Please sign in to complete your action
 
DONE!
Cheer and debate with
6,000,000+ fans!
My Team:
Charlotte
My Team:
Michael
My Team:
Britney
You Might Like


More Polls By: jasonwrites

Who liked it? 44
Jahiegel (+)
Milwaukee Brewers

adkbabe (+)
New York Yankees

mrturk (+)
Detroit Tigers

LLUmpJimWard (+)
Boston Red Sox

DckyJay (+)
Pittsburgh Pirates

yamahaguitark (+)
Philadelphia 76ers

blondie45044 (+)
Detroit Red Wings

ChefZay (+)
New York Yankees

zhum24 (+)
New York Mets

redsox1002003 (+)
Boston Red Sox

... and 34 other fans
   |  Skip to Next Poll »
44
Should there be a second wild-card team in each league?
Read the Article: Should there be a second wild-card team in each league?

Peter Gammons suggests the presence of a second wild-card team in each league could make September games much more compelling. He advocates the addition of a best-of-three weekend series between the two wild-cards... the winner of which becomes the wild-card "champion" and advances into the Division Series on Tuesday or Wednesday as usual. Sort of a play-in series. He'd also start the season a half-week earlier (on a Friday instead of Monday) to compensate for the time. Would you support this idea?
Featured by: kantwistaye at 9/28/09 1:34AM
| Closed on 10/28/09 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | MLB | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
Team Breakout:
97 Fans 
33%a. Yes, I'm for it
56%b. No, we don't need watered-down playoffs
11%c. Other

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#6 | 55 days ago

 I don't think that would be a good idea. I think the current system works well. it will never please everyone no matter what they do, but no need to change it.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
8

  
58 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 55 days ago

 Eh.. no.  The Wild Card has been great for baseball, but its great because only one team gets it.  Sure a best of 3 series for the NL Wild Card would be fun this year, but most years it'd just be pointless or risk taking a good team out of the playoffs because a slightly above average team got hot on the right weekend.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
6

#2 | 55 days ago

 I agree. Selfishly, I'd love to have this in place right now so the Rockies and Braves, which just so happen to be my two favorite teams, could play off... but the appeal of the Wild Card is indeed that it's only one team, and what it usually equates to is the second-best overall team reaching the postseason, often with a better record that one or two other division winners. If you added even one more team you'd start running the risk of a more mediocre team on a hot streak winning two of three and the better team overall going home. I sure wouldn't want MLB playoffs to even remotely resemble the NBA or NHL.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
6

#3 | 55 days ago
rileyjames47 (+)

 I think they should add teams to the playoffs. Baseball is the one sport with the least amount of teams that get into the Post Season, therefore teams that had a really good year, but play in a strong division don't make the playoffs and vice-versa. Adding another Wild Card would benefit more cities by making races better and giving 2 extra teams a chance for Post Season play.
Yes, I'm for it  
3

#4 | 55 days ago

 Doesn't matter if they have one welfare team or 13.  The pennant race is ruined either way.  So you know what?  Why not just let in 24 playoff teams so more cities can be "in" contention.
Other  
3

#5 | 55 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I agree. Selfishly, I'd love to have this in place right now so the Rockies and Braves, which just so happen to be my two favorite teams, could play off... but the appeal of the Wild Card is indeed that it's only one team, and what it usually equates to is the second-best overall team reaching the postseason, often with a better record that one or two other division winners. If you added even one more team you'd start running the risk of a more mediocre team on a hot streak winning two of three and the better team overall going home. I sure wouldn't want MLB playoffs to even remotely resemble the NBA or NHL.
I sure wouldn't want MLB playoffs to even remotely resemble the NBA or NHL.

Too late!  They already do!
Other  
2

#6 | 55 days ago

 I don't think that would be a good idea. I think the current system works well. it will never please everyone no matter what they do, but no need to change it.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
8

#7 | 54 days ago

 18packabs wrote:
I don't think that would be a good idea. I think the current system works well. it will never please everyone no matter what they do, but no need to change it.
On the contrary.  The format used from 1969-1993 did please everybody.  There was no fan demand for more playoff teams and longer post seasons.
Other  
3

#8 | 47 days ago

 (Edited by mlb70)
Everyone is too greedy, of course the owners would love to have another round of playoffs to fill there coffers with the fans $$$. More TV revenue, concession stands, parking, tickets, etc... It's a win win win. Plus it would increase fan interest, with more teams in the hunt. The only people that wouldn't support more teams making the playoffs are the large market teams. Big market teams have too much to lose, ie lose to a small market team on a hot streak. Where the rest of the league would have a lot to gain.
Yes, I'm for it  
3

#9 | 47 days ago

  The very idea is crazy.  Could anyone else imagine what a possible november world series home game in the new open air stadium that is going to be built in minnesota?  thats really all there is to think about.  open air stadiums in november in places like boston, new york, minnesota, or even st. louis.  its just too cold
2

#10 | 47 days ago

 nortonsfury wrote:
 The very idea is crazy.  Could anyone else imagine what a possible november world series home game in the new open air stadium that is going to be built in minnesota?  thats really all there is to think about.  open air stadiums in november in places like boston, new york, minnesota, or even st. louis.  its just too cold
You don't need an extra playoff round to extend the WS into November.  This year, games 4, 5, 6 & 7 are all scheduled for November.

This year, all that was needed was a slightly later start to the season and a whole slew of off days in the middle of playoff series'.
Other  
2

#11 | 46 days ago

 nortonsfury wrote:
 The very idea is crazy.  Could anyone else imagine what a possible november world series home game in the new open air stadium that is going to be built in minnesota?  thats really all there is to think about.  open air stadiums in november in places like boston, new york, minnesota, or even st. louis.  its just too cold
yeah well the baseball classic interferes every three years. baseball is like football in the fact they want to find a way to extend everything. does the nfl really need two weeks before the super bowl? no. does mlb need a day off between home games? no way. its all about extension. when we see a ws game in the snow i think the league is gonna see the error of their ways.
2

#12 | 46 days ago

 nortonsfury wrote:
yeah well the baseball classic interferes every three years. baseball is like football in the fact they want to find a way to extend everything. does the nfl really need two weeks before the super bowl? no. does mlb need a day off between home games? no way. its all about extension. when we see a ws game in the snow i think the league is gonna see the error of their ways.
The WBC doesn't interfere with anything.

Next, it is not baseball that is shoving all those off days in.  It is the TV networks.

www.faniq.com/blog/Game-7-of-the-2009-World-Series-scheduled-for-NOVEMBER-5th--Are-you-kidding-me-Blog-30116
Other  
1

#13 | 44 days ago

 (Edited by jacobmrley)
I wish they would go to four divisions and eliminate the wild card all together.  This would probably mean adding 2 more teams, which would be a bad idea, but 4 divisions and 4 division winners would eliminate the cry of the wild card haters.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
3

#14 | 43 days ago

 The season is ALREADY long enough and the winner of the World Series still has to win 11 MORE GAMES after the regular season is over (literally that could work out to playing 19 MORE games) because of the system already in place. Adding more teams would just make it even longer. I think after playing 162 games in the season- it's a pretty fair assumption to say that WE KNOW which teams are good!   Sorry but the Detroit Tigers and San Francisco Giants would not make this years playoffs any more exciting or competitive than they already are this season!
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
3

#15 | 43 days ago

 jacobmrley wrote:
I wish they would go to four divisions and eliminate the wild card all together.  This would probably mean adding 2 more teams, which would be a bad idea, but 4 divisions and 4 division winners would eliminate the cry of the wild card haters.
True.  I would support adding two more teams and going to that format for sure.  That being said, the 4 4-team division thing carries its own issues and problems.  But I, as a fan, would much rather deal with those since it would mean the return of pennant races.  Even small ones.
Other  
3

#16 | 43 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
True.  I would support adding two more teams and going to that format for sure.  That being said, the 4 4-team division thing carries its own issues and problems.  But I, as a fan, would much rather deal with those since it would mean the return of pennant races.  Even small ones.
I'd also endorse the 32 team, 4 teams in 4 divisions per league format. Baseball always expands inevitably... there's good cities out there without teams... Indianapolis, for example, and Pittsburgh... wait...
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
6

#17 | 40 days ago

 What I didn't like was before the wild card when a playoff team would get what was essentially a first round bye.  If you are worried about your team facing an opponent with a worse record than you during the season but is on a hot streak, Too bad.  That's why they play the games.  Why then don't they just give the title to the team with the best record in baseball, and get rid of the playoffs alltogether? 
Other  
3

#18 | 40 days ago

 We do not it to be like the BCS of College Football thats all mess up. Now do we.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
1

#19 | 40 days ago

 Blues_is_blood wrote:
What I didn't like was before the wild card when a playoff team would get what was essentially a first round bye.  If you are worried about your team facing an opponent with a worse record than you during the season but is on a hot streak, Too bad.  That's why they play the games.  Why then don't they just give the title to the team with the best record in baseball, and get rid of the playoffs alltogether? 
???   Before the welfare card format no team got a "bye".  What the heck are you talking about?

Awarding the pennant to the team with the best record would be fine.  Like they did before 1969.  IF they all played a balanced schedule.  But, they don't.  They play a schedule geared for whatever division you are in.  This means comparing records across divisions is shortsighted and unfair.  Therefore, a playoff is in order.  However, after playing 162 games, I think the true division champion has been revealed.  No need for a 2nd place team to get involved.  They had plenty of chances to get in over the last 6 months. 
Other  
5

#20 | 38 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
???   Before the welfare card format no team got a "bye".  What the heck are you talking about?

Awarding the pennant to the team with the best record would be fine.  Like they did before 1969.  IF they all played a balanced schedule.  But, they don't.  They play a schedule geared for whatever division you are in.  This means comparing records across divisions is shortsighted and unfair.  Therefore, a playoff is in order.  However, after playing 162 games, I think the true division champion has been revealed.  No need for a 2nd place team to get involved.  They had plenty of chances to get in over the last 6 months. 
What I am saying is that I like the 3 division format. I think having 4 teams from each league is a good number without watering down the playoffs too much.  Also, my comment about giving the pennant to the team with the best record was intended to be sarcasm.  Some people start crying when their team gets knocked out of the playoffs by a wild card team.  They say things like "It's not fair.  We had a better overall record during the season than they did.", or "We won most of the games we played against them".  The better team always advances because it's not just about wins.  It's also about wins when it counts.  Case in point:  the '04 Red Sox.  The yankees were superior in just about every way going in to the ALCS, but the Sox proved to be the better team because they believed in themselves enough to overcome a slow start and advance.  
Other  
2

#21 | 38 days ago

 Blues_is_blood wrote:
What I am saying is that I like the 3 division format. I think having 4 teams from each league is a good number without watering down the playoffs too much.  Also, my comment about giving the pennant to the team with the best record was intended to be sarcasm.  Some people start crying when their team gets knocked out of the playoffs by a wild card team.  They say things like "It's not fair.  We had a better overall record during the season than they did.", or "We won most of the games we played against them".  The better team always advances because it's not just about wins.  It's also about wins when it counts.  Case in point:  the '04 Red Sox.  The yankees were superior in just about every way going in to the ALCS, but the Sox proved to be the better team because they believed in themselves enough to overcome a slow start and advance.  
Boy you have it all backwards.  The better team does not always win in a large field baseball playoff.  8 teams are a lot.  Too many after a 162 game season.  The more teams in the MLB post season, the more random it becomes.  4 teams from each league DOES water down the playoffs.  A LOT. 

I find it telling that you used the phrase It's also about wins when it counts.  You are saying that the 162 games played before the post season don't count.   Understandable since you are ok with throwing away the results from that marathon.  The results that actually give you a great picture of how good a team is.  

Personally, when drawing conclusions, I prefer more samples rather than fewer.  Like say....  The results from 162 games rather than 7.

Case in point, the '04 Red Sox.  They were 3 games worse than the Yankees from April through September.  Yet, when they played in the ALCS, the Red Sox, who were on a roll at the time, were able to defeat the Yankees.  Not only that, but the Red Sox had nothing to gain and the Yankees had EVERYTHING to lose.  The lesser talented team on a roll will almost always defeat the more talented team.  It happens time and time again in MLB since the post season was expanded.  The difference between the best and worst in MLB is very small.  The best team wins 6 of 10 and the worst teams win 4 of 10.  If those 4 wins come in the first 7 games...  Boom.  Lesser team winning a series.  MLB could expand the post season and you will see 3rd and 4th place teams advancing.  Just because they happen to be on the roll at the time.  The regular season is where the games really count.  At least they used to.  The way MLB works today is to just coast through the regular season and hope you are firing on all cylinders at the right time.  
Other  
3

#22 | 36 days ago

 I don't think that analogy is necessarily true. The best teams win 6 of 10, the worst teams win 4 out of 10-- that's considering when they're competing against ALL teams in their league (and a few in the other). And in reality, due to the sheer size of 162 games, the difference is much more magnified-- the best teams win 100 games, the worst teams lose 100 games. That's a HUGE differerence.  And again, that's comparing the team's play against all other teams. The Washington Nationals did manage 59 wins this season, but they were 0-6 against the Colorado Rockies, and without checking the records, I'll go out on a limb and bet that they had few if any wins against the Dodgers, Phillies, or Cardinals (the three best teams in the NL) either. So, I'm saying that when you actually pit the best team against the worst team for 10 games, you're not so likely to have the best team win 6 and the worst win 4.  If we take the best and worst overall from all 30, I'm betting if the Yankees played the Nationals in a 10-game series, the Yankees sweep all 10 or maybe lose one at the most.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
2

#23 | 36 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I don't think that analogy is necessarily true. The best teams win 6 of 10, the worst teams win 4 out of 10-- that's considering when they're competing against ALL teams in their league (and a few in the other). And in reality, due to the sheer size of 162 games, the difference is much more magnified-- the best teams win 100 games, the worst teams lose 100 games. That's a HUGE differerence.  And again, that's comparing the team's play against all other teams. The Washington Nationals did manage 59 wins this season, but they were 0-6 against the Colorado Rockies, and without checking the records, I'll go out on a limb and bet that they had few if any wins against the Dodgers, Phillies, or Cardinals (the three best teams in the NL) either. So, I'm saying that when you actually pit the best team against the worst team for 10 games, you're not so likely to have the best team win 6 and the worst win 4.  If we take the best and worst overall from all 30, I'm betting if the Yankees played the Nationals in a 10-game series, the Yankees sweep all 10 or maybe lose one at the most.
Of course the 6 of ten and 4 of ten thing grows over the long haul of 162 games.  That is a 32 game difference.  This is exactly my point.  Over a SHORT series, 4 of ten doesn't seem like all that much.  So, over a short playoff series, it is not unlikely at all that the lesser team could beat the superior one.  And yes, IF the Nationals were playing their very best, all players in the "zone" so to speak, and the Yankees were not at their best...  It is completely reasonable the Nationals can beat them 6 or even 7 out of 10 games.  This is why a large post season field just does not work for baseball.  It introduces a random element that should not be present in the post season.  Not only that, but it completely negates the results over the very LONG regular season.  For MLB, the fewer post season teams there are, the better off the game is.

BTW...  True about the Nationals.  They were so very bad that they really didn't do great against any team.  They were 6-24 against the Dodgers, Phils and Cards.  But...  Take a team that was not good, but didn't suck as hard as the Nats...  And you get a different picture.  The Astros, for example, went 16-13 against those three teams you mention.  Here is a team that won a mere 74 games who could easily beat any of the three division winners in a short series of games.  And I think that even the biggest proponent of the wild card would agree that the Astros didn't belong anywhere near a post season this year.  Yet, if they got in with that record, no one should be surprised if they could crank out 11 wins out of 19 games.  If they did, I predict many would consider such an accomplsihment a "joke" to MLB.  Hell, the Cards won their division a couple of years ago with only 83 wins.  And many STILL thought them winning the WS was a disgrace.  Never mind that they actually won their division and deserved the chance more than any 2nd place team did.  But that's the thing....  In baseball, teams are much closer to each other than anyone cares to think.  The 162 game schedule tends to hide that fact as you can see large gaps between teams form over that span.  But in a short span of a best of 5 or 7 series?  Any team can beat any other if the conditions are right.  Which is why the regular season is more telling about how good a team is and the post season, for baseball at least, is almost entirely worthless.

You saw this first hand a couple of years ago when your Rox were rolling string and made it all the way to the Series on that wave.  In reality, they were never really that good.  They just got hot at the right time.  I think you know this.
Other  

#24 | 32 days ago
HollidayPujols2 (J) profile photo

 NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
1

#25 | 28 days ago
SuperStar123 (+)

 NEVER!!! I'M A BASEBALL PURIST!!! WHY NOT LET EVERYBODY IN! HECK, WE'LL NEVER HAVE AN OFF SEASON. PLAY THE WORLD SERIES IN FEBRUARY AND START SPING TRAINING!

I HATE BASEBALL IN NOVEMBER NOW. YOU PLAY A HOT SEASON SPORT ALL YEAR AND END UP IN THE SNOW FLURRIES!  
Other  
1

#26 | 28 days ago
SuperStar123 (+)

HollidayPujols2 wrote:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
 I LIKE YOUR SIMPLE ANSWER! I'M WITH YOU!  
Other  
1

#27 | 28 days ago

 Don't try to fix what isn't broken
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
2

#28 | 28 days ago

 If MLB was to fix it, I'd advocate changing the playoff system to the way the NFL did it for a while up until 2002-03, with the three divisional along with three wild cards. Give the best two in each league byes and have best-of-threes with the remaining four in each league. It would reward strong divisions and punish poor ones.
Other  
2

#29 | 28 days ago

 THE_Smoot wrote:
If MLB was to fix it, I'd advocate changing the playoff system to the way the NFL did it for a while up until 2002-03, with the three divisional along with three wild cards. Give the best two in each league byes and have best-of-threes with the remaining four in each league. It would reward strong divisions and punish poor ones.
Not a bad idea, except that a full week off in baseball would not be very helpful for most teams. The rhythm of the game dictates playing nearly every day, and hot teams go cold when given too much time off, e.g. the 2007 Rockies (and perhaps the 2009 Phillies, we will see).
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
3

#30 | 28 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
Not a bad idea, except that a full week off in baseball would not be very helpful for most teams. The rhythm of the game dictates playing nearly every day, and hot teams go cold when given too much time off, e.g. the 2007 Rockies (and perhaps the 2009 Phillies, we will see).
Not a bad idea IF they keep the three divisions and only let the three division winners in.  Then the team with the best record gets an automatic entry to the LCS while the other two teams compete for that right.  Sometimes, those teams that get in early with the best records need that break.  Only the lesser talented teams seem to get hit with the "cooling off" time.

And while the time off argument may be a legit thought, I'd wager that if you asked any manager if they would rather play a best of 5 to get in the LCS or wait a week and be in the LCS already...  They would choose to wait the week.  I think most players would as well and take their chances with the time off.
Other  
1

#31 | 28 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
Not a bad idea IF they keep the three divisions and only let the three division winners in.  Then the team with the best record gets an automatic entry to the LCS while the other two teams compete for that right.  Sometimes, those teams that get in early with the best records need that break.  Only the lesser talented teams seem to get hit with the "cooling off" time.

And while the time off argument may be a legit thought, I'd wager that if you asked any manager if they would rather play a best of 5 to get in the LCS or wait a week and be in the LCS already...  They would choose to wait the week.  I think most players would as well and take their chances with the time off.
Well, yes-- automatic entry to the semifinal round is quite a carrot to dangle. I do agree with you that their should be some kind of reward for having the best overall record in your league. And why they can't give home-field advantage to the team with the better record in the World Series is beyond me. The NHL or NBA have no problem with that. But in baseball, it was first alternating between leagues each year. Then they instituted this idea of it resting on the winner of the All-Star Game. I like the idea of the ASG meaning something, yet putting something as important as getting an extra home game in the championship series (which can be a huge advantage indeed) on the results of a single exhibition game is just not appropriate, I've come to think. Of course, that may be because I'm an NL homer and I'm sick and tired of seeing them lose every year for the past decade.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  

#32 | 28 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
Well, yes-- automatic entry to the semifinal round is quite a carrot to dangle. I do agree with you that their should be some kind of reward for having the best overall record in your league. And why they can't give home-field advantage to the team with the better record in the World Series is beyond me. The NHL or NBA have no problem with that. But in baseball, it was first alternating between leagues each year. Then they instituted this idea of it resting on the winner of the All-Star Game. I like the idea of the ASG meaning something, yet putting something as important as getting an extra home game in the championship series (which can be a huge advantage indeed) on the results of a single exhibition game is just not appropriate, I've come to think. Of course, that may be because I'm an NL homer and I'm sick and tired of seeing them lose every year for the past decade.
Have toyed with a number of ideas on how to determine who gets 4 home games in the WS.  Best overall record doesn't seem like a bad idea on the surface.  But in the days before interleague play, that number really means nothing.  Alternating never seemed very fair to me but I could never come up with a better format apart from the best record in spite of what league you were in.  The ASG thing was just dumb.  If you were going to hinge it on the result of NL VS  AL competition, why not make interleague play worth something and base it on the net result of all those games?  But even then, that doesn't sound completely fair for reasons I just cant put a finger on.  

I have always felt that the division winners really need something over their 2nd place playoff counterparts.  I have toyed with a couple of ideas from the absurd to doable.  One was that when a 2nd place team plays the team they finished 2nd to, they not only need to win the 4 games, but also need to make up the games they finished behind.  For example, if the Rox had advanced to play the Dodgers, the Rox would need to win 7 games to the Dodgers 4.  This of course would be impossible to implement for obvious reasons.  But is the most fair way to handle 2nd place teams in the post season.

The other idea I had was that the 2nd place team almost never gets a home game.  The DS involving the 2nd place team would go either 2-1-2 or have all 5 games on the road.  But even that doesn't seem to go far enough.  But it would be better than what we have today.  Also, I don't think a 2nd place team should EVER have home field in the WS.  Regardless of the result of the ASG.  And again, the format should go 3-1-3 or just 7.
Other  

#33 | 27 days ago

  Lets just leave it the way it is the owners will never shorten the season and I am sure we do not want to see baseball in mid November.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  

#34 | 27 days ago

 He** to the No!

#35 | 27 days ago

 (Edited by mrturk)
8 of 30 is enough for the playoffs.  Keep the format as it is.  And by the way, what is with all of these off days?  They have more off days during the playoffs than the entire regular season!  Also, good luck with your World Series games in NY and Philly in November.  Bring your mittens.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
1

#36 | 27 days ago

 keppieboy wrote:
 Lets just leave it the way it is the owners will never shorten the season and I am sure we do not want to see baseball in mid November.
If we leave it the way it is, we are still getting baseball in November.  The post season needs to be over by the last weekend in October at the absolute latest. 

Plus, I can see more and more off days being added to eventually push the post season to your mid-November date.  Just kill the Division series and all will be forgiven.
Other  

#37 | 27 days ago

 mrturk wrote:
8 of 30 is enough for the playoffs.  Keep the format as it is.  And by the way, what is with all of these off days?  They have more off days during the playoffs than the entire regular season!  Also, good luck with your World Series games in NY and Philly in November.  Bring your mittens.
I thought that 4 of 28 teams was enough.  But they still added more.

The off days are because of TV.  FOX wants the World Series on better TV nights.  So they jury rig the post season to get it.  But all that does is extend the playoffs into November and favor the teams with the more shallow pitching staffs.
Other  

#38 | 26 days ago

 keppieboy wrote:
 Lets just leave it the way it is the owners will never shorten the season and I am sure we do not want to see baseball in mid November.
I agree baseball needs to be over by end of October. Not sure if I want to lose a playoff series.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  

#39 | 25 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
Boy you have it all backwards.  The better team does not always win in a large field baseball playoff.  8 teams are a lot.  Too many after a 162 game season.  The more teams in the MLB post season, the more random it becomes.  4 teams from each league DOES water down the playoffs.  A LOT. 

I find it telling that you used the phrase It's also about wins when it counts.  You are saying that the 162 games played before the post season don't count.   Understandable since you are ok with throwing away the results from that marathon.  The results that actually give you a great picture of how good a team is.  

Personally, when drawing conclusions, I prefer more samples rather than fewer.  Like say....  The results from 162 games rather than 7.

Case in point, the '04 Red Sox.  They were 3 games worse than the Yankees from April through September.  Yet, when they played in the ALCS, the Red Sox, who were on a roll at the time, were able to defeat the Yankees.  Not only that, but the Red Sox had nothing to gain and the Yankees had EVERYTHING to lose.  The lesser talented team on a roll will almost always defeat the more talented team.  It happens time and time again in MLB since the post season was expanded.  The difference between the best and worst in MLB is very small.  The best team wins 6 of 10 and the worst teams win 4 of 10.  If those 4 wins come in the first 7 games...  Boom.  Lesser team winning a series.  MLB could expand the post season and you will see 3rd and 4th place teams advancing.  Just because they happen to be on the roll at the time.  The regular season is where the games really count.  At least they used to.  The way MLB works today is to just coast through the regular season and hope you are firing on all cylinders at the right time.  
It should be observed, without comment on your broader point, with which I (largely) agree, that the Red Sox had a much, much better run differential than the Yanks (good for 7[!] more Pythagorean wins), whom the Sox (IIRC) also bested in the season series, and that most of the comprehensive metrics suggest that the Red Sox were a better team over the whole of the regular season (more wins above replacement from both position players and pitchers, for instance [the former a consequence of New York's epic defensive ineptitude]), notwithstanding the very crude actual wins measure, such that 2004 is not a particularly useful data point in the analysis of the wrongness of a system in which a team that is demonstrably less effective/talented/successful is permitted to win a pennant or championship over a team to which they would have lost were the series iterated many times over (as, e.g., in the regular season), on which, I note again, we (roughly) agree; just can't let an oblique impugning of the Sawx go unchallenged.
Other  

#40 | 25 days ago

 Jahiegel wrote:
It should be observed, without comment on your broader point, with which I (largely) agree, that the Red Sox had a much, much better run differential than the Yanks (good for 7[!] more Pythagorean wins), whom the Sox (IIRC) also bested in the season series, and that most of the comprehensive metrics suggest that the Red Sox were a better team over the whole of the regular season (more wins above replacement from both position players and pitchers, for instance [the former a consequence of New York's epic defensive ineptitude]), notwithstanding the very crude actual wins measure, such that 2004 is not a particularly useful data point in the analysis of the wrongness of a system in which a team that is demonstrably less effective/talented/successful is permitted to win a pennant or championship over a team to which they would have lost were the series iterated many times over (as, e.g., in the regular season), on which, I note again, we (roughly) agree; just can't let an oblique impugning of the Sawx go unchallenged.
Run differential is vastly overrated.  Teams play for wins.  Not for runs.  Plus, if the Red Sox won the season series of head to heads with the Yankees, then if follows that they also lost more to other teams than the Yankees did to make up that difference.
You can spew out all the sabermetrics and whatnot you wish.  None of that changes the fact that the Red Sox were three games worse than the Yankees in the end. 

And I say this as a completely impartial observer as I have no love for the Red Sox or Yankees.
Other  

#41 | 25 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
Run differential is vastly overrated.  Teams play for wins.  Not for runs.  Plus, if the Red Sox won the season series of head to heads with the Yankees, then if follows that they also lost more to other teams than the Yankees did to make up that difference.
You can spew out all the sabermetrics and whatnot you wish.  None of that changes the fact that the Red Sox were three games worse than the Yankees in the end. 

And I say this as a completely impartial observer as I have no love for the Red Sox or Yankees.
Run differential has its limitations, but the difference between a plus-181 and a plus-89 is (generally) statistically significant.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that New York's outperforming its expected wins by 12 games is not exclusively a result of luck (as you will know, extreme variances between Pythagorean wins are generally attributed to at least one of luck, bullpen quality, and managerial performance, and it may fairly be suggested that the latter two factors appeared here), but to rest the conclusion that the Yankees were a better team in the regular season exclusively on their having had more wins is, IMHO, myopic, and beyond that basically inconsistent with your (entirely correct) point that larger sample sizes are to be preferred to smaller sample sizes; here, we can conclude from the underlying data that were the season 1620 games rather than 162, the Red Sox would have finished ahead of the Yankees.  Although I am, to be sure, a fan of the Red Sox (I prefer that locution to "Red Sox fan" because they are my second team, joint with the Phils, after the Brewers), I don't imagine that my thinking here is colored by allegiance; I, I gather, place less emphasis than you do on bottom-line results, and I suspect that that's a (tangential) point on which we'll agree to disagree.
Other  

#42 | 25 days ago

 Jahiegel wrote:
Run differential has its limitations, but the difference between a plus-181 and a plus-89 is (generally) statistically significant.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that New York's outperforming its expected wins by 12 games is not exclusively a result of luck (as you will know, extreme variances between Pythagorean wins are generally attributed to at least one of luck, bullpen quality, and managerial performance, and it may fairly be suggested that the latter two factors appeared here), but to rest the conclusion that the Yankees were a better team in the regular season exclusively on their having had more wins is, IMHO, myopic, and beyond that basically inconsistent with your (entirely correct) point that larger sample sizes are to be preferred to smaller sample sizes; here, we can conclude from the underlying data that were the season 1620 games rather than 162, the Red Sox would have finished ahead of the Yankees.  Although I am, to be sure, a fan of the Red Sox (I prefer that locution to "Red Sox fan" because they are my second team, joint with the Phils, after the Brewers), I don't imagine that my thinking here is colored by allegiance; I, I gather, place less emphasis than you do on bottom-line results, and I suspect that that's a (tangential) point on which we'll agree to disagree.
Of course it is possible the Red Sox would come out on top after 1620 games.  But then, it is also possible the Rays or someone else could.  The fact is, the season has a pretty substantial sample size at 162.  At least, I think so.  There are some who think that is too many.  I don't think you will find many others who agree with you that 162 games is not enough to produce the true champion.

You seem to poo-poo the results of wins.  But that is what teams play for.  That is what guides everything.  If teams were playing for the greatest run differential, there would be a lot more bottom of 9ths and managers would manage games very differently.  Wins is what they play for so wins are all that matters in the end.  I will grant you that the Red Sox and Yankees were very very close.  But, the Yankees won more games.  Which is the goal.  The end.
Other  

#43 | 25 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
Have toyed with a number of ideas on how to determine who gets 4 home games in the WS.  Best overall record doesn't seem like a bad idea on the surface.  But in the days before interleague play, that number really means nothing.  Alternating never seemed very fair to me but I could never come up with a better format apart from the best record in spite of what league you were in.  The ASG thing was just dumb.  If you were going to hinge it on the result of NL VS  AL competition, why not make interleague play worth something and base it on the net result of all those games?  But even then, that doesn't sound completely fair for reasons I just cant put a finger on.  

I have always felt that the division winners really need something over their 2nd place playoff counterparts.  I have toyed with a couple of ideas from the absurd to doable.  One was that when a 2nd place team plays the team they finished 2nd to, they not only need to win the 4 games, but also need to make up the games they finished behind.  For example, if the Rox had advanced to play the Dodgers, the Rox would need to win 7 games to the Dodgers 4.  This of course would be impossible to implement for obvious reasons.  But is the most fair way to handle 2nd place teams in the post season.

The other idea I had was that the 2nd place team almost never gets a home game.  The DS involving the 2nd place team would go either 2-1-2 or have all 5 games on the road.  But even that doesn't seem to go far enough.  But it would be better than what we have today.  Also, I don't think a 2nd place team should EVER have home field in the WS.  Regardless of the result of the ASG.  And again, the format should go 3-1-3 or just 7.
Couldn't WON'T read everything you posted but yes I agree with you about the WC.. ..but let me also take this opportunity to see if you'll back track on the Rays: Clearly they were not a bottom half team
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  

#44 | 25 days ago

 MarkTheShark wrote:
Couldn't WON'T read everything you posted but yes I agree with you about the WC.. ..but let me also take this opportunity to see if you'll back track on the Rays: Clearly they were not a bottom half team
Nope.  My initial assessment of the Rays was correct.  They were a bottom half team.  They are near the top of the lower half, but at #17 they are placed in that lower half.  Just behind the Brewers and just ahead of the Reds.

Better luck next year. 
Other  

#45 | 25 days ago

 (Edited by MarkTheShark)
ML31 wrote:
Nope.  My initial assessment of the Rays was correct.  They were a bottom half team.  They are near the top of the lower half, but at #17 they are placed in that lower half.  Just behind the Brewers and just ahead of the Reds.

Better luck next year. 
W R O N G
You are so full of crap..they played in the toughest division in baseball and OWNED the National League to the tune of 13-5 in interleague play(THE BEST IN THE MAJORS) They finished ahead of 15 teams that would be the top half (you math major you)

..you play the part of the overbearing know-it-all well too bad you forget things like uh.... FACTS

MY INITIAL Assessment was correct, you are just an NL guy who has a cob up his bum about the WC.....Give us more on what's happening in the Bay area and less about your fantasy to become baseball's postseason scheduling czar...
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
1

#46 | 25 days ago

 MarkTheShark wrote:
W R O N G
You are so full of crap..they played in the toughest division in baseball and OWNED the National League to the tune of 13-5 in interleague play(THE BEST IN THE MAJORS) They finished ahead of 15 teams that would be the top half (you math major you)

..you play the part of the overbearing know-it-all well too bad you forget things like uh.... FACTS

MY INITIAL Assessment was correct, you are just an NL guy who has a cob up his bum about the WC.....Give us more on what's happening in the Bay area and less about your fantasy to become baseball's postseason scheduling czar...
Nope.   I am 100% on the money here.  You, I think, are too close to the team to be objective.  You are letting your emotions get in the way.

How they did in a sample 18 games does not guide my decision.  My decision is based on performance over the entire season.  When I rank all 30 teams it is not just based on what their final wins and losses are.  I take other factors into consideration.  Much like I'm sure the AP and Coaches do when they rank the top NCAA American Football teams.

About the bit that you have edited out, the AL east is NOT the toughest division in baseball.  That distinction belongs to....  (You are going to think I nuts but it will also throw a wrench into your false notion that I am bias towards the National League...    

The American League West.

That's right.  The AL West was the toughest division in baseball in 2009.  The AL East had the best team, but top to bottom, the West was tougher than the East.

Now take a deep breath and realize that you are too emotional to think clearly on this matter.
Other  

#47 | 25 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
Nope.   I am 100% on the money here.  You, I think, are too close to the team to be objective.  You are letting your emotions get in the way.

How they did in a sample 18 games does not guide my decision.  My decision is based on performance over the entire season.  When I rank all 30 teams it is not just based on what their final wins and losses are.  I take other factors into consideration.  Much like I'm sure the AP and Coaches do when they rank the top NCAA American Football teams.

About the bit that you have edited out, the AL east is NOT the toughest division in baseball.  That distinction belongs to....  (You are going to think I nuts but it will also throw a wrench into your false notion that I am bias towards the National League...    

The American League West.

That's right.  The AL West was the toughest division in baseball in 2009.  The AL East had the best team, but top to bottom, the West was tougher than the East.

Now take a deep breath and realize that you are too emotional to think clearly on this matter.
Hilarious. Please Please show me your blog on your system and final rankings. I'll gladly feature it on this site.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  

#48 | 25 days ago

 MarkTheShark wrote:
Hilarious. Please Please show me your blog on your system and final rankings. I'll gladly feature it on this site.
I don't have a blog.  I just made my own personal assessment.  Why that bugs you so much I have no idea.

I will let you in on my final top 10 at the close of the season...

1.  Yankees.
2.  Phillies
3.  Dodgers
4.  Red Sox
5.  Angels
6.  Cardinals
7.  Rox
8.  Rangers
9.  Tie...  Braves & Giants

I'm sure that is more than enough ammunition for you to have some laughs at my expense.  Knock yourself out.
Other  

#49 | 25 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
I don't have a blog.  I just made my own personal assessment.  Why that bugs you so much I have no idea.

I will let you in on my final top 10 at the close of the season...

1.  Yankees.
2.  Phillies
3.  Dodgers
4.  Red Sox
5.  Angels
6.  Cardinals
7.  Rox
8.  Rangers
9.  Tie...  Braves & Giants

I'm sure that is more than enough ammunition for you to have some laughs at my expense.  Knock yourself out.
It looks like you took the postseason into account?...or no?
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  

#50 | 25 days ago

 MarkTheShark wrote:
It looks like you took the postseason into account?...or no?
Nope.  This was my assessment after the final out of the 2009 season.  My top two happen to be playing in the Series now, but that really is a fluke.  My ranking was not a prediction.  Just my take.
Other  

#51 | 24 days ago

 I was about to scream about Colorado not being in your top 10 but I see you, for whatever reason, used their nickname rather than the real name like all the other teams. But I admit I'm biased and I'm probably reading something into nothing.
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
1

#52 | 24 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I was about to scream about Colorado not being in your top 10 but I see you, for whatever reason, used their nickname rather than the real name like all the other teams. But I admit I'm biased and I'm probably reading something into nothing.
I just like to call them Rox because it sounds more baseball-ish.

Besides, Colorado Rockies just makes me think of the old NHL team.  I've always wished when the Nords moved they re-used the old Rocky name.  The MLB team I felt should have used the old minor league team name.  Zephyrs.
Other  
1

#53 | 23 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I was about to scream about Colorado not being in your top 10 but I see you, for whatever reason, used their nickname rather than the real name like all the other teams. But I admit I'm biased and I'm probably reading something into nothing.
BTW...  What is your opinion on my placing your Rox at #7?  Do you feel I underrated them?  Over rated them?  About right?
Other  

#54 | 20 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
BTW...  What is your opinion on my placing your Rox at #7?  Do you feel I underrated them?  Over rated them?  About right?
I would say considering the teams that are 1-6 that #7 is about right. 1-7 were all in the postseason-- but the other playoff team, the Twins, don't make your Top 10?
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  
1

#55 | 20 days ago

 ML31 wrote:
I don't have a blog.  I just made my own personal assessment.  Why that bugs you so much I have no idea.

I will let you in on my final top 10 at the close of the season...

1.  Yankees.
2.  Phillies
3.  Dodgers
4.  Red Sox
5.  Angels
6.  Cardinals
7.  Rox
8.  Rangers
9.  Tie...  Braves & Giants

I'm sure that is more than enough ammunition for you to have some laughs at my expense.  Knock yourself out.
Is this talent only?
OVERALL organization including management on and off the field?
What are the main criteria?
No, we don't need watered-down playoffs  

#56 | 20 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I would say considering the teams that are 1-6 that #7 is about right. 1-7 were all in the postseason-- but the other playoff team, the Twins, don't make your Top 10?
No.   I never thought the Twins were THAT good.  In fact, in spite of the coughed up lead, I still think the Tigers were a better team than the Twins.  Plus I think the AL Central was the weakest division in the Majors this season.  
I'm not looking at who "made the playoffs".  I'm looking at a combination of on field talent, actual results, division strength, etc.  And there is no set formula.  It's just my personal judgment.
Other  

#57 | 20 days ago

 MarkTheShark wrote:
Is this talent only?
OVERALL organization including management on and off the field?
What are the main criteria?
See my above post #56 for that.  If it included overall organization, I would have to check out each team's minor leagues, evaluate the front office staff and interview ticket holders how the organization treats them and their issues.
Other  

#58 | 20 days ago

 MarkTheShark wrote:
Is this talent only?
OVERALL organization including management on and off the field?
What are the main criteria?
Also, if it were an all inclusive evaluation there is no way in hell a team that charges the ticket prices they do would ever be on top of that list!
Other  
1


Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
•Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
•Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
•Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
•Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Polls You Might Like

As a Yankee fan do you enjoy the hate and crying from fans of other baseball teams?
Asked by dragonzblade3232 | MLB, AL East, NYY | 2 questions asked 11/15/09
42 opinions | 15 comments | Last by janet011685
Who is the better player for the Red Sox or the Yankees?
Asked by leeharalabidis | MLB, BOS, NYY | 6 questions asked 05/03/09
990 opinions | 38 comments | Last by janet011685
Who is the greatest baseball player, stats wise, of all time?
Asked by clemon | MLB | 1 questions asked Today
4 opinions | 1 comment | Last by SKEEMZ86
Would the Yankees be the Yankees if it was not for the City of NY?
Asked by dragonzblade3232 | MLB, AL East, NYY | 1 questions asked 11/15/09
19 opinions | 54 comments | Last by janet011685
What Will the Yankees Do In the offseason
Asked by dragonzblade3232 | MLB | 5 questions asked Yesterday
10 predictions | Last by dragonzblade3232


Join Today
About FanIQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Contact Us
Report A Bug
Help

Copyright 2009 Sportelligence, Inc. All Rights Reserved