68 replies to this topic

[Nuclear Dish]

Peter and I have had some spirited disagreements about the 2nd wildcard so I won't rehash that here. But let's just say I think the opposite on this.

I think he is right with the last point though, the 2-3 format I believe is this year only. A complete timing issue.

Personally, I think the 2nd wild card is fool's gold. Having to win a 1-game playoff game against the other team's ace for the right to face the #1 seed (I agree with the idea that it's preposterous for them to be going 2-3, though) is a long-shot in the first degree.

In fact, I am very hopeful that the biggest outcome of the 2nd wild card is that teams will make decisions not on whether or not they will make the playoffs, but on whether or not they have a legitimate chance to win the division.

While the O's are a bit of an outlier in this respect because they haven't had a winning season in so long, in any other situation, I'd suggest that any non-Yankees AL East team should be selling and not buying because they have such a poor chance to win the division.

[Oriole85]

Personally, I think the 2nd wild card is fool's gold. Having to win a 1-game playoff game against the other team's ace for the right to face the #1 seed (I agree with the idea that it's preposterous for them to be going 2-3, though) is a long-shot in the first degree.

In fact, I am very hopeful that the biggest outcome of the 2nd wild card is that teams will make decisions not on whether or not they will make the playoffs, but on whether or not they have a legitimate chance to win the division.

While the O's are a bit of an outlier in this respect because they haven't had a winning season in so long, in any other situation, I'd suggest that any non-Yankees AL East team should be selling and not buying because they have such a poor chance to win the division.

You never know what can happen in October... just ask last years Cards and Rockies in 2007. Sure the odds might be stacked against you.

FTR, I'm against the second wild-card. I think though the one-game series is necessary because you don't want the season ending any later (realistically speaking, I don't think you are narrowing down from 162 games). If you had a best-of-three that went the full way with atleast one travel day (and no weather postponements), you would need atleast four days off from the end of the regular season. So there's that, thinking the teams might get rusty with the days off.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Id still like to see the scheduling as suggested by my Dad in the opening post.

[Oriole85]

ESPN: One-and-done playoff format wrong

 

http://espn.go.com/m...at-bad-baseball

[You Play to Win the Game]

Ehh, this 1-game WC Show Down just isn't working for me. It's crap that one bad night sends you home after 162 grueling games in like 185 days. Just 1-game. I could see a WC show down coming down to a blown umpire call at some point... a call that ends a team's season. It just isn't right. It needs to be a minimum of 3-games, IMO.

[Oriole85]

Ehh, this 1-game WC Show Down just isn't working for me. It's crap that one bad night sends you home after 162 grueling games in like 185 days. Just 1-game. I could see a WC show down coming down to a blown umpire call at some point... a call that ends a team's season. It just isn't right. It needs to be a minimum of 3-games, IMO.

And I know it has it's detractors, but let's say there was a three game series this year. It would've begin today, likely ended on Saturday with an off-day. So the "real playoffs" don't begin until Sunday? The World Series ends like November 3rd? And I know someone is going to suggest eliminating games or scheduled DH's, but let's be realistic neither of those are likely happening.

 

If we have the scenario where 4-5 teams tie, then you have to play this three-game series, that just adds another wrinkle.

 

Also do you want the other teams having a week off. In the past rusty teams have lost gotten swept (Tigers last year/Rockies in 2007). A team like the Rays is at more of advantage IMO, if they keep playing.

 

If anything, you want to avoid this game. But at the same time, you want to have the home-field advantage. And yes, I know that hasn't worked out so far these two years.

 

I don't disagree with you with the bad calls, but that's going to happen in a Game 7 as well. And I don't think what you're saying is without merit. Anything can happen in a single game, but the better team still should win.

[Oriole85]

I'm sure this board would've been flooded last year if the O's had lost on how it shouldn't come down to one game, but instead we benefitted from that. It would've been tougher to have been Texas twice IMO. When we started to talk about being buyers, the common thing I remember hearing was how much of a risk we should take to face Jered Weaver in a likely one-game playoff (as it looked like Texas would be the AL West winner).

[DJ MC]

And I know it has it's detractors, but let's say there was a three game series this year. It would've begin today, likely ended on Saturday with an off-day. So the "real playoffs" don't begin until Sunday? The World Series ends like November 3rd? And I know someone is going to suggest eliminating games or scheduled DH's, but let's be realistic neither of those are likely happening.

 

If we have the scenario where 4-5 teams tie, then you have to play this three-game series, that just adds another wrinkle.

 

Also do you want the other teams having a week off. In the past rusty teams have lost gotten swept (Tigers last year/Rockies in 2007). A team like the Rays is at more of advantage IMO, if they keep playing.

 

If anything, you want to avoid this game. But at the same time, you want to have the home-field advantage. And yes, I know that hasn't worked out so far these two years.

