Comments on: Padres, Giants, & Braves, Oh My! http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Fireworks http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-56080 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:17:12 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-56080 @21 Larry R

Playoff games are still regular season games, however, it would be unfair to have three teams tied for two postseason spots and then have any of them somehow 'win' the tiebreaker without playing a game. Consider it this way:

Say the Padres and Braves had won. The Padres and Giants would have been tied for the division title, while all three teams would've been tied for the wild card. First you decide the division title, then you decide the wild card. That the loser of the divisional playoff is now a half-game back of Atlanta is irrelevant; the tie exists after 162 games and the playoff games afterward, while still regular season games, serve only to break the tie.

]]>
By: Larry R. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55734 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:28:28 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55734 @12, 15

I was wondering the same thing. This is an invention of the wild card era. What Al says was true "in the old days". Playoff games to determine winners were regular season games. I'm not sure why they changed that...it would have made the Monday Giants-Padres game extra-exciting, IMO.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55608 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:15:32 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55608 P.S. @19 -- Does anyone know what the playoff rules were for a 3-team or 4-team tie in the pre-division era? It never happened, of course.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55606 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:13:31 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55606 Going back before divisions, the 1967 AL race had a wild finish. In the final week, 4 teams were within 1.5 games of 1st place, and 3 were still alive going into the final day. Boston and Minnesota were tied at 91-70 and would play each other, while the Tigers were 90-70 with a doubleheader against the Angels. Boston won their showdown behind Jim Lonborg and a 5-run rally in the 6th, clinching a share of the pennant. Detroit won the first game and had an early 3-1 lead in the nightcap, but the Angels rallied off Denny McLain, John Hiller and a young Mike Marshall to take an 8-3 lead; the Tigers got the tying run to the plate with 1 out in the 9th, but Dick McAuliffe -- who had hit 22 HRs that year while grounding into just 1 DP (and would go all the next year without one) -- bounced into a 4-6-3 DP, and Boston had their "Impossible Dream" pennant.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55597 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:40:33 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55597 The 2007 NL had numerous possibilities going into the final day. The Mets and Phils were tied in the East at 88-73. Arizona led the West at 90-71, with San Diego 1 back at 89-72 (in sole possession of the wild card) and the surging Rockies at 88-73. Colorado's final game was against Arizona, while the others played noncontenders.

Wins by Colorado, Philly and New York, combined with a San Diego loss, would have left all 4 teams at 89-73, with Philly and New York tied for their division. Without looking up the rule, I *think* there would have been a Phils-Mets playoff for the division, with the loser sent into a 3-way playoff for the wild card.

In the event, Colorado and Philly won and San Diego lost, but the Mets got shellacked by Florida. (Not that I bitterly recall Tom Glavine giving up 7 runs in the 1st inning, or anything....) Philly won the East, and the Rockies and Padres played off for the wild card.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55596 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:26:24 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55596 In 2005, the final weekend began with Cleveland at 93-66, 3 games behind the 96-63 White Sox, and tied with Boston in the wild card race, while the Red Sox trailed the Yankees by 1 game for the AL East. And both pairs of division foes would face one another in the final series.

The possibilities were too many to list. The White Sox had clinched the division, having already won the season series with Cleveland. But Cleveland could have secured at least a tie for the wild card by winning 2 of 3 or winning at least as many as Boston did. And if they and Boston had both won exactly 2 of 3, there would have been 3-way tie among Cleveland, New York and Boston, triggering the 2-playoff-game scenario. The Red Sox needed a sweep to win the division outright, since otherwise the Yankees would have won their season series.

Instead, the Indians got swept by the White Sox. Boston won 2 of 3 to finish with the same record as New York, but the Yankees still won the division. (Of course, those teams would meet again soon, with historic results.)

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55588 Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:50:51 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55588 Well, we didn't get the wild 3-way tie, alas.

Looking back at some recent seasons, I found one that could have had an even wilder post-regular-season finish. In 2000, the last day began with Oakland atop the AL West at 90-70, Seattle 1/2 game back at 90-71, and Cleveland at 89-72 trailing Seattle by 1 game for the wild card. Had Cleveland won and the others both lost, the Indians and Mariners would have been tied for the wild card at 90-72, and the A's would have been 90-71. The A's would then have had to play a makeup game with Tampa Bay; and if they lost, there would have been a 3-way tie necessitating the same 2-playoff-game scenario that was possible today.

But all the tangled possibilities came to naught. Cleveland did win, but so did the A's and Mariners. Oakland did not even have to play that makeup game -- because even if they had played it and lost, winding up tied with Seattle for the division lead, the recent rule change said that such ties are no longer settled on the field when the loser of such a divisional playoff would wind up as the wild card.

]]>
By: cotton nero http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55578 Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:45:20 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55578 Al 12: Not so. The rules specifically state that the first tiebreaker does not count for purposes of determining record for wild-card eligibility:

Scenario #5: If three Clubs in a League are tied with identical winning percentages at the end of the championship season and two of those tied Clubs are from the same Division and are also tied for first place in that Division and the third tied Club has the highest winning percentage among the second-place Clubs in the remaining two Divisions, the Division Champion shall first be determined by a one-game playoff on Monday, September 29. Any playoff games played to determine a Division champion shall not count in determining which Clubs are deemed tied for a Wild Card designation. Clubs that were originally tied with a Club or Clubs for a Wild Card designation shall still be considered tied.

]]>
By: Brendan Burke http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55576 Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:40:21 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55576 There would be a second one-game playoff, since the rule for that changed in 1997. Of course, it seems to be irrelevant now.

]]>
By: kingcrab http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8474/comment-page-1#comment-55572 Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:19:26 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8474#comment-55572 good point.

i love epic collapses and epic wins, the giants losing 5 games in a row to miss the playoffs (3 to end the season and 2 one-game playoff games) would probably be the biggest collapse in baseball history. move over mets and phillies...

]]>