Comments on: Baseball Expanding Playoffs In 2012 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: The Right Shoes With The Right Outfit? | GOLF TO DATE http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-108300 Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:46:38 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-108300 [...] Baseball Expanding Playoffs In 2012 » Baseball-Reference Blog … [...]

]]>
By: Sean http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-108272 Tue, 26 Apr 2011 03:27:39 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-108272 A few things I want to touch on...

I don't think the MLB playoffs are the crapshoot that many make them out to be...

They should NOT be confused with the NHL, where 1 hot player (the goalie) can change the fortunes of the team. Baseball requires a rotation of pitchers and a bullpen. I liken pitching more to defense in football than to a goalie.

What wins in the MLB playoffs can be slightly different than the regular season------because they are different 'tests'. One is a 162-game GRIND and the management over it's course and player usage is different than in a tournament of short best-of series. This doesn't make the playoffs a crapshoot by any means... rather it's just a test of somewhat different capabilities. Your 4th and 5th starters are largely irrelevent in a playoff series. Your bench and bullpen as far as mixing and matching in the late innings become MORE relevent. Some lineups that mash mediocre pitching all year get exposed in the playoffs as the pitching improves. Some lineups are filled with batters that kill average pitching, but have holes in their swings that get exposed by better pitchers.

The Yankees' failure to win more WS since 2000 isn't some evidence that it's a crapshoot in the playoffs-------but rather evidence that the construction of their teams since 2000 ISN'T the best made for the postseason in any one of those given years except 2009. The quality of the tops of their rotations in many of those years could be brought into question, for starters.

The lengths some want to go with the 'penalizing' of the Wild Card because they 'didn't win a division' doesn't sit well with me.

Why don't we just throw acid in the Wild Cards' faces right before 1st pitch? That will teach them to show up uninvited..... WAIT.... they WERE invited.

Why would you invite someone to the party, then make it incredibly difficult on them? What's the point?

Invite Carrie to the prom, then dump pig blood on her. Nice.

Forget about 'rewarding' the division winners by bleeding the Wild Card like the gladiator just before he faces the emperor 'so that it's fair to the emperor'.... that's nonsense.

The Yankees spend $50 million MORE than the next highest spending team----------and it's unfair to THEM that the Wild Card team isn't shackled during the series with them?

That's what would happen in the AL. I think in the last 15 years, the Yankees have made the playoffs 14 times and have won the division 12 times. They've had their share and more of the 'best record' and since 2001, have had increasingly disproportionate payrolls....... you would be REALLY paving the way for an LCS appearance for the Yankees without true competition in the Divisional Round. All the while ignoring the 800 lb gorilla that is the ridiculously unequal payroll issue. What's sporting about that?

You would be rewarding the Yankees for spending that extra $50+ Million just to scratch out the extra 2-4 wins over 162 games necessary to avoid the Wild Card position-------which you want to be pure HELL.

If the Yankees won 100 games and the 2nd best team over 162 games was also in that division----------why penalize them like they did LESS than an 88-win division winnner from the Central? Tampa Bay and Boston shouldn't be treated as garbage because they finished 2 games behind the Yankees but ahead of everyone else.

And then there's the situation with a banged up 89 win Red Sox Team last year getting the 2nd WC. 5th best record in the AL, 3rd best in their division--------they don't belong in the playoffs.

Forget handicapping the Wild Cards in the name of what's *right* until you do something about the payroll disparity.

JMO.

]]>
By: Sean http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-108044 Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:32:54 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-108044 I'm for adding a televised mauling of Bud Selig by mountain lions. The number of teams in the baseball playoffs is at critical mass, IMO.

You wanna give more teams a chance to be in the postseason? Have a salary cap. And reward the best teams. Don't allow a pretender in a back door as a 5th team to go and soil things.

None of these decisions Selig makes are to better the game. They are to make $$.

And you could make a lot of money televising Selig being attacked by mountain lions... just sayin'.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-107804 Sun, 24 Apr 2011 01:36:26 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-107804 Neil L -- FWIW, I'm 47, and my first MLB team was the '69 Tigers. So I've only known divisional play.

]]>
By: Neil L. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-107778 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:58:45 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-107778 @71
I hear you, JA, but what is that saying about the average age of we who follow this site regularly?

Younger people are the future of baseball, both in terms of financial support and support for rule changes .

It would be interesting to break down the posts in this site by age demographics.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-107772 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:01:33 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-107772 @68, Neil L -- One possible reason for the polarized views is the accelerated pace of change in the postseason format.

-- After 68 years of just the World Series, the LCS was introduced in 1969.
-- After 25 years of that format, the wild card was introduced in 1994 (first played in '95).
-- After 16 years of the current format, a second WC team and a separate WC round is described as "inexorable."

There are plenty of people writing here who were following baseball for years under the original format. It's a lot of change to absorb in one lifetime.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-107771 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:47:50 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-107771 @65, Fireworks -- Well put.

I support a 2nd WC team as long as everything is structured to make the WC's path to the WS more strenuous. Specifically:
-- The WC round should be short: 1 game, best of 3, or (my favorite) a max. 2-game set in which the team with the better record needs only 1 win to advance.
-- There should be no days off between the WC round and the next round.
-- The advancing WC team must, must, MUST play the team with the best record.

Sadly, I have no confidence in MLB to get any one of those things right. In particular, if MLB (i.e., Selig) has so far expressed any leaning toward changing the current LDS rule that a WC cannot play its own division winner, it has yet to reach my ears. And that is one of the gosh-dang-dumbest rules ever. Its stated purpose was to "preserve the integrity of the division races," i.e., don't make the division winner who has already beaten out the WC turn around and face that WC in the opening round. I am dubious whether the rule does anything for that division winner; what I'm sure of is that it gives the WC an easier path to the LCS, thus eroding the integrity of the other two divisional races.

And as for keeping the WC round brief -- if there's an extra TV million to be made by lengthening it, MLB's track record shows that they'll grab for the money.

]]>
By: Neil L. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-107694 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:44:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-107694 @65 @66
Fireworks, I've read every word of your post twice and parts of it three times.

When the quality of what you write is as high as that, who cares about brevity. You make an intelligent, reasoned case for the second wild card and you dispel a lot of misconceptions about the "devaluation" of being a division winner or having the best record in the league.

I particularly agree with your analysis of why the baseball playoffs are so unpredictable in terms of regular-season performance and feel that your comparison with the NHL post-season are bang on!

Can't speak for the creators of this site or any one else, but.......keeping on posting!!

]]>
By: Neil L. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-107692 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:25:38 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-107692 Re-reading the posts in here, its hard to believe how polarized the views are about expanding the post-season.

Advocates of one position or the other can't see how the other side could possibly feel that way. I wonder why?

]]>
By: gevan http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10800/comment-page-1#comment-107679 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:32:15 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10800#comment-107679 I've been wanting this for more than ten years. Just don't make the division winners wait around. Make it a one game sudden death playoff.

]]>