,
c. the team with the better record in League competition over the last 81 games played by each team, or, in the event the two teams have the same records over this period,
d. the team with the better record in League competition over the last 82 games, provided that the 82nd game was not a game between the tied teams.

Clear as mud, huh? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Actually, anyone who wants to access the site and wade through this entire scenario, feel free to do so. Since NOTHING WE SAY HERE MATTERS ANYWAY, I'm going to bed.

Good night and sweet dreams, fellow Sox fans. And I hope none of you stays awake too late trying to work out the various permutations. If you do, I'd recommend psychiatric help.You can sure tell this stuff was written by lawyers.:cool:

The operative phrase in #1 is "the breaking of the tie will result in the losing team nonetheless being the Wild Card team". In this case, no team is eliminated by the use of head-to-head record.

Section #4 sounds like it may have been changed since 1999. For years these extra tiebreaker games counted in the standings. They were actually extra regular season games that were added to break the tie. That leads to #4 in which the team that lost the tiebreaker game would now have a worse record than the other second place team that they'd previously been tied with. But that obviously sucks, and that's probably why they changed it to the current system.

CallMeNuts
09-25-2005, 09:36 AM
You can sure tell this stuff was written by lawyers.:cool:

The operative phrase in #1 is "the breaking of the tie will result in the losing team nonetheless being the Wild Card team". In this case, no team is eliminated by the use of head-to-head record.

Section #4 sounds like it may have been changed since 1999. For years these extra tiebreaker games counted in the standings. They were actually extra regular season games that were added to break the tie. That leads to #4 in which the team that lost the tiebreaker game would now have a worse record than the other second place team that they'd previously been tied with. But that obviously sucks, and that's probably why they changed it to the current system.

Re #1: Yes. This applies only when both the 1st and 2nd place teams go to the playoffs anyhow.

Re # 4: Here is another link that actually talks about the change in the system. And this one isn't by a lawyer.:

http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2293

It always seemed unfair that only two of the three teams would have to play an elimination game, and one team would qualify for the playoffs without having to play their way in. Luckily, it never came to pass.
In a shocking display of common sense, Major League Baseball decided not to stop after one game, but will force all the teams with the same record to play at least one elimination game. Rather than scheduling tee times, the loser of the Yankees-Red Sox playoff game would now play the Mariners (at a coin-flip determined location) to see who is awarded the Wild Card playoff entry.

CallMeNuts
09-25-2005, 09:57 AM
Sadly, if anything, they will be adding another team in each league.

If they have two wildcard teams that have to play a quick 3-game series to see who gets to go to the ALDS, I'd actually prefer this. To satisfy me, that have to play this on Mon, Tue & Wed.

The 2nd and 3rd seeded division winners would start their ALDS on Wed.

The 1st seeded divsion winner would face the wild card series winner (even if they are from the same division) on Wed and would get a super-home field advantage by having 4 out of 5 games at home.

This would:

1) Make it easier for division winners to set their play-off rotations, which they deserve.

2) Give an edge to the team with the best overall record, making this an additional meaningful race at the end of the season.

3) Make it tough on the Wild Card teams as they have one more series with no off days. We won't get rid of them. So we should at least make it harder on them.

4) And it would give MLB their extra money.

GregoryEtc
09-27-2005, 01:05 PM
Sadly, if anything, they will be adding another team in each league.

They could just add 2 AL teams, go to 4 4-team divisions in each league, do away with the wild card all together and keep the playoffs the same. I have less problem with SD making it to the playoffs as a sub-.500 team than I do with the WC winning a post season berth. They have at least won their own division. The wild card rewards a LOSER!

friarhky22
09-27-2005, 03:51 PM
If they're going to add teams to the playoffs, they should add another wild card, so that there are 5 teams from each league. The 2 WCs could have a best of 3 series at one site (team with better record hosts), and the winner could then play whoever is the #1 seed from that league. As it stands now, the wild card has no real disadvantage despite not winning their division. This way, the #1 seed has time to rest and set up their rotation, creating the competitive advantage they earned by having the best record over 162 games. For example, if the playoffs started today- Cleveland vs Boston in a 3 game set, and the winner faces the White Sox. New York and Anaheim is other matchup. This would be a much better system.