 

I don't disagree with you with the bad calls, but that's going to happen in a Game 7 as well. And I don't think what you're saying is without merit. Anything can happen in a single game, but the better team still should win.

 

This is the problem though: the idea that the fifth team is somehow necessary. It isn't.

 

If this system hadn't existed last year, the Orioles wouldn't have made it in. That would have sucked after the season they had, but oh well; win more games.

 

The solution is to just get rid of the game. It's just a play-in game anyway; not even a real playoff.

[Oriole85]

This is the problem though: the idea that the fifth team is somehow necessary. It isn't.

 

If this system hadn't existed last year, the Orioles wouldn't have made it in. That would have sucked after the season they had, but oh well; win more games.

 

The solution is to just get rid of the game. It's just a play-in game anyway; not even a real playoff.

I would absolutely go back to the old system, but I'm working with what we have now since I don't see it reverting back.

 

And actually, the O's/Rangers tied last year in the standings. They would've played a tiebreaker in Texas instead of it being a "playoff game." The only real difference is the 40-man roster could've been used as opposed to having to be set at 25 for the game. So you're half right, they might not have made it because they would've been playing with different rules during the game.

[Matt]

I like it because it rewards the teams that won their division. If you don't want to have 162 games go down the drain in a one game playoff win your division.

[mweb08]

I don't see any issue with the 4th and 5th seeded playoff teams having their seasons come down to a game. Seasons come down to one game in tie-breakers or just to get into the playoffs at the very end of the season. So I don't see how that's some travesty.

 

What's closer to a travesty is the unbalanced schedule and having 3 divisions so inferior teams can sometimes make the playoffs due to being in a weaker division/having an easier schedule.

[Oriole85]

I don't see any issue with the 4th and 5th seeded playoff teams having their seasons come down to a game. Seasons come down to one game in tie-breakers or just to get into the playoffs at the very end of the season. So I don't see how that's some travesty.

Agree here... clearly there's more of a distinction between a wild-card team and a division winner, which I like. I kind of look at this as just playing tiebreaker every year between the two least deserving teams to make the playoffs in each league (yes I know divisions aren't balanced). Like Matt (and others) have said, win more games and you don't have to worry about this "problem."

[Oriole85]

San Francisco Chronicle: A’s on the move to San Antonio or Montreal?

 

Oakland City Councilman Larry Reid says he doesn’t believe the A’s are bluffing in their threat to leave the city if they don’t get a 10-year lease extension at the Coliseum, and he pointed to a pair of possible destinations — Montreal and San Antonio, Texas.

 

Both cities would have issues. San Antonio has a domed stadium, the Alamodome, that is used mainly for football. It has hosted baseball exhibition games the past two years, but its right-field fence was a mere 280 feet from home plate, at least 50 feet closer than the standard ballpark.

 

Montreal used to have a Major League Baseball team, the Expos, who bolted for Washington, D.C., in 2004 — after the city refused to build a ballpark to replace Olympic Stadium, if that sounds familiar.

[Chris B]

San Antonio probably wouldn't shake up the divisions. Just keep them in the AL West (though that would mean 3 Texas teams in the AL).

 

Montreal would be a different story.

[Pedro Cerrano]

You'd have to move Montreal likely to the AL East, and shove Tampa off to the central.  Then move I guess Kansas City or Minnesota to the AL West.

 

Still, I really really doubt Montreal is a serious candidate to get a baseball team.

[Oriole85]

You'd have to move Montreal likely to the AL East, and shove Tampa off to the central.  Then move I guess Kansas City or Minnesota to the AL West.

 

Still, I really really doubt Montreal is a serious candidate to get a baseball team.

KC would make more geographical sense, but they'd hate it like Houston did having to play more of their games two time zones away.

[Chris B]

You'd have to move Montreal likely to the AL East, and shove Tampa off to the central.  Then move I guess Kansas City or Minnesota to the AL West.

 

Still, I really really doubt Montreal is a serious candidate to get a baseball team.

 

Can't see MIN or KC liking that (considering all the West Coast games) but that's really the only option unless you start flipping AL teams with NL teams.

[Oriole85]

Can't see MIN or KC liking that (considering all the West Coast games) but that's really the only option unless you start flipping AL teams with NL teams.

Since you're eliminating Oakland, it's really only two west coast based teams so 18-20 games depending on the years. I'm sure Texas/Houston would welcome it.

 

The NL West has all of their teams playing west coast times except the Rockies with the Diamondbacks not observing Daylight Savings Time.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Oakland
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
San Diego

Arizona
Houston
Texas
Kansas City
St. Louis

Seattle
Colorado
Minnesota
Milwaukee
Chicago (N)

Chicago (A)
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Detroit
Toronto

Miami
Tampa
Washington
Atlanta
Pittsburgh

Philadelphia
New York
New York
Boston
Baltimore

[Chris B]

I can see Cubs/Cardinals fans now...