Comments on: Wildcard teams and playoff matchups This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Charles Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:08:38 +0000 The wild card concept had its roots in the NFL. The owners probably thought it made sense, possibly to avoid embarrassment in losing trying to prove itself a 3rd time, to not have to play a division winner in round 1 play the WC, when it's likely the division winner went 2-0 over the team during the regular season. Since it was possible that qualifiers from different divisions may not have faced each other during the season, they probably adopted the WC vs same division winner concept of avoiding each other in round 1.

By: Jbird Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:13:39 +0000 sounds great. hierarchical urgency is important to ensure a fight to the bitter end. thumbs, man. thanks for the time.

By: Fireworks Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:53:03 +0000 Jbird the reason 2-8 is preferable to 4-4 is that each of the byes would be the division winners. Hence, every other team would be teams that didn't win but had better records than other teams, and you diminish the chance that a division winner wasn't one of the top X teams in the league from what would probably be occasional to almost impossible.

Plus, if you do two 8-team divisions, you don't even need to do it the way I said it. You could totally just have two wild cards based solely on record (not one for each division), similar to the current system with LDS->LCS->WS. Though that does not at all address the impetus for Andy's post.

Of course you could have four postseason teams per league with the two wildcards immediately playing each other in a one-game series, followed by a three-game series by the winner against the weaker division winner, followed by the winner of that playing the LCS (I said proceed directly to the LCS in my plan above but I meant LDS), and while in its own way it kinda addresses every argument (penalizing non-division winners, rewarding the very best team in a league), it's not as smooth as any of the other postseason structures that we've had. Also, it doesn't generate much revenue so the owners would never go for anything like that.

Of course, you could just do what is being considered for the current league membership (five teams and a wild-card round), tweak it a little and actually address almost everything:

Two 8-team divisions per league, five postseason teams per league--the two division winners and three wild cards. The two weakest wild cards (all wild cards are by record, of course--no division is guaranteed to field a wild card), play each other in a three-game set. The winner (almost always with a sup-optimal starting rotation for the upcoming series) then faces the best team in the league by record while the other, best wild card, faces the weaker division winner. Further, you could give all the home games in the wild-card set to the team with the better record AND make the LDS round a 5-2 home-away (or at least do that for the strongest wild card). Or even 6-1, though the owners wouldn't do that. That they could just SPLIT the gate better for those series will never occur to them. Anyway, in this system every single postseason position has value and importance and requires fighting for it all the way to the end. No one would fail to fight for the best record so they could benefit from being able to set their rotation against a team that probably can't, no one would ever abdicate the division for any reason knowing that even if they aren't going to be in the wild-card round they aren't going to get much home cooking, no one would ever give up fighting to be the better of the two wild cards that have to be in the wild card round knowing they aren't going ANY home cooking. I'ma pat myself on the back now.

But maybe there are better ideas out there.

P.S. JA do you like the last better than what I said earlier? You do. I know you do. Give me some love, baby.

By: Neil L. Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:30:04 +0000 @60
Nash, darn, forgot about the Coriolis effect. 🙂

By: Jbird Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:21:58 +0000 your points are so enlighteningly valid, i cant believe i ever posited the original idea in the first. very short-sighted. i got 20/270 in one eye and 20/330 in the other. Four eyes and more are better than two, 'specially if the two are mine. thanks, mike. all the way through.

@50. in your plan, the two leaders go straight to LCS and 4 wildcards fight for the two remain LCS berths. would 2 8-team divisions handle that better than 4 4's?

and i'd still say no divisional bias among the wildcards, both in selection and matchups.

will 6 expansion water down the end of the regular season?

By: Fireworks Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:55:07 +0000 @ John Autin

My plan is solid. Think about it.

By: Nash Bruce Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:55:01 +0000 @11 Neil: It is because of the Coriolis Force. The teams on the left (coast) have a more difficult time of it!!!

By: Mike L Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:35:47 +0000 58@Jbird-no offense intended or taken. 162 games over six months is a lot of games, and, I'm kind of a purist. Letting half the teams into the playoffs seems to render a lot of that moot. A lot of people (rightfully) gripe about the power of the Red Sox, Yankees, and Phillies. That type of playoff system virtually guarantees that they will make it in, while at the same time rendering their accomplishments as having little more value than bragging rights. With 37 games to go, the Phillies have a 20 game lead over the 8th place team, and the Yankees and Boston have about 14 game leads over the AL 8th place team. So, if you were managing those three teams, how much do you rest your regulars, what do you do with your starting rotation, when the rosters expand in september do you have mostly your AAA team out there on any given night?

By: Jbird Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:29:19 +0000 Mike,

Your bottom line angle of 8 teams being too many is totally right. Your comment led me to introspection and this realisation. Upon review, six are plenty. Perhaps, even, too many. I wouldn't personally feel so, myself, but some of the old school guys in the back would probably like to see a return to how it was in the good 'ol days when the american league winner would play the national league winner in The post-season World Series for all the marbles, too. I like those guys.

Are there 8 playoff teams per league in football?
That was the loose base model I used and custom-modified.
Maybe the fantasy football prompted the fantasy baseball line.
But, again, i dont have a clue what it means.

I enjoy listening to games on the radio. Stops me dead in my tracks every time i hear it. I should go out of my way to do it more often.

I took offense to some perceived "inorganic" baseball fan label.
I hope that there was none intended or that I can come to understand what you're getting at a little better. Also, that none has been given.

I've been pretty awkward communicatively most of my life. Got a little add or something, but who doesn't. Otherwise we'd be homeboys in real life instead e-talking e-friends.

"I'm no angel, but I'm also not worthless."

Hope you hang out, Mike. This is as real as it gets :O)

By: Jbird Mon, 22 Aug 2011 06:41:04 +0000 not sure how the 8 team playoff notion turns me into a person "where the only thing you care about are the stats." ouch. definite exception taken. i've never actually played fantasy baseball. have no clue what you do. change your avatars? (had to ask m'lady what those things were actually called) i was just running one potential outcome through the chute a little. first line of the post was 'one take on...'

I Love the game. like the stats, too. a lot. but when i go to, or even watch on tv, for that matter, a game, i dont bring pencils or laptops. Nothin', dog. i just love watchin the game. its really that simple for me. thanks for your comment